GG-1 Mystery

Well, a design can be brilliant, but brilliance does not necessarily equate to beauty or elegance.

I agree that the GG1 as a locomotive was brilliant in function.  But that's about the extent of the complements I can afford it. 

Maybe it's also because I think the GG1 as an O gauge model or toy is simply over-hyped, kind of like the NYC Hudson.  Certainly don't see that same type of hype with either of those two models in the other scales.

We have a winner!

Rusty

Now let's see.....if we could just get us a Bipolar in Brunswick Green.......

Simon

Hi everyone again. You GG-1 fans are very loyal!

I think that forumite John Korling may have hit the nail on the head with:

"Maybe it's also because I think the GG1 as an O gauge model or toy is simply over-hyped, kind of like the NYC Hudson.  Certainly don't see that same type of hype with either of those two models in the other scales."

For what it's worth, your loyalty has not won me over but has given me an appreciation of why you are.

Now let's see.....if we could just get us a Bipolar in Brunswick Green.......

 

Simon

I Think Lionel and or MTH did make one in Black! It didn't have the 5 gold stripes however. How unfortunate!

Here's an opinion:

I just saw a train in Portland Union Station that has to be the very ugliest item of any sort ever assembled out of steel and plastic.  I wish I had taken a photo - I guarantee all would agree.  

This thing had to be a Union Pacific early streamliner crossed with a Mini-Cooper, then punched in the face!

But the GG1?  I am an SP modeler with five full scale GG1s, four of the, bronze cast.  Items of beauty.

I am a nut for Cab Forwards and Back-up Mallets.  Myron Biggar hated them and would not let them in his magazine.  To each his own - it is indeed subjective.

Except for that monstrosity in Portland.

I should add from my last post that I actually do think many of Raymond Loewy's designs were indeed aesthetically pleasing.

I just simply don't think the GG1 cosmetically is one of them.  Same with his design of the Stude­baker Avanti, I think that car is odd-looking and about as visually graceful as a Ford Pinto.  A wrecked Avanti would look better, IMHO.

 I just think of examples as those two where the attempt to create a machine with visual style just didn't work.

This is an example of not much middle ground. Either you like the engine or dislike it. For me, I am in the camp that really like it, and by reading the responses to this thread, I am included with the vast majority of Forum members who responded. By the way, I guess it goes without saying, I also like the Bi-Polars. Paul, you are a big Milwaukee Road fan, you have to like the Bi-Polars.

In looking at the shape of the body, one has to notice the perfect geometry. All of the shapes are continuous curves. There are no discontinuities. We must remember as well that this effort was realized at the very beginning of streamlining on the railroads , 1934-35. The PRR made a decision to adopt this style of body to P-5s that were under construction at the same time the GG1 design was realized and delivered in 1935.

The performance was remarkable for the time. It was capable of reaching a speed over 1oomph in about a minute from a dead stop. The fleet of GG1s were remarkable also in the amount of accumulated miles achieved in their careers. They handled the passenger and freight business on the PRR's 4 track mains to Washington and Harrisburg each of which was more than 200 miles in length. If you lived anywhere near the PRR electrified 4 track main, it was near impossible to not see one speeding a train on its journey. And let us not forget the power supply and delivery system, much of which is still in use today. It was industry leading for a private non utility provider, perhaps the largest of its kind.  

In the 1930's Lionel produced numerous model examples of streamlining both in scale and traditional sizing. These included the colorful UP M10000s and the Millwaukee rd Hiawathas.( Thats for Paul Fischer) It is strange that any type of model of a GG1 was not produced by Lionel until 1947, considering that these locomotives were in the companies home territory and well after these locomotives first worked the PRR system with excellence. Even stranger is the decades that past until Lionel produced its first scale version just a few years back.

I think the PRR electrification is more than the GG1, but more so how well they applied and used the technology to run a high speed ,high capacity rail operation in those days.

GG1 at the RRMP - 

Strasburg, PA - Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania - 10/29/05 by Christopher & Amy Cate / Eastern Rails Photography, on Flickr

If I may add something for those who don't care for the GG-1:

The design was so good, even Tyco couldn't screw it up in HO!

(don't bring up the incorrect trucks on it!)

I keep seeing Raymond Loewy's name being thrown around here a lot.

Just trying to give credit where credit is due, let me add this headline from the Summer 2009 Classic Trains magazine:

Donald Dohner:

The man who designed

'RIVETS'

Long overshadowed by the flamboyant Raymond Loewy,

the true designer of the GG1 was a major figure in his day

By Hampton C. Wayt

Correct!  It was Loewy, however, that came up with the idea of welding the body as opposed to the riveted appearance.

The engine was the refinement of most of the technologies that preceded it.  In fact, PRR almost demanded that the engine have certain physical parameters that matched out the tests and modifications of its immediate (GG1) predecessors.  

Even it's lines were an evolution of the loco's that went before with Lowey's work/contribution mainly being the switch to a welded shell and the paint scheme.  If you look at it's contemporaries the engine really is as much a work of art as it was engineering.  The overall lines may not be pleasing to late 20th century tastes but it was the cat's meow when compared to other early 20th century designs (most which literally looked like cheese boxes with wheels).

Lots of information on the G's

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/GG1/

plus info on the particular  history of individual locomotives by number.

John K, what am I going to do wit you, You gonna make me send some of the GG1 boys from AGHR to have  little sit down with you.  I will tell  them to bring some Rappa sandwhiches down to you or make you kiss old rivits on da mug!

John P

Passenger Train Collector, Even tho I am a Milwaukee Road fan, I think the Bi-Polar and all other Milwaukee Road electric locomotives were at the least not good-looking and some (Bi-Polar) darn right ugly! Again,it is just my opinion and I appreciate all opinions just not all locomotives.

The GG1 boys at AGHR?  You mean all 1 of them? 

I think they may have had 2 at one point but one of them defected to the east coast   .

GG1-only engine ever built that did not lose an engineer in a head on crash.

In every poster of RR eingines I ever saw placed the GG1 front and center. That holds true for European models as well.

The GG1 could not only pull a fifteen car passenger train at a hundred pluss miles per hour it would pull an eighty car freight trains on a regular basses. I know this because I use to count the cars when I was a kid.

The Lionel triditional size toy model looks more like a real GG1 then the scale models. If you are ever at the Pennsylvaina RR museum look down at the GG1 from the vantage of the over head walk way. The veiw of the G looks much like what we see on our layouts.

As for the 44 Tonner, the 1-1 model was not built by GE for looks but yard work. As for the Lionel version, it is the best looking toy train ever made and anyone who can not see that is nuts, or just plain sick! 

Having followed this topic for several days I have to aask. How can anyone that has ever been to the RRMP and seen the G there not love this locomotive and admire it accomplishments for its time nothing could beat it or even touch it for performance, style, grace and beauty. And I have never seen one under power except my Lionel 2332 and now my MTH Scale versions. cant have enough G's.

MARIO, THOSE WEST COST GUYS CANNOT HELP IT,THEY ARE JEALOUS!!! SUN BAKED THEIR BRAINS. AND THEY SMOKE THOSE FUNNY CIGARETTES.

I know John, I know. They probably serve THUNDER BIRD wine at Thanksgiving dinner.

Hey John P,

Don't forget that California's existing population is the way it is because the majority of the population came from or are descendants of people from other states, yourself included at one point, buddy. 

Not to get too political, but I find THAT pretty hard to believe. I've heard lately that California is more than 50% Hispanic, and I sure don't think those folks immigrated from the Eastern U.S.!

I like several weird engines:  I used to take the train from Stamford to Fairfield CT to high school during the early 70s.  While waiting on the platform for my MU local ride, I would see the faded NH EP-5s, and FL-9s, as well as the Black PC GG-1s running up and down the center rail.

For me, those engines are nostalgic from my youth, and I love them in that context. 

I was president of my high school Model RR club in 1975!! it is that engine that started emptying my bank account!!!

Well, obviously they are rapidly taking California BACK.

"it was 100% before 1845"

the 50+ native american tribes living in California at that time might take issue with that statement. 

Some might, but many have their blood lines intermixed in the homogenized terms of "Hispanic, Mestizo, Indigenous", etc.  Obviously the first term connotes 'of or relating to Spain', so not surprisingly European culture wins out euphemistically, but not genetically...as the Spanish gene base (of European Spain) is actually far less represented in the total population....

BUT, before this thread gets locked for getting way off track, I'll urge a back to the topic at hand, the GG1 because I find this thread very interesting, especially from the perspective of those who grew up seeing this monster run...

I'll take a stab at what might give some a less than idealized sense of beauty when one looks at the GG1 for the first time (especially in a model form) is the 'symmetry'.

Typically modes of transportation have a more asymmetrical tapering look to them, rockets, plans, cars, boats, trains, etc...there's usually a seemingly apparent front and back that convey motion...as a previous post alluded...looks like it's taking flight even while standing still.

However, the dual directional look of the GG1 leaves the brain a little perplexed, especially when juxtaposed to other methods of transportation...but take a picture like Christopher2035 posted, and it's hard to not see the beauty in the lines, flow and design and leading edge of that particular angle....

That nose coming at you at 100mph would imbues a sense of power that in itself is elegant.  However take an approx 1:48 reduced size model from the side, and to the first-time or infrequent viewer of this model of transportation, and it might make their mind go, "huh?".

So the beauty or apparent lack of it for some in this case may just represent a divergence from the norm and be contrary to expectations of the mind.

Train philosophy...gotta love it

Too bad Amtrak couldn't come up with a better paint scheme for the GG1:

Rusty

I agree that you should see this one before deciding. I love it, although the only ones I rode behind were the dirty, flat black, Penn Central ones in the mid '60s. I own 2 in "O"(Lionel TMCC and Williams), and one each in "HO"(display only) and "N"(running KATO).

Any debate that John Korling posts into 7 times is bound to be a long one.

The GG1's are big and powerful, rivaling most of the articulates. Passenger vs. heavy freight service separates many comparisons. Big and powerful. 

I never thought much of the models,but when I we saw the one in the Strasburg museum I was in awe. It suggests and looks like it is moving even when it is standing still. The art deco design is beautiful compared to the boxy, function designs of the 1920s. I notice this also with other things manufactured in that era ,such as furniture,appliances,radios etc. I think art deco was produced some of the most beautiful designs ever.

The design may look dated to some but not to me. I think looking at the real thing says a lot about how America was at the time,with a proud manufacturing base and work ethic. Something it lacks today.

Styles and what is beauty changes with time. Just look at fashions in old movies of different eras and observe the surroundings,such as clothing, houses,automobiles and clothing. Marilyn Monroe,Jane Russell,Sophia Loren would probably be considered too fat today to be movie stars.  Doris Day type movies would be too corny to be made today,but they are still fun to watch. I still miss cabooses on trains. When I was 14 I used to cross the tracks, walking on my way to work every day and always waved to the engineer and guys in the caboose. Times have changed,I dont think the younger generation will ever know what America was like.

Dale H

There was some earlier comment about the power that the GG-1's developed when compared to contemporary steam engines.  And, of course, they were used in both freight and high-speed passenger service. The GG-1 certainly is a large machine.  But just give consideration to the original classification name:  the "G" class locomotives in the Pennsy rosters were Ten-Wheeler steam engines.  Since the wheel arrangement for these electrics were 2-C+C-2, or, according to the Whyte classification; 4-6-0 + 0-6-4, the engines were thought of as two Ten Wheelers coupled back to back, hence the classification GG (and 1 being the first of this design on the railroad.)

The GG-1's were certainly a lot more powerful than two little Ten Wheelers!  But it's still an interesting comparison.

Paul Fischer

All right, Jack (Hot Water) You got me, I failed to qualify the statement by saying: "the majority of California's NON-HISPANIC people came from or are descendants of people from other states.

Is that better?

Doesn't change the fact that the GG1 is about as attractive as a road accident. 

And sorry to Joe Hohmann that I didn't meet his prediction. 

Thank you, Paul. I didn't know that!

Gilly

I thought nobody noticed my post on the world's ugliest mechanical contrivance - but somebody did, and posted a photo:

https://ogrforum.com/t...-s-ugliest-trainset?

All agree that it is ugly.  Seems like if we were taking a vote, the GG1 might be voted the worlds most beautiful?

As a boy, I had lots of trains to look over in my Grandpas basement the day he asked me what my favorite was. I decided the GG1 was my favorite due to the fact it...

1- was an electric locomotive with catenary.

2- had styling, it was not just another "box". Brutish, yet elegant.

3- had one of the prettiest paint jobs on a loco. The elegance, and luxury expressed in such a simple paint job! It cant be beat. (The early "black" Lionel did have stripes, poor ones, but they were there when new. They are "black" because when the color ratios of black and green in the paint were reversed. You could see green in the black under bright light.)

The fondness for the GG1 model loco grew as I got to run one on my birthday when old enough. It was as strong as the FM Trainmasters(and not a "box") Then, over time, I learned more of its prototypical prowess, and was amazed at its overall longevity. I had always planned to graduate, work, and save over the summer, travel a bit, and go for a ride behind one. I didn't know of the plans to get rid of them, and they were retired that fall.(I went to the Fl. Keys instead) So for me the GG1 is also a childhood dream that got away. Riding a modern bullet train would mildly scratch my itch, but it would only be a consolation prize, being behind a GG1 would have been the "gold".

As a stand alone, or with freight I prefer the Brunswick. But a Tuscan GG1 in front of a matching "Fleet of Modernism", brings art deco tears to my eyes.