GG1 question

847 views
8 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2019
  • 1,617 posts
GG1 question
Posted by Lithonia Operator on Tuesday, January 19, 2021 11:39 PM

Did all GG1s have the exact same carbody shape?

Im guessing there were some slight visual differences (owing to improvement details) in units as the years progressed, but as for the basic body, did it ever change.

I had thought not, but in a picture I saw recently of a double-headed pair, the shapes do not seem to be identical.

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 3,184 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Wednesday, January 20, 2021 12:31 AM

The first one had a riveted body, and so looked different than the rest. 

There was also the single R1 and DD2 prototypes, as well as a number of earlier P5 units that all shared a similar centre cab arrangement.  

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 17,337 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, January 20, 2021 4:14 AM

P-5s with their 4-6-4 or 2-C-2 arrnagement  came in two types.  The first traditional box cab with controls at each end, and the second produced along with the earliest GG-1s with a center-cab similar to the GG-1. looking like the R1.(4-8-4 or 2-D-2) a shortened GG1.

"Rivets," the original GG-1, had a similasr body to the production models, but squarer with angles and edges instead of curves.   Can someone post comparison photos?

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,389 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Wednesday, January 20, 2021 6:40 AM

A later mod to GG1s was to move the air intakes (for cooling air) from the side panels to the narrow sections on the end.  The lower intakes had some serious issues in certain kinds of winter conditions.  Below are some links to PRR electric photos.

Here's one of 4902 (later Amtrak 905) with the intake mods:

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=5274588

A "normal" one (4876, the Union Station engine)

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=5328834

The riveted first and one of the last welded body GG1s side by side

https://railpictures.net/photo/519598/

Side view of riveted prototype 4800

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=5036366

Stuff on R-1 4999 (as 4899)and DD2 (2-B+B-2) prototype 5800 and a P5a modified

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4901083

And a pair of unmodified P5a's

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=5179064

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 15,398 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, January 20, 2021 11:00 AM

The original GG1 'Rivets' is Dohner's carbody, derived in part from the P5a 'modified' design (and with the same intent, preventing another Deans-type accident -- the massive grade-crossing eliminations across New Jersey took a long time to achieve, and were only just starting in the mid-Thirties.)

To me the profile and finish on the 'initial' welded locomotive, 4801, and perhaps other very early production were a bit different from those later in the 4800s.  This might only reflect a little more care in making and grinding the welds.

There were many modifications to the vents and grilles on the nose but none that changed the underlying dimensions of the sheet metal that much, particularly the complex nose contours.  There was an article in a 1983 RMC that carefully showed the shape involved in the welded nose -- these were far more complex than the angles in Dohner's design and a reason I give Loewy more 'credit' for the GG1 production streamlining.

The DD2 carbody (and all the presumptive 428A-motored follow-on designs) didn't resemble the GG1's at all when you compared detail.  As I noted the proposed V1 steam turbine looked very similar to the DD2s.  It is interesting that the early-'40s reorder of GG1s shows so apparently few changes in carbody form... a proposed 'GG2' for the electrification west of Harrisburg would likely have resembled a longer DD2, and these might have been built instead of 'more GG1s' if that project had been even slightly accelerated in time.

  • Member since
    May 2019
  • 1,617 posts
Posted by Lithonia Operator on Friday, January 22, 2021 10:19 PM

Thanks, guys.

  • Member since
    May 2019
  • 1,617 posts
Posted by Lithonia Operator on Friday, January 22, 2021 10:29 PM

Those cooling intake ducts on the narrow part of the nose really marred the aesthetics. Sad.

Was that for motor cooling, cab/crew cooling, both?

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 20,053 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, January 23, 2021 8:19 AM

Lithonia Operator
Those cooling intake ducts on the narrow part of the nose really marred the aesthetics. Sad.

Was that for motor cooling, cab/crew cooling, both?

Two Mid-Atlantic Winter storms in 1958 had serious effects on the PRR electrification.  One storm generate a heavy wet snow that pulled down the catenary for miles and miles in numerous locations.  The other storm consisted of a relatively dry powdery snow that was sucked through the air cooling sysems and then melted on the electrical equipment creating short circuits and other electrical failures. Afterwards PRR did change the air cooling systems on the GG-1's to prevent this from happening again.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 15,398 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, January 23, 2021 8:34 AM

BaltACD
Afterwards PRR did change the air cooling systems on the GG-1's to prevent this from happening again.

Another step taken was the use of epoxy material on the traction-motor windings, a step that I suspect had a number of other benefits.  

Amusingly enough, the 'diamond snow' phenomenon did recur later, at least once, and someone here will know the date involved.  

In similar news, as I recall, were the effects that convinced Amtrak to very expensively move key electrical components to 'humps' in the roofs of Metroliners.

If I recall correctly, the 'worst' of the conversions (the large flat-panel openings on the upper nose sides, as on a couple of the Amtrak 900s) were intended to accommodate filter elements that could filter even very fine snow but still pass enough air mass flow for good cooling.

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter