After looking over one of my Gevo 3 diesel motor switchers I was thinking those small diesel may fit into the shell of a GG1 with a bit of work I think it could be done. there is a lot of room in there. They can exhaust them up into the center cab. It is one way to get one of the old girls moving again. What do you think? or is my meds to strong?
John
Replies sorted oldest to newest
or is my meds to strong?
John
Maybe not strong enough.
Tyco beat you to it by about 30 years 
:
Rusty
John,
What drugs are you taking? Please step away and go play with your model trains Lol.
You really miss Matt eh!
John,
What drugs are you taking? Please step away and go play with your model trains Lol.
You really miss Matt eh!
Ya, I will see him and some of the boys at York, it has been a while, a lot of lies to swap.
After looking over one of my Gevo 3 diesel motor switchers I was thinking those small diesel may fit into the shell of a real GG1 with a bit of work I think it could be done. there is a lot of room in there. They can exhaust them up into the center cab. It is one way to get one of the old girls moving again. What do you think? or is my meds to strong?
John
Tyco beat you to it by about 30 years :
Rusty
A real GG1, what is the wheel arrangement on those Tycos?
Tyco beat you to it by about 30 years :
Rusty
A real GG1, what is the wheel arrangement on those Tycos?
C-C.
They were so fast, the pantographs were retained as air spoilers... (I have a certain bridge in Brooklyn for sale if you're interested...)
Rusty
They were so fast, the pantographs were retained as air spoilers... (I have a certain bridge in Brooklyn for sale if you're interested...)
Rusty
And derailed if you sneezed in their direction
Gutting one the point it might be pulled around easily as a "dummy" hiding another purpose like tools, or a galley, a rolling museum room etc, might be an idea.
I'm torn between "it wouldn't be the same without the juice", and wanting to see one move. A big petroleum engine could end up a worse sacrilege than just gutting.
John
I saw a interesting article, probably posted here on the forum, about trying to bring one back.
Bottom line was the traction motors were an open type and can't sit around without causing major issues. I believe it was only 12 months max. As a result if you could create a diesel electric generating system inside you still were faced with a major traction motor rebuild. As a result it became cost prohibitive. I believe someone asked about just dropping a modern electrical system in one.
The feasibility study was an excellent report and cured me of thinking someone could or would try it.
Jamie
Plus, I seem to recall most, if not all of the survivors have some frame crack issues.
I was inside IRM's GG1 years ago, even without the transformer, I don't recall it being that roomy inside. There's all sorts of steelwork inside and feels like you're in a submarine.
Rusty
Fixing a GEE today would be absolutely over the top in $$$$. There are a number of ways it could be done...and they're all expensive in the extreme. Same general ballpark as rebuilding UP #18 at IRM. We're talking lots more than UP 4014, or even PRR 5550! You better plan on winning the Power Ball, and holding ALL the winning tickets !
If my memory serves, the huge motors in GG1 locomotives are/were AC motors.
Those Tyco GG1's were actually prototypical. Following the Penn Central acquisition of New Haven, PC converted them to dual power in order to handle those drawbridges in Connecticut that don't have catenary.
[PS: Check the date of this message.]
Besides frame crack issues, aren't there also truck frame crack problems. But I'd really like to see one run...
Before you get too excited over all the new guts you're going to have to engineer and install in that carbody, yes.....all the frame and truck fatigue issues will have to be dealt with. In short, you'll be magna-fluxing and repairing the whole chooch from the waist down. All new rotating gear too. Think you'll see 1361 run before all this. Then again, mebby not !
If my memory serves, the huge motors in GG1 locomotives are/were AC motors.
I thought it was ok to run ac train motors on dc
But...but....but, I ran my Lionel GG-1 with a car battery once?
They began printing "remove plastic" on frozen pizza just for people that listen to me ok
.
But power of some kind would likely end up behind it in box cars if it where to ever come to be. I thought there were already once a couple of shop cars of some type to get them short distances in a certain yard, or shop.
I'm not an expert, here's what I think I might know, hearsay....
Years ago while on another site, I was posting about modifying a few guide holes on GG-1s to get around 0-27 better. This doesn't change the coupler though. So on Passenger trains I needed an articulated coupler receiver, that could swing wide & still not bind. A matching, tuscan caboose was added till an express boxcar I like, was found.
Anyhow, one guy replies about my pants being down
, and "few know about those cars" "But you wont get far with your pants down, or be able to pull a train" came out of him.
I thought it was a joke, but he insisted little switchers had trouble with heavy, dead GG-s moving sometimes, and they boost-jumped them on occasion. (Maybe it was power for braking to stop?)
They had to "jump" to get a shoe up on occasion for sure, but that's a separated system (he also showed photo variations of paint, steam heat setup, water & fuel fillers (for heat), cabins, antenna, controls, repairs, shop work (in shop they "jumped" them from above, using long hand poles to place wire on the shoe). Unfortunately he has passed away, links too, and I do not have copies anymore. Reach for the salt.
Hot Water posted:Originally Posted by GCRailways:The fantasy idea I had would be to make a generator/battery car and hook up appropriate-sized leads to the pantograph. In essence, a tender for an electric locomotive!If my memory serves, the huge motors in GG1 locomotives are/were AC motors.
I realize this post is ancient history, but in case anyone is searching for GG1 topics like i did, the GG1 had series wound universal traction motors capable of operating on DC as well as low frequency AC current.
The GG1 was designed only to operate from 11,000 Volt 25 cycle AC however the New Haven's passenger electrics (EP-3, EP-4, etc.), which used the same class of motors, had controls and circuitry to allow them to operate between Woodlawn Junction and Grand Central Terminal on the New York Central's DC third rail.
BTW, I'm not justifying the idea of rebuilding a GG1 as a diesel. That's really out there.
Let the GG1's rest in peace as static display items. Installing an inadequate motor just to putt-putt around with, is akin to using a b*st*rd tender drive to push around a dead steam locomotive.
Modern electronics could adapt a GG1 to operate with its original traction motors from the present NEC electrification, but who has money to custom-engineer that? And could it get track time?
Oh, now I realize the original post was over a year ago ...
How about a Funny Car? You know, a GG1 Fiberglass body on new motive power chassis. That would be cool!
(Might be going to same Doctor as John) 
With all the 'that will never happen' things in RR preservation that later happened anyway, I wouldn't rule out a GG1 rolling on it's own someday.
Just not someday soon.
p51 posted:With all the 'that will never happen' things in RR preservation that later happened anyway, I wouldn't rule out a GG1 rolling on it's own someday.
Just not someday soon.
So, all the frame cracks and issues don't matter?
Hot Water posted:p51 posted:With all the 'that will never happen' things in RR preservation that later happened anyway, I wouldn't rule out a GG1 rolling on it's own someday.
Just not someday soon.
So, all the frame cracks and issues don't matter?
Of course they matter, but I wouldn't rule it out. Honestly it may be simmpler than steam loco revival. The welds aren't pressure parts, and there are several examples out there of basically standardized parts. Unlike steam locomotives where there is only one surviving example, there are probably a dozen or more GG1's out there to look at. Additionally, once you get through the structural items, electric locomotive equipment is in current production. once the basic engineering and part selection is completed, you can install actual new equipment, under warranty even. Honestly to me the biggest issue is finding a place to run it once you are done.
Hot Water posted:p51 posted:With all the 'that will never happen' things in RR preservation that later happened anyway, I wouldn't rule out a GG1 rolling on it's own someday.
Just not someday soon.
So, all the frame cracks and issues don't matter?
1218 had a bunch of similar issues with the cylinders and it didn't stop the NS steam team, did it?
To say that it's completely impossible to ever run something, barring any possible outcome in the future, is just silly. Sure, I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for a running GG1 and I'll agree it's extremely unlikely. But to me, once that British group built a new 4-6-2 from scratch, all bets are off for what we might see in the (maybe distant) future.
p51 posted:Hot Water posted:p51 posted:With all the 'that will never happen' things in RR preservation that later happened anyway, I wouldn't rule out a GG1 rolling on it's own someday.
Just not someday soon.
So, all the frame cracks and issues don't matter?
1218 had a bunch of similar issues with the cylinders and it didn't stop the NS steam team, did it?
Cylinders are a LOT different than repairing structural frame problems.
To say that it's completely impossible to ever run something, barring any possible outcome in the future, is just silly. Sure, I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for a running GG1 and I'll agree it's extremely unlikely. But to me, once that British group built a new 4-6-2 from scratch, all bets are off for what we might see in the (maybe distant) future.
Well, the UP E units have GP38-2 "guts" under the carbody.
So it IS posible with a G. But the G's also had equipment on board which had cancer causing agents in their makeup?
Dominic Mazoch posted:Well, the UP E units have GP38-2 "guts" under the carbody.
The E's have a lot usable more room inside, plus TWO prime movers were replaced with ONE.
Being inside a GG1 is like being inside a submarine, except the sub is roomier.
Rusty
Repower a FB or PB unit and turn the GG into a slug. Expensive, impractical, and generally "wrong" on many dimensions. While they're at it, how about some goofy strobing LEDS in the frame?
Gilly@N&W posted:Repower a FB or PB unit and turn the GG into a slug. Expensive, impractical, and generally "wrong" on many dimensions. While they're at it, how about some goofy strobing LEDS in the frame?
Or, better yet: On the pantographs...
Rusty
What a bunch of kill joy party poppers, where is your American ingenuity spirit, Well I am going to email Mr. Trump to see if he will give us a helping hand and get one going, right after I take my meds.
I am betting a completely refurbished GG1 would hold its own keeping the current schedule on the NEC. If one was rebuilt back to nearly new standards, with modern electrical gear and safety items, one could just stick it into the mix of power on the NEC. I remember an article, long ago in Trains magazine about the era where the G competed with the AEM7 (toasters) and the G spanked it hard. And that was with a tired G, imagine one in top form! I doubt we will ever see one move under its own power, but then never say never. Many said we would never see a Big Boy run again under steam, but alas we will in a few years and its not being done by a museum. I am keeping my fingers crossed more for 1361 to rise from the ashes and cluster f--- they have made of that poor engine. Mike
I read that the new Siemens ACS 64 cost 6.4 million each. Any of you electrical engineers out there willing to give a guess what it would take to refurbish a GG1? Boy I love to see one pull into Union station DC.
Blind guess for starting a conversation... probably 2-3x the cost of the Siemens ACS.
If someone is that serious, it would probably be better to start with a set of blue prints and produce a continuation/replica of a GG1. The GG1 was always just an electric. I do stand on my comment that adding a diesel genset would be totally impractical. Run it either off the catenary, or turn it into a slug.
Rusty they'd need to clear it with Lionel first, but pantograph LEDs making the little simulated sparkies would be unique. Raise the pantograph to feed it of an imaginary catenary.
Sometime ago I read an article about restoring or building a new GG1. I don't remember the details but the opinion was that we didn't have the manufacturing capability any more to do it. If you throw enough $$ at anything(except government) it can be done-except for Altoonas's K4. They threw $$ at it and got nada!!
Dominic Mazoch posted:But the G's also had equipment on board which had cancer causing agents in their makeup?
Yes, sealed up in the transformers I think.
Why not tow one on a railway up to the top of a very high mountain, and let it coast down the track?
GG-1 transformers were filled with oil. This permitted cooling of the transformers. The oil contained PCB. Yes, it's bad stuff. HOWEVER, if you're operating an electric locomotive and the oil drains out of the transformers, you've got a problem a whole lot bigger than PCBs. With the resulting explosion/fire, you'll most likely not live long enough to get cancer. As long as the oil stays where it is supposed to be, you're OK.
Removal/disposal of the transformers is when the real exposure risk occurs. Improper handling of oil containing PCBs is where there have been serious environmental issues in the past. Since it is in liquid form (oil) it can be incinerated.
There are still oil filled transformers, and yes they are now PCB free.
Arthur, that truly is out-of-the box thinking. Maybe push it over the hump at Horseshoe Curve. Add batteries, a PS-3 board, speakers, and you can have sound effects to go along with it.
If interested in a tourist or heritage moving display a gutted GG1 with a diesel electric prime mover disguised as a baggage car pusher would be the cheapest way. The power car could also push rolling display engines of other types including steam.
I know, "not the real thing", but a low cost low maintenance way folks could see a resemblance of historical RR action.
zhyachts posted:If interested in a tourist or heritage moving display a gutted GG1 with a diesel electric prime mover disguised as a baggage car pusher would be the cheapest way. The power car could also push rolling display engines of other types including steam.
I know, "not the real thing", but a low cost low maintenance way folks could see a resemblance of historical RR action.
Would I pay to see a GG-1 move . Heck, pull it to me dead using steam (that outlived it )
Do I Really want to ride behind a GG-1 with a diesel in it? 
.. Well, cheap enough maybe...but only if I'm not going far to do it, and none of my friends will see me, and just once 
. The motors need to be the same if that's done
Would I pay more to ride behind a GG-1 with a diesel calf that could electrically power a GG-1? Travel far to do it? (if able
)
Would it have to be the same motor on the truck? Not if can't be helped
Does it have to be the same basic truck/axle new or old? YEP (or real close)
Do I expect high speed, or distance? Not really. A short run would be enough to get me to go there too... If the cost was right for the distance, and we get up to at least 35-40mph.
You want to impress me, put a pair of turbine generators in one 
Aw, heck I bet "Midnightwrecking" could figure it all out
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
