GG1's in modern excursion service

I remember when EMD was delivering the new AEM7 electric locomotives to Amtrak, I had more than one or two Field Engineers assigned to Amtrak at Wilmington, DE. I even made a number of trips there myself to ride and meet with various Amtrak personnel. 

1) The single biggest "worry" that the former PRR folks had concerning the GG1 locomotives was the constant cracking of their under frames! They could not get the new AEM7 units in service fast enough.

2) Concerning the transformers in the GG1s, yes they required 25 HZ 12,500 volt AC power. The AEM7 was designed for either 25 HZ, or 60 HZ, from 12,500 volts all the way to 25,000 volts. Plus, the GG1 transformers were all filled with PCB cooling oil.

If, a BIG if, you restored a GG1, where would you run it ??  The Northeast corridor ? I doubt it. The NS main line between Philly & Harrisburg ??  You would have to build a catanery to even test the thing. I read a long time ago an article about getting one running and ther cracked frames would need replaced and in this present day and age we don't have the ability any more to cast them. Their opinion, not mine. I love the looks of the GG1 but I don't think one will ever run again.

$$$$$$$= anything is possible. Oh! what fun! 

What was the power system specs when GG1 #4935 was returned to service May, 1977 after FOGG restored it to original Pennsy livery?  And until retired in 1983?

PRRronbh posted:

What was the power system specs

The same as it always was, 25 cycle 12.5kV AC.

Wouldn't a transformer built to perform at 25Hz be capable of running at 60Hz, but the 60Hz transformer would overheat running 25Hz ?

I believe that only the New Haven was changed to 60 hertz.  The conversion was not that successful and with modern solid state conversion equipment, the Pennsylvania was left at 25 hertz.  The GG1 transformer included the tap changer contactors, so when the transformers were removed, they also lost their switch group.  That would make a modern replacement much more difficult to acquire. 

fisch330 posted:

The northeast corridor was converted to 60 cycle about the same time as the GG1's were retired.  I've heard that the transformers that were originally in the "G's" would not work with 60 cycle and therefore not compatible with modern day technology.

     Actually, only the New Haven (Metro-North, ex-NYNH&H) and Hell-Gate (Amtrak, ex-PRR) lines were converted to 60 cycle. It proved to be a disaster as major parts of the infrastructure had to be rebuilt to handle 60 cycle current. Fault-detection circuits built for 25 cycle, for example, registered erroneous faults at 60 cycle. Though the Boston electrification was later built as 60 cycle, plans to convert the rest of the 25 cycle system were shelved.

This isn't like replacing a boiler on a steam locomotive, how tough would it be to swap out all the electrical stuff for a GG-1, for parts that would work on a modern overhead?

Like changing out engines in a large truck or airplane? Or am I missing something in that regard?

As for the frame cracking, now that's a legit issue that I didn't know that until a while back. Beats me how realistic that'd be to fix that as I have no idea how bad the cracking was. I do know, though, that some steam locomotives had frame cracking issues that got fixed, but I have no clue how much work would go into that...

There's also the matter of shoehorning all that complex modern electrical gear inside the GG1's body.  For it's size, there's really not a lot of contiguous space inside a GG1.  Being inside a GG1 is like standing on a girder bridge built inside of a submarine.

Rusty

Safe Harbor Dam on the Susquehanna River still had two 25 cycle generators and a 60 cycle to 25 cycle frequency convertor in service providing power to the Northeast Corridor a couple of years ago when I was doing work in that plant.

Joe

Is 12.5 Hz used anywhere in the US?

Back in the early 60's, PRR ran a train between DC & NYC--I seem to recall it being called the Keystone--that had low level cars, the window sills being close to platform level, with a head end car that included a diesel engine (or sounded like it).

RJR posted:

Is 12.5 Hz used anywhere in the US?

Don't you mean 25HZ at 12.5 thousand volts? Must admit that I've never heard of "12.5 Hz".

Back in the early 60's, PRR ran a train between DC & NYC--I seem to recall it being called the Keystone--that had low level cars, the window sills being close to platform level, with a head end car that included a diesel engine (or sounded like it).

No, I don't.  645's post above uses the term "12.5Hz."  He may have meant volts, but I googled 12.5 Hz power and learned some RRs in Europe have used it, as well as 16-2/3 Hz.  See:

https://www.google.com/search?...8#q=12.5+hz+ac+power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ectric_rail_traction

So, do what we modelers do when the manufacturers don't make what we want -- scratch-build or kit-bash!

Take an original frame, dig a big hole in the sand, set the frame in the hole, make the impression, cast a new frame, make new axles/wheels w/o tires, install modern motors, and put all the electronics in a tender, disguised as a baggage car. Lash them up with a big tether. Voila!

It will cost a bundle, but looking at the number of times this has been discussed, over that last 30 years, if everyone who wants to see it done donates a few thousand bucks, we might just be able to do it.  I'm happy to hold the funds until we get enough to start the project.

Rusty Traque posted:

There's also the matter of shoehorning all that complex modern electrical gear inside the GG1's body.  For it's size, there's really not a lot of contiguous space inside a GG1.  Being inside a GG1 is like standing on a girder bridge built inside of a submarine.

Thanks for the info. While I've been alongside several GG1s over the years, I've never gotten inside of one. If I had, I'm sure I would have already understood the crushing challenges to getting one running again someday.

Rusty,P51:  Most newer electronics are smaller and lighter than the earlier designs from the '30's.  It would seem to me that modern replacements for switch gear, transformers, rectifiers, etc. would actually be smaller than the original.  So, for that reason, I would think that the GG1's body would be large enough so as accommodate newly designed items that could be used to update the engines.

I was not aware that the NE Corridor had NOT changed to 60 hz power and was still using 25 hz.  Shouldn't make much of a difference to a modern, updated GG1, if such a project could be initiated.   I'm not an engineer nor do I even live in the Eastern states, so I couldn't make any kind of evaluation myself, but I would think that there are some people in a position to do such a study.  

Like someone pointed out, if a Big Boy could be returned to service, certainly a GG1 could also be done.  As to where it could be run, understand that at least four or five separate entities all use the NE corridor.  Just as the Ft Wayne group ran a successful series of trips out of Chicago, out to Fox Lake and Janesville via Metra, I would think that any of a number of these operators would be amenable to operating non-scheduled fan trips.  After all  they should produce a decent profit for the RR.

Where there's a will, there's a way!

Paul Fischer

fisch330 posted:

Rusty,P51:  Most newer electronics are smaller and lighter than the earlier designs from the '30's.  It would seem to me that modern replacements for switch gear, transformers, rectifiers, etc. would actually be smaller than the original.  So, for that reason, I would think that the GG1's body would be large enough so as accommodate newly designed items that could be used to update the engines.

Paul Fischer

You still have to provide for adequate access to all electrical components for ventilation, maintenance, repair and/or replacement.  All that stuff is located in the center of modern electric locomotives in a carbody that is longer than the space between the cabs of a GG1.

I found these other Kalmbach GG1 drawings courtesy of Google:

Granted, you'd gain some space with the elimination of the steam generator, but the drawings can make the interior space deceptively larger than it actually is.

Any you'd still have to leave all that girder work in place for structural integrity.

Rusty

Anything is possible with the right amount of funding.  With modern machining and welding technology a new frame could be made.  As far as the electronics and electrical components those could be made to fit also. 

If bringing a locomotive back into service would require the replacement of all the control systems and motors, what is the point? If these things are replaced, is it still an historic GG-1?

It seems wildly impractical to rebuild a GG1 to operating condition. The original machine is totally obsolete mechanically and electrically. The electrical infrastructure that supported its operation has been completely changed to different modern standards.

It would take tons of money and years of dedicated work to rework a GG1 into a machine that could emulate the original in terms of high-speed passenger service. It would be "original" only with the outer appearance.

Where would it operate? How much enthusiast support would there be on a sustained basis? Would it have any realistic chance of generating significant revenue to help cover its costs? There are already lots of struggling railroad restoration projects around the country. There are neglected GG1's that can't find support even for cosmetic restorations.

I suppose it might have as much chance as the project to restore a Pennsy T1 locomotive. How many people will throw money into that pipe dream?

The T1 trust

Better to remember them as they were. We can't bring back all of these things from the past.

 photo from Denver library collection

C W Burfle posted:

If bringing a locomotive back into service would require the replacement of all the control systems and motors, what is the point? If these things are replaced, is it still an historic GG-1?

About as historic as UP's E9's, which are essentially GP38-2's in an E9 carbody.

Rusty

Ace, I have a different view. The track infrastructure is better than when the G's ran on the (now) NEC (with the exception of Portal Draw). A rebuilt G with modern equipment would generate plenty of excitement and could recoup its cost if in regular service. Whoever takes on a GG1 rebuild project surely has a huge task on their hands, and it's unknown whether the frames could be strengthened to prevent their continued cracking.

As evidenced by what replaced them, smaller bodied high powered locomotives, it surely would not be a public entity that did the work.

A pipe dream? Probably. Impossible? No.

Simply put, if the GG1's would have been economical to rebuild/upgrade, it would have been done.  They were already on borrowed time when they were retired.

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:

Simply put, if the GG1's would have been economical to rebuild/upgrade, it would have been done.  They were already on borrowed time when they were retired.

Rusty

Agreed. As much as I like GG1's, they were definitely on borrowed time.

So, why couldn't someone with the right money and motivation simply build a new GG-1? The carbody wouldn't be too tough but the frame and trucks would be.

Then you could stuff whatever running gear you wanted into it.

Granted, there's no sane reason to do this, as a GG-1 even among train fans has a highly limited appeal. I know plenty of die-hard railfans who wouldn't cross town to see a real GG-1 running let alone a replica of one.

But once the Brit group built a brand-new 4-6-2 for mainline operation, all bets were then off in regard to what was truly impossible or not. None of you can say that compared to the A-1 steam trust project, a new GG-1 would be even remotely as tough to build...

A few or more yeas ago when AMTRAK was discussing a new engine someone asked why they didn't just build NEW GG1s. The answer  was that we no longer have the manufacturing capability to replicate them no matter how much it cost. Sad but true.  One point that hasn't been brought up(I don't think) is where would you test it ?? And what RR CEO in his right mind would allow such a monster on his electrified track ??

Rusty Traque posted:

Simply put, if the GG1's would have been economical to rebuild/upgrade, it would have been done.  They were already on borrowed time when they were retired.

Rusty

Just what we need,,,,,,,reality in the face of mis-information.

Some of this talk reminds me of the foamer kid who comes out to our railroad and runs his mouth non-stop about "How cool would it be to dual-gauge the entire railroad?" "How cool would it be to see if we could run the 765 on our (4-mile) railroad?" "How cool would it be if we could build a wye at one end of the line, and a 100 foot turntable at the other end?" "How cool would it be..."

C W Burfle posted:

If bringing a locomotive back into service would require the replacement of all the control systems and motors, what is the point? If these things are replaced, is it still an historic GG-1?

Like Harry Anderson said one night on the Johnny Carson show: 

There are "historic" wooden ship in my area.  Every year they end up in dry-dock to replace some of the rotting wood.  Eventually all the wood is replaced, just not all at once.  The people that run these enterprises will tell you that as long as their is a piece left in place for a couple years, it's still considered historic.

I'm not sure I understand why GG1s cannot run on present day track and catenary.  The track is certainly an improvement over the track Gs first ran on.  And has the catenary been changed since 1983 ?  

Is there a reason the GG1's got frame cracks?  Bad metal?  Running on bad tracks?  Design flaw?  And when did the cracks start?

Another example is the Barque ELISSA in Galveston.  Built as a Barque in the 1800's.  Converted during her life to various configurations. Was almost scrap metal in Greece.  Converted back to a sailing Barque in the 1980's by Galveston Historical Foundation.

Castings aren't as strong as forgings and metal fatigue created by bad track and maintenance all helped. 

  How did they last for 50 years with all the cracks ?  I loved watching them in the Sunnyside Yard in my teen years.

How did they last for 50 years with all the cracks ?  I loved watching them in the Sunnyside Yard in my teen years.

As I understand the issue, they weren't cracked for their entire life. The cracks developed over time, caused by stress and age.

I guess they were inspected regularly, and taken out of service for repair when cracking was discovered. Someone more familiar with PRR maintenance practices would have to confirm.

Dominic Mazoch posted:

Is there a reason the GG1's got frame cracks?  Bad metal?  Running on bad tracks?  Design flaw?  And when did the cracks start?

Maybe this'll help understand why the G's became fatigued.

 After 25 yrs of service #4800  logged 2,795,577 miles.

By 1976 a full three quarters of the G's were still on the roster, at ages ranging from 33 to 42 yrs old.

Trussman posted:

Dominic Mazoch posted:

Is there a reason the GG1's got frame cracks?  Bad metal?  Running on bad tracks?  Design flaw?  And when did the cracks start?

Maybe this'll help understand why the G's became fatigued.

 After 25 yrs of service #4800  logged 2,795,577 miles.

By 1976 a full three quarters of the G's were still on the roster, at ages ranging from 33 to 42 yrs old.

 

Lots of EMD "E Units" had far more accrued total mileage than THAT, in more years of service. One example is Atlantic Coast Line E3A #501, which services at the North Carolina Transportation Museum, Spencer, NC. She had accrued over 6,200,000 miles by the time she was removed from service in about 1972 (about 33 years of active service on the ACL). The EMC/EMD passenger truck frames didn't crack, either.