Actual GG-1 top speed

14796 views
107 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 1,180 posts
Posted by ROBERT WILLISON on Wednesday, November 23, 2016 4:25 PM

Even ns won't  allow you to stand in the Dutch doors on their excursions. Insurance blah blah blah.

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Friday, November 25, 2016 9:05 AM

ROBERT WILLISON

Even ns won't  allow you to stand in the Dutch doors on their excursions. Insurance blah blah blah.

 

Different day and age brother, back in the pre-1994 excursion days it wasn't a problem, as long as you  didn't hog up the Dutch doors and gave other riders a chance.  Lady Firestorm and myself did it a number of times.  Quite a thrill, the speed, the wisps of smoke, and Lady F's arm around my waist.  Great days.  Steam trains are magic in more ways than one.

AND, I just remembered. The last time I rode the Dutch door I got a great view of an AT-6 (SNJ for you Navy and Marine Corps guys) WW2 training aircraft pacing and flying around the train!

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Huntsville, AR
  • 1,103 posts
Posted by oldline1 on Saturday, January 7, 2017 2:06 PM

Growing up in Baltimore in the 1950's I had many rides from Baltimore to DC in the GG-1's tight cabs. After managing to squeeze though the B&P Tunnels and getting on better track I can remember engineers opening up to 90+ many times explaining they were the last chance to make up lost time. A GG-1 cab was always exciting to me but at speeds like that it was totally amazing especially passing other GG-1's oncoming. It seemsed they only had inches between them. Quite frightening! I certainly miss seeing them as much or more than steamers.

Roger Huber

Deer Creek Locomotive Works

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,661 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Sunday, January 8, 2017 7:29 AM

https://www.flickr.com/gp/49398450@N04/95539h

When NS started running steam again, the first excursions were employee-only.  I decided to open a dutch door, got shooed away by a volunteer (a former employee, who I worked with, actually....) If it was safe for the crew, then why not  me?  (see picture)?  After that, I just picked my spots, but kept at it.  After all, if you can't hear it and smell it, why bother to ride behind steam?  

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 424 posts
Posted by Dr D on Sunday, January 8, 2017 12:57 PM

Ridding the vestibule -

I guess I have spent much of my train riding career as a passenger gazing out the speeding train with the "dutch door" open.

Starting as a child in the 1960's - I accompanied my grandparents on a trip from Detroit to Erie, PA to attend my great grand uncle and aunt's 60th wedding anniversary! 

Departing on the Baltimore & Ohio the train condutor was stern even to my grandfather who had spent his lifetime riding the trains - a clergyman, he was born in 1876. 

In Toledo, Ohio at the new Toledo Union Terminal we transfered to the Water Level Route of the New York Central riding the grey lightening stripe diesels and velvet carpet ride of stainless steel coaches. 

 On the return trip my 9 year old sister, myself and a couple of other newly discovered kids wandering the train on that sleepy afternoon riding westward at speed - discovered the "dutch door."

What a joy to ride the train like the car with the window down - four kids packed in the vestibule opening with arms hanging out! - waving.  What a way to see Cleveland Union Terminal and half of the state of Ohio!  Until that Conductor walking the train came upon the fun - well "they don't allow passengers to ride the vestibule with the door open!"

Foolin with a Train Conductor in those days was not a happy experience - even for kids! 

-----------------

"Yes sir, they don't!" - not on that mans railroad!

- Doc

 

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 1,180 posts
Posted by ROBERT WILLISON on Sunday, January 8, 2017 1:48 PM

So buttoning up the Dutch door was a common safety practice as far back as the 50's. I know on steam excursions back in the 70's we had to wear Google's to protect against soot and ashes getting into your eyes. Makes sense on a passengers train at 80 mpg, the railroad would want doors closed to protect anyone from getting hurt or your hat being sucked out the opening.

 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,407 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, January 10, 2017 11:08 AM
Also the mist from flushed direct discharge johns, now of course past history
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • 6,871 posts
Posted by ndbprr on Tuesday, January 10, 2017 3:39 PM

As passenger traffic declined many G's were regeared to 80 mph top speed to make them more useful in freight service.  4800 was the only permanently assigned G in freight service.  I rode the Broadway from Chicago to Trenton about 1980 and asked the conducter how fast we were going. He said they were limited to 90 mph at that point.

  • Member since
    February 2004
  • 42 posts
Posted by K4s_PRR on Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:41 PM

Electroliner 1935
Sorry for being away so long, but yes you're right it should have read upper.  That comes from being an old man and too much imbibing.

 

 
K4s_PRR
K4s_PRR wrote the following post 3 hours ago: I remember in the early 50's looking out the lower half of a dutch door with the conductor.

 

I suspect that you meant the upper half as the lower half only opens when the upper half opens. The top half can open with the lower half closed. Lower half open would allow you to slide out and would be dangerous. 

 

  • Member since
    November 2015
  • 1,209 posts
Posted by ATSFGuy on Sunday, February 19, 2017 12:17 PM

Could the GG1's achieve 150mph?

RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Sunday, February 19, 2017 3:48 PM

ATSFGuy
Could the GG1's achieve 150mph?

No.

If you modified the motors to spin that fast, and solved the issues with getting reliable current through them from the 11kV overhead down to the running rails, the suspension and lateral guiding were inadequate for anywhere near that speed.  If you fixed that, the braking was woefully inadequate -- inadequate, even, for repeated 110mph operation -- with any modern passenger-car consist capable of riding decently anywhere near that speed.

I do not have the actual results of the supposed 128mph testing at Claymont, which were done in part with 'instrumented' rail (somewhat primitive by modern standards) to measure lateral forces.  This has been brought up in the PRRCatenaryElectrics Yahoo group, as yet without any 'official' printed confirmation as far as I've seen.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 9,769 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, February 19, 2017 4:53 PM

ATSFGuy

Could the GG1's achieve 150mph?

 
No   --   some reasons.
Although AC traction motors were universal wound they were similar to today's DC traction motors that will flash over at too high of a speed.
As point out above the traction power CAT could not carry the power needed to move probably 2 GG-1s at 160 MPH.
The variable tension CAT was not even set for 150 MPH as PRR had no reson to set for that speed.
An Upgraded ( never happen too  costly and all existing with frame cracks ) GG-1 might do 160 but stability questions are many ?   
RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Sunday, February 19, 2017 5:14 PM

blue streak 1
An Upgraded (never happen too costly and all existing with frame cracks) GG-1 might do 160 but stability questions are many?

The 'updated' version of the very-high-speed GG1 project circa 1978 called, in part, for new welded underframes with chevron springing and lead trucks with minimized unsprung mass and three-axis damping.  If I remember correctly, they were designed for nominal 10% over (I think baseline 120mph, which would imply 132mph) but without any analysis of harmonic resonances at the higher speed range; neither good tools nor fast enough environments to run them were cost-effectively available then.

I considered it nominally possible to modify the underframes for 140mph operation, but quite a few further modifications would have been necessary, and you would still have had a relatively long and heavy locomotive that did not use all axles for adhesion.

While there was some discussion of having a "150mph Corridor" during the first rebuilding in the Carter administration, that wouldn't involve rebuilt GG1s for any particular time.  The high-speed versions were really only needed to bridge the gap left from the truck-mechanics failures of the GE E60s, not to provide a whole next generation of full Metroliner speed.

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 10,233 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Monday, February 20, 2017 11:17 AM

daveklepper
Some T-1s may have gotten 100mph speedometers, but there certainly were some with 120mph ones.

Loco-Valve-Pilot "speedometers" did indicate speeds of up to 120 MPH.

I do not have the information at hand to show what, if any, PRR locomotives were so equipped.

Regards, Ed

RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Monday, February 20, 2017 4:35 PM

gmpullman
Loco-Valve-Pilot "speedometers" did indicate speeds of up to 120 MPH.

But T1s didn't have Valve Pilot.  (BTWdo you have a link to the un-cropped version of that picture?)

The only drawings I've ever seen are Jones-Motrola and they are calibrated for 100mph.  What we're trying to establish is whether, at any time, a T1 was given a recalibrated unit that displayed the higher speed, perhaps after rebuilding (such as the installation of type B Franklin valve gear). 

  • Member since
    February 2017
  • 3 posts
Posted by rubberheels on Thursday, March 2, 2017 7:39 AM

I worked alot of times on GG-1's both freihgt and pass. I loved them on the TV24 &TV23 Potomac yd Va. to So. Kearny. I spent years on that train. I ran the Siver Meteor at 100 mph more than once. Sometimes 105 but thats about all you could get.Some G's were geared for 100 while some for 90.You had to have the right equip to do 100. then they came out with E60's They were JUNK!

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,407 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, March 2, 2017 10:02 AM

Did you get to run the AEM-7s?  The Swedish Meatballs or Toasters?

Or the Metroliner MUs?

RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Thursday, March 2, 2017 10:05 AM

I am looking forward to this thread becoming the PRR equivalent to what NDG is doing with String Lining.

Maybe if this catches on we can get Noel Weaver, Jack Neiss, and some others to contribute stories...

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,407 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, March 2, 2017 10:10 AM

My one GG1 cab ride was with Noel, NH-Penn, and we did not do 100 mph on Metro North.   I assume he is retired, so I can admit to ridinjg with him.

  • Member since
    February 2017
  • 3 posts
Posted by rubberheels on Friday, March 3, 2017 7:52 AM

Yes I ran many AEM-7's and Metro's  I worked the the Pass. extra list off and on fron 1974 to 82 then went Amtrak back to CR on the flowback ran trains to Hsbg. and Hagerstown Md. Worked the TV23 S.Kearny to Pot Yd. for a few years before NS came around.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,407 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, March 6, 2017 9:14 AM

I recall once early in the Metrolineer MU days seeing 136mph on the digital speedometer.  Did you ever run higher than 125 on a Metroliner MU?  What about the AEM-7s?

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 10,233 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Monday, March 6, 2017 2:56 PM

RME
BTWdo you have a link to the un-cropped version of that picture?

My memory is fuzzy. I don't recall where I found the original. Might have been in one of my old documents or the '41 Cyc?

fyi; There is a few decent backhead shots at Bill's Pennsy Photos.

http://www.billspennsyphotos.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=72302794

Regards, Ed

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,661 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, March 6, 2017 3:04 PM

rubberheels

Yes I ran many AEM-7's and Metro's  I worked the the Pass. extra list off and on fron 1974 to 82 then went Amtrak back to CR on the flowback ran trains to Hsbg. and Hagerstown Md. Worked the TV23 S.Kearny to Pot Yd. for a few years before NS came around.

 

Did you happen to have the misfortune of running any of the Conrail LSL test trains in the late 80s?  

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:04 AM

gmpullman
My memory is fuzzy. I don't recall where I found the original. Might have been in one of my old documents or the '41 Cyc?

Someone better than I am will recognize what locomotive this is.  I say NYC; someone with access to clear pictures of NYC backheads like the one in the 1944 firing course can probably quickly confirm or deny.  Be interesting to find out how many unstreamlined locomotives were given 120mph speed recorders...

  • Member since
    March 2019
  • 1 posts
Posted by wayneo on Monday, March 25, 2019 7:11 PM
The following is courtesy of Ryan Kunkle; "The claims of the GG1 hitting 160mph are well founded. This number comes from a report from an engineer assigned to do speed tests around 1968. The purpose of the test was to determine if GG1's could maintain the new advertised Metroliner schedules in the advent of mechanical problems with the new trainsets.
The engineer was Forwood "Fordy" Smith (he lived not far from you in Havre de Grace). Prior to this time, no official top speed test had been done on the G's. They were geared for 100 mph. His test was with a light GG1 and according to his oral history on file at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, at 160 the locomotive began to feel as if it were lifting. Although the throttle was not yet fully open (operating instructions were for full throttle), he backed off  at that point. Needless to say, the G's were more than capable of matching the new Metroliners.
Fordy passed away several years ago. The museum has his oral history on file and it is packed with great stories like this."
Ryan Kunkle

 

 
ATSFGuy

Could the GG1's achieve 150mph?

 

 

 
No   --   some reasons.
Although AC traction motors were universal wound they were similar to today's DC traction motors that will flash over at too high of a speed.
As point out above the traction power CAT could not carry the power needed to move probably 2 GG-1s at 160 MPH.
The variable tension CAT was not even set for 150 MPH as PRR had no reson to set for that speed.
An Upgraded ( never happen too  costly and all existing with frame cracks ) GG-1 might do 160 but stability questions are many ?   
 

[/quote]

blue streak 1

 

 
ATSFGuy

Could the GG1's achieve 150mph?

 

 

 
No   --   some reasons.
Although AC traction motors were universal wound they were similar to today's DC traction motors that will flash over at too high of a speed.
As point out above the traction power CAT could not carry the power needed to move probably 2 GG-1s at 160 MPH.
The variable tension CAT was not even set for 150 MPH as PRR had no reson to set for that speed.
An Upgraded ( never happen too  costly and all existing with frame cracks ) GG-1 might do 160 but stability questions are many ?   
 

blue streak 1

 

 
ATSFGuy

Could the GG1's achieve 150mph?

 

 

 
No   --   some reasons.
Although AC traction motors were universal wound they were similar to today's DC traction motors that will flash over at too high of a speed.
As point out above the traction power CAT could not carry the power needed to move probably 2 GG-1s at 160 MPH.
The variable tension CAT was not even set for 150 MPH as PRR had no reson to set for that speed.
An Upgraded ( never happen too  costly and all existing with frame cracks ) GG-1 might do 160 but stability questions are many ?   
 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,619 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 9:53 AM

wayneo
... according to his oral history on file at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, at 160 the locomotive began to feel as if it were lifting. Although the throttle was not yet fully open (operating instructions were for full throttle), he backed off  at that point.

A problem with oral histories is that it is difficult to distinguish tall tales, leg-pulling, and a certain amount of grandstanding from actual technical history.  

This suffers from the same problem that the low-flying T1 story did, aside from all the reasons it wouldn't be technically correct (BTW, wasn't the 'official' speed in the story 156mph, not 160?).  You have to ask yourself 'how did he know he was going that fast'?

I don't remember any GG1 having an independent modern speed recorder installed on it, even in the 1978 testing (there was instrumentation but not available in the cab or tied into the signal or control systems).  The conventional gauge pegged only a few mph above nominal 100mph.  So to know he was doing "160" he would have needed to make some speed measurements with a watch relative to mileposts... right at the time he was noticing something that indicates high speed in an automobile (aerodynamic lift under the front) but decidedly NOT in a GG1 (effect would be turbulence or insufficient axis damping in the suspension, and manifest long before 150-160mph).

Highest tested speed -- I don't know the dynamometric arrangements but someone on here would -- was about 128mph flat out in the Claymont tests, with the interesting PRR lateral rail-force testing conducted in part on that run IIRC.  Personally I don't think the power improvements made in the '60s NECIP for the Metroliners would have increased anything available to a light-engine test on a reserved power section (implied because nothing else would have been running in the associated track section for a test this fast).

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 18,685 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 3:39 PM

Overmod
 
wayneo
... according to his oral history on file at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, at 160 the locomotive began to feel as if it were lifting. Although the throttle was not yet fully open (operating instructions were for full throttle), he backed off  at that point. 

A problem with oral histories is that it is difficult to distinguish tall tales, leg-pulling, and a certain amount of grandstanding from actual technical history.  

This suffers from the same problem that the low-flying T1 story did, aside from all the reasons it wouldn't be technically correct (BTW, wasn't the 'official' speed in the story 156mph, not 160?).  You have to ask yourself 'how did he know he was going that fast'?

I don't remember any GG1 having an independent modern speed recorder installed on it, even in the 1978 testing (there was instrumentation but not available in the cab or tied into the signal or control systems).  The conventional gauge pegged only a few mph above nominal 100mph.  So to know he was doing "160" he would have needed to make some speed measurements with a watch relative to mileposts... right at the time he was noticing something that indicates high speed in an automobile (aerodynamic lift under the front) but decidedly NOT in a GG1 (effect would be turbulence or insufficient axis damping in the suspension, and manifest long before 150-160mph).

Highest tested speed -- I don't know the dynamometric arrangements but someone on here would -- was about 128mph flat out in the Claymont tests, with the interesting PRR lateral rail-force testing conducted in part on that run IIRC.  Personally I don't think the power improvements made in the '60s NECIP for the Metroliners would have increased anything available to a light-engine test on a reserved power section (implied because nothing else would have been running in the associated track section for a test this fast).

100 MPH = 160 KPH or precisely 160.934 KPH

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,619 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 5:04 PM

BaltACD
100 MPH = 160 KPH or precisely 160.934 KPH

Yes, but that's not the same problem here that it is for Arnold Haas (notoriously with the PRR S1).  The guy telling the story at RRMPA was a native American and almost certainly wouldn't think 'instinctively' in metric units.

And there's little question a GG1 would go quicker than 100mph even before the line voltage was boosted in the postwar years... just not that fast.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 18,685 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 6:01 PM

Overmod
 
BaltACD
100 MPH = 160 KPH or precisely 160.934 KPH 

Yes, but that's not the same problem here that it is for Arnold Haas (notoriously with the PRR S1).  The guy telling the story at RRMPA was a native American and almost certainly wouldn't think 'instinctively' in metric units.

And there's little question a GG1 would go quicker than 100mph even before the line voltage was boosted in the postwar years... just not that fast.

The only way a GG-1 is hitting 160 MPH is a full power down a elevator shaft!

The speed won't kill you but the sudden stop will.

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,592 posts
Posted by 243129 on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 8:16 PM

160 MPH with a GG-1 light???? I would say we have ourselves a 'tall story' here.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy