Yeah, I should have said I was just referring to public crossings. I'll check the chart when I get home-- I'm guessing at least six public xings south of Wilmington in 1981.
For starters, look at the 1980 historicaerials.com pics at 39.0177N 76.7648W and 38.9955N 76.8007W. (The latter might have been the last xing to close-- maybe 1983-84? Trains might have mentioned its closing.)
I looked at the track chart Mr Thompson sent me in 1985 that summarizes all the NECIP work. It shows 13 crossings eliminated by NECIP south of Wilmington-- no dates, tho. On the topo map, most (maybe all) of them look to be public.
Probably 38.9594N 76.8630W
Probably 38.9726N 76.8443W
Then the two mentioned above
39.1835N 76.6927W
The well-known Knecht xing 39.2611N 76.6873W
39.3104N 76.4970W
39.3624N 76.3686W
39.4566N 76.2097W
39.4655N 76.2007W
Aberdeen 39.5092N 76.1626W
Mechanics Valley Rd 39.6091N 75.9334W
Elk Neck Rd 39.6029N 75.8600W
Iron Hill 39.6458N 75.79085W
The January 1977 chart that Rails Northeast reproduced in 1978 says all the above were public crossings except, maybe, the Stony Run Rd xing at 39.1835N 76.6927. It adds the Ott's Chapel Rd xing at 39.65465N 75.7818W.
Looking at the 1974 timetable it seems there were then a couple more xings, at and east of Newark: South Chapel Rd and Ruthby Rd.
timz daveklepper New Haven Penn Station is entirely grade separated, and now NY - Washington is, and only had one grade crossing at the time of Amtrak GG-1 operation. Far as anyone knows, about eight grade crossings between Wilmington and Washington in the 1970s.
daveklepper New Haven Penn Station is entirely grade separated, and now NY - Washington is, and only had one grade crossing at the time of Amtrak GG-1 operation.
daveklepperNew Haven Penn Station is entirely grade separated, and now NY - Washington is, and only had one grade crossing at the time of Amtrak GG-1 operation.
Far as anyone knows, about eight grade crossings between Wilmington and Washington in the 1970s.
http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/rr/collection/object/6545
http://www.rwrightrr.com/photos/pv.asp?pid=1352
http://www.rwrightrr.com/photos/pv.asp?pid=1351
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/bob-hope-seems-to-be-looking-forward-to-his-visit-here-on-arrival-at-picture-id97264680
daveklepper Regarding visibility and operation of Amtrak passenger trains without a fireman on the GG-1s, recall that Neew Haven Penn Station is entirely grade separated, and now NY - Washington is, and only had one grade crossing at the time of Amtrak GG-1 operation.
Regarding visibility and operation of Amtrak passenger trains without a fireman on the GG-1s, recall that Neew Haven Penn Station is entirely grade separated, and now NY - Washington is, and only had one grade crossing at the time of Amtrak GG-1 operation.
There were still grade crossings on the Philadelphia - Harrsiburg line, as well as the Port Road branch south from Columbia, PA.
RMEA locomotive that is notable is the New Haven EP5, which was nicknamed a 'Jet' because of its pronounced blower noise; the PRR E44 also produced a remarkably loud vacuum-cleaner-like noise
The GE freight electric that was the contemporary of the EP5, known as the E2B on the PRR, was nicknamed "Screamer" on the PRR because of the loud blower noise. I saw one MUed to a P5 on the low grade coming up from Columbia and it was cover your ears loud.
"Blower" for an electric locomotive like a GG1 almost certainly refers to 'traction-motor blower' -- the TMs being sufficiently loaded in most electric-locomotive and diesel-electric locomotive practice to require substantial forced cooling in service.
There would probably be blowers for other electrical equipment in the locomotive, especially for designs with 'positive pressurization' of the equipment spaces. A locomotive that is notable is the New Haven EP5, which was nicknamed a 'Jet' because of its pronounced blower noise; the PRR E44 also produced a remarkably loud vacuum-cleaner-like noise (I'm not sure how much of this was purely traction-motor-blower noise). In part this involves specification of smaller and faster-turning equipment to save space, weight or cost (just as vacuum cleaner motors are typically small and noisy for their expected power output!)
I don't remember GG1s producing anywhere near that level of blower noise either for its frame-mounted motors or for other electrical equipment.
beaulieu Before the advent of modern power electronics the equipment needed to control that amount of power was much larger and required a lot of cooling.
Before the advent of modern power electronics the equipment needed to control that amount of power was much larger and required a lot of cooling.
I think this is the answer to a question I want to ask--what is the "blower?" Is it just to cool the electrical equipment in the locomotive?
The "frame" of a GG1 is like a span-bolster used by some multi-trucked locomotives (GE U50, Alco C855), in that the body shell is not directly attached to the "frame". Note there is an independent pilot truck on each end, but the axles that propel the locomotive are rigidly mounted to the frame.
I don't know the details about the GG1's running gear design, but I think the main purpose of the 'hinge at the midpoint of the articulated frame' is to transmit longitudinal forces between the two trucks (I mean the frames with the 3 powered axles each). This is of advantage to the main frame as the couplers are mounted on the trucks. In case of slack running in or out the forces were transmitted directly from one truck to the other so the main fram has not to bear these forces.
I think that if you look at the diagram below, you will find that the couplers were in fact connected to the frame and not the trucks.
http://ctr.trains.com/~/media/images/online%20extras/gg1%20in%20layers/gg1-12-1024.ashx
.
Levantine Thanks, Mike. One more question. In the schematics I see a hinge at the midpoint of the articulated frame. From which end of the locomotive did one truck swing, when rounding a curve? Or was there some sort of pivot at the mid-point of each truck?
Thanks, Mike. One more question. In the schematics I see a hinge at the midpoint of the articulated frame. From which end of the locomotive did one truck swing, when rounding a curve? Or was there some sort of pivot at the mid-point of each truck?
The hinge can have a second purpose : to join the two trucks vertically (transmitting vertical forces). In doing so, the load transfer (change of axle loads) due to traction/braking efforts of the whole loco is kept very low. Without this joint the front end of a truck slightly moves upward and the rear end downward when the truck exerts tractive effort. Linking the inner ends of both trucks reduces the pitch movements of both trucks resulting in a minimum amount of laod transfer. A minimum of load transfer was desirable as the axles could gain slip independently from each other under reduced wheel/rail adhesion.
The hinge could even have a third purpose : to join the two trucks laterally. This feature is used to reduce the lateral wheel to rail forces when running through a curve. To understand this, you should first realize that a truck always would like to go straight ahead. Going through a curve means the truck has to turn around a vertical axis. This turning movement requires some sliding of each wheel against the rails. To turn a truck through a curve, a lateral force is required to overcome the wheel/rail friction because of the sliding movements. In most curves the outer wheel of the leading axle touches the rail head with its flange thereby getting the lateral force from the outer rail in the direction to turn the truck. In tighter curves the inner wheel of the trailing axle will also touch the railhead (of the inner rail) with its flange, thus getting a lateral force for turning the truck, too.
When two trucks are running independently from each other under a common main frame, one will find that (when travelling through a curve) they swing out under different angles in respect to the main frame, the leading truck having a smaller and the trailing truck having a larger angle. This is the reason for the hinge points of the inner ends of the truck frames not remaining face to face when running through a curve. When travelling through a lefthand curve the hinge point of the leading truck has moved to the left in respect to the hinge point of the trailing truck. Now consider the two hinge points connected to each other : this means the leading truck has to increase its angle of turn against the frame and the trailing truck has to reduce its angle. In doing so, the alignment of both trucks in respect to the curve has improved and the lateral forces at the wheel flanges are lower than without joining.
If the lateral joint is strict and stiff, it will lead to severe hunting of both trucks when running on tangent track at high speeds. Therefore, this joint is normally designed with a specific amount of play. But even if the play has been exhausted the joint is not made by a stiff link but by means of a pre-stressed spring.
Whether the linkage in case of the GG1 has which of these 3 options you can perhaps only decide by knowing more details, e.g. construction drawings of the linkage.
The design of such a linkage between the truck frames is very much "steam era thinking" - it was very much common practice at that time to put a considerable amount of effort into a good curving behaviour and low load transfer.
The main frame of the GG1 seems to me to rest on four spring loaded plates which are located in such a way to get the desired load distribution on the drivers and on the undriven axles. Longitudinal and lateral guidance could have been by two vertical pivots on the main frame, each fitting into a hole in the truck frames (location seems to be about midpoint between the second undriven and the first driven axle). It is possible, that these pivots do not transmit vertical loads (as a 'center plate design" would do), so that the main frame completely rests on springs - this would lead to a much smoother vertical ride (which has been reported).
In the era of the 20s and 30s a number of electric locos (having two trucks) had a linkage between their trucks. Today, the trucks are arranged at a much larger distance between them, and tanks on diesel locos and transformers on electric locos fill the space. Today, a linkage between trucks isn't a running gear design feature anymore. Instead, in some cases radial steering trucks are used to reduce the wheel flange forces and wear.
cefinkjr wrote the following post on Thursday, December 16, 2010 DSO17: I think the manager was pulling your leg. The half-GG1 was supposed to be a snow blower. Then the Wilmington Shops used a snow blower to move other motors around the shop area. Interesting. I never paid much attention to the half-G, but one of the foremen who oversaw its "conversion" told me it couldn't move on its own and had to be shoved by another engine. Googling PRR GG1 snow blower shows a difference of opinion. Due to the catenary arrangement at the shops, it seems like an electric shifter would be of rather limited usefulness. Do we have one of those inside jokes that float around the railroad?
DSO17: I think the manager was pulling your leg. The half-GG1 was supposed to be a snow blower.
I think the manager was pulling your leg. The half-GG1 was supposed to be a snow blower.
Then the Wilmington Shops used a snow blower to move other motors around the shop area.
DSO17 I think the manager was pulling your leg. The half-GG1 was supposed to be a snow blower.
ChuckAllen, TX
Concerning the poor visibility froma GG1 or a steam locomotive, the old timers said it wasn't that big of a deal. You couldn't stop on a dime anyway!
Shops cobbled together any number of specialized pieces of equipment to suit their local needs
Witness
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/6/1/0/6610.1137762000.jpg
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD GG-1 visability was equivalent to that of steam locomotives of the period when the GG-1's were built.
GG-1 visability was equivalent to that of steam locomotives of the period when the GG-1's were built.
Agreed. And because of the poor visibility from a steam locomotive cab, I doubt that even crossed the minds of the GG1 design team.
On the general subject of PRR GG-1s, did you know that PRR had a G-1? I started a short training session at Wilmington, DE shops right after the PC merger and, during my welcome by the shop manager, I was asked that question. I thought he was pulling my leg, but he pointed out the window of his office and said, "There it is now." "It" was half of a GG-1. The story he gave me was that it had been badly damaged in a collision and could not be repaired. On the other hand, the rear (at the time of the collision) had not been damaged at all. The shop cut off the damaged parts, welded a piece of sheet steel over the open end, and, voilà!, they had a G-1 yard goat. The best part was that it had been written off the books so was essentially a free engine.
cefinkjr FTGT725: Did the GG1s have a fireman back in the day and if so, what were his duties? As far as I know, there was a fireman on every GG1 until the very end. In addition to tending the train heat boiler, his most important duty was calling signals and blowing for grade crossings. This doesn't sound like much but the engineer's visibility to the left front of a GG1 was absolutely terrible. On a long curve to the left, the engineer was literally flying blind. Knowledge of the railroad helped with grade crossings and cab signals were great, but neither was as good as an alert eyeball. I don't recall any specific ones, but I'm sure there were also situations where a ground man could not be seen from the engineer's seat. He might have been able to move to a position where the engineer could see him, but the fireman relaying his signals across the cab was a whole lot more convenient.
FTGT725: Did the GG1s have a fireman back in the day and if so, what were his duties?
Did the GG1s have a fireman back in the day and if so, what were his duties?
As far as I know, there was a fireman on every GG1 until the very end. In addition to tending the train heat boiler, his most important duty was calling signals and blowing for grade crossings. This doesn't sound like much but the engineer's visibility to the left front of a GG1 was absolutely terrible. On a long curve to the left, the engineer was literally flying blind. Knowledge of the railroad helped with grade crossings and cab signals were great, but neither was as good as an alert eyeball.
I don't recall any specific ones, but I'm sure there were also situations where a ground man could not be seen from the engineer's seat. He might have been able to move to a position where the engineer could see him, but the fireman relaying his signals across the cab was a whole lot more convenient.
After most of the firemen came off freight trains in the 1960s, the GG1s in freight usually, but not always, ran without a fireman. If there was no fireman, the front brakeman would occupy the fireman's seat unless the conductor was on the head end, in which case he would usually occupy the fireman's seat and the brakeman would ride in the rear cab. The rear cab of a G was a good place to keep an eye on the train.
When Amtrak was running GG1's between New Haven and Washington, crew reduction had already taken place under Penn Central, and firemen were dropped. I know this for sure because I occupied the fireman's seat between New Haven and Penn Station, since a close friend was engineer and invited me to the cab. It was summer, and the boiler was not fired. The train was Amfleet with a power car on the rear (diesel generator for head-end power, automatic in operation). The specific day I rode was t he 50th Anniversary of the amalgamation that formed the New York New Haven & Hartford Railroad.
I still maintain that the New Haven EF-3 was an even better locomotive, event though there were only 10. Also 4-6-6-4, and also rode like a dream. Really the same concept, but a newer design. Far far better crew comfort and visibility, for sure. Never needed double heading with 100-car freight trains up the Hell Gate Bridge inclines.
FTGT725 Did the GG1s have a fireman back in the day and if so, what were his duties?
Or maybe the union just kept him on board for the ride?
Keep the Steam Boiler that was powered by Oil Running.
They were run in multiples because the maintenance wasn't adequate on them. At the end when the AEM7 engines or E60s were on order and close to delivery they were run into the ground. One of the trains of scrap engines that had as many as 25 drew the comment that maybe when they got to their destination a couple would still be running. I am glad to have grown up in Northeast Philly near the corridor and have fond memories of halting play in a park to watch them roar by. I was 12 before I knew there was anything beside GG1 engines.
As the Gs worked through the 1970s it became more common to see two of them MUed on the heavier passenger trains like the Florida trains. Out of respect for their age, I guess.
Usually freights would get a pair, but sometimes a lighter train such as the Trucks, or empty grain or hopper cars would get a single G. Nothing else would get a freight train over what is now called the North East Corridor like a pair of Gs that got good signals.
A youtube search of "prr gg1 cab" will bring up a couple movies of GG1 cab rides.
In the classic PRR days only ONE would be used on 18-20 car trains.
54light15 What was impressive was standing on the platform in New Brunswick, New Jersey in 1977 and watching two of them pulling a 20 car train South on one of the inner tracks. Might have been the Silver Meteor but am not sure. The air was alive with ozone and I really got a sense of the power given off by those two black painted monsters. I recall the green ones in Sunnyside Yards in the very early 60s. Yes, they are impressive!
What was impressive was standing on the platform in New Brunswick, New Jersey in 1977 and watching two of them pulling a 20 car train South on one of the inner tracks. Might have been the Silver Meteor but am not sure. The air was alive with ozone and I really got a sense of the power given off by those two black painted monsters. I recall the green ones in Sunnyside Yards in the very early 60s. Yes, they are impressive!
Two? Must have been winter or a power transfer. One could have handled 20 cars. Two were required on ore trains when Labrador ore was being shipped to Pittsburgh via ore boats to Philadelphia. How's that for versatility?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.