Best (USA?) Electric Locomotive ever built

[Anonymous]

Thanks for that clarification uzurpator, I have never seen the IORE operated as just one loc, so I assumed it was only intended to run as both sections. They are then basically less powerful 3-axle versions of the BR152 mated together, and weighted down with some balast?

As for the E100, I am not familiar with this model, do you have a picture or webpage link to a picture?

[jeaton]

uzurpator-Numerous reports indicate that the Acela riders really like the trains. Not withstanding the problems "catastrophic failure" is a little over the top. You have a better design?

[FThunder11]

ACELA EXPRESS

[Anonymous]

BR1116:

Iore as in a single config:

http://homepage.swissonline.ch/Christener/Kiruna/Bilder/107-0703_IMG.JPG
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/se/private/MTAB/IORE_102_gaellivare_010831.jpg

Construction of the loco

http://hem.passagen.se/plf66/typer-sv/typer-mtab-iore-07.html

As for EP100 (sorry fo E100 :p) it should look somewhat like this:
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/ru/electric/EP200/ru_ep200-0001_01.jpg

jeaton:

Don't ask how much the passangers like the trains. Ask: "How much was achieved for the $ spent, and how much could be achieved for that $?".

Acela facts:

Power / Weight: 16.3 kW/tonne (compare to TGV Duplex, 23 kW/tonne)
Power / Seat: 30.3 kW/seat (compare to TGV Duplex, 16.2 kW/seat)
Weight / Seat: 1.9 tonne/seat (compare to TGV Duplex, 0.7 tonne/seat)

"The Acela Express is built about 45% heavier than a typical TGV."

Overall - intresting read:

http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/acela.html

Don't miss the problem with yaw dampers and cracking frames... The problems were severe enough for amtrak to cancel the last ordered trains...

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the info, as for the Engineering problems with the Acela, it's only fair to mention that this is Canada/America's first real attempt at highspeed rail, while the French and Germans have been at it for decades... We (the traveller) need to take electric more seriously in the US, then we can invest in the engineering to make it profitable. Even the top speed of 150mph is not much more than general purpose locs like the BR1116 in my signature block.. While TGV and ICE3 are close to 200mph.. With the type of terrain found in the US, and the engineering capability of the US, we could make a 300mph railway, we just don't put the money behind it.

[jeaton]

uz

I agree that the Acela had many problems, including the name. Dave Gunn was reported as saying that he alwas thought acela was the room under the parlor. Your link notes that the weight issue was the consequence of FRA crash standards. There were probably other engineering issues that were a consequence of regulatory and environmental conditions. It is also well known that change requests made during design and testing also impacted the project costs. I am not going to suggest that every shortcoming of the trains have been overcome or ever will be overcome, but the service provides an operating profit for Amtrak and passenger satisfaction is high. I just can't describe it as a failure.

On the other hand, there is the Turbo-Train project for New York. Now, that is a project that could be described as a dismal failure. No doubt, a bad idea in the first place.

Jay

[Anonymous]

The late great GG1

[daveklepper]

Despite being outvoted, I still say the EF-3. Mention has been made of other locomotives equalling three F-3's but the EF-3 equalled four GP-9's! Long frieghts on the Pennsy required two GG-1's and two E-44's. But somehow the EF-3 could handle anything by itself without any problems and still make up time with the Colonial or the Senator into Penn Station. Basically the EP-3, the EP-4, and GG-1, and the EF-3 all had similar design characteristics. The design of the GG-1 was based on the EP-3 after the Pennsy borrowed one for testing in service. The EP-4 came after the first GG-1's but was contemporary with the latter ones. Then the EF-3 came last of these AC quil-drive commutator motor 25 Hz AC electrics, all 4-6-6-4. The GG-1 cab was not particularly comfortable, but the EP-4 and EF-3 cabs, one on each end, were typical of diesel practice and crews liked them.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by FThunder11

ACELA EXPRESS

Not yet! Its has a few more years to go to catch the GG1.

[espeefoamer]

Many years ago, in TRAINS,I recall reading of a single GG1 leaving Washington over an hour late with a train from the South,with 20+ heaveweight cars,and arriving in Pennsylvania Station on time.

[daveklepper]

Espeefoamer is correct, and I experienced similar situations. The Advance Congressional was allowed to run ahead of time and often a 3:05 run from Washington to New York. The trains from the south were usually carded 4:15 or 4:30 because of head-end work. When this was light they could make up time.

Could the EF-3 done it as well? With a given load it could probably out accelerate a GG-1, and it was better in freight service, but the GG-1 had a higher possible top speed.

Back to the question about multi-notches on these AC quill-drive electrics.

DC electric locomotives, switched out series resistors to increase power. The very nature of this control, which wastes power unless one is careful to run mostly in full series or full parallel or coast, is forgiving when one switches from one point of power to another and limits current surges. In AC operation, except for the rotary converter locmotives, all New Haven (except the EP-5) and Pennsy ac electrics used multiple transforer taps, and limiting current surges on this type of control demands small incremental voltage (number of transformer coils) differentials.

[Anonymous]

Call me a heretic, but I vote for the AEM7. It's been a solid workhorse for Amtrak over 20 years now. Septa, MARC, and NJT have a couple too (or the ALP44 equivalent).

"Toasters" just get the job done.

[jchnhtfd]

Although I'll still vote for the GG-1 (as I said, considering the technology available at the time, there just isn't a comparison) but I agree -- the little toaster is a really fine locomotirve.

[Anonymous]

I vote for the Baldwin-Westinghouse steeple cabs. They have been used by countless lines since the 1890s and some are still in use.

[coborn35]

GG1 all the way

[daveklepper]

The AEM-7 is a fine locomotive and does its job fine. But it wouldn't cut the mustard in freight service compared to the EF-3, the GG-1, the E-44, or the E-33/EP-4. A 20 car passenger train probably would require two in multiple.

But where would you run the GG-1 or the EF-3 today? To much 60 cycle catenary in the way. Only capable of 25 cycle operation. The ASEM-7 was designed for both.

[Bob-Fryml]

The best electrics in America? My vote is split two ways. Half my vote goes to the Great Northern's W-1s because they look so gargantuan and really had an enormous task to do handling some serious tonnage through the Cascades. They look as big and bold as any image I've ever seen of the empire builder himself, James J. Hill. Wouldn't it have been great if these gargantuan beasts would have had dozens of brothers patroling the mainline between Williston and Puget Sound?

The other half of my vote goes to The Milwaukee Road's Bi-Polars, as bizarre a looking locomotive as their owner's balance sheet and nowhere-to-nowhere route map. With 12-powered axles, it had the same 3,000 horsepower rating as a six-axle SD40-2. Whenever I have the good fortune to visit the Museum of Transportation in Saint Louis County, their Bi-Polar is the locomotive I study the longest.

- - - - - - - - -

Hey you traction PHREAQUES out there: How come anyone hasn't mentioned the Illinois Terminal's home-built Class B, C, and D motors or the North Shore Line's ex-Oregon Electric boxcab (8-axles) and alligator (?), the 8-axle pseudo hood unit?

[cefinkjr]

PRR's GG1 was unquestionably the finest electric ever built in this country. It was so good that you could blame it for a lack of further development of electric power for about 20 years. The GG1 just didn't leave a lot of room for improvement.

And as far as I know, the GG1 was not "adapted to haul freight" except to be taken off a passenger train and assigned to freight or vice versa. The same motor that hauled the Broadway one day could find itself on a freight the next.

Funny thing about the GG1 that I've never understood: I had occasion to ride in the cab of a GG1 from 30th Street Station to Lancaster. The ride was at least as smooth as in a Pullman. Meanwhile, I also rode an NYC (formerly CUT) 2-C-C-2 from GCT out to Harmon. That motor rode like it had square wheels! Now these two electrics had very similar specifications from one end to the other; I've never understood how they could ride so very differently.

And a quick short story about the GG1. Anybody ever hear of a G1? I was introduced to this strange beast by the Shop Superintendent at Wilmington, DE. Seems a GG1 had been so badly damaged in an accident that it had been written off. Folks in the shop, however, noted that only one end had been damaged. The other end was salvaged (with a plain sheet of steel welded over the end) and was being used as a shop switcher in Wilmington.

Incidentally, there is a GG1 in the Age of Steam museum here in Dallas. I'm told it was received in trade for an NYC Mohawk several years ago. Anybody know of another GG1 that's further from its home rails?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cefinkjr

And as far as I know, the GG1 was not "adapted to haul freight" except to be taken off a passenger train and assigned to freight or vice versa. The same motor that hauled the Broadway one day could find itself on a freight the next.

And a quick short story about the GG1. Anybody ever hear of a G1? I was introduced to this strange beast by the Shop Superintendent at Wilmington, DE. Seems a GG1 had been so badly damaged in an accident that it had been written off. Folks in the shop, however, noted that only one end had been damaged. The other end was salvaged (with a plain sheet of steel welded over the end) and was being used as a shop switcher in Wilmington.

That is not exactly correct. The freight and passenger GG1s had different gearing. In fact some of the passenger GG1s were geared for a maximum of 100 mph while others were geared for a maximum of 90. It depended on if they were designated for clockers or for long distance trains. As the need for passenger service reduced the PRR and later the PC regeared the surplus passenger locomotives. An additional difference was that the freight GG1s did not have steam boilers or the fuel tanks for the oil to fire the boilers.

A PRR G1 was a steam 4-6-0. The Wilmington shop switcher did not have an official class designation.

[Anonymous]

Daveklepper: we still use a lot of 25Hz on the northeast corridor, the only place that went to 60Hz is when they had electrified the line up north in CT a few years ago. But, we're still running 25Hz for the most part. the power companies a few years ago gave Amtrak notice that they would not be able to supply us with 25Hz after a certain date. So, Amtrak built its own converter stations (20 mega-watts) where we take commercial 60Hz and convert it to 25Hz. One is located in Bowie, Md.

[Anonymous]

The pennsylvania railroad's GG1 is the best ever. Second would be the Little Joes of the Milwaukee Road

[daveklepper]

So when is some millionaire going to resurect a GG-1 and operate on the existing 25Hz lines? It can be done then. I thought that Amtrak was going to convert the whole corridor to 60Hz! In stages, of course.

What I understand is that the hangup is the cooling flued for the GG-1's transformers, which was a particularly toxic brew. But surely some substitute can be found now.

Mind you, I like the GG-1 a lot. But I liked the EF-3 even better. I never rode an EF-3. I did ride a GG-1 once from New Haven to Penn Station. On the fireman's side, of course.

[Anonymous]

The Wilmington Shop shifter never had an official designation, but railfans at the time referred to it more correctly as a G.5; some said G one half . . .

Old Timer

[MichaelSol]

Depends on the engineer. The Milwaukee Road Little Joes were rated HP at 5500 hp (3400 vDC) and 78,000 TE. The TE is less than an EF-1 GE Freight motor. But, so much for paper ratings. NOBODY on the Milwaukee considered them the equivalent of an EF-1 Boxcab freight motor.

In routine practice, a Milwaukee Little Joe could achieve 35% adhesion (actually measured on a 2.2% grade!), 152,390 lbs TE, and 7000 hp. When the Milwaukee ran them in pairs, as they routinely did, that's 305,000 lbs TE, and 14,000 hp available for mountain grades. At an altitude of 6000 feet, pushing snow, 20 below zero, when the SD-40-2s are bogging down, gasping for breath, the wind chill is minus 60 degrees, and the fuel is gelling, that 14,000 electric hp was nice to have on a 1.8% grade. Best regards, Michael Sol

PostScript: the two or three times that four Joes operated together was quite a spectacle.

[daveklepper]

Again, the EF-3 never needed to run in pairs, and not because the NH didn't run some long trains. They did, But the EF-3 pulled them up the Hell Gate Bridge grades just fine. When they dieselized the freight service, four GP-9's were required for the same trains. Then when they put back the overhead wire, two E-33/EF-4's. And the EF-3 had no trouble making up time in Penn Sta. - New Haven passenger service, including accelerating out of curves and out of the Stamford and Bridgeport stations. I still say they are the best!

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The electric enthusiasts are omitting one matter: short-term ratings. Diesel locomotives are limited by the output of their engines while electrics are limited (not by much) by the amount of current that can be supplied through the substations and catenary or third rail. Short-term ratings are higher than continuous ratings but can't be kept up indefinitely without frying the electrical gear.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

The electric enthusiasts are omitting one matter: short-term ratings. Diesel locomotives are limited by the output of their engines while electrics are limited (not by much) by the amount of current that can be supplied ...

I don't think anyone is omitting the overload capacity; rather, it is a key feature of straight electric traction technology which in part justifies the "enthusiasm" for that particular mode.

What is omitted however most typically is that Diesel locomotives are not just limited to the output of the diesel engine, but by altitude, air quality (as in long tunnels), ambient temperature, and age of the machine, all of which have little impact on a straight electric's output.

The economic importance of the difference is the amount of motive power necessary to meet the need. An SD-40-2, 3000 engine hp, is rated at 55% of the HP of a Little Joe, 5500 hp, (at 3400 vDC) for instance. The SD-40-2's drawbar hp is only 2550 because of losses due to electrical and mechanical conversion of energy necessary to get the engine power to the drawbar. The straight electric has no "engine" hp. It is already measured at the drawbar. Under a combination of adverse conditions of cold and altitude, the SD-40-2's inherent limitations come into full play. The SD-40-2 can drop to as low as 1800 hp, engine, or 1,530 hp drawbar. The "limitation" on the Little Joe, as an example, is that under the same conditions not only does it have an operational overload capacity of 127% before it begins to slip, but the short term rating, or overload capacity, is considerably extended by the cold of my earlier example to a continuous rating for practical purposes, except that the time of passage on mountain grades on the Milwaukee generally did not exceed the short term rating period.

The straight electric, under the conditions where the power is most needed, can develop in this particular instance a difference in "continuous" rating from the Joe, at 183% of the continuous engine rating of the SD unit, to as much as 503% of SD's actual output under the same adverse conditions and assuming the SD units are relatively new. The electrics of course can be a quarter century old or more and this won't affect their output.

The differences in power availability under adverse conditions and on a mountain grade between a straight electric and a diesel-electric are so very significant as to be one of the key economic considerations in favor of electrification. Rather than being "omitted," it is usually first and foremost of the considerations, until engineers start talking about power supply and diesel fuel costs.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Definitely the GG1 - I remember them hustling freights on the Corridor at better than 50 mph, and that was in the late 70s. I do respect all the great freight motors, and the virtues of the electric locomotive make them all shine. And the toasters get a close second, although not US-built.

BTW, BR1116 - thanks for the video of the Acela Express, but it's just coasting - it only can acheive 150 mph under the constant-tension catenary between New Haven ane Boston, and only on a couple of tangents in RI. It is limited to about 125 South of New Haven.

I did see the last E60s in the dead line in Wilmington the last time I rode through there.

As for an excursion route, the aforementioned hypothetical billionaire could restring catenary on the Port Road Branch along the Susquehanna....that would be a nice ride.

shorty440

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Built for the ages, with a fantastic capacity for overload. Tremendous adhesion (didn't the prototype accelerate from 0 to 100 MPH with one coach repeatedly in an average time of 62 seconds?) (I'd have loved to be in that coach . . .)

[:O] Holy smokes! That's quick!

[daveklepper]

I'll have to agree the GG-1 was the most successful, perhaps the very best looking,, but none of you seem to have had any direct first-had experience with the EF-3. I had first hand experience with the Little Joe (rode one on the South Shore), the GG-1, and the EF-3, and I am still convinced the EF-3 was best. Question, when you saw GG-1's hustling LONG freight trains, weren't there usually two MU'd? That was ny experience with GG-1's ib freight.