My look at the new Lionel GG-1.

Thanks Marty.  I ordered 4800 "old rivets" and the Amtrak version.  Which version did you get to see?

I am excited.  My first GG1s.  

Ben 

I will throw out a pix in the morning.   At Charles Ro, he has them all.  I talked to Chucky tonight and he said they are selling big and he has only a small amount left.

Marty, your layout would be a NATURAL for one of these.  Can't wait to see pics or a video with the flashing LED under the catenary. 

David

David,  I do not have one at this point.  My friend does not want me to run his under the wire.  I still have 16 MTH GG-1 locomotives all set up to run off the pans.

Thanks MARTY for the report.  All who bought these  Enjoy!!!!

Marty, Thank you for the compliments! A positive review from you means a lot to all of us here at Lionel as I'm sure it does to everyone here on the forum. You're reputation and the respect we have for your opinions is well earned.

Thank you also for your post on a separate thread concerning opening up one of these beasts. Your words of wisdom are well spoken. While it may not look it, this is one of the more complicated models we've produced. In many ways, the assembly on this locomotive was more difficult than the Big Boy. These models were tested a minimum of 11 times during the assembly process to ensure everything was working properly. There is a lot stuffed into that shell and it is very easy to pinch a wire, jam the pantograph mechanism, miss an insulator, etc. The lack of space is really an issue. Obviously our goal is that every locomotive runs perfectly for you all when you receive it and for years to come. But when things go wrong, we really do recommend that people send these to our service center or qualified repair techs such as yourself to fix the problem if you're not confident in your own abilities. 

I do want to acknowledge that the success on this build was a true team effort at Lionel. A lot of long days and nights were spent in North Carolina, Michigan, California and China to make this happen. You all know some of the key players from their posts here, there are many others you've not had the privilege to meet. So from all of us to all of you, we hope you enjoy your trains, GG1s and all, and have a merry Christmas and happy new year. Just wait till you see some of the good things we have planned for 2017...

I didn't buy one but sounds like another winner from Lionel! 

To all who picked one up, enjoy and Merry Christmas! 

Marty, thank you for your review.

Ryan, thank you and your team for sweating all the details to make Lionel scale models that truly earn the term "legendary."

Peter Gentieu

Wow, Mine is do in  Friday and I am Excited...My dealer in Evansville sent me notification and when he receives it, he will check it out....I will be very happy to run this nice VL Engine and My imagination will be satisfactory for the Catenary....Thank You Marty for the good reviews and kind words. Lionel is truly a great Leading Manufacturer of Fun to Run O Gauge products.....I will be picking mine up mid January 2017....Merry Christmas.....

Marty,

I was told by a Lionel tech at the Vision GG-1 introduction that because of the LED pantographs, the GG-1 cannot run powered by wire. Is that so?

Eliot

Ryan, it's nice to know that Lionel has solid quality standards.  Don't want to jinx things, but every Lionel locomotive we've bought has given us reliable service. Sounds like this one is also a winner.  

You say you have much planned for 2017, and that's good news. For what it's worth - and this is not a criticism - while iconic, the GG1 is a "particular" kind of engine.  Some of us, who feel  it doesn't look correct without a cat system didn't buy it and, in a sense, got "left out" of potentially adding another great Vision product to our pikes. My twin boys and I entered the hobby a few years ago and after acquiring our first Vision locomotive, began targeting them, as we love the operating features.  So, when the only Vision offering in a given year sits more in a niche interest area, it's a let down. Guess what I'm saying is, I hope the plan for 2017 is to bring forth Vision products that have a more widespread appeal.   And really looking forward to the day the Lionel catalogue announces a big steamer that incorporates all the smoke effects of the Vision Challenger as well as steam chest.  

Happy holiday to everyone. 

Peter

Eliot, I already have it figured out.   They put the LED below the contact shoes.   That is the right way to do it.  I have a small bit of experience with catenary and pantographs.  We can have this conversation sometime.  I do not want to get into any of this now as I am buried with work.  

I'm pretty darn sure I read in a previous thread about this engine that this one does not have operating pantagraphs.  Check the other two posts.  It's there somewhere.  

Of course it has operating pantographs.  They work well because they were designed well.  We know the answer so no need to look for the post.  No doubt someone may have posted that.  Many things get posted but the content is not always accurate.  

Marty,

   Merry Christmas buddy, if you ever get your own and can run it under your Cantenary  big wires, I would sure like to see a video of her running.   I could just see your face when he said he did not want the Pantagraphs scraped.  Pure torture, no doubt about that!  I did purchase (Rocky Mountain) David's TMCC Scale version of the Brunswick Green GG1, does the new Legacy GG1 do anything my TMCC version does not do.  I went into shock when I saw the prices on these new GG1's when released, going to be a while before I pick one up, like you I have a few of them already.  The TMCC Scale version is way cool the Legacy must really be something!

PCRR/Dave

I do have 16 MTH scale GG-1s wired for overhead operation.  No rollers on any of them.

Powering the GG1 or any electric loco via overhead catenary got me thinking, is there any reason why one would do this under the current operating environment we have (TMCC/DCS)?

From my viewpoint, I see operation as being more reliable via the rails (no or very little fluctuation on the wheels and rail) whereas the pantograph will be going up and down to some degree every few feet.

Gravity of the train sitting on the rails verses the spring tension to keep the pantograph in contact with the overhead wire is also not as reliable.

Detailing, now that power can come through the track with multiple trains on the track you can build a scale centenary system and not have to worry about “overbuilding” to ensure reliable operation.

If running in a modular environment, having the catenary powered would also add greatly to the complexity and reliability of the system as you assemble/disassemble the module for shows etc.

Lastly, by running via powered rails there can be tunnels/storage areas/unseen areas that you do not have to worry about building and maintaining the catenary thus, saving time and money.

I do understand why someone like Marty had to originally use overhead power to run multiple trains, but for someone starting new construction or someone that already has a layout constructed and wants to add catenary, it seems to make sense to make it look good, but keep the power pick-up on the rails.

Charlie

I am currently in the process of installing scale catenary. The GG-1's will run almost prototypically. Power will appear to come from the wire. The rails will actually supply it. My GG-1's have resided on shelves for years as I could not bear to see them run under air. They look ridiculous under air, like track with nothing under it.

Eliot, you have the talent to make it operational.  Go for it.  Almost only counts in horsehoes and hand grenades.

Marty, I think you misunderstood my intent of my observation, and yes, I do have experience with catenary, but in HO not O.

I know you (anyone, CAN make catenary to work) but is there a reason to do so? Meaning, if the scale catenary system is modeled does it matter (operationally or visually) if the power is coming from the rails or the overhead in todays operating environment?

I have only read about your operation and I do understand your reliability is good, but I have witnessed many more (O Scale March Meet) NMRA open houses etc. where the catenary system did not function well. 

Regardless, the real questions is, if starting from new, why would someone elect to operate via overhead power?

Charlie

It looks gorgeous, Marty. 

Just waiting on mine, the Ol' Rivets 5 striper.  This will be my third scale GG1 and the first Lionel example.  In fact, I believe my MTH silver #4866 was originally yours, coming my way via forum member AlB.   I'm so stoked, it's like Christmas 1964 all over again

Bruce

Charlie, I wish I did catenary when first starting.  I had to do this to an existing layout and this was a challenge.  I have also seen catenary that was not dependable.  I agree on that.  Over the years, I experimented with HO rail, N gauge rail, O gauge rail, welding rod, music wire, and heavy ground wire from romex wire.  I made many trips to view catenary that others had.  I studied and wanted to improve on what I was seeing.  I am lucky as I am a toy train guy.  I wanted to build something that Lionel could have made in the 50s.  

If you ever find yourself in my neck of the woods, please come by have a beer and run some trains.  

I think one of the issues is there are two ways to look at the catenary issue.   One is from the point of view of solid dependable operation, the other from a prototyical scale appearance. 

A scale catenary wire should be no more than .025" diameter, which is the equivalent of 22 AWG.  The poles should be no more than 2 feet apart.  Actually it should be more like 4 feet, but we can cheat a little here.   For wire that thin to hold a straight shape, your only choice is to go to phospor bronze.  And you have to have a true catenary  construction, with vertical stiffeners between the trolley (lower horizontal pickup) wire and parabolic span every 4."  

In contrast, let's look at Marty's beautifully engineered catenary:   I am guessing his wires are about 1/16" diameter, and his pole spacing is about 12-16" apart. (Please correct me if I am wrong!).  I am also guessing his wires are made of nickle silver clad copper, same as the rails.

So let's contrast the differences  

1) Electrical resistance in the wire:   

Phosphor bronze has about 6.5 times higher electrical resistance per foot than copper. Throw in the difference in diameter (.062" vs .025") and the more prototypical look has about 40 times more resistance.  Now you can begin to see the challenge. 

The electrical resistance per foot of a .025" diameter phosphor bronze wire is about 0.1 ohms.   The electrical resistance per foot of a .062" diameter copper clad wire is .0064 ohms.   In ten feet, the phosphor bronze drops the voltage (assumng 1 amp of current) by about 1 Volts. This is not negligible.  (Its also why no one advocates  22 AWG feeder wires!)  In ten feet the copper cat wire drops the volatge by 0.064 volts.  Which IS negligible.   You can get around this somewhat by feeding the power into each cat pole, But....

2) Mechanical strength 

Without getting too complicated (and ignoring the catenary structure for a moment), the mechanical stress in the wire at mid span is proportional to the distance between the poles, and to the cube of the diameter of the wire.  So using a .062" diameter wire, with 14" spans, gives you about a factor of 26 times less mechnical stress than .025" diameter wire with 24" between poles.  You risk permanently deforming the thinner diameter wire if you are not careful.  

3)  Electrical pickup.  

The key to good electrical contact is contact pressure.  Its why pickup rollers have such hefty springs, and as Charlie points out, locomotves have so much weight.   Most all O scale pantographs I have personally tested have strong enough springs to maintain adequate contact pressure (One 3rd rail loco was a bit weak). So that is not a problem.  The issue is that with the thinner scale size wire,  the contact wire may deflect so much under the load that it relieves the pressure. The same argument as above also applies.  Shorter spans, larger diameter wires deflect less, and hence work much better.

4) Breakage from an errant pantograph. 

This is more subjective, but it is obvious that shorter span, larger diameter wires are less susceptible to mechnical shock. I have no personal experience with this aspect, but I have read Andy Rubbo's experience in HO Scale.  

http://model-railroad-hobbyist...-11-nov/rubbo-pennsy

His is the most prototypically accurate I have ever seen.  In any scale.  He eventually opted for non contact catenary. 

So, as with most things in life, it depends on how you look at things, or what you wish to achieve

Hope some of this helped!

Many people can talk catenary down  all day long and impress whoever wants to read it.  The world has talkers and do-ers.  My catenary works perfect and has for many years.   I have found over the years the guys who talk down on LIVE catenary do not have any.     I can not see building beautiful scale catenary and not having it work.  I love electric locomotives and having a pan raise to the sky without touching wire does not do it for me.  Again, I am a toy train guy with scale trains.  

One can use all the math they want.  I have no current loss and I also have a perfect 10 DCS signal.  Most of all pans today in the hobby are very strong.  The only out of the box pan that has perfect spring tension is the Atlas AEM-7.   All my other pans are modified to operate with perfect spring tension.  

Many years ago I was visiting Vince Waterman. He had catenary but there was a six foot section of mangled catenary shoved to the side of the tracks. Norm said he was working on the layout when he fell and rolled onto this stretch of catenary. He said he just did not have the will power to redo that stretch. So I guess my point is that catenary is probably more susceptible  to damage than almost anything else on a layout. So one might have to consider the repair complexity  aspect.

I love the look of a catenary set up on a layout. I don't presently have a layout so that's a thought for down the road. But not sure I will have the funds for it when I finally can build the layout I want. With everything else having to be done to get to that point.  I would like one but not sure I would have it operational as I believe I would also have to convert my GG1's so they took power from it as don't believe there set up for that ( Williams Scale GG1's but believe it can be done, not to hard to do either.) 

By the way nice looking set up Marty

For a few years i ran live catenary in my garden railway.  It looked and worked great.   But a couple of years ago, i decided to dismantle it as the maintenance was getting to be a bit more than I wanted to do.  To add to that, SWMBO likes working in the garden, planting and transplanting.  She never damaged the catenary but it became a nuisance for her to work around.

Thirty five years ago, when I still had my Lionel's in the basement, I ran live catenary also.   I loved to watch the pantographs on my GG1 and EP5 as they wiped the brass contact wire of the system.  And as I mentioned in another thread, running electrics along with diesels and steamers on the same track together was fun.  

As I prepare for a new layout, I am building a catenary system for it.  Once I have it up and running, sometime this year, I will be testing my new system with the hope of possibly building them for those who may be interested.  I'm no wiz at business, so don't look for flashy ads and dancing girls.....LOL