A GG1 would be great for excursions, so why are there none being restored?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I believe that the main reason they were retired was the fact that their onboard transformers contained sealed-in coolant which contained toxic chemicals (PCB's), and it was cost prohibitive to re-engineer the transformers. The ones on display have had their transformers removed and PCB's safely disposed of.
Bill in FtL
And since then, I believe the transmission voltage has changed.
Jon 
I figured it was the line voltage. That's what got the DL&W Multiple Units too.
Not to mention they were worn out with frame cracking issues, besides the PCBs in all the transformers.
PCB's
Is there ANY way to get around the PCB's?
You can get around anything with cubic dollars, including the frames and the PCB's, but even cubic dollars might not get you around the lack of a RR to run one on. Don't expect Amtrak, a working RR with tight schedules and real world problems (like wind and weather impacting operations along the NEC this week) to fork over track time.
Bob
Railfan Brody posted:Is there ANY way to get around the PCB's?
Absolutely NOT. In fact, all the transformers were physically removed & destroyed from every single GG1, and thus any of those "saved" have no transformer anyway.
This subject comes up quite a bit on train buff forums, I'd bet a google search would come up with several good ones that explain it in detail.
The GG1s had an insane amount of miles on them before they got retired, they did indeed have frame issues throughout their lives, and you'd have to pretty much replace everything but the carbody to run one today. By the time you were done, the locomotive would be suffering a huge case of Theseus's paradox (think of the 'George Washington's axe' argument).
It's a shame as several GG1s were saved and a few are in 'rotting away' condition today...
Based on everything I have read about this, the closest you would probably get is a gg1-ish loco. Something someone would have to spend a large amount of money on that may use a GG1 Body and some other parts but little else. By possible of course I mean the most possible scenario while still being a fantasy for the most part.
Where is modern electronic transformer technology, if something like the Strasburg PA. RR Museum came up with a donation funding program? If you throw enough money at it, l've heard you can put a man on the moon, so.....
I can't think of anything more expensive than a complete GG1 restoration. You'd be better off building an all new chooch dimensioned to look like a GG1....which could be engineered to run effectively in today's environment. PRR 5550 will run loooong before any of those old original Gees. Sorry !
This is a very good question. In my previous jobs, I have managed several municipal electric systems, about 32 years, but am not an electrical engineer. Transformers and other electrical apparatus (voltage regulators, etc.) that had "transformer oil" in them, made prior to about 1975 had the PCB's in them. During the 70's and 80's there was a liability and regulation- driven movement underway to retire old transformers with PCB's OR to pump out the oil with PCB's and replace it with new transformer oil that did not have any PCB's.
New transformers that do the same job occupy less physical space (just like motors have gotten smaller).
I am more interested in steam power, but am kinda surprised that nobody has really tried to get a GG-1 running. There are better welding techniques today that could repair the frame cracks, and maybe get better results.
You could start over with a brand new engine and make it in the shape of a GG-1 and that would be much better then restoring any old GG-1. The expense and then the material needed would not be cost effective in any way. The frames on most original GG-1's are beyond repair.
The main thing about the GG-1 is that they used 25 hertz(or cycles) compared to today's 60 hertz(or cycles) electricity and they had different voltage as well. So the motors would have to be changed out along with the transformers inside, making it too costly to attempt.
Lee Fritz
phillyreading posted:The main thing about the GG-1 is that they used 25 hertz(or cycles) compared to today's 60 hertz(or cycles) electricity and they had different voltage as well. So the motors would have to be changed out along with the transformers inside, making it too costly to attempt.
Lee Fritz
Actually, the former Pennsylvania west of Sunnyside is still 25Hz (Raised to 12kv from 11), as is the former Reading in the Philly-area. The parts that were changed to 25kv 60Hz were NJT's ex-Lackawanna territory (From 3kv DC), Amtrak's ex-PRR Hell Gate Line (From 11kv 25Hz), and Metro-North's New Haven Line (Also from 11kv 25Hz). Also, Amtrak's Boston electrification was built to 25kv 60Hz.
As PCBs go, I believe the E-60s did have their PCBs flushed and replaced.
All this being said, I still think there's a better chance that we'll see Amtrak use the GG1 carbody design on their next new electrics than there is that we'll see a G running again.
Kelly Anderson posted:I took a call once from a guy who wanted my opinion on his idea of filling the car body of a GG1 with car batteries and powering it that way.
From a "slightly" more practical real world direction, the most likely way to see a GG1 run again would be to dieselize it, if it would even be possible to provide power that would work with it's traction motors, if those traction motors are even restorable after all this time. Then it could be run on any tourist line where a little more life might be squeezed out of the brittle frames, etc. You would still be talking millions of dollars plus.
And why would you want to? It's not a steam engine, it looks exactly the same when moving as it does sitting dead.
Not that I think the notion of getting a GG-1 running is any more practical than those who know better (as far as I know there doesn't even exist the capability in this country to cast objects as large as the GG1's frames), how's this for a silly idea: make it a road slug, getting its power from generators in a tethered unit trailing behind. At least then you could still say it was pulling whatever was behind it 
(Disclaimer: I feel the need to reiterate that I don't think any of the proposals floated are workable, and even a T-1-esque reproduction would have no place to run)
---PCJ
The PCB oil was used not only because it did not burn, but it also had outstanding heat transfer properties. There was work to find a replacement oil for the GG-1, but the best oil that could be found would result in a reduction in horsepower. As I recall it was about a 30% reduction. The main transformer that was removed also included the tap changing equipment used to accelerate the locomotive. This means that a replacement transformer would be complicated to build. It is too bad one of the original transformers was not saved and cleaned as it would allow a GG-1 to run today, just at reduced hp.
Maybe the best thing that could be done is have a cosmetically restored and mechanically road worthy GG1 be pushed by another electric or diesel engine.
PAUL ROMANO posted:Maybe the best thing that could be done is have a cosmetically restored and mechanically road worthy GG1 be pushed by another electric or diesel engine.
But what about the cracked frame issue?
The cast frames could be inspected with the appropriate NDT technic, defects repaired with an appropriate welding process, and the entire frame heat treated. They would be as good, or better, than new.
There is really only one reason---PCB's. The cracked frames just sealed their fate.
It would be interesting to see if they could get one up and running. Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania has this one out there.
PAUL ROMANO posted:Maybe the best thing that could be done is have a cosmetically restored and mechanically road worthy GG1 be pushed by another electric or diesel engine.
OK, but only if the one that is pushing her is worthy, I do not want to see and old beat the ^&*I of it diesel U boat pushing her around for sure. well, just saying. 
Attachments
Images (1)
This interesting subject has been all over the railroad forums of every kind as was mentioned above. I would have to say that whomever said that building an entire new locomotive using the same outer shell design, but with new state of the art innards, had the best solution for us ever seeing one of these beauties on the rails again.
I have no idea if state of the art technology can replicate the power of the originals. I'm sure someone smarter than I would have an opinion.
Hot Water posted:PAUL ROMANO posted:Maybe the best thing that could be done is have a cosmetically restored and mechanically road worthy GG1 be pushed by another electric or diesel engine.
But what about the cracked frame issue?
One without a cracked frame, etc. should be mechanically road worthy.
From a crew comfort standpoint the GG1's were pretty crummy. Same goes for toilets. Track visibility is another shortfall.
How does the crew comfort, toilet, and track visibility compair with a steam locomotive of about the same age and size?
Well the cabs on a steam loco are a lot bigger. there is a LOT of steel around you so it''s easy to get yourself slamed into a piece of steel in a G cab.
Love the photos, THANKS! After coming home from a road trip, driving in present day technologically - marvelous automobiles, I especially love the simplicity of the dashboard in the cab of your photo... " HEAD LIGHT SW. ".... labelling a single toggle.. lol
sweet
The technical reasons why a GG-1 hasn't or will not likely be restored have been been well-covered in this thread and in past ones. Another question, in my mind at least, even if the worst of the hurdles could even be overcome, is "why?". These restoration and excursion programs are hard enough to finance and to secure trackage rights to run on, without further dividing the available and potential donation and volunteer resources among increasing numbers of locomotives, just because many of them have their individual fans. Railfans seem to treat this issue like they do their basement layouts, believing that one of everything is "needed ". I even shake my head at the common insistence among some that certain O gauge models need to be made by the current manufacturers. I sometimes wonder if at least one Great Depression per generation would not be a bad thing, if for no other reason than to drive home the definition of the word need (granted, marriage may have influenced my opinion on this issue 
). Most individuals who lived through that era practiced levels of thrift throughout the rest of their lives that should be admired by subsequent generations, who are growing up in an era of excess.
If the frames are indeed showing metal fatigue, then a simple weld fix won't quite do it. Not knowing the metal but assuming it's cast, just welding will be difficult on it's own. A full ultrasonic inspection of the frames would needed, which I would venture to guess means stripping one completely down.
The one thing about steel, is when it shows fatigue, there is a underlying reason. That would all require investigation and remediation first, if they are in repairable.
When it comes to pushing/pulling one, I would wonder what the effects on the frame would be and if there is a maximum speed. Don't see how this would be interesting though. Kind of like watching a tow truck pull a race car around the track.
I doubt outside of major rail-fans and northeastener's who saw these originally run that the real interest in seeing one or riding behind one would be high. The don't have the universally recognizable style of an F or E unit diesel or the sounds and sites of a steamer.
Kind of like at air shows with WWII planes, their are many which are usually more interesting than the iconic mustang, but most crowds and interest gathers around the mustang. I think a GG1 would be like a British Hurricane in this scenario, the plane buffs would love the Hurricane, but most others wouldn't care and still flock to the Mustang.
I am in no way bashing the GG1, although I think it's an ugly duck but very interesting as well. It seems though like the hurdles for one operating are even greater than the T1 Trust guys are dealing with.
PAUL ROMANO posted:Hot Water posted:PAUL ROMANO posted:Maybe the best thing that could be done is have a cosmetically restored and mechanically road worthy GG1 be pushed by another electric or diesel engine.
But what about the cracked frame issue?
One without a cracked frame, etc. should be mechanically road worthy.
Maybe. However, since ALL of the GG1s had some sort of frame problems in their later years of operation, ANY of the hulks remaining would therefore NOT be "mechanically road worthy".
Hot Water posted:PAUL ROMANO posted:Hot Water posted:PAUL ROMANO posted:Maybe the best thing that could be done is have a cosmetically restored and mechanically road worthy GG1 be pushed by another electric or diesel engine.
But what about the cracked frame issue?
One without a cracked frame, etc. should be mechanically road worthy.
Maybe. However, since ALL of the GG1s had some sort of frame problems in their later years of operation, ANY of the hulks remaining would therefore NOT be "mechanically road worthy".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been told, by a man who knew a Wilmington shops employee, that 4800's frame never cracked.
The GG1 on display at the Harrisburg PA RR station was moved a few months ago while work was being done at the station.
Of course it was not moved under its own power, but it is possible the frame etc is still ok or otherwise I doubt they would have rolled it back and forth.
I do not know anything else about its condition. It does look nice appearance wise.
Jeff2035 posted:The GG1 on display at the Harrisburg PA RR station was moved a few months ago while work was being done at the station.
Of course it was not moved under its own power, but it is possible the frame etc is still ok or otherwise I doubt they would have rolled it back and forth.
I do not know anything else about its condition. It does look nice appearance wise.
And the one in Strasburg was moved to Washington DC a few years ago for the 100th celebration of the station. It was moved by an Amtrak locomotive at slow speed, at night, with a number of other cars to provide braking.
Both the WUS move and the Harrisburg move are far, far cries from banging down the NEC at 80mph with a couple of hundred tons of car behind it.
On another front, but related, I think the T-1 Trust folks busted the myth there is no one in the US who can make large castings, as they apparently found more than one company would could cast the T1 frame, which is larger than the GG-1 paired frames. While the US doesn't have a large scale old-fashion mills, there are number of mills that specialize in low-production, complex castings that, using new technology, are quite doable.
Bob
J Daddy posted:Bottom line is where in the heck are you going to operate them?
EXACTLY!
Diesels and steam locomotives are self-contained power plants. They generate their own power on board the locomotive. The GG1 is an EXTERNALLY POWERED locomotive - it has to run UNDER WIRE! That eliminates about 99% of the track in this country.
phillyreading posted:The main thing about the GG-1 is that they used 25 hertz(or cycles) compared to today's 60 hertz(or cycles) electricity and they had different voltage as well. So the motors would have to be changed out along with the transformers inside, making it too costly to attempt.
Not only does the GG1 require EXTERNAL power, that power has to match the specs of the internal electrical components in both voltage and AC frequency. That eliminates even more track where a GG1 can operate. SPWILLS posted, "...the former Pennsylvania west of Sunnyside is still 25Hz (Raised to 12kv from 11), as is the former Reading in the Philly-area..." That's the only place in the country where an unmodifed GG1 could operate. That's a very limited market.
PAUL ROMANO posted:Maybe the best thing that could be done is have a cosmetically restored and mechanically road worthy GG1 be pushed by another electric or diesel engine.
This is the only way you could realistically expect to see a GG1 "operate."
Converting one to diesel operation would be very expensive with a severely limited opportunity to generate a return on the investment. With the lingering questions about the integrity of their frames, no one is going to take that kind of risk.
bbunge posted:Jeff2035 posted:The GG1 on display at the Harrisburg PA RR station was moved a few months ago while work was being done at the station.
Of course it was not moved under its own power, but it is possible the frame etc is still ok or otherwise I doubt they would have rolled it back and forth.
I do not know anything else about its condition. It does look nice appearance wise.
And the one in Strasburg was moved to Washington DC a few years ago for the 100th celebration of the station. It was moved by an Amtrak locomotive at slow speed, at night, with a number of other cars to provide braking.
Both the WUS move and the Harrisburg move are far, far cries from banging down the NEC at 80mph with a couple of hundred tons of car behind it.
On another front, but related, I think the T-1 Trust folks busted the myth there is no one in the US who can make large castings, as they apparently found more than one company would could cast the T1 frame, which is larger than the GG-1 paired frames. While the US doesn't have a large scale old-fashion mills, there are number of mills that specialize in low-production, complex castings that, using new technology, are quite doable.
Bob
The T-1 Trust castings were not myth busting. The one casting they made was fairly small. The former LFM foundry (by what ever name they use now) in Atchinson, KS is a foundry that casts large castings today. When I was in there regularly the largest thing they cast was a valve body for the oil and gas industry. It weighted about 120,000 pounds. They had to run both their furnaces and pour from both at the same time. Other large castings they made were axle and differential housings for Cats large mining machinery and six wheel truck frames for both EMD and GE locomotives. In most cases large castings are no longer necessary because welding technology has advanced to the point where fabrications are as good and cheeper than most large castings.
David Johnston posted:On another front, but related, I think the T-1 Trust folks busted the myth there is no one in the US who can make large castings, as they apparently found more than one company would could cast the T1 frame, which is larger than the GG-1 paired frames. While the US doesn't have a large scale old-fashion mills, there are number of mills that specialize in low-production, complex castings that, using new technology, are quite doable.Bob
The T-1 Trust castings were not myth busting. The one casting they made was fairly small. The former LFM foundry (by what ever name they use now) in Atchinson, KS is a foundry that casts large castings today. When I was in there regularly the largest thing they cast was a valve body for the oil and gas industry. It weighted about 120,000 pounds. They had to run both their furnaces and pour from both at the same time. Other large castings they made were axle and differential housings for Cats large mining machinery and six wheel truck frames for both EMD and GE locomotives. In most cases large castings are no longer necessary because welding technology has advanced to the point where fabrications are as good and cheeper than most large castings.
To be clear, I didn't say the one casting they made, but that the T-1 trust had found foundries who could cast the T-1 FRAME if they got to that point. Also agree in many cases, large castings might not be needed anymore.
Interesting side story to this, is even in the steam days, the technologies were somewhat interchangeable. In the Pennsy Power III book, there is a photo showing the bar stock needed to weld up a new steam chest for the M-1 4-8-2, with the comment there apparently wasn't a reason to replace the cast steam chests with welded, but to keep employees employed.
Cheers,
Bob
You could run your fantasy GG1 on any railroad you want, by powering it with a diesel genset in a disguised baggage car trailing immediately behind the locomotive.
