Lash up

Ideally, railroads usually try to have engines facing both directions at the ends of a consist, to avoid having to turn the power. Having said that, it doesn't always work out that way; I've frequently seen 3 units all facing the same direction. Run them however you think they look best.

Thanks 

Gsgood, your in trouble and you don't even know it. Don 

Lash up????

Gsgood,

 

Of the three I have on the layout, two are front to back & the third is both facing forward. Switch them around, it's whatever you like.

 

 

Joe B

Lash up, Lash up Lash up.

OK...you knew this was coming, didn't you? Well...some of you did. 

 

So...how much ROPE did you use to LASH UP your engines? By the way, don't tie off to the handrails...they bend.

 

LASHUP...what a horrible term.

 

It is a Multiple Unit Consist. MU for short.

good one Marty, I prefer fishing line myself.

ROTFL!!!

 

I love that picture, Marty.

Finally!!! A LASH UP!!!! 

You have to give an answer with no strings attached, guys!

Ahhh...Lash up...crash up...bash up.!!!

 

Here we go again !!!

Lash up?  Slowly I turn.....

 

Step by step...

 

Inch by inch....

Odd.  I just got a mailing from Harbor Freight.......

It's not rope.  It is a special PC merger substance from the Aliens in the cafe behind the engines!

Gsgood,

 

Type in "Railroad diesel engine lash up images" in your web's search window and you will get pictures of multi unit diesels in several different configurations.  From these pictures, I'd say run them any way you want and it will be prototypical.  I only have one modern set, two U-Boats, and I run them facing out (tail to tail) because that looks better to me.

 

NOTE: Type in "lash up", not consist or multi unit/MU, because you will get more pictures showing multiple engines running together.

 

Ron

I found it on the internet...everything on the internet is true

What in the name of 765 is going on here?I don,t think those ropes will hold.You guys better get some chanes!!Everybody knows that chanes are better.Or you might want to use some kaddie couplers or weaver couplers.

What are "chanes"????

NIAGRA FALLS!!!

Jerry

Lash 'em up, head 'em out!  My favorite O Gauge term. Simply for the fact that it rankles so many.  Thank you for your inquiry.  To honestly answer your question, look at prototype lashups.  They come in all flavors.  It's your layout.  Run 'em the way you want.  Half the experts on here have never built a layout and are only experts at pointing out what you did or said wrong. Lashup is a Lionel created word.  It's O Gauge fellas...

To help you out, and if it matters to you, if you want to avert the scorn of those who think it is important what you call more that one toy train engine coupled to another one pulling a string of toy train cars around a make believe world, refer to this scenario MULTIPLE UNIT CONSIST.  Or you may be blackballed, chastised and talked about behind your back until you finally wise up.  Catch on quick and you'll be ok kid.  Cheers. 

So, that's what was wrong...I was looking for the lashup valve and could only find this MU thingy in my GP38-2...maybe now the trail unit will behave

 

Brings a whole new meaning to a Clove Hitch!

Say, they should have a feature on this site which does not let anybody post the words "Lash up", kind of like on some sites where you cannot post "dirty" words!

EXCELLENT idea!!! Alert Rich to that.

Actually a bad idea unless you can make it for the real trains forum only.

 

Reason being, this is the terminology that both MTH and Lionel use for their command systems.  Incorrect as it is it makes it easier to talk someone through an issue with terminology that is in the manuals and in some cases as they appear on the remote.

 

Say, they should have a feature on this site which does not let anybody post the words "Lash up", kind of like on some sites where you cannot post "dirty" words!

I think we're getting all tied up over semantics.  And...some are starting to lash out...ah...or...up in this case.  Matt

I like calling more than one locomotive working together... a "power set".

 

The word "consist"/ MU consist, just sounds awkward.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6RRGCAoTos

 

 

Rick

If you mess-up your lash-up, would that constitute a male-chicken-up? (Just in case the censors are reading.) 

Years ago when I was first exposed to the word "consist" I, too, thought it sounded awkward. It was not until someone taught me the correct pronunciation of the word in this context that it started to sound OK.

If you use the word in this context: "The model train set will consist of an engine, four cars..." the emphasis is on the second syllable - con-SIST.

However, when the word is used in the context of a group of diesel locomotives, the emphasis is on the first syllable, as in CON-sist. "The train had a consist of three locomotives."

That sounds a lot less awkward.

Guys and Gals,

 

Thanks ever so much for providing the laughs today! I love to see you argue just how unfair it is when a commonly used term such as this long forgotten one is used. Makes you wonder just where our priorities should be. Thanks for making a dictatorial ban brand spanking new! And thanks for the clever pics. Post on and keep those hobo comments coming.

 

Mike Maurice

I used the CON-sist phasing for a while; but, power set - just feels more comfortable, to me - i.e.

 

The power set for the regular BNSF coal train, included: an ES44AC(leading), a SD70ACe and a SD70MAC; and, DPU'd, at the rear, another MAC; both MAC's were reversed.

 

Rick

 

 

 

I have seen consists in New Orleans waiting to cross that sky high bridge that had as many as 5 six motor engines, all pointing forward I assume; could have been in the rear, but I doubt it.  I couldn't see how many cars were trailing or if there were any pushers.  Hard to imagine pushers with 5 engines up front.  The engines were sitting over the Interstate, waiting their turn I guess.