Amtrak E60 electrics

[eolafan]

[V][V][V]Just opened and read my March issue of TRAINS and saw the photo on page 25 of the two Amtrak E60 electrics in the scrap yard with number 620 laying on her side. A very sad end for a proud electric motor that I am sure racked up several million miles on the NEC for Amtrak at very high speeds and hauled millions of passengers with pride and punctuality. Yes, I know all good things must come to an end but this picture sure made me sad. I guess I would like all locomotives to live on forever, but that sure isn't reality, is it? Oh, well, perhaps we will all ride behind number 620 and all the other scrapped units in heaven some day (hopefully a very long time from now though). Jim (Eolafan) in Aurora, IL (formerly of New York and Philadelphia, so that's why the electric motor lament).[|(][|(][|(]

[espeefoamer]

[:(] I,too,was saddened to learn of the demise of the E60's.I rode behind them a few times on vacations,and really liked them. They lasted close to 30 years, which isn't too bad,considering that they didn't turn out as well as Amtrak had hoped. The AEM7's to me, look like a baby loco,too small to really do the job. The E60's just looked right at the head of a long passenger train.They were a worthy sucessor to the GG1.By the way,how did you get the March issue already? They havent shown up on the left coast yet!

[mudchicken]

There are two ex-Amtak E-60s doing just fine in extreme NE Arizona on the BM&LP operation (Navajo RR). They are still feeding the dragons at Lake Powell/Paige, AZ

[Modelcar]

.....No March TRAINS in mid America yet either.

[eolafan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

[:(] I,too,was saddened to learn of the demise of the E60's.I rode behind them a few times on vacations,and really liked them. They lasted close to 30 years, which isn't too bad,considering that they didn't turn out as well as Amtrak had hoped. The AEM7's to me, look like a baby loco,too small to really do the job. The E60's just looked right at the head of a long passenger train.They were a worthy sucessor to the GG1.By the way,how did you get the March issue already? They havent shown up on the left coast yet!

[?][:)][?] Not sure why my March copy got to me so fast but I am much closer to printer and distribution center than you so perhaps that is why...meaning your copy should be in your mailbox within days of mine. Hope so! Jim

[adrianspeeder]

I got mine today.
Salute to the E60.

Adrianspeeder

[Anonymous]

That is very sad to lose the E60's

[Anonymous]

Why would Amtrak retire good locomotives when it has a motive power shortege, makes no sence to me. They still could be usefull even with that speed restriction.

[daveklepper]

Doesn't Amtrak have some still in service? I think there may be a few left mostly for the Florida trains. Without having read the March issue and being half a world away, what probably hapened is that the two scrapped had been the source of parts to keep the others going . Parts for F40's are easy to come by because there were so many of them and whatever you say about GM and EMD, they are good about supplying parts. But GE for just a few 30-year-old locomotives? If someone can verify that there are sitll E60's still in service, I'd welcome the news along with the rest of you. The E-33's and E-44's were good locos too and could have been equipped with new transformers to operate on the 60-cycle electrification that replaced the 25-cycle of the GG-1 days. They would have good locos for push-pull commuter and clocker trains. (The GG-1's and P-5's could not be converted, because the 25-cycle AC went to the motors!)
Dave Klepper

[eolafan]

I know there are at least a couple of E60 motors in the west hauling coal (see notes above) but I think that may be it for the venerable motors. Elsewhere in the March TRAINS issue there is a question posed as to why Amtrak switches from electric to diesel in Phila. for the trip west to Harrisburg, and the answer given (in part) is that Amtrak is short on electric motors (locomotives), so why scrap the E60's if they can be used elsewhere? Baffles my mind.

[jeaton]

Guys, My guess is the cost of maintaning or putting the units back in good order, may be out of line with other options for power. Amtrak has to keep tight control of cash and any equipment or materials that can't be used, is obselete or just plain junk is being scavenged and then sold.

[Anonymous]

Well at least I have a HO model of Amtrak 960 to look at. It's an E-60CH Those are some sad pics in the march issue.

[Anonymous]

Why Amtrak retired the E60's is for three reasons.

(1) the E60's were now electrical and maintance basket cases. I heard from engineers, road foremen car knockers that no two E60's were alike. To kept them on the road the magicians at Wilmington Shops had to jerryrig and fabricate parts whenever they can to keep the fleet on the road. Remember in their last years they were confined to operating between NY and Philly. to virtualy "tow" to the long distance heavyweights to Philly where the Genesis locos took over instead of the traditional engine change point of Washington Union Station and of course the The "Clockers"

(2). The performance and relibility of the HHP-8's had finally stabilized.

(3) Since NJ Transit is slated to take over the the operation of the Clockers(long distance New York to Philadelphia commuter trains). Amtrak had pressured and got NJ Transit to lend (or lease) some new ALP-46's to Amtrak for Clocker service.

So with their successors more or less secure in the E60's old assignments the old girls could now be safely retired. Instead of waitng for one of them to have a very embarrassing electrical fire in the most inconvienent time (rush hour) or (place inside the Hudson River or East River Tubes) . That is the last thing Amtrak needs with a very very hostile administration in power in DC.

[oltmannd]

I remember when the E60s were purchased, they were supposed to replace the GG1s. GE was touting them as "worthy sucessors", able to haul more cars at higher speed. And, they COULD outproduce a GG1, except when it came to staying on the rails! Railfans HATED the E60s and for the same reason people hated diesels when they pushed aside steam.

Having ridden on an E60 at 90 mph once back in the early 80s, my rib cage won't miss them! The arm rests on the cab seats were all that kept you in the seat in moderately rough spots.

It seems kinda strange to me that anyone could get sentimental over an E60, but to each, their own.

-Don

[Anonymous]

ok, now refresh my memory what happened to the E60's that went to Mexico???

[mudchicken]

The Mexican catenary came down almost as fast as it went up.

[cypriano]

Any museums getting E60's? Or do they think the E60 is not worthy of preservation?

[Anonymous]

The E60's were categorically unsuitable for the high speed service for which they were purchased. They generated high levels of lateral forces which could turn over rails and cause derailments. The freight style trucks were just too rigid.

Unwittingly, these locomotives created the entre' for the foreign electric locomotive builders. It is said that after the E60 fiasco, Amtrak specified axle loadings so low that only foreign builders could meet them with a modified, off-the-shelf product.

[Anonymous]

There are two preserved: one at Pa. State and one in the collection of the future NJ Museum of Transportation.

[maxpat]

I always liked the E 60 CP. I even baught an HO kit by " Amarican GK" locomotive works. That was in the 1970 tieth. I superdetailed it and is still earning it's keep on my layout houling " Amtrak sreamlined passenger cars ".

[JoeUmp]

QUOTE: By the way,how did you get the March issue already? They havent shown up on the left coast yet!

[:)][:)][:)]Got my copy three days ago (central IN).

[V][V][V]Personally, I hate to see the demise of any locomotive.[:(][:(][:(]

[daveklepper]

Oops! I got my March issue, and my comments, as proved by the above, are way out-of-date and I stand corrected! Questions: 1. Is all power on southern trains changed at Phily? Not changing at Washington? The Crescent as well as the Florida trains? No more changing at Harrisburg, the Three Rivers does it at Phily? Is Amtrak wasting high peformance Genesis or similar diesels on short Keystone trains (Philadelphia-Harrisburg) with high fuel costs? Or is it borrowing SEPTA mu cars like it did some 30 years ago? If the Acela and other new power problems have been corrected, doesn't Amtrak have some AEM7's available for Harrisburg? Wasn't that the plan? Dave PS. As mentioned in a Hungerford column in TRAINS some fifty years ago (yes, I'll show my age) when the Southerner or the Silver Meteor came into the lower level of Washington Union behind time, missing its regular corridor slot, the Pennsy would simply back the next hourly 3:55 scheduled end-point time 14 car express making stops at Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, North Philadelphia, Trenton, Newark, to end at New York on top of that train, passengers would load on the lower level of the station, and the resulting 26 or 28 car train would head to NY. And the hourly express would get to NY on time! GG1's could do it but nothing since. Dave Klepper

[Anonymous]

I'll miss the E60CP's. The 971 was the only motive power on which I've ever had a cab ride. The 971 was also the motor at the lead of the first train to stop in Aberdeen, MD when service was restored by Amtrak.

My ride was in the mid-seventies when GG-1's were still on the rails and the E60's were still quite new. An official in the engine was apparently systematically inviting railfans to ride up front, using the conductor to find railfans and extend invitations. I boarded the train in Aberdeen, MD with my mother. We were headed for New York, Penn Station on a day trip. The conductor invited me to ride from Wilmington to Philadelphia in the cab -- heady stuff for a teenager.

They invited me to sit, but I chose to stand so I could see the engineman at work. The E60 was a rough rider and it was hard to stand up. I asked about the difference in the lettering style in the numberboards (the 917 had one style on the left and another on the right). They told me they had one blow out in an early run.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

The E-33's and E-44's were good locos too and could have been equipped with new transformers to operate on the 60-cycle electrification that replaced the 25-cycle of the GG-1 days. They would have good locos for push-pull commuter and clocker trains. (The GG-1's and P-5's could not be converted, because the 25-cycle AC went to the motors!)
Dave Klepper

The NEC from NY to Wash is still 25 Hz! The high power solid state devices have allowed Amtrak to convert commercial 60 Hz power to 25Hz to feed the catenary. A GG1 could still make the trip (as could an E33 or E44). The killer for the older electrics was the pyranol used as transformer coolant. The transformers soaked in the stuff for so long, it was impossible to get rid of the stuff. Consequently, all the saved GG1s, E33s etc. have been "neutered".

[daveklepper]

The March issue arrived and I stand corrected. See my comments under GG1. Is all power transfer now at Philadelphia with no engine changes at Washington or Harrisburg? Can someone answer that question? Dave

[rf16a]

QUOTE: Originally posted by newhaven0401

There are two preserved: one at Pa. State and one in the collection of the future NJ Museum of Transportation.

Is the one in PA at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania?

[Blackcloud 5229]

oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

The E-33's and E-44's were good locos too and could have been equipped with new transformers to operate on the 60-cycle electrification that replaced the 25-cycle of the GG-1 days. They would have good locos for push-pull commuter and clocker trains. (The GG-1's and P-5's could not be converted, because the 25-cycle AC went to the motors!)
Dave Klepper

The NEC from NY to Wash is still 25 Hz! The high power solid state devices have allowed Amtrak to convert commercial 60 Hz power to 25Hz to feed the catenary. A GG1 could still make the trip (as could an E33 or E44). The killer for the older electrics was the pyranol used as transformer coolant. The transformers soaked in the stuff for so long, it was impossible to get rid of the stuff. Consequently, all the saved GG1s, E33s etc. have been "neutered".

 

 

the old transformers on a GG-1 had 22 notches of power, taps off the main transformer and they were well and truly unable to use a safe modern oil but that doesn't mean you couldn't build a new transformer to use in a GG-1. The real reason the GG-1's were retired was the cast steel frames they road on were cracking due to age. Anyone want to donate towards a new set of running gear for a GG-1 including a new tap type transformers. The rebuilt GG-1 would need a totally new cab signal system to comply with the federally mandated train control system. Besides when the utility companies had to replace pcb oil contaminated transformers they didn't change the oil they changed the entire transforme. Same thing applies to GG-1's.

[tree68]

Blackcloud 5229

The rebuilt GG-1 would need a totally new cab signal system to comply with the federally mandated train control system. Besides when the utility companies had to replace pcb oil contaminated transformers they didn't change the oil they changed the entire transforme. Same thing applies to GG-1's.

I would opine that the only way to put a GG1 back on the road would be to reconfigure the components of a current electric so they fit under a GG1 shell...

[RME]

This is a resurrected zombie thread from 2004.  All the points about what is involved in 'restoring a GG1 to operation', either with its historical motors or repowered and 'hot-rodded' (note how carefully I avoid the now-highly-pejorative word 'starship!), have since that time been thoroughly worked over, especially by Mr. Klepper and me.

The issue with sideframes has been specifically addressed, in some detail, with multiple options.  A couple more have come up since that time.  It is not a major issue in absolute terms, and yes, there are companies in the United States that could cast you new ones (although arguably it would be cheaper and better to use a composite of fabrications and lost-foam castings, etc. as proposed for T1 5550).

ABB employees have apparently worked up, not on company time, a detailed approach to put a 'modern' AC propulsion system on a GG1.  This naturally does not involve large custom tap-changing transformers or motors 'natively compatible' with 600VDC third-rail, as the New Haven 'prototype' using 627 motors (very likely there would be DC capacity, but it would feed the DC link of a synthesized AC drive directly, and have full voltage-to-voltage conversion during power excursions.  Etc.)

[AMTRAK E60 603]

hey dude the E60 will be alive soon ill start making my own.