Nostalgia & History > GG1s in Paradise

Paradise, PA that is. Two shots of the National Limited westbound, circa 1973.

Bandob

---

---

Yep,
I sure miss the ole GG1's

Cabin

Strasburg "Rivits". Altoona's G, and The Jersey G.
All stuffed, and mounted.

Ed K. cp Laurel Run

---

---

---

m1bprr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Strasburg "Rivits". Altoona's G, and The Jersey G.
> All stuffed, and mounted.
>
> Ed K. cp Laurel Run

Also noted Harrisburg's G near "Rivits". She's currently dusty (with chalk marks from a recent PCB evaluation) but in decent shape under the station shed in Harrisburg. If Corridor One ever gets near to reality, that G will have to move.

http://nrhs-hbg.pennsyrr.com

-PRR 5711

are there any plans to restore a GG1 to operation? is that possible or feasible? would Amtrak let that fly?

The restoration of a GG1 has been discussed before. It could be acomplished but at an outrages cost. If one would gut the entire insides of a GG1 and put all new componets in the engine; in other words, make it conform to what a current Amtrak engine is today electrically, then it could be operated, and of course one would have to get Amtrak to operate it since they are the only major railroad that has the electric overhead for operations. One could not just restore an old GG1 as they were since they are obsolete by Amtrak's standards today.

ClubCar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The restoration of a GG1 has been discussed
> before. It could be acomplished but at an
> outrages cost. If one would gut the entire
> insides of a GG1 and put all new componets in the
> engine; in other words, make it conform to what a
> current Amtrak engine is today electrically, then
> it could be operated, and of course one would have
> to get Amtrak to operate it since they are the
> only major railroad that has the electric overhead
> for operations. One could not just restore an old
> GG1 as they were since they are obsolete by
> Amtrak's standards today.

It's somewhat ironic, since the unique design of the GG-1 was caused by the need to protect engine crews against grade crossing etc collisions. The main line motor of the day (R-5?) was a box cab with the engineer and fireman up front. In addition to the wheel problems, there was a need to protect the crew.

Today's Amtrak's AEM-7 engines have more than a passing resemblance to the R-5. And, less front end protection than a GG-1

The GG1 was certinaly an interesting looking engine. I'm sure it can be considered beautiful, and it is certianly masterfully designed, at least as far as appearance goes.

But every time I look at one, I really wonder what were the design constraints that went into it. Why was it double-ended? Why was the cab back in the middle? I'd ask "why black", but being Pensy I guess that answers itself.

lwilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> But every time I look at one, I really wonder what
> were the design constraints that went into it. Why
> was it double-ended? Why was the cab back in the
> middle? I'd ask "why black", but being Pensy I
> guess that answers itself.


It was double-ended for easy turn around at the end of the runs. Hence why the EP5, E60, AEM7/ALP44, ALP46, and HHP8 were/are the same. As well as almost all electrics and diesels in Europe, ex-USSR, Japan, Israel, China, etc.

I really don't understand why P42's aren't double-ended since they run in single half the time. A single-cab engine made sense in the old days when diesels ran as AA, ABA, or ABBA consists, but currently, it 's main purpose seems to be to cause operational clusterf**ks rather than anything else.

The freight railroads almost never run single-unit trains, so they can reproduce the double-ended "locomotive" with two, three, or four units (which seems to be the case in 99.99% of the time).

The absence of double ending might be a space constraint in the diesels. Probably need 60 sf for the cockpit area, and another few feet for the rest room space. And then some more space for the impact resistance barriers, etc.

NJ Transit, for example, ordered its PL42AC and ALP45DM diesels as single ended. They'll spend virtually all their life in push pull mode.

ClubCar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The restoration of a GG1 has been discussed
> before. It could be acomplished but at an
> outrages cost. If one would gut the entire
> insides of a GG1 and put all new componets in the
> engine; in other words, make it conform to what a
> current Amtrak engine is today electrically, then
> it could be operated, and of course one would have
> to get Amtrak to operate it since they are the
> only major railroad that has the electric overhead
> for operations. One could not just restore an old
> GG1 as they were since they are obsolete by
> Amtrak's standards today.

Where did this crap come from. The restoration of a GG-1 has nothing to do with Modern electronics nor any requirement by Amtrak for it to Conform to an Amtrak Standard. It has everything to do with the EPA and a transformer that was filled with Pyrenol, which according to the EPA is so dangerous that even looking at the name will give you cancer.

A restoration will require a new transformer and wiring as the old stuff is probably shot, rewinding the traction motors as they are probably shot, rebuilt air brake components, and reannealing the truck castings as they were all dying of fatigue cracks when the motors were taken out of service. If you have the bucks to do that, running the engine on Amtrak will be a piece of cake.

There are several ways to restore a GG1. Assuming one keeps the 12 motors (might need rewinding), these are AC brush/commuter motors but they will run fine on DC. So a modern transformer and thyristor control system would work. One could do a straight rectifier as well but then you need a complex multi-tapped transformer, resistor grids etc. while thyristor controls function like a light dimmer. Depending on the intended use, it might not even be necessary to have 12 working motors.

The preferred way would be to restore it just as it was. This requires a custom transformer as they were pulled because the transformer oil (Pyranol being one example) contained PCB's. If the designs can be found I don't see why it could be done. It would cost a bundle but maybe there is a way that it could be done by volunteers in conjunction with some professional involvement. You need a lot of switchgear too because that was all over the transformer and probably was discarded when the transformers were removed. The switch gear connected different segments of transformer secondary windings and this was how control was achieved.

(Didn't 4800 have an air-cooled transformer? Is it still in there?)

Another way, specifically for IRM, would be to test the unit's motors to see if there are 4 operable as is and stuff trolley switchgear, resistors, MG and 600VDC compressor in the body and run the thing on their trolley wire. Electrically it would just be a giant trolley car.

GG1's were retired partly because cracks on the frames of the super trucks. Those would need to be repaired (and annealed?) before any mainline operation could be contemplated. A low speed operation like at IRM might not require this, but going slowly through the cornfields might not be what people want to see with a GG1.

filmteknik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are several ways to restore a GG1. Assuming
> one keeps the 12 motors (might need rewinding),
> these are AC brush/commuter motors but they will
> run fine on DC. So a modern transformer and
> thyristor control system would work. One could do
> a straight rectifier as well but then you need a
> complex multi-tapped transformer, resistor grids
> etc. while thyristor controls function like a
> light dimmer. Depending on the intended use, it
> might not even be necessary to have 12 working
> motors.
>
> The preferred way would be to restore it just as
> it was. This requires a custom transformer as
> they were pulled because the transformer oil
> (Pyranol being one example) contained PCB's. If
> the designs can be found I don't see why it could
> be done. It would cost a bundle but maybe there
> is a way that it could be done by volunteers in
> conjunction with some professional involvement.
> You need a lot of switchgear too because that was
> all over the transformer and probably was
> discarded when the transformers were removed. The
> switch gear connected different segments of
> transformer secondary windings and this was how
> control was achieved.
>
> (Didn't 4800 have an air-cooled transformer? Is
> it still in there?)
>
> Another way, specifically for IRM, would be to
> test the unit's motors to see if there are 4
> operable as is and stuff trolley switchgear,
> resistors, MG and 600VDC compressor in the body
> and run the thing on their trolley wire.
> Electrically it would just be a giant trolley
> car.
>
> GG1's were retired partly because cracks on the
> frames of the super trucks. Those would need to
> be repaired (and annealed?) before any mainline
> operation could be contemplated. A low speed
> operation like at IRM might not require this, but
> going slowly through the cornfields might not be
> what people want to see with a GG1.

Thanks for the detailed analysis. Maybe the trail run could be out on the Iowa Traction railroad? Although the tight turns might be an issue.