It's called a "Lashup."

 

It is fun seeing people's feathers get ruffled over this stuff.

What is even more fun is, watching the folks who try and justify the term getting "ruffled".

 

I felt that way from the very first post.  What we play with are toy/models of real life objects.  It is Friday, the sun is shinning, lets all have a good chuckle.  I know I have already had several.  Thanks to all that posted.

OMG!!!!! Are you guys still at it?????  LOL  Too much free time on your hands.  Get a hobby!!!!!

 

Rick

 

Yep, still at it.  I just had my eight cup of coffee and I am ready to pull an all-nighter and it is only 2:00pm.

 

Is my screen the only one vibrating at 32 cycles per second? 

LOL I needed a "fix," so I went downstairs and ran my Pennsy 6-8-6 in an MU with my GEVO, both units have "coffee" smoke, so it was very prototypical.

I got a good chuckle out of it all, but then again some say my sense of humor is quite warped.

 

I thought that some humor might be what you up at the beginning of the thread. Everything can't be serious, gotta have a little fun once in a while.

 

BTW, isn't lash-up what they do to a ship when it comes into port and docks? Possibly an old sailor term?

This is a lash-up:

 

Rusty

 

Flames generated?! Holy cow!

 

I'm just cuckoo about choo-choo's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey Jim,

 

Do you ever get a chuckle every time you see or hear about Blackbonnets? 

Oh no!  Don't say it!  The infamous "Santa Fe Black bonnet" tread that seemed like it would never end! 

 

 

Hey, I think the Daylight cab forward is a far more offensive visual abomination than those blackbonnets, which already offended the senses enough as it is.  What's that old saying, something to the effect that some people's tastes are limited to their tongues?   Egads!

    

Whatever blows your hair back...now where's that dad-blamed rope?

Man, I love this forum.  Party on guys!

John I have not seen a BlackBonnet post in a very long time.  That actually seems tame when compared to the Vomit-Bonnet pictured below.

 

Occasional sentiments above reflect the idea: "Who cares what it's called?". 

Well, it matters what things are called; that is one of the reasons that we use a

Forum. There is Right and Wrong, Correct and Incorrect.

 

While the discussion of such matters as "consist", "lashup" and "MU'd" should always

be done in a good-natured way, it is actually an important point, in this setting, as are many other things.

 

After all, some who "don't give a rat's whatever" about "lashup" may hit the ceiling if

there is an incorrect detail on the top of your latest SD-U-boat-Turbine. This is a hobby of Details, by its very nature.

 

We steam guys just "double-head" or "triple-head". What's the problem?

 

Now, don't get me started on the correct RR use of the terms "helper" and "pusher".

Gr-r-r-r.

 

 

We steam guys just "double-head" or "triple-head".

What did you call the old WM configuration, with 2 2-8-0's at the head, 3 at the center, and 2 on the rear of a 70-car coal train coming up Blackwater Canyon, WV.

History has taught us it is ALWAYS BETTER to Help her rather than Push her.

Maybe my tastes are warped just like my sense of humor, but I actually like this one.  

Semantics. I have no idea why people seem to get so hung up on the use of specific words.

This happens every day on my day job (I investigate auto accidents), when I'll be talking to someone about their car crash:

 

ME: "Okay, so about the accident..."

OTHER PERSON: "It WASN'T an accident!"

ME: "Uh... you're telling me it was done on purpose?"

OTHER PERSON: "NO, but it wasn't an accident!"

ME (realizing I've had this conversation hundreds of time before): "Okay, you don't like the term, but I have to call it something to be able to refer to it, how about, 'Incident'"?"

OTHER PERSON: "I don't like that term, it sounds worse than it was" (which is why they don't like the term accident either, usually, if you press them to explain)

ME: "Okay, how about we'll call it, 'that thing what happened to your car'?"

OTHER PERSON: "I don't think that's funny."

ME: "Neither do I, but we really need to get past this. What word or phrase would you use that we can refer to the thing we're talking about, so we can move onto the important part of this discussion?"

OTHER PERSON: "Hmmm..........."

ME: "All righty then, 'accident,' it is!"

Appels & oranges, and totally unrelated to the standard, technical railroad terminology for diesel unit consists. 

I really would like to know where the Lashup term originated, if it was the model railroaders that started this, why did they use this term instead of the correct wording.

 

Clem

What does this have to do with either a town in Saxony, the term used for counting POWs during WW2 or a distraction attempt in fencing?

 

Besides, you're not going to find every single person in every single industry using the exact same words for anything. Heck, I've heard more than a couple of railroad operating employees (more than one was an engineer with several years service) use the term, "turnout" to describe what I would have previously assumed was not a 1:1 railroad industry to describe a track switch...

If you think that this topic is confusing, just try to follow this:

 

Abbott: Strange as it may seem, they give ball players nowadays very peculiar names.

Costello: Funny names?

Abbott: Nicknames, nicknames. Now, on the St. Louis team we have Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third--

Costello: That's what I want to find out. I want you to tell me the names of the fellows on the St. Louis team.

Abbott: I'm telling you. Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third--

Costello: You know the fellows' names?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: Well, then who's playing first?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: I mean the fellow's name on first base.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The fellow playin' first base.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy on first base.

Abbott: Who is on first.

Costello: Well, what are you askin' me for?

Abbott: I'm not asking you--I'm telling you. Who is on first.

Costello: I'm asking you--who's on first?

Abbott: That's the man's name.

Costello: That's who's name?

Abbott: Yes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Costello: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?

Abbott: Every dollar of it. And why not, the man's entitled to it.

Costello: Who is?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: So who gets it?

Abbott: Why shouldn't he? Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.

Costello: Who's wife?

Abbott: Yes. After all, the man earns it.

Costello: Who does?

Abbott: Absolutely.

Costello: Well, all I'm trying to find out is what's the guy's name on first base?

Abbott: Oh, no, no. What is on second base.

Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.

Abbott: Who's on first!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Costello: St. Louis has a good outfield?

Abbott: Oh, absolutely.

Costello: The left fielder's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: I don't know, I just thought I'd ask.

Abbott: Well, I just thought I'd tell you.

Costello: Then tell me who's playing left field?

Abbott: Who's playing first.

Costello: Stay out of the infield! The left fielder's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: Because.

Abbott: Oh, he's center field.

Costello: Wait a minute. You got a pitcher on this team?

Abbott: Wouldn't this be a fine team w i t h o u t a pitcher?

Costello: Tell me the pitcher's name.

Abbott: Tomorrow.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Costello: Now, when the guy at bat bunts the ball--me being a good catcher--I want to throw the guy out at first base, so I pick up the ball and throw it to who?

Abbott: Now, that's he first thing you've said right.

Costello: I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!

Abbott: Don't get excited. Take it easy.

Costello: I throw the ball to first base, whoever it is grabs the ball, so the guy runs to second. Who picks up the ball and throws it to what. What throws it to I don't know. I don't know throws it back to tomorrow--a triple play.

Abbott: Yeah, it could be.

Costello: Another guy gets up and it's a long ball to center.

Abbott: Because.

Costello: Why? I don't know. And I don't care.

Abbott: What was that?

Costello: I said, I DON'T CARE!

Abbott: Oh, that's our shortstop!

 

there are several horseshoe curves in the u.s. and canada. .. one ,at least on the former bn in nebraska,mance curve on b&o's "sandpatch"in penn,are two  that come to mind.just not as much fame as "that one".-jim

To ME it is Simply Disrespectful, OGR provides this forum at NO COST to us, and Rich has stated AD-NAUSEM, that the term is INCORRECT, and one of those things, that Bugs him to hear. Yet there are those who are FULLY AWARE, of that situation, and still seem to go out of their way to Stir the Pot, in my opinion this is akin to a Guest Smoking in the Home of a Host, that is known to be a N0n-Smoker. Just Childish Antics.

 

Doug

 

I've been in/around railroading since about 1970 or so.  I've heard all sorts of terms for all sorts of things from railroaders.  I've never heard the term "lash-up" on the railroads I've been on/around/worked for/etc.

 

I've heard (and still hear) engines called "motors" (plural, as in MU Consist) or "motor" if a single unit. I've heard/used hind end, rear end, bottom, among other terms long forgotten, for the last car (end) of the train. The list goes on and on. All sorts of terms... but never "lash-up".

 

However, all of the above sort of pales by comparison to the railroading dialect the hillbillies that helped me start learning this trade used.  In reference to their consist, the Engineer might say something like: "Well, I've got two little'uns and a pair of big'uns. Reckon that'll have to do to git'em over The Mountain", if'n not, reckon' we'll double over an' you kin bet yer butt it'll be long'un.".

 

Translation:  "I have two GP7's and two GP38's for this tonnage train. I do hope we can make it over Boston Mountain grade with this set of power. If not, we'll have to take the train up in halves, and if we have to do that, it will make for a long shift."

 

I think "Hillbilly-ese" is a regional thing. 'Ya reckon?

 

 

For what its worth…..

 On the former B&O when coupling cars, you make a "tie" / "that'll  do"

 On the former NYC when coupling cars, make a "hook"/ "far enough"

 

Both Rule books refer to it as a "coupling"/ "stop"

 

 

I didn't go look for it too hard, but I seem to recall a post a few weeks or months ago where Rich finally acknowledged he was giving up the fight on this.  Some things are not worth worrying about.

 

{edit: found it here!}

 

And while we are at it, this thread is in the Hi-Rail, O27 and Traditional 3-Rail O Gauge section of the forum, not the  Real Trains section of the forum.

 

-Dave

 

 

I honestly don't think anyone meant any dis-respect to anyone else. Dave has a point, we are in the 'toy train' forum, not real trains. I think this was all in fun and I am pretty sure Rich took it that way too, from his comments.

 

And don't the train manufacturers call them 'lash ups' as well? Pretty sure I have seen that term in their catalogs or literature somewhere. Several (maybe all) of the train manufacturers are also forum sponsors.

On the NYS&W multiple units running together were always simply called the "power".

We usually run 4 "Big Jacks" in a consist

This pretty much sums it up for the dissenting opinion here...

 

As an engineer I'm quite sure the publisher knows what is used on real rail roads, and should weigh in as often as needed to let folks know that "lash-up" is a made up, model railroad only term that is not in the least bit prototypical.  

On the other hand... with the exception to what I can only assume is a small minority of scale modelers and 'rail-fans', the forum and the magazine it stems from are dedicated to O Gauge Railroading, not real railroads.  There are countless things in the hobby that are down right whimsical when compared to real railroads, and they are taken for what they are, part of the fun of the hobby.  I understand dis-liking the term, but as publisher, shouldn't one use the term used by the manufacturer of the product your publication is Wholly dependent on?  

 

One thing we can all agree on is that the term "lash up" is wrong, right?

Not so fast there.  It may be silly, but it may have also been invented for a reason.  Once upon a time mostly every term used in 'technology' was made up.  Invented for the sole purpose of describing something that had never existed until that point in time. Other times an old term or symbol is given new meaning.  I wonder when a radiator cap became a hood ornament, and how long it took for people to start using the right term? I've had to sit through hours on my sister, a Linguistics major, explaining how language evolves over time, and just because something is incorrect today does not mean it will always be that way.  

Take this example:  What is this symbol called: #

If you're not very tech savvy, not into social media, or new trends in culture, it is most likely a "pound sign"  If, on the other hand, you're younger, into into social media, or pick up on new trends, you know it as the hashtag.   Language is funny like that.  

 

I find it likely that someone with little, or no, real railroad experience coined the term to describe the use of two, or more, engines working off the same commands. BUT, I also think of the term "lash-up" as the technobabble term used to describe the system to control a multi unit train.  The lash up is not the trains on the layout, it is the software and hardware needed to model a MU.  I think we need to find the real names for other things that only exist in the form they take on model railroads. 

 

In the end, does it really matter?  Not really, unless someone wants to start a petition to have the manufactures change the name in future releases of their product.  Until such time, toy trains have lash ups.  

 It pre-dates TMCC for sure.  I remember using only that term in the 60's-70s.

  I think my Great Grandfather, as well as my Grandfather used it too.

   A 'language" evolution from Europe, Canada (French), or the early toy train world is a possibility. I also wonder if it was regional like soda, pop, or "I want a coke, give me an orange one". I'm in Michigan, Lionel was in Michigan, maybe its our fault.

 

 

Originally Posted by Dave45681:

 I hope Rich giving up is inaccurate. Though I used "the L word" my whole life, Rich's correcting me on it, though embarrassing at first, was a lesson truly appreciated.

 I can call it what I like when he's not around, least I can do

Disrespectful, I think not.  The term simply causes professional railroaders to shake their heads.  As Rich said, it only makes you look like a NOOB to them. It's a matter of perspective. Take that for what it's worth. 

 

 

The forum software needs that emoticon of a smiley face eating from a box of popcorn.

So we all know the current term for a consist of multiple power units but what was it called 50 or 100 or 120 years ago? I doubt it was officially called a consist, MU,  or a lashup.

There is enough serious issues...  In your toy train world?  Sorry to hear that.  I love the senseless vitriol.  Long may it last.  Running more than one engine together on an O gauge layout is imminently more satisfying than one.  Aside from switching duties.  No matter what you call it.  I used to enjoy fighting the fight for the term lashup, being kind of a smartass by nature, but who cares?  These guys have more serious toy train issues to deal with.  Put a couple engines together, program them properly, and let them roll, roll, roll, away from the vitriol....
As always, cheers!

50 years ago it was the year 1965 and it was still called MU(ing.)

 

In ye olden days before diesels it was called doubeheading or tripleheading.

 

Rusty

This is the Energizer argument, it keeps going and going