Re: The term 'consist'

[e27002 aurora]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 14:42:11 +0100, "houn...@yahoo.co.uk"
<houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 27.08.17 1:12, Recliner wrote:
>> <damdu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 14:35:20 +0100, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/08/2017 12:58, BirchangerKen wrote:
>>>>> People on here use the word 'consist' as a noun to mean the formation
>>>>> of a train. I was unaware of the term for most of my life, only
>>>>> encountering it when I bought a PCRail simulation of Champaigne,
>>>>> Illinois about 15 years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has this classic American verbification been used for long in the UK?
>>>>> I'm not aware of it being used on the Underground, despite Yerkes
>>>>> bringing in some American terms such as car for carriage. Or did it
>>>>> arrive with EWS?
>>>>
>>>> It has been around for many years in the UK and is interchangeable with
>>>> rake.
>>>
>>> It is has become quite common amongst some of those who dabble with
>>> model Railways.
>>> DCC or Digital Command Control is a system where each prime mover has
>>> it's it own chip that be can addressed by a digital coded signal to
>>> control the vehicle unlike the varying of voltage and polarity that
>>> those of the Hornby Dublo and Tri-ang era would have been using.
>>> Track for DCC is always live with a high frequency AC current with the
>>> control signals embedded with it and after a few years of different
>>> systems the world basically agreed on the ones established by American
>>> modellers so their terms prevail.
>>> One of them is Consist which for the modellers purpose is controlling
>>> two or more locos together as you would need to when say double
>>> heading but also remembering that in North America multiple locos are
>>> controlled together frequently and they will often be distributed
>>> along the train to save strain on couplings and other considerations.
>>> whether the full size railroads call that consisting I don't know but
>>> that is what it has come to mean for modellers.
>>
>> I'm currently in the US, and have only noticed a couple of moving freight
>> trains so far. As far as I could see, both were top and tailed by pairs of
>> locos. I don't know if all four were under power, but I assume that would
>> be normal here? I didn't spot any mid-train locos, but in such long
>> trains, it would be easy to miss them.
>>
>> Interestingly, they represented the past and the future: one was carrying
>> coal, and the other Vestas wind turbine components.
>>
>> One cool thing: I was travelling on conventional and light rail trains that
>> in some cases shared formations, complete with many level crossings, but
>> not tracks, with freight trains. The modern electric units generated the
>> same bell and mournful horn blasts that the big freight locos do; but when
>> running on their own modern segregated tracks, they didn't.
>>
>Where in the United States are you?

One cannot answer for the OP. His description would fit the Los
Angeles County MTA's Blue Line to Long Beach.