Nostalgia & History > GP30, GP20 & SDP45 - what a lashup!

Came across this photo recently in going through the archives...a westbound Santa Fe freight going through Chillicothe, Illinois with quite a lashup!  I apologize but I have no clue as to when I would have taken this.

Roger Holmes

---

That is a great consist.  My guess is it's an early to mid-nineties shot.  Sure wish you could get power like that today.  I would be getting out a lot more often than I presently do if that were the case.

Interesting consist. I do not see any ropes lashing them together, however.

Great photo Roger. I believe the rear unit was a downgraded FP45 from passenger service to freight. I have photos of some of them in Illinois on freight too.

Bob Krieger
Cheyenne, WY

Rear unit is an F45.

Wonderful lashup and image.

Jan Austin
Chico, CA
J.G. Austin Photography

Two Bell Ringers and One good unit

miralomarail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Two Bell Ringers and One good unit
Ain't that the truth!

Q4960 Wrote:

> Came across this photo recently in going through
> the archives...a westbound Santa Fe freight going
> through Chillicothe, Illinois with quite a lashup!
>  I apologize but I have no clue as to when I
> would have taken this.

Looks like the F45 (or "SDF45," as Santa Fe had redesignated them) has MKM sublettering.  That probably means the year is 1994, as most MKM-sublettered F45's lost their Santa Fe lettering by 1995.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting consist. I do not see any ropes
> lashing them together, however.

I'll second that one!

HotWater Wrote:

> Interesting consist. I do not see any ropes
> lashing them together, however.

There's an interesting letter to the editor from Bert Pennypacker entitled "New Term" that appears on p.54 of the April 1960 Trains magazine:

"I notice you are putting an increasing amount of emphasis upon weird combinations of various types of diesel units coupled in M.U. and pulling trains.  Why not call them by the term used on the railroads: 'lash-ups.'" 

As for "consist," the railroad-related definition from the Random House Dictionary that appears on Dictionary.com specifically excludes locomotives:

consist (noun)
    5. Railroads
        a. the rolling stock, exclusive of the locomotive, making up a train.
        b. a record made of this rolling stock.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consist

Just goes to show no matter what term you use, you're wrong in someone's book...

Evan_Werkema Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
>
> > Interesting consist. I do not see any ropes
> > lashing them together, however.
>
> There's an interesting letter to the editor from
> Bert Pennypacker entitled "New Term" that appears
> on p.54 of the April 1960 Trains magazine:
>
> "I notice you are putting an increasing amount of
> emphasis upon weird combinations of various types
> of diesel units coupled in M.U. and pulling
> trains.  Why not call them by the term used on
> the railroads: 'lash-ups.'" 
>
> As for "consist," the railroad-related definition
> from the Random House Dictionary that appears on
> Dictionary.com specifically excludes locomotives:
>
> consist (noun)
>     5. Railroads
>         a. the rolling stock, exclusive of
> the locomotive, making up a train.
>         b. a record made of this rolling
> stock.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consist
>
> Just goes to show no matter what term you use,
> you're wrong in someone's book...


In my entire railroad career, the only people I heard say "lashup" were railfans.  Consist or power, however, was used.