Does anyone know if many railroads lashed Geeps to FB-units?
If so, are there any pics of "mixed" lash-ups?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Sure they did. I don't have a pic but if a railway was short of power(or not) and needed to get a train on the road anything goes. .
I am considering modeling a GP9 lashed to F3-B unit
Frisco routinely ran SD45-F7B-SD45 or something similar out of Memphis on its hot trains because of weight restrictions on the Mississippi river bridge.
3 SD's would be too heavy.
Santa Fe did it for quite a while. Ironically, they often teamed F-unit B's with CF7's (which started out as F-unit A's before being converted to a Geep-like superstructure).
For what it's worth, the hobby term "lash-up" is not used to describe multiple unit consists in the "real" railroading motive power world. Diesel electric units are "MU-ed" into consists of multiple-units.
The Webmaster HATES the term "lash-up" when real trains are being discussed.
If the two units could be mu'ed, anything could be possible.
I had a friend who has since passed on. He was a New York Central buff and knew guys that worked for the NYC. They told him that NYC did not mix different mfg diesels for the first 15 years or so until they went in for rebuilds. The reason was that the MU connections were incompatible as built. When the units went in their first major overhauls, the NYC changed them.
So if you model early diesel or transition era, at least on the NYC, you should not mix builders units in the same lashups. You could mix EMDs of different models, but not Alcos with EMDs for example.
Sorry for the railroad slang. I should have used MU'ed
Yes, you certainly should have...
Penn Central MU'ed anything that ran and was compatible... It wasn't unusual to see Geeps, F units (A or B), Alcos and GE's in the same consist. It just depends on your railroad and era.
And, of course, just about anything could and did happen at least once, so if you think it looks good...
The BN regularly ran GP, F & B units as well as later EMDs and Alcos in multiple as helpers in the Pacific Northwest during the seventies.
B&O, PRR, SP, and a few others ran GPs and A and B units many many times.
I'm sure CNJ did so I one area ..... but, I can't find a photo in my collection. I'll look more late tonight.
What railroad are you modeling? Love to see a photo of your two engines together. I like unusual consists of older equipment.
Attachments
Images (1)
TM Terry posted:Does anyone know if many railroads lashed Geeps to FB-units?
If so, are there any pics of "mixed" lash-ups?
Greenfrogs Union Pacific Odyssey Vol 1 has some Geep/F unit lashups.
http://www.greenfrog.com/UP_Spectacular_10PAK.shtml
PAUL ROMANO posted:The BN regularly ran GP, F & B units as well as later EMDs and Alcos in multiple as helpers in the Pacific Northwest during the seventies.
Paul is quite right. Geep-B Unit-Geep sets were a common configuration for Skykomish helpers.
Some of those B units got worked until they failed. 
http://pnwr.qstation.org/BNTri...NP/SD45/BN_6421.html
What do real railroaders call it when it is two steam locomotives on the point?
bob2 posted:What do real railroaders call it when it is two steam locomotives on the point?
Doubleheading.
Rusty
Some models could not MU to another. Was that due to not have standard MU pins? Air brakes? Something else?
Dominic, I have heard that Baldwin used air to MU its locos, rather than electrical signals.
SP used to run F units with hood units. On passenger they did mu F's with the SDP45's.
Rusty Traque posted:bob2 posted:What do real railroaders call it when it is two steam locomotives on the point?
Doubleheading.
Rusty
Just don't dare call it doubleheading when referring to diesels, unless there is a crew in each locomotive.
AGHRMatt posted:Santa Fe did it for quite a while. Ironically, they often teamed F-unit B's with CF7's (which started out as F-unit A's before being converted to a Geep-like superstructure).
True, but disgusting. 
M-uing an F7 to one of those Charlie's Garage things was a breach of good taste. I could not look. 
Hot Water posted:The Webmaster HATES the term "lash-up" when real trains are being discussed.
Oh, sure, lay it on the Webmaster. 
Many years ago, there were certain combinations of locomotives that could not be MU'd. Primarily it was Baldwin diesels that were the odd man out. Baldwin used an air-based MU system as opposed to the electrically based MU system which EMD, Alco and GE used. It was the electrical system that ultimately won that contest and is in use today.
Today, all that MU incompatibility is long since gone. Anything on the road today will MU with anything else. Shoot, we can even MU the 765 to trailing diesels!
As for the use of the word "lashup" I have given up on my quest to stamp put the use of that unbelievably silly term. Every time it is used, all I see in my mind is some diesel locomotives lashed together with a bunch of rope. 
Hey MartyE! It's time to post your lashup picture again! 
I recall that on PRR, the Baldwin sharks would not MU with anything other than another shark due to the air throttle.
On NYC, the railroad at first tried to keep like brands within a territory. For example, up to the U25B era, they tried to keep all Alcos east of Buffalo and all EMDs west of Buffalo. The main maintenance point for all EMD power on the mainline was Collinwood, and for Alcos it was West Albany for overhauls and Dewitt (Syracuse) for running maintenance. Off brands found their way to the Big Four. Larger fuel tanks and the goal to obtain greater monthly mileages (i.e utilization) resulted in run throughs that resulted in a broad mix of EMD, Alco, and GE, at least on the mainline. There were problems in making up MU consists and this led to the installation of nose MU receptacles, so a covered wagon "A" unit could be in the MU consist and did not have to lead.
I also recall a fellow GE employee and ex Rock Island guy who told me that he sat down with the RI electrical guy, and they made up a chart of what units would MU with what other units. They found six that not only would NOT MU with anything else, they would not MU with each other!
So, what would it be called when a steam locomotive is coupled to a set of diesel engines?
Or, as you sometimes see in the B&O pics west of Cumberland, when a pair of steam engines (like Mikados) were used as helpers for the E7's in passenger service?
Jim
jd-train posted:So, what would it be called when a steam locomotive is coupled to a set of diesel engines?
That would still be doubleheading.
Or, as you sometimes see in the B&O pics west of Cumberland, when a pair of steam engines (like Mikados) were used as helpers for the E7's in passenger service?
Still, doubleheading.
Maybe a double-headed lash-up? (hee hee...
)
Nope.
Jim
Side question: Are GE center-cab switchers (i.e. 44 ton, 65 ton, 80 ton) MU capable from the factory?
Only if they were ordered with MU. For those small units it was an option.
Notice Odysseus's power plant was MU'ed, by being lashed up to the oars.
FWIW, the Iowa Traction RR's Baldwin-Westinghouse steeple cabs are MU equipped, but never used that way to avoid load charges from the power company.
You folks need to understand that when it came to dispatching power for a freight train, the Roundhouse Foreman didn't care one whit about whether a loco was an Alco, a GE or an EMD. All he cared about was how much horsepower do I need on this train? Whatever units were first out on the ready track were the ones that got the call.
Mixed-make locomotive consists were not anticipated by either the builders or the railroads in the 1940's and early 1950's, so there was no universal m-u system. There were challenges in m-uing some first-generation diesels (F7, RS3, PA1, GP9, etc).
When EMD and Alco-GE units of that era were equipped with dynamic braking, different control systems prevented fully-functional multiple unit operation between the two. EMD used a field loop for DB control, while Alco-GE used potential line control for DB. The field loop required that there be an additional cable, consisting of 3 (or was it 4?) small cables grouped into rectangular plug ends, which were inserted into rectangular receptacles on the ends of the EMD locomotives. This is most easily seen on photos of the exposed receptacles mounted next to the end crossover platforms of GP7/9 and SD7/9 locomotives taken in the 1950's or early 1960's. This connection had to be "looped" by setting a switch on the rear unit to send the control signal back to the controlling unit. Since it was a closed loop, all units in the consist needed to be wired into the loop and all cable connections needed to be tight.
Alco-GE's potential line control simply used wires inside the 27-wire m-u jumper cable.
So, you can see that, when mixed first generation consists were m-ued, the controlling unit could only control dynamic braking back through the consist until it came to the first locomotive of the other manufacturer. The first unit of the other manufacturer - and all units trailing it in the consist - would not have operative dynamic braking.
EMD adopted potential line control beginning with the GP18/20 and SD18/24, and many railroads modified their first-generation EMD's, changing them from field loop to potential line control, and there were no longer any dynamic braking challenges within mixed consists. I remember seeing a switch on a Southern Pacific SD35 which could be positioned either for field loop or potential line control, so the locomotive had evidently been ordered with an option to control dynamic braking on trailing units of either type.
On railroads which did not have dynamic brake-equipped units, m-uing mixed consists was not challenging.
Even among EMD diesels there was some incompatibility. Pre-war diesels such as the E6 and FT used a 21-wire jumper cable and receptacle, while postwar units (E7, F3 and later) used the same 27-wire cable as Alco-GE. There fore, special jumper cables had to be used to m-u E3 and E6 units with E7 and E8 units until the railroad modified the pre-war units.
Another challenge was sanding control. Some Alco-GE units and F-M Erie-Builts had electro-pneumatic sanding control. EMD engines and other Alco-GE's had straight air control. The electro-pneumatic units did not require the additional m-u hose connection on each side of the unit, because they used the control jumper cable to activate sanding on trailing units. This is why you will never see photos of Santa Fe PA's and EMD's m-ued, whereas roads like MP which did not have electro-pneumatic sanding on their PA's freely m-ued them with EMD E-units and passenger GP7's. This did not pose much of a challenge until the transition era between first- and second-generation locomotives. Beginning in the late 1950's (SD24's and RSD15's on my home road), electro-pneumatic sanding became universal. Therefore most railroads converted their older units. Others, like Santa Fe did not, and therefore they did not m-u first- and second-generation units.
I hope this has added enough confusion. 
Thanks. I always thought steam was "doubleheaded", but concomitant with that lash-up dust-up, the term "double-shotted" appeared. I get so confused -
That would be double-slotted.
Number 90 posted:Mixed-make locomotive consists were not anticipated by either the builders or the railroads in the 1940's and early 1950's, so there was no universal m-u system....
I hope this has added enough confusion.
Standardization, another reason for the N&W to wait so long to dieselize.
I believe Baldwin was the big looser. Lack of reliability and they didn't MU with anything. The Pennsy BP20's were a classic example, placed on Long Island commuter service for that reason.
I know NS has at least one SD9 that won't MU with anything. Where it came from, I have no idea, but, it was just a bunch of extra tonnage to haul around.
