Ok then, what do u call it?

From wikipedia: 

• Lashup (US): Railfan parlance for a locomotive consist.

Is there an inside joke I am missing here?

Longstanding one.  OGR Webmaster Rich Melvin cringes every time he hears the word lashup.  The thought of connecting locomotives together with rope or cable is what comes to mind.

Lashup is not a term that's officially used by the railroad industry (Consist is the proper terminology) and Rich hates that lashup is being carried over by Lionel and MTH with their command control system terminologies. 

It may work but the term isn't proper.

ok, so its an OGR thing.

Before posting my question, I googled "lashup" and "incorrect" and just lashup by itself, and the results returned didn't seem to suggest its a wrong word.

I didn't know it was Rich who felt that way!  I promise not to use it on these boards!

 Ahh Rich don't mind. What else you going to do when the couplers don't work??

Some lashups are difficult when the lokies got long cowcatchers.

Ace;

You do like pouring fuel on a fire, dontcha!  

Actually, the "correct term" is MU or multiple unit.

Gentlemen,

   Butchers, everyone of ya.

PCRR/Dave

Ok I'm gettin' the popcorn out...........here we go again........armchair adjusted....beverage open ............."kercha!!!!!!!!!!

ROTFL!!

Ace, you don't miss a thing. 

A lashup is complete when the walkway chains are connected.

All them MU hoses kinda look like ropes.

Ok I'm going WAAAAAY out on a limb here.....

Has anyone see the Saturday Night Live skit where a guy randomly walks into different scenarios and just says the word "pubes" to get a reaction from people?  Such as a romantic date.... here he comes, a business meeting...... here he comes, etc....  It was a joke about how certain words elicit a disgusted reaction no matter what the setting.

I wonder if you could walk up when "he who shall not be named" is doing something or talking to someone and just say "lashup" and get the same reaction?

I do hope someone remembers this joke because if not, I'm looking like a major idiot right now!

No, it's not an "OGR" thing; it's not a Rich thing. It's a railroader thing.

Even the definition you found states it's "railfan parlance."

^Yes, as far as I'm aware this is correct.  The term "consist" refers to the train as a whole.  Not just the locomotives.  I never worked on a railroad though.

ACE, when you bust a knuckle between the engines those hoses are the only thing that keeps your engines "lashed-up".  Hey, is that 2 separate words or are they hyphenated?

Joe, I think you are correct, in your case, this time.

Rick

When you have locomotives MU'd, you have a "locomotive consist."

And if you have a lot of MU's, you will certainly need a cow catcher. 

"MU" is an electric/diesel-electric term. As no such thing existed with external combustion

locos (a crew in every cab; a chicken in every pot?), the terms were properly and actually

"double-head(ing)", "triple-head(ing)", ad infinitum.

So...when one refers to a "lash-up" of his external combustion 2-8-2 and 2-8-4, he is

doubly wrong, and doubly sinful. I suppose such a guy might even "lash up" his

"engines" with their "cow catchers" facing each other.

Or, he may double-head his locomotives with their pilots facing each other. 

Chuckle - MU's  needing cowcatcher, good one Nichole!

Power!   Power !  Power !What'd you have for power!( not lashed -up or MUed or  consist). Power.

We should desist from incorrect terminology or someone will want to slug you.

Yes Nicole, moo to you!

Well, EMD made cows and calfs, so there is a precedent. 

I've been wanting to weigh-in on this subject for some time, I think now's the time.

In a small booklet titled "The Legendary Lackawanna", written by John R. Canfield, who retired as a Trainmaster from the DL&W, he uses the forbidden term on page 14: "In either case a four unit lash-up would have obviated the helper move." (emphasis by me)

Maybe it's an eastern term.

Sure, one guy said it. I'm sure you could find a railroader who also said "cowcatcher," or that he drives a train.

Doesn't make the terms correct, however.

I wonder if it comes from back in the day when they were pulling wagons or logs and sometimes would "lash up" another set of horses to get it over the problem area?

"Well, EMD made cows and calfs, so there is a precedent."

We are milking this thread. 

 Just thought we could have a little fun and keep things light. Hopefully everyone sees it that way. I had to post because I did just what people described. I got some cable and tied 'em up. I'm still chuckling that it even worked.

 Of course I will change out the couplers in an effort to standardize my RR. It's just tough because each engine I get is so different. I just wanted a quick way to test it. I've been rigging stuff up for years back when I didn't have two nickles to rub together to get what was needed. I remember using duct tape to hold up my first light show until i saved up enough to buy clamps.

 I would have used some string but the cable was laying right there. So I tied 'em up. I still see twist ties on some guys couplers. Don't think that's prototypical.

This subject brings to mind a conversation I had at work some time ago. I'm a naturalist at a nature center and one of my co-workers is an ornithologist and can't resist correcting the rest of us whenever we don't use the most up-to-date name for a species that may have recently been reclassified or renamed (fish hawk vs. osprey, for example). I've maintained that in nature there is no such thing as an osprey, robin, blue jay, etc. There are only creatures that man has chosen to attach those names to, in his desire to identify, classify and characterize the world. The bird neither knows nor cares what its name is. Its name is totally an invention of man, who can change it for whatever reason or whim grabs him. Likewise, if only one person uses a term to identify something technological it can be argued to be wrong. But if enough people use it, it can eventually be as right as any other term might be. And what about railroaders in non-English speaking nations? They say neither lash-up, consist or multiple unit. Not every English term has direct translations in other languages. Are foreign railroaders wrong for using whatever phrase they use for two locos connected to each other? Perhaps these questions are best pondered after a six pack or two. It's amazing what you will then ponder.  

You see it's just those that run deasesels that have problems with the language barrier as those of us that are steamer fans just run double headers!    Russ

 I wanted to test a new Genesis's pulling power and couldn't get it to pull all the cars on the track alone. I looked for another engine without sound upgrade and used a B&O Geep with hook and loop couplers. So I thought of what Bill said the other day and grabbed something to tie them together.

 I couldn't resist posting this as the definition of a famous term here..... L***up

Hey. It works.

Joe good grief whst have you done to these poor folks Sure looks like you have them all tie up in knots(lashed up &nbsp over proper terms. Well that famous Southern

Moonshiner Jim Tom(Billy Bobs 1/2 brother) say's yust tail it lack iy twas..a lash up fur sure cause it were only a temp job. Fur a per mitt job wood bees a MOOO  N( l )    

The cow and calf were MU'd

Well, you can have a LU or a MU but you don't want to have a FU.

.....

Dennis

I'll give Rich the benefit of the doubt about lash up being incorrect, I always called it MUing anyways but as an old Boy Scout lashing locomotives together would be more like tying them together since lashing is something altogether different:

As opposed to knots used to join or tie together:

Such as the Sheet Bend, Granny and Reef(Square) Knot altho I would accept the round lashing as a possible exception:

Jerry

You just need a really long chain on the back of the Coal Car.

This John Bull has a long cowcatcher but it still has "MU" capability.