Looks like I'm making a run for Golden Gate Depot's Congressional set!
You will not be disappointed. GG1's and Congressionals are meant to go together and 3rd Rail will certainly not let us down.
This is Hampton Wayt, the fellow who wrote the Donald R. Dohner article for Classic Trains. I just came across your comments and critiques with great interest and am quite grateful for them. I have a few comments I would like to make, and would also like to respond to some of your concerns.
The first thing that I would like to point out is that the article is not based on speculation, but intense investigative research into the evolution of the design of the GG1. Classic Trains magazine, however, is not a scholarly publication, and although the possibility of notations was discussed it was eventually decided they were not necessary for the general enthusiast. It might have been a good idea to include a disclaimer stating that the article is a summation of documented research that was not possible to included in the magazine for a number of reasons, including size and scope. However, I doubt that even the inclusion of such a statement would have satisfied the die-hard GG1 enthusiast’s desire to know specifics.
While I agree with Jonathan that serious GG1 enthusiasts are quite aware that Loewy did not design “Rivets”, this knowledge is not common among general railroad enthusiasts or industrial design scholars. Hence the “cover teaser” that Jonathan finds in poor taste. While this teaser was not my contribution, I stand firmly behind it because it was a perfect way of educating the rest of the population about this oft-overlooked fact (even if its underlying purpose was merely to sell more magazines).
Regarding Choo Choo Dennis’ question about who came up with the center cab design for the modified P5a, R1 and GG1… Dohner’s locomotive design work is described in the February 1934 issue of Fortune magazine article entitled “Of Fish and Foul”. The article credits him with the design of a switcher fitting the description of the WEMCo visibility cabs, although the model of the locomotive is not specifically named, nor is it illustrated. The visibility cabs, of course, were built in conjunction with Baldwin – where the design meetings for the GG1 took place. Plus, none of the other groups on the project (GE, Gibbs & Hill, and the PRR) had any known ties to central cab locomotive designs at the time. Dohner, however, whom started working with Westinghouse in 1928 and worked on the GG1 project at its earliest recorded stages, did. As such, it would seem that he was the likely instigator of this feature. But this is not a guarantee, and we may never know for certain.
Even so, my personal opinion is that it is less important “who” suggested the use of a central cab than “what” forced one to be used. As we know, steeple cabs were not a new concept, which may be the reason no one (not Dohner, Loewy, or the PRR) patented the GG1’s design. Thus, in my eyes the P5a box cab wreck at Deans, NJ is the most important determining factor in the GG1’s configuration.
I have spent much effort to uncover documentation for establishing a timeline for the GG1, modified P5a, and R1 classes. Again, what is written in the article is based on primary sources, and such is the case when I stated that the modified P5a cab was based on the GG1’s design. The earliest found mention of a center cab is found in a letter written by Mr. Duer on March 6, 1934. Two days later in a letter to F. W. Hankins, he states, “Attached is a blueprint showing the new cab arrangement for the 6-axle [GG1]. We are also working on one for the 4-axle [R1]. The small model shows the outside of the 6-axle engine and I think it meets the ideas of yourself and Mr. Gibbs. Early next week we hope to have a cab layout of a similar character to apply to the 28 new P5a”. This letter can be found at the Hagley Museum and Library in the Chief of Motive Power papers in “416 Electric Locomotives – Redesign Project – P5a to GG1, 1934” in folder 10. I don’t know the box number off-hand, but that should be enough information to find it.
I must say I’m a bit disappointed that no one mentioned what I consider to be the most important point in the article: The fact that Rivets was not what was intended to be the final design of the GG1 even before Loewy entered the scene. Before the Dohner article, the design time-line has always been that of Rivets as compared to that of the production units. When comparing the two, it is easy to give Loewy significant credit for his contribution to the design because the production units are far superior to Rivets. Yet, the real truth is that the PRR and their contractors continued work on the design of the GG1’s shell for some time after Rivets was built and well before Loewy was hired. So, we really don’t know how much was Loewy vs. Dohner. It is also somewhat misleading to credit Dohner with the design of Rivets, because as we can see from his models that his designs are far more sophisticated than Rivets despite pre-dating Rivets. To be more precise, Rivets appears to have been designed by the Pennsylvania Railroad engineers based on the designs submitted by Donald Dohner. Unfortunately, the Pennsy engineers design for Rivets falls quite short of the cohesiveness and thoughtfulness of Dohner’s models. Therefore, we cannot use Rivets as an indicator of Dohner’s ability or vision. And it is this fact alone that should put some doubt as to how much Loewy contributed to the design.
Now comes the next concern: who deserved credit for the design? This is no easy question, especially as there are so many questions that must be considered when crediting a design. What percentage of the design was Dohner's vs. Loewy? If it were demonstrated that Loewy’s contribution was quite small in proportion to Dohner’s, was it Loewy’s contribution that made the GG1 the design masterpiece it is? Or would the GG1 have become a design icon if Loewy had never worked on the project? Who is more important in the design process, the originator of the concept or the final designer? If Loewy had been the first and only designer on the project would it have resembled anything like the engine it became? These are all questions that we must ask ourselves. There is evidence that if Loewy had been the only designer on the project the GG1 would not have resembled the locomotive we love today. One example (of several) of this are his other PRR locomotive designs that, when compared to the GG1, are quite different in sensibility, suggesting that Dohner’s influence was indeed paramount. Therefore, I feel there is no way to separate the contributions that both men made to the production locomotive when assigning credit. As such, I believe that from this time forward the production GG1 should always be referred to, in the least, as being designed by “Donald R. Dohner and Raymond F. Loewy”.
The first thing that I would like to point out is that the article is not based on speculation, but intense investigative research into the evolution of the design of the GG1. Classic Trains magazine, however, is not a scholarly publication, and although the possibility of notations was discussed it was eventually decided they were not necessary for the general enthusiast. It might have been a good idea to include a disclaimer stating that the article is a summation of documented research that was not possible to included in the magazine for a number of reasons, including size and scope. However, I doubt that even the inclusion of such a statement would have satisfied the die-hard GG1 enthusiast’s desire to know specifics.
While I agree with Jonathan that serious GG1 enthusiasts are quite aware that Loewy did not design “Rivets”, this knowledge is not common among general railroad enthusiasts or industrial design scholars. Hence the “cover teaser” that Jonathan finds in poor taste. While this teaser was not my contribution, I stand firmly behind it because it was a perfect way of educating the rest of the population about this oft-overlooked fact (even if its underlying purpose was merely to sell more magazines).
Regarding Choo Choo Dennis’ question about who came up with the center cab design for the modified P5a, R1 and GG1… Dohner’s locomotive design work is described in the February 1934 issue of Fortune magazine article entitled “Of Fish and Foul”. The article credits him with the design of a switcher fitting the description of the WEMCo visibility cabs, although the model of the locomotive is not specifically named, nor is it illustrated. The visibility cabs, of course, were built in conjunction with Baldwin – where the design meetings for the GG1 took place. Plus, none of the other groups on the project (GE, Gibbs & Hill, and the PRR) had any known ties to central cab locomotive designs at the time. Dohner, however, whom started working with Westinghouse in 1928 and worked on the GG1 project at its earliest recorded stages, did. As such, it would seem that he was the likely instigator of this feature. But this is not a guarantee, and we may never know for certain.
Even so, my personal opinion is that it is less important “who” suggested the use of a central cab than “what” forced one to be used. As we know, steeple cabs were not a new concept, which may be the reason no one (not Dohner, Loewy, or the PRR) patented the GG1’s design. Thus, in my eyes the P5a box cab wreck at Deans, NJ is the most important determining factor in the GG1’s configuration.
I have spent much effort to uncover documentation for establishing a timeline for the GG1, modified P5a, and R1 classes. Again, what is written in the article is based on primary sources, and such is the case when I stated that the modified P5a cab was based on the GG1’s design. The earliest found mention of a center cab is found in a letter written by Mr. Duer on March 6, 1934. Two days later in a letter to F. W. Hankins, he states, “Attached is a blueprint showing the new cab arrangement for the 6-axle [GG1]. We are also working on one for the 4-axle [R1]. The small model shows the outside of the 6-axle engine and I think it meets the ideas of yourself and Mr. Gibbs. Early next week we hope to have a cab layout of a similar character to apply to the 28 new P5a”. This letter can be found at the Hagley Museum and Library in the Chief of Motive Power papers in “416 Electric Locomotives – Redesign Project – P5a to GG1, 1934” in folder 10. I don’t know the box number off-hand, but that should be enough information to find it.
I must say I’m a bit disappointed that no one mentioned what I consider to be the most important point in the article: The fact that Rivets was not what was intended to be the final design of the GG1 even before Loewy entered the scene. Before the Dohner article, the design time-line has always been that of Rivets as compared to that of the production units. When comparing the two, it is easy to give Loewy significant credit for his contribution to the design because the production units are far superior to Rivets. Yet, the real truth is that the PRR and their contractors continued work on the design of the GG1’s shell for some time after Rivets was built and well before Loewy was hired. So, we really don’t know how much was Loewy vs. Dohner. It is also somewhat misleading to credit Dohner with the design of Rivets, because as we can see from his models that his designs are far more sophisticated than Rivets despite pre-dating Rivets. To be more precise, Rivets appears to have been designed by the Pennsylvania Railroad engineers based on the designs submitted by Donald Dohner. Unfortunately, the Pennsy engineers design for Rivets falls quite short of the cohesiveness and thoughtfulness of Dohner’s models. Therefore, we cannot use Rivets as an indicator of Dohner’s ability or vision. And it is this fact alone that should put some doubt as to how much Loewy contributed to the design.
Now comes the next concern: who deserved credit for the design? This is no easy question, especially as there are so many questions that must be considered when crediting a design. What percentage of the design was Dohner's vs. Loewy? If it were demonstrated that Loewy’s contribution was quite small in proportion to Dohner’s, was it Loewy’s contribution that made the GG1 the design masterpiece it is? Or would the GG1 have become a design icon if Loewy had never worked on the project? Who is more important in the design process, the originator of the concept or the final designer? If Loewy had been the first and only designer on the project would it have resembled anything like the engine it became? These are all questions that we must ask ourselves. There is evidence that if Loewy had been the only designer on the project the GG1 would not have resembled the locomotive we love today. One example (of several) of this are his other PRR locomotive designs that, when compared to the GG1, are quite different in sensibility, suggesting that Dohner’s influence was indeed paramount. Therefore, I feel there is no way to separate the contributions that both men made to the production locomotive when assigning credit. As such, I believe that from this time forward the production GG1 should always be referred to, in the least, as being designed by “Donald R. Dohner and Raymond F. Loewy”.
Hampton,
Thank for your thorough discussion on the subject. Your discussion here on this forum is very enlightening and it is a great addition to this thread.
You have pointed out the most important issue of all to me and that is design is a process and it takes a team. Yes, our culture want's to assign a hero status to one individual as opposed to a design team. That culture still exists to this day.
It is too bad that the CT article was not long enough to expand the thoughts more thoroughly.
Thanks again for posting your thoughts here. It was a very interesting read.
Thank for your thorough discussion on the subject. Your discussion here on this forum is very enlightening and it is a great addition to this thread.
You have pointed out the most important issue of all to me and that is design is a process and it takes a team. Yes, our culture want's to assign a hero status to one individual as opposed to a design team. That culture still exists to this day.
It is too bad that the CT article was not long enough to expand the thoughts more thoroughly.
Thanks again for posting your thoughts here. It was a very interesting read.
quote:Originally posted by rex desilets:
Got my Jeff Sohn repaint of the gawdawful Congo silver version of the JLC GG-1 back. Beautiful. DGLE 5-stripe, buff Clarendon lettering like it was when the world was right. When I get a round tuit I'll post a photo.
Funny thing-the couplers have no structural support. They hang out in the breeze supported only by a bitty little spring. Anyone else seen this? Can't pull anything with them as they are. I suppose I can try Lionel for new parts, whatever they are. Or go fully OS3R and hang KD's on the loco.
Did you ever take a photo of your repainted model? I'd like to see it.
ChessieMan-
Never took photos. Packed the GG-1 away til I decide what to do about the couplers. For me, making such decisions can stretch into months. Also been real busy these last few months-haven't done a lick on any train thing.
Never took photos. Packed the GG-1 away til I decide what to do about the couplers. For me, making such decisions can stretch into months. Also been real busy these last few months-haven't done a lick on any train thing.
Rex,
You will find that Kadee's will hang very nicely in the pocket once you pull out the large coupler. I've done two G's so far (a Weaver and an MTH) and it was a breeze. I simply removed the pony truck pilot assembly and tapped some #2-56 screws up through the pilot. I then cut the tops off with a Dremel, did a little sanding and then painted to match.
I have not done this to the JLC yet, but it will happen at some point. Personally I have not experienced a problem with the operation of the large coupler, but getting rid of it is still one of my goals.
They look really great with a scale coupler. A side benefit is that the big hole left over is fairly close to the drop coupler pocket found on all GG1s 4857 and higher.
Best,
You will find that Kadee's will hang very nicely in the pocket once you pull out the large coupler. I've done two G's so far (a Weaver and an MTH) and it was a breeze. I simply removed the pony truck pilot assembly and tapped some #2-56 screws up through the pilot. I then cut the tops off with a Dremel, did a little sanding and then painted to match.
I have not done this to the JLC yet, but it will happen at some point. Personally I have not experienced a problem with the operation of the large coupler, but getting rid of it is still one of my goals.
They look really great with a scale coupler. A side benefit is that the big hole left over is fairly close to the drop coupler pocket found on all GG1s 4857 and higher.
Best,
Hampton,
I tried looking for your email address as I'd love to discuss your research with you. If you don't mind sending me an email (my address is in my profile) I would be fascinated to hear the kinds of details that don't get into normal publications.
Best,
I tried looking for your email address as I'd love to discuss your research with you. If you don't mind sending me an email (my address is in my profile) I would be fascinated to hear the kinds of details that don't get into normal publications.
Best,
So have we run out of stuff to talk about on this subject?
Is it the end of the line?
No worries, even this G survived to run another day ...
Is it the end of the line?
No worries, even this G survived to run another day ...
Well, at least it did not end up in a basement!
I believe, but I am not sure that this is GG1 4846, which ended up a the GG1/2.
Mainly it was just an interesting photo I found a few weeks back.
Mainly it was just an interesting photo I found a few weeks back.
quote:Originally posted by NickyBigBoy:
The only GG-1 accident I have heard of was when one ran of the tracks and fell through several floors of a station. The amazing thing about it was that the GG-1 was cut up, removed from the scene, and put back together to continue service. This one looks like it ended up in the weeds, so I'm assuming it's not related
PRR GG1 number 4876 lost her brakes and crashed into Union Station in Washington, DC in early 1953, just ahead of the inauguration of Dwight D. Eisenhower as President of the U.S., which many of the passengers were coming to see.
She broke through one floor and landed with one end resting on the main floor and the other in the basement. We were living in Bethesda, MD, at the time, and my dad took me to see it. Her heroic engineer, Harry Brower, rode her all the way in with her horn blaring, which saved may lives in the terminal. He survived. They really knew how to build 'em in those days.
Double trivia: this incident was the answer to the very first monthly trivia question on forum member Marty B's website, Ma & Pa Junction.
The most recent time I saw her was about four years ago in the outer yard of the B&O RR museum in Baltimore. She is covered with grafitti and rusting away, awaiting "cosmetic restoration" which may never happen due to lack of funds. There are many articles about this incident on Google. The photos are grainy but interesting.
Here is a link to one of them:
http://www.steamlocomotive.com.../prr4876-crash.shtml
>
I've got some shots I took of the cut up G which served as the snow blower in and around Wilmington Shop before Amtrak finally retired it. I'll have to get them scanned into the computer.
Bob
Bob
Hi Jonathan, I may have the handel "gg1man" but with work like this "You the man". 
Be Careful. A recent MPC thread is catchin' up to this one!
It's all good! We're talking about the trains. 
Jonathan's GG1 thread is the undisputed "King of all Threads" and sets the standard to which all others should aspire. Regardless of how many posts another thread may get, Jonathan's GG1 thread will forever be unsurpassed for quality of content. And this is coming from the person who started the MPC thread!
Let's just be grateful we're seeing some good, solid train threads instead of the mindless, hollow tripe which lately appears to be taking over this site.
All the best,
Bob
Let's just be grateful we're seeing some good, solid train threads instead of the mindless, hollow tripe which lately appears to be taking over this site.
All the best,
Bob
Here's a photo of Rex's GG1 I did for him- it really turned out nice in the correct color and proper lettering, considering it was silver to begin with --
-- quote:Originally posted by GG1 4877:
I believe, but I am not sure that this is GG1 4846, which ended up a the GG1/2.
Mainly it was just an interesting photo I found a few weeks back.
Hey, Walter... how 'bout a "GGee" ?
Jeff78rr Posted:
Jeff, first I want to say that is a very nice job you did on that, especially the strips. I have to ask, painted to decal? Either way, they look very well applied.
Two questions, on my monitor, the color looks very warm, I even added some blue in PS to see if I could neutralizes the color and still the body looks like a color I have never seen before. Is the actual color supposed to be DGLE, which should measure a bit to the green side, or is this a different color, (other than Tuscan).
Also, the windows look like you added some translucent material, is that the way the GG1's were delivered from MTH? My GG1 is clear, not sure what I like better. I really like this model and the color makes it look "more real" from the silver scheme.
Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Charlie
quote:Here's a photo of Rex's GG1 I did for him- it really turned out nice in the correct color and proper lettering, considering it was silver to begin with
Jeff, first I want to say that is a very nice job you did on that, especially the strips. I have to ask, painted to decal? Either way, they look very well applied.
Two questions, on my monitor, the color looks very warm, I even added some blue in PS to see if I could neutralizes the color and still the body looks like a color I have never seen before. Is the actual color supposed to be DGLE, which should measure a bit to the green side, or is this a different color, (other than Tuscan).
Also, the windows look like you added some translucent material, is that the way the GG1's were delivered from MTH? My GG1 is clear, not sure what I like better. I really like this model and the color makes it look "more real" from the silver scheme.
Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Charlie
Charlie, thanks for the comments- first, the windows were the originals from Lionel, so I think they may be a bit translucent and not clear at all-- the color of the engine is nearly black, which is DLGE all the way- there is a small hint of green to it, but only in certain lighting. The green is minimal for sure, which is prototypical. The striping is applied using Microscale decals, which is very delicate work, especially around the curves and ends, etc.
Thanks again-- this was a monster of an engine for sure!
Thanks again-- this was a monster of an engine for sure!
Jeff...that paint job is breathtaking!! I have got to quit messing around and have you do some work for me. I have been so involved in getting the layout built that I sometimes forget about someday owning something you have painted.
Thanks,
Alan
Thanks,
Alan
What was the 0.5 G used for?
quote:Originally posted by DominicMazoch:
What was the 0.5 G used for?
The Answer Man says........ try here.........
Absolutely flawless. And Jeff's price is reasonable, too.
Jeff - Nice repaint! The DGLE is much improved over what you will normally get in the market place. Those stripes must have been a lot of fun.
Edited per request. I have chatted with the parties in question and it really was an item better discussed off forum. Excuse my bad judgment.
Edited per request. I have chatted with the parties in question and it really was an item better discussed off forum. Excuse my bad judgment.
quote:I did notice one minor flaw .... but I'm not telling what it is Wink It's too nice a paint job to mention it.
*snort* what minor flaw??
Question to the group - if one points out the shortcomings in following prototype practice - are we perceived as a.. h..., or as offering constructive feedback??? I suspect the former is true unless the modeler is a close friend.
Ed,
A fair question. I personally feel in this situation that I should have kept my discussions in private to the parties involved in the spirit of constructive critisicm. That is my mistake and I'll own it.
When it comes to a manufacturer that is a different story as it is a mass produced item.
Thoughts?
A fair question. I personally feel in this situation that I should have kept my discussions in private to the parties involved in the spirit of constructive critisicm. That is my mistake and I'll own it.
When it comes to a manufacturer that is a different story as it is a mass produced item.
Thoughts?
Jonathan
I sure wouldn't put you in the AH category. If all we do on the forum is pat each other on the back - our modeling won't benefit from learning from our collective mistakes.
Ed
I sure wouldn't put you in the AH category. If all we do on the forum is pat each other on the back - our modeling won't benefit from learning from our collective mistakes.
Ed
Jonathon is a well-credited expert on GG1's- that pretty much covers the subject. He has a wealth of knowledge that is welcome by all--
Every day is a learning experience, the more you know the better you can ultimately be.
Every day is a learning experience, the more you know the better you can ultimately be.
Rex,
To answer your above question I propose that the single bottom stripe is missing. I have this stripe added to my Weaver GG1's and it makes quite a difference in the appearance.
Very nice job.
To answer your above question I propose that the single bottom stripe is missing. I have this stripe added to my Weaver GG1's and it makes quite a difference in the appearance.
Very nice job.
I think I'm going to have to pick up a couple of Williams G's and have Jeff paint them Conrail black for me. They weren't pretty but those are the ones I remember best.
Bob
Bob
We need to get one of those bi-centennial jobs....
Jeff did a repaint of a scale GG1 for me about 4 years ago. I think that it was an MTH engine. He doesn't have a picture in his archive and I am somewhat hindered with photos. He did a great job for me. Perhaps he could find a photo and post it.
I am anxiously awaiting the 3rd Rail model.
Norm Rish
I am anxiously awaiting the 3rd Rail model.
Norm Rish
quote:Originally posted by MrMuffin'sTrains:
We need to get one of those bi-centennial jobs....
The 3rd Rail one should be stunning!
G, the MPC thread is now 9 pages!
quote:Originally posted by DominicMazoch:
G, the MPC thread is now 9 pages!
As it should be! It's a good thread about trains
Considering i cut my Lionel teeth on MPC!
In the black PC era, anything is possible behind a G!
