Would It Be Possible To Restore A NYC T Motor To Operating Condition?

Anything can be done, given enough time and money.  

Time is much easier to come by.  

NYC T motors,  like all other electrics, have lots of drawbacks to restoration.

Many have/had components with hazardous materials.  

Others have large castings that are antiquated and hard, if not impossible to fix and or replace.

Last up is that they require a railroad willing to allow them to run once they are rebuilt.  

And most  won't allow that risk to take place since any problems with the electric locomotive can cause the electric power system to shut down for safety reason. 

Thus most mainline electrics are not seen as able to be run again.

What would be the point? Why would it be "nice"? There is no way for these units to generate revenue. They represent no quantum engineering example. The most to hope for is a back-and-forth bumper-trolley operation on 2,000 feet of museum track. Which would not have third rail. Plus, these units draw a lot of amps and electricity costs money. Then there is a requirement for periodic inspection and rebuild, even if they seldom operate. Plus there is a difference between a trolley and these massive motors. Working on and near this equipment is dangerous. The insurance liability issue is significant. I would never allow an untrained museum volunteer inside one when under wire and power.

Unfortunatey, for the reasons stated above: IMPRACTICAL.

Tommy posted:

What would be the point? Why would it be "nice"? There is no way for these units to generate revenue. They represent no quantum engineering example. The most to hope for is a back-and-forth bumper-trolley operation on 2,000 feet of museum track. Which would not have third rail. Plus, these units draw a lot of amps and electricity costs money. Then there is a requirement for periodic inspection and rebuild, even if they seldom operate. Plus there is a difference between a trolley and these massive motors. Working on and near this equipment is dangerous. The insurance liability issue is significant. I would never allow an untrained museum volunteer inside one when under wire and power.

Is that one of the reasons why these motors were retired? Because they were a big death trap?

Railfan Brody posted:

Tommy posted:

What would be the point? Why would it be "nice"? There is no way for these units to generate revenue. They represent no quantum engineering example. The most to hope for is a back-and-forth bumper-trolley operation on 2,000 feet of museum track. Which would not have third rail. Plus, these units draw a lot of amps and electricity costs money. Then there is a requirement for periodic inspection and rebuild, even if they seldom operate. Plus there is a difference between a trolley and these massive motors. Working on and near this equipment is dangerous. The insurance liability issue is significant. I would never allow an untrained museum volunteer inside one when under wire and power.

Is that one of the reasons why these motors were retired? Because they were a big death trap?

No, they were simply worn out, old technology, which were too expensive to maintain.

A number of Milwaukee Road employees were electrocuted, touching the overhead wire.  Yes, quite dangerous!

When in service it was possible to be electrocuted in these massive units even when they were off-wire and shut off because off huge battery capacity and use of capacitors in the control apparatus. Keeping them "operational" in a museum setting would mandate a permanent sign stating "keep away" restricting access to visitors and volunteers.

possible but as others have said, likely not practical.  As to why someone would want to restore one of these to operational condition, it wouldn't be for general revenue service on a 'real' railroad, it would be like the restored steam engines and such that pull tourist trains, it would be restored for its historical context, etc.  I don't know much about these engines other than they existed, but if there is significant hazards with them that could be a deterrent (though to be honest so are any Diesel or steam engines operated by museum, they aren't toys, even if the risk is less than let's say a T motor). Likely if restored it would be cosmetic only, rather than running, as part of a museum, much the same way as most steam engines that are 'preserved' tend to be static, there isn't enough money, time or justification to try and make them workable, getting through all the FRA stuff, then finding a place to run them. It is a charming notion but it is kind of like restoring a car hoping to make a profit on it, outside a few exotics it doesn't really make sense. 

It's a noble idea, but with old-school electrical gear, old-school controls and old-school everything else, the insurance liability would probably kill a project at the assessment stage. Even after a thorough re-hab, the hazards would still be high. Lower voltage trolleys, yes, but the juice requirements for locomotives would be the killer IMHO. I wouldn't want to tie the bell around the cat's neck and raise that pantograph for the first time. Cosmetic restoration would be just fine with me, like these examples in Delson QC, (CN 6711, 2400 volts DC) and Duluth, MN. (Milwaukee 10200, 3300 volts DC [I think?])

While I agree it's highly unlikely and impractical, we have operating steam locomotives.  They can be just as dangerous and also require lots of maintenance.  Like anything else, it takes education and training on how to safely work around a locomotive of any type. 

At the same time, I don't believe every locomotive should be restored to operation.  It often takes away some of the historic value.  A high quality cosmetic restoration and proper care and storage goes a long way towards showing future generations what the industry used to be like.

NOT going to happen except maybe as a largely "gutted" static museum display.

I am of the opinion that it is quite acceptable for a person/group to restore one of these electric locomotives to modern standards, as to permit operation on modern electrified lines.

I know this idea is Heresy to some.

Take for example, the PRR K4 1361.  They want every nut, bolt and washer to be authentic to the same materials that the unit was built with.

They do not want to disturb the historic fabric, so there it sits, just another reason why it is in pieces. 

Do not fool yourself to think modern steam locomotives (like FWHRRS's NKP 765) does not have some level of non-original modernization.

My opinion is for the guts of a unit like the T Motor or a GG1 to be completely modernized for safety and operational efficiency.

The exterior will be no different than was it was built. 

I believe that a locomotive that had been "Resto-Modded" is more useful than a static display (where no one can see "under the hood" anyways)

Let the stone throwing begin.

That actually is an interesting point Bryan made about restorations like this. For example, someone mentioned finding fuses for the electrical systems on this engine, but they likely could use modern circuit breakers that are used in modern electric locomotives, for example, or heavy equipment. There could be issues with hazardous materials like asbestos or PCB's once used in transformers, but that could be worked around too, or use as Bryan said modern components in the old shell, might not be 'authentic' in a sense, but still would work much the same way, and people would get to see it in action, if not truly historically correct.   To me (and it is just my opinion, worth the same as anyone else),  it would be better to have something cosmetically restored that can operate under "non authentic" components than simply having a static unit restored to the same level. Obviously cost would be a factor here, ripping the 'guts' out of the old unit, remediating hazards, then buying and putting in new components, perhaps kluged from a modern unit, would be more expensive than cosmetically restoring it only.  

It is kind of like the way people approach 'toy' trains, those who want realistically to scale models actually operating in some ways like a real railroad, others who only care about running their trains, whether in a toy like, hi rail or "hitoy", no right answer to it IMO. 

Bryan Smith posted:

I am of the opinion that it is quite acceptable for a person/group to restore one of these electric locomotives to modern standards, as to permit operation on modern electrified lines.

I know this idea is Heresy to some.

Take for example, the PRR K4 1361.  They want every nut, bolt and washer to be authentic to the same materials that the unit was built with.

They do not want to disturb the historic fabric, so there it sits, just another reason why it is in pieces. 

Do not fool yourself to think modern steam locomotives (like FWHRRS's NKP 765) does not have some level of non-original modernization.

My opinion is for the guts of a unit like the T Motor or a GG1 to be completely modernized for safety and operational efficiency.

The exterior will be no different than was it was built. 

I believe that a locomotive that had been "Resto-Modded" is more useful than a static display (where no one can see "under the hood" anyways)

Let the stone throwing begin.

 

I've said similar things for years.   The problem isn't the PCBs or asbestos.   Remediation happens all the time.

The only problem goes back to money.  

The very wealthy seem to have no connection to real trains.  If they did we'd be doing G's and T-motors just like we do B-17's and P51 Mustangs.

it's not as if electrics are high tech.  They are just old and take lots of money to restore.

I'm wondering about the innards of these motors--unlike a GG-1, these units ran on third-rail DC of about 700-750 volts. Would these even have transformers in them? According to Wikipedia, they ran on 660V DC and had DC traction motors.

Edit: Reading further, their transmission is described as "Resistance controlled DC current supplied to gearless DC traction motors mounted directly on the axles." So, traction motor blowers and resistor banks is most likely what's inside.

From what I can recall, the biggest problem right now is transporting them from their present resting place, as the tracks they are on are not only (somewhat) disconnected, but a decayed trestle lies between them and the live railhead they were once connected to, so they'd likely have to be transported overland (much like the Big Boy that was placed in Kenefick Park in Omaha, NE)

---PCJ

I am of the opinion that it is quite acceptable for a person/group to restore one of these electric locomotives to modern standards, as to permit operation on modern electrified lines.

I just don't see the point. If the guts have to be replaced in order to operate the locomotive under its own power, then might as well just disconnect everything and push it around with a modern engine.

I would rather see an old locomotive with all its original controls and guts intact and not operational. I think it would be very interesting to be able to see all of the various components installed  on the engine.

I am with CW!  

Here an operating third rail model might be a better choice.

Where???

Bryan Smith posted:

I am of the opinion that it is quite acceptable for a person/group to restore one of these electric locomotives to modern standards, as to permit operation on modern electrified lines.

I know this idea is Heresy to some.

Take for example, the PRR K4 1361.  They want every nut, bolt and washer to be authentic to the same materials that the unit was built with.

They do not want to disturb the historic fabric, so there it sits, just another reason why it is in pieces. 

Do not fool yourself to think modern steam locomotives (like FWHRRS's NKP 765) does not have some level of non-original modernization.

My opinion is for the guts of a unit like the T Motor or a GG1 to be completely modernized for safety and operational efficiency.

The exterior will be no different than was it was built. 

I believe that a locomotive that had been "Resto-Modded" is more useful than a static display (where no one can see "under the hood" anyways)

Let the stone throwing begin.

 

I must admit I like the "Resto-Mod" idea to show artifacts of the past in motion. Would the economics be more practical than, say, restoration of original components? I've always though that an engineered static steam locomotive display could be done hydraulically to show off the motion.

The Dutch did a great hydraulic re-fit on a old steam water pumping station, eliminating the boilers and maintaining the interesting motion. 

I would think the interest in old electrics would rest in their old-school systems, with nothing else to really see of the "works". In the case of an electric, what would be a possible resto-mod path? Adapting the innards of a recently retired modern locomotive combined with off-the shelf components?

Tinplate Art posted:

Where???

On a model railroad!

I'm with CW on this, what is the point if you just put modern power under the shell. 

Dave

Dominic: THANK YOU for the clarification!  :-)

Preserve the old electric motive power technology in SAFE and instructive museum settings. Rather use the LIMITED preservation funding for the more practical vintage diesel and steam engine projects. There are many SOUND reasons as mentioned above for NOT restoring vintage electric locos for operation.

My recollection is that the New York Central deliberately left open the possibility of someday connecting the commuter tracks at Grand Central to the IRT.  There is no load-bearing impediment that would prevent linking the ex-NYC and ex-IRT tracks at 42nd & Park.  Originally, at least, they both ran on 660V DC third-rail power.  I've no idea if the MTA has changed its standards since 100 years ago (nor am I certain if the S-motor itself was ever compatible with the small loading gauge of the IRT) but I would be curious to know whether the S-motor (or even a T-motor) could operate in the subway system.  The MTA runs 100-year-old Lo-V subway cars with some regularity.  It would be great to see the S-motor in particular restored to operation.  And if it could fit in the subway system (I don't know if the loading gauge would prevent that), and if someone else paid for the restoration, I imagine the MTA might be persuaded to allow it as part of their heritage fleet.  (Insert jokes about the MTA's total inability to operate its existing fleet of modern subway cars here.)

And yes, all of this (any of this) would require a wealthy and passionate patron.  Probably also some (major?) modification of the electrics.  (I wonder how much electric modification has been done to the Lo-V's over the past century?  How is that they're in operation without killing people?)

The S-motor is the more historic of the two engines (S v. T), both in terms of its class and with respect to that particular instantiation.  Isn't the one stranded up near Albany the world's first mainline electric locomotive?  The actual S-1?  (With a footnote about the B&O's quasi-mainline electric boxcabs, which technically operated on the mainline earlier but which functioned like railroading tuboats to drag steam engines through a tunnel.)

I remember reading in Stan Fischler's book on the subway system (I think it was the original version) that reputedly there was an idea of potentially allowing trains terminating in Grand Central Terminal to continue on via the subway, for example to Brooklyn via the Joralemon street tunnel as one possible destination. I believe the power is close enough between the city subway and the then Central third rail system to have allowed that to work. He said it is possible they even tried this at some point, but there is no evidence it happened (it was kind of like the story about Belmont being able to use the Mineola to go to Belmont Park via the LIRR, once it was electrified, no one as far as I know ever found evidence it actually happened). 

Outside of the cost and other things, the other issue could be clearances, to this day the IRT tunnels are smaller in dimension and require their own cars, the BMT and IND were built to larger dimensions (and again, supposedly they were built to handle standard coaches and such, usually i hear that with the BRT, but also have heard that said about the IND), so IDK if something like the S unit could fit given its dimensions. 

These kind of discussions are fun, and it surprises me when people get all heated up for someone asking a question like this, as if kicking around an idea on this board or anywhere hurts something else. A bunch of old farts on a model train board kicking around the idea of restoring X doesn't take away from current engines being restored, doesn't take away from the national defense, doesn't solve major problems like why do MLB games take longer than WWII and doesn't solve the angst of rivet counters when they see a 'scale' model 2 scale inches too small *lol*. 

Interesting conversation.  I am probably a polar opposite of Tommy.  I don't make paragraphs of reasons why something cannot and should not be done.  I find ways of making things happen.  

The T-motor isn't anything special electrically.  660 volts DC main power coming in.  There would be banks of resistors switched in and out of the circuit by contactors.  Nothing here that isn't on a trolley car or an old DC overhead crane.  If the interior of the locomotive has not been stripped by copper thieves, it would be a matter of rewiring and renovation of various components. Traction motors should be pulled, tested, dipped and baked.  

I would love to have the opportunity to dig into the electrical system of that T-motor.  It would be a fun project. 

BTW, we have a 1912 Baldwin shunter here.  A 250 volt DC machine built for the Whisky Island ore docks.  It is set up with the same control systems as a T-motor.  Resistors/contactors/traction motors.  Someday I'll have that thing ready to run again.  This stuff isn't hard to understand.  Quite straightforward actually and there is nothing that gives as much pleasure as seeing an old piece of machinery come back to life again.  

I like the restomod idea. Depending on how bad the traction motors are, you could probably refurbish a few pretty easily and then see what can and cannot be salvaged from what's left in the motor. UP understands this. If they don't have it and can't get it, they make a new part. Tear some of the old guts out and bring it up to modern standards. Modernization is always good.

Found this Youtube:

Unfortunately, the view of the "guts" is all dark, (he should have brought an "atomic beam lantern" along...) but the videographer provides a description of what's in the dark.  It would appear it's not rocket science, just resistor banks.

Rusty

bigkid posted:

These kind of discussions are fun, and it surprises me when people get all heated up for someone asking a question like this, as if kicking around an idea on this board or anywhere hurts something else. A bunch of old farts on a model train board kicking around the idea of restoring X doesn't take away from current engines being restored, doesn't take away from the national defense, doesn't solve major problems like why do MLB games take longer than WWII and doesn't solve the angst of rivet counters when they see a 'scale' model 2 scale inches too small *lol*. 

 

First, many of us crybaby "why aren't young people interested in trains" and then they grill the OP when he asks a rudimentary question. 

These are fun discussions.  Brody, don't ever let us grouchy old men stop you from asking questions.   We people come in all shapes and sorts.   

 Modern electric railroading is mature technology.  If someone with lots of money and connections wanted a T motor running, we'd have a T motor OR a GG1 running again.

The NYCTA runs legacy (read "antique")  subway equipment on fantrips. 

The difference here is that no one with large amounts of money has yet taken an interest in restoring a large mainline electric.  Yet.

Yes, it would be nice to see these and other electric locomotives run once more.  But for the reasons that have been stated by some posters, impractical.  However, restoring the appearance of these wonderful machines is very practical.  Most seem to be sitting outdoors, unprotected.  Wouldn't it be nice to see them in all of their original glory in some sort of protected environment ?   The shelter needs to be little more than some sort of "car port".   Just like the thousands of monuments throughout our country, these locomotives could be displayed too.  After all, they are a part of our history.  Remember, the railroads built America.  

Rick Rowlands:  A man with a positive attitude and a good, sound plan, who responds well to a challenge!  

Dan and RULE292: WELL STATED!