Has a GG1 ever been restored to running order?

[Anonymous]

Fifty years ago, scrappers were cutting up all of the NYC Hudsons, all the NYC Niagras, every D&RGW standard gauge steam locomotive, all the T1's, the S1, the Q1, the Q2, all the Milwaukee Road's [amazingly built] Atlantics and Hudsons, and something closer to your heart. Why? Because they thought that the locomotives were of no historic value. Please, oh please, I implore you! Let us not make the same mistake as those who cut up today's lost engines.

It is not just the GG-1 which is historic, but also what MAKES UP A GG-1; this includes the steam generator, the water tanks, the electronics, the system.... Don't change out any more than you have to. A GG-1 was built to run on 11, 000 V--let it. There's still plenty of track using that voltage on the same frequecy. Leave well enough alone! I know people who would rather have a hotrod than a factual manifestation of a bygone era, and to take a GG-1 and make it into an XX-10, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 is a wrong to the principles of historic preservation--the reason these locomotives were saved in the first place.

Sincerely yours in defense of history,
Daniel Parks

[paulsafety]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Fifty years ago, scrappers were cutting up all of the NYC Hudsons, all the NYC Niagras, every D&RGW standard gauge steam locomotive, all the T1's, the S1, the Q1, the Q2, all the Milwaukee Road's [amazingly built] Atlantics and Hudsons, and something closer to your heart. Why? Because they thought that the locomotives were of no historic value. Please, oh please, I implore you! Let us not make the same mistake as those who cut up today's lost engines.

It is not just the GG-1 which is historic, but also what MAKES UP A GG-1; this includes the steam generator, the water tanks, the electronics, the system.... Don't change out any more than you have to. A GG-1 was built to run on 11, 000 V--let it. There's still plenty of track using that voltage on the same frequecy. Leave well enough alone! I know people who would rather have a hotrod than a factual manifestation of a bygone era, and to take a GG-1 and make it into an XX-10, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 is a wrong to the principles of historic preservation--the reason these locomotives were saved in the first place.

Sincerely yours in defense of history,
Daniel Parks

I appreciate the restoration v. modification for operation argument; however, there are many GG1s preserved in "original" condition -- its hardly a "lost engine" like NYC Hudsons, etc. Modifcation of one or two of the dozen+ GG1s would enable a new generation to appreciate the sounds, motion and power of one in action with a real train (not a static, accurate display or a computer simulation, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Dear paulsafety,
If you replace your GG-1 traction motors with motors from an EMDGEMPIWHOMEVER model SDGPEFAEM 40-70-90-4400ACDC-2-7-9 whatever, with new US&S/somebody superelectrocabsignaling and HEP cross-bilateral-multisimplo-transreinducing-composite-solid-state whatevers, and all you save is the body what you are hearing is not the GG-1. What you are experiencing is not the GG-1 except to a small extent. Is what you are really experiencing much better than a tape player on an unmodified GG-1?

I would be a fool to deny that certainly, for the good of the historic restoration, some things would need to be modified or replaced. However, much of what I have heard here in the way of restoration needs are really not needed to return a GG-1 to operation in a historic context, but rather to turn it in to "dream choo-choo [:)]."

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[daveklepper]

The modifications I would propose would not change the GG-1's character. The quill motors would stay. If at all possible it would remain an ac-commutator 25Hz locomotive and not use rectifiers. Switch gear would be modern, wiring would use the best insulation, and there would be on-board head-end power. If this could be fitted in while retaining a restored boiler, OK. It would be a reliable locomotive, except for the traction motors and pantograph (historic equipement) serviceable at any diesel locomotive maintenancne and repair center, but the essential sounds and operating charactreristics and engineer's control would be exactly the same as the original. And the transformers would be non-toxic and give the tap-off necessary to power the electronic conversion gear for head-end power.

[paulsafety]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Dear paulsafety,
If you replace your GG-1 traction motors with motors from an EMDGEMPIWHOMEVER model SDGPEFAEM 40-70-90-4400ACDC-2-7-9 whatever, with new US&S/somebody superelectrocabsignaling and HEP cross-bilateral-multisimplo-transreinducing-composite-solid-state whatevers, and all you save is the body what you are hearing is not the GG-1. What you are experiencing is not the GG-1 except to a small extent. Is what you are really experiencing much better than a tape player on an unmodified GG-1?

I would be a fool to deny that certainly, for the good of the historic restoration, some things would need to be modified or replaced. However, much of what I have heard here in the way of restoration needs are really not needed to return a GG-1 to operation in a historic context, but rather to turn it in to "dream choo-choo [:)]."

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

Thanks for the clarification - I missed your point the first time around - restore and operate, but let's not create a "frankenstein - abomination" in the process. Right?

I can agree with that.

[Dutchrailnut]

standard traction motors won't fit, the GG-1 has double ended Tractionmotors.

[Kurn]

This is bringing up the age-old question about restoring anything- how much "original" parts have to remain before its not what it was? Is Doyle McCormick's PA really a PA? To the purists,probably not, because just about everything has been replaced. The General? Most agree that nothing remains of the original locomotive. I vote for having a GG1 running in any way possible-minus,of course, the PCBs and the asbestos.

[1shado1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by smalling_60626



Where are some places to see a good "retired" GG-1? I really like the one at the RR Museum in Baltimore, but I'm sure there must be other places....

Here's a link posted earlier in this thread by Dutchrailnut:
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/GG1/

PAY ATTENTION![:D]

Jeff

[Anonymous]

Thank you for the post, 1shado1 and Dutchrailnut. What a wonderful site! I had no idea there was a GG-1 in Roanoke. Later this summer, when I visit my home planet of Southwestern Va., I shall visit said loco. In my favorite paint scheme!

[daveklepper]

When electric railroad equipment is restored at most trolley musuems, "restoration" does not mean rewiring the old armatures and field coils with cotton-insulated wire but using the most modern high temperature insulation available. Regardless of the condition of the quill motors, it should be possible to strip them to the iron cores, rewind them to factory specifications but with modern wire. This would be the general approach throughout the restoration, and indeed should be the approach for restoring a diesel or a sleeping or dining car, etc. In fact, research may proove that New Jersey Transit or even Amtrak adopted this approach in the last days of maintaining the GG-1's that were left operating. Parts and bearings of existing "trademark" itmes like whistle, the two pantographs, throttles, etc., should be renewed in kind. But hidden behind the scenes items like electrical contactors and relays and all wiring and air piping, heaters, should be as reliable as possible and replaceable from equipment available at maintenace locations today.

[Dutchrailnut]

Dave I never said it can't be done, but at what cost.
I got 22 years in Railroad industry in both MofE and operation and sofar any locomotive re-manufactured with newer components whas a piece of S**T.
Restoration/and remaufacturing do not mix.

[daveklepper]

Visit any good trolley museum and you will ride mostly remanufactured equipment, some more reliable and better performing than when new. It is one thing to try to use an EMD diesel engine in an Alco or a Lilma or Faribanks Morse, but what I am proposing is very different. A lot of the GP-9's and SD-9's that are still running strong have been through exactly the same kind of program that I am describing and some are better locomotives than when new. Visit the Isle of Man, in the Irish Sea between Britain and Ireland and ride the 108 year old interurban cars of the Manx Electric (Douglas - Laxy - Ramsey) which have been through the kind of rebuilding process I've described. Also, of course, the St. Charles Streetcar line in New Orleans. In diesel equipment, didn't the UP "Executive E's" work just fine? How about the RDC's of Trinity Express?

[Anonymous]

Dear Dave,
Careful.... I admit that something dangerous or patently unreliable must be replaced, but as restorers (and consequently executors of history today), we can't go replacing stuff that doesn't need to be replaced.

I volunteer at a museum which also has a Union Pacific E (E-8 942). We didn't go trough a massive rebuilding like this, and the E works well enough. The Executive E's work so well because they have a world class shop to take care of them.

I would like to think of the Orange Empire Railway Museum as a good trolley museum. We have almost all of the surviving equipment from the Los Angeles Railway and Pacific Electric. We are an operating museum, but when we do a restoration, we don't replace more than we have to. Certainly, we rewind coils in our motors, but we don't replace the resistor groups and contactors unless necessary. Historic veracity must come before "hot rod."

Oh, and I don't think that GG-1's have cotton insulated wire :).

With the modifications you propose, I feel like I should be hearing on the radio, "Sunday, Sunday, Sunday, at the Fairground Speedway Station, Station, see the massive GG-1 in action, action. Discount tickets are available, and kids under five are free, free." [:)][:D].

Sincerely and respectfully,
Daniel Parks

[daveklepper]

I'm not suggesting anything radical. As you say, when you rewind motors, you use the best possible wire and insulation available. As far as contactors and relays, however, you don't want the GG-1 to be stuck at Ivy City near Washington with a bad relay with the only replacement back at Wilmington or Strassburg or Harrisburg. And the restoration, to operate it in the NEC has to be equal in quality of workmaship and materials to those UP Executive E's. The transformers, if they are good and cooling flued can be non-toxic, keep them. Otherwise use the best transformers that can be bought, possibly requiring custom made. I stand by what I recommended as far as contactors and relays. And where current practice suggests not replacing exactly in kind (and if existing relays are still being manufacured, of course replace in-kind) then I'd want the current capacity at least 150% the capacity of the original and the insulation at least 150% the voltage of the original. Hopefully this can be true of new types of wiring. The locomotive must be reliable if it is to interface with other trains on the NEC.

Incidentally, some of the "abortion" rebuilds were reliable good locomotives. Didn't the AT&SF have some switchers rebuilt from a combination of Alco and EMD components that gave good service for many years, some even being purchased by Amtrak for continued switcher service?

[Anonymous]

In Dallas we have a GG-1 at the Age of Steam Museum. I have never been able to figure this out as to my knowledge the Standard Railway of the World never extended their tracks or catenary this far south and west. I would love to see a GG-1 running again. Without a massive electrification project it can only run on the NE Corridor as far as New York. Yes, we could put new state of the art electronic equipment and new transformers, motors, controllers, and whatever in to get a running locomotive that could be operated under a multitude of voltages and frequencies and even go as far as being compatable with a 600 volt DC trolley.. While at it why not air condition the cab? It does get hot in the northeast. At the end of the day what do you have? You have an operating electrical locomotive. Good! But is it a restored GG-1? No! You have rebuilt the locomotive in the designs of the current variety of electrical locomotives. Why not just jack up the Raymond Loewy designed outer shell and slide in an AME or whatever current day electrical locomotive sans exterior shell will fit. You will not have a GG-1, but a look alike. to save money why not buy a Lionel GG-1? It does not have the same running gear, controls, etc as in the original GG-1, but it is a GG-1 look alike, abet a little smaller. Ok, assume that you meticously restored the locomotive to original builders specifications. Now, will Amtrak or NJT permit you to run it? They are in the business of running a real railroad on a very conjested corridor. How many unhapy commuters will you have if you tie up the line with a broken GG-1. Will the restored GG-1 meet todays FRA or other regulatory agencies rules? I do not know, but I would still love to see a GG-1 run again. Anyone have a spare ten million?

***

[Anonymous]

Upgrading transformers using non PCB oil is doable, requires engineering. Cab control to FRA requirements is doable. HEP, take out the steam generator and install a diesel generator, very doable. Why? Lots of money needed. 11,000 volts makes mistakes very costly. Now, using it as a dummy car with a diesel at the other end of the consist, that's doable. How would you feel about that?

[Paul Milenkovic]

Can anyone explain to me the quill drive?

What I think is going on is that the axle is surrounded by a hollow tube, and that hollow tube transmits torque to the axle through springs that are like wheel spokes. The hollow tube is the quill as in hollow feather used as a pen. The quill is in turn connected by gears to a traction motor attached to the truck frame.

This contrasts with the "nose hung" traction motor used on Diesels where one end of the traction motor is attached to the axle through a gear drive and the other end of the traction motor is attached to the truck frame through a journal bearing (it allows the traction motor to pivot, but it does not need to be a roller bearing because it does not rotate through full revolutions at wheel speed). The nose-hung design is a compromise between a fully sprung traction motor (objective of the quill drive) and an axle-hung motor like on the Milwaukee Road bipolar electrics.

I am understanding the quill drive the right way? How big an advantage does this have over the usual Diesel-style traction motor setup?

[PennsyHoosier]

This is a great thread. It is making me very nostalgic. Unlikely as it is ($$$$$), I sure would love to see and hear a GG-1 running again. Remarkable piece of machinery!

[Anonymous]

Not sure if any of this has had priar mention (Browsed, didn't read everything), but I thought I'd put in my 2 cents

The GG1 that went into union station is sitting in old CR blue paint in a CSX yard in Baltimore deteriorating.

The GG1 4935 at Strasburg ("Ole Rivets" is 4800) was restored in the mid to late eightys by Amtrak and a historical group, and run as a tourist draw to passenger train rides on the NEC for a short while (as I have read)

And finally, to answer the second line in the opening post of this thread, yes. The GG1 in Altoona PA (I think she is 4913), has been transported from yard storage to museum dispay by NS over their mainline a few times. I have photos of her on display on a museum spur connecting to the mainline, and later I myself found her beside an abandoned warehouse in juniata yard about half a mile down the main.

As for restoration to operation, I could see a power car running one on a scenic/tourist railroad, but I doubt any class 1, or Amtrak, would care to have one run on their tracks without some mileage payments for her space and time on their rail.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I'm not suggesting anything radical. As you say, when you rewind motors, you use the best possible wire and insulation available. As far as contactors and relays, however, you don't want the GG-1 to be stuck at Ivy City near Washington with a bad relay with the only replacement back at Wilmington or Strassburg or Harrisburg. And the restoration, to operate it in the NEC has to be equal in quality of workmaship and materials to those UP Executive E's. The transformers, if they are good and cooling flued can be non-toxic, keep them. Otherwise use the best transformers that can be bought, possibly requiring custom made. I stand by what I recommended as far as contactors and relays. And where current practice suggests not replacing exactly in kind (and if existing relays are still being manufacured, of course replace in-kind) then I'd want the current capacity at least 150% the capacity of the original and the insulation at least 150% the voltage of the original. Hopefully this can be true of new types of wiring. The locomotive must be reliable if it is to interface with other trains on the NEC.

Incidentally, some of the "abortion" rebuilds were reliable good locomotives. Didn't the AT&SF have some switchers rebuilt from a combination of Alco and EMD components that gave good service for many years, some even being purchased by Amtrak for continued switcher service?

Dear Dave,
One little thing:
The GG-1 SOMEHOW managed to run for 50 YEARS on the "OLD" TECHNOLOGY. THE PENNSY'S mechanical department spent WAY MORE TIME than anyone here has in designing it. And you know what? THE GG-1 IS ONE OF THE MOST RELIABLE LOCOMOTIVES OF ALL TIME, and it was because of many of the very components you seek to replace as "unreliable."

Please allow me to point out that making an already reliable locomotive into something else by putting in every high-tech gysmo might have "adverse effects on reliability." After all, when was the last time you saw a relay-driven CTC machine have a "fatal error"?! I agree with Mr. Watkins--if playing tech geek on a venerable piece of history is what we're after, then let's save some donors' money and buy a postwar Lionel, where we can put in TMCC, DCC, and all sorts of electronic goodies much more cheaply.

Why increase current capacities by 50%--the originals already were well designed with adequate tolerances.

Sir, I must say that though I have every belief that your intentions are good, some of the changes you propose do seem radical to me.

Again, I ask, are we restoring a GG-1 or an XX-1, 000, 000, 000?

If we know something's unreliable or dangerous, then replace it, but with the most historically similar equipment which is safe and dependable. If we can't find specific fault with a component, then let's defer to the Standard Railraod of the World with their own locomotive.

Most sincerely and respectfully yours in service of history,
Daniel Parks

[daveklepper]

Again, I am not suggestion changing anything that is reliable and repairable and/or replacable in kind. Quite the contrary. What I am suggestion is using the best off-the-shelf parts available to replace anything that is not reliable AND not repairable AND not replacable in kind. I agree that changing the GG1 to something else and just keeping the body shell would be a tragedy. What I would like is for the GG-1 to be restored, operational, and very reliable, the kind of restoration that Amtrak would welcome on its NEC for the good publicity it would draw and possibly even for the added revenue it would bring. It would still be a restoration and not a modernization or rebuilding. Does anyone know if there is a cashe of GG-1 spare parts anywhere?

I also think that with some very clever planning and using state of the art technology, it should be possible to shoe-horn head-end power into the locomotive without removing the boiler and water tank. I think a diesel power unit is rediculous when there is all the power in the overhead wire. Whether or not the boiler and water tank have to be removed, it is entirely feasible to run a separate lead from each pantograph to run the new electronics to provide three-phase 60Hz 440V AC to the coaches. For the train to look authentic, no obvious power car, even a car with a pantograph, is a must. Also, 25Hz power will remain on the NEC south of Sunnyside for a long time to come, and I think most would rather restrict the GG-1 to operation on the lines for which it was built than to see it modified to run on electrifications with different characteristcs.

If in 25 years, the power is changed to 60Hz, then a power car looking like a baggage car would be essential. Instead of its own pantograph, the GG-1's panatographs would still pick up the power, and there would be six fat jumper cables to the power car where the conversion solid state electronics would be located, with the power going from the GG-1 to the power car and back to the GG-1, again keeping the GG-1 as much like original as possible and the train looking as original as possible. In that case, of course, the head-end power electroncis would be relocated to the power car, and any boiler and water tank removed from the GG-1 (only if necessary) and preserved, would be restored to their original position.

[inarevil]

In answer to HighIron2003ar's question early on in this thread, the GG1 at Strasburg is not the one that crashed through the floor at DC Union Station. The one involved in that crash is stored in the Mt. Clare Yard in Baltimore, MD and is in the possession of the B&O Museum. In order for the locomotive to be removed, it was cut into three pieces and hauled out, reassembled, and put back in service. It was one of the last G's in service and with that, I would love to see at least it operationally restored. I remember seeing one being towed from somewhere to somewhere else when I rode the train across PA in 1990. It sure is an impressive beast.

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: Can anyone explain to me the quill drive?

What I think is going on is that the axle is surrounded by a hollow tube, and that hollow tube transmits torque to the axle through springs that are like wheel spokes. The hollow tube is the quill as in hollow feather used as a pen. The quill is in turn connected by gears to a traction motor attached to the truck frame.

This contrasts with the "nose hung" traction motor used on Diesels where one end of the traction motor is attached to the axle through a gear drive and the other end of the traction motor is attached to the truck frame through a journal bearing (it allows the traction motor to pivot, but it does not need to be a roller bearing because it does not rotate through full revolutions at wheel speed). The nose-hung design is a compromise between a fully sprung traction motor (objective of the quill drive) and an axle-hung motor like on the Milwaukee Road bipolar electrics.

I am understanding the quill drive the right way? How big an advantage does this have over the usual Diesel-style traction motor setup?

You understand it pretty well.

There are other designs of 'flexible drives' in use around the world too - their purpose is to minimise the 'unsprung weight' (mass) of the axle assembly and hence reduce the dynamic forces on the track at speed. Otherwise locomotives running at high speeds would (almost literally) hammer the track to pieces as they pass over joints, switches, crossings etc.

British Rail learnt this lesson the hard way back in the late 1960's when they built a fleet of 100mph electric locos with nose-hung traction motors and 20 ton axle loads. After the track started to suffer badly they had to retro-fit most of them with resilient wheels to reduce the track forces - the remainder were restricted to 75mph top speed and used for freight. All the electric passenger locos built in the UK after that have had fully sprung, frame-mounted motors with flexible drives.....

Tony

[Anonymous]

I was briefly approached about serving on the Amtrak board a couple years ago. To date nothing has come of it like the 3-4 people put up for board membership have never been confirmed by the Senate. Who knows, it may come through, but I am not holding my breath.

Should I be appointed there are some things I would seriously investigate:

1. Restore a steam enging and several vintage coaches to run excursion service. Think this would be a revenue producer.
2. REBUILD A GG-1 and run it on the NEC. Again think this would be a money maker.
3. Increase the frequency (and speed) of passenger trains. One train from Dallas to Austin per day taking 6 hours will not attract business riders. Four to 6 RTs per day traveling at a higher speed so you can be competative with airlines would be great.
4. Restore passenger service to additional core lines. What about a Sunset Limited connection at El Paso through Dallas-Fort Worth to Medidian Miss then on to DC? There are numerous lines like this that can be returned to service.
5. Market quality vacation travel. Look at our neighbors to the north (including Alaska).
6. Educate Congress on the benefits of Amtrak. Point out that there is no transit system, be it air, water or road, that pays its entire way through the fare box. Why should Amtrak be the only one to do it. (Mission Impossible???)

[Anonymous]

Having grown up with GG1's, E44's, E33's, Metroliners and E60's, I can tell you watching trains in the 60's and 70's was very exciting. When one first spotted a headlight in the distance, the question was, what kind of engine is on this train?It could be anything, but usually it was a G. It seemed every other train was powered by a G. Most people by the NEC got used to seeing the GG1.I always loved this engine, and never got tired of seeing her. Watching trains now with my son, I miss the old engines very much. If we were trackside now, and I saw a GG1 on the point, pulling ANYTHING, I would be in heaven! I don't care how it sounded, as long as it still had the Leslie Typhoon horn. It could be powered by briggs and stratton for all I care, as long as it was RUNNING! So, lets start a program to revive at least one of these magnificent machines before it is too late. What we need is a trainfan, but one who has experience within the Railroad shop area. A current or former RR employee would be great. I can and would donate cash as well as elbow grease to this cause. Lets not sit here and complain about the cost, money can be raised. This is America, money in not the issue! We can get the money. The real problem is getting the right kind of people to oversee this project. I have read all there is about the GG1, but I still don't know how to fix one! Take the guts out of the E60 sitting at Strasburg and swap it in. How? I dont know, but SOMEONE does. Please come forward. Lets do it!

[Modelcar]

...Can we confirm the GG-1 at Strasburgh IS the first one produced....I took pic's of it right after the museum was opened but don't have my pic's in front of me....The one inside the building..{at my visit}, was the riveted body as opposed to welded.
Believe it is: 4800

[Roger38]

WRWATKINS line 6 is the whole key to the AMTRAK and other issues, educate congress.

[Anonymous]

HighIron2003ar wrote:
Is the one at the PRR museum
the actual unit that crashed thru
the floor of the station in DC on
the famous runaway?

GG1 4876 pulled the Federal that morning. I rode behind her and the 4877 in tuscan livery for a GG1 farewell special in June of 1981.

Full roster and dispositions at:

http://www.spikesys.com/GG1/roster.html

-PRR 5711

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wrwatkins

I was briefly approached about serving on the Amtrak board a couple years ago. To date nothing has come of it like the 3-4 people put up for board membership have never been confirmed by the Senate. Who knows, it may come through, but I am not holding my breath.

Should I be appointed there are some things I would seriously investigate:

1. Restore a steam enging and several vintage coaches to run excursion service. Think this would be a revenue producer.
2. REBUILD A GG-1 and run it on the NEC. Again think this would be a money maker.
3. Increase the frequency (and speed) of passenger trains. One train from Dallas to Austin per day taking 6 hours will not attract business riders. Four to 6 RTs per day traveling at a higher speed so you can be competative with airlines would be great.
4. Restore passenger service to additional core lines. What about a Sunset Limited connection at El Paso through Dallas-Fort Worth to Medidian Miss then on to DC? There are numerous lines like this that can be returned to service.
5. Market quality vacation travel. Look at our neighbors to the north (including Alaska).
6. Educate Congress on the benefits of Amtrak. Point out that there is no transit system, be it air, water or road, that pays its entire way through the fare box. Why should Amtrak be the only one to do it. (Mission Impossible???)

Could I add a seventh?
7. Work on employee courtesy.

Almost all Amtrak employees I have met are very nice and will go out of their way to make you feel good, but every so often you meet one who isn't so nice.... It doesn't take much effort to treat each other well, but it takes even less work to ruin somebody's day.

Anyway:

Dear Dave,
I'm sorry, I didn't fully understand your prior postings. Now that you've clarified, I can see that your changes aren't so radical, and I feel that I owe you an apology.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

[;)]
I've been following this thread with interest and apologize if I missed an earlier reference.

Was delighted and surprised to hear that the GG-1 that crashed into Union Station D.C. had been saved from the junk heap.

This may be a dumb*** question but I've been dying to ask it:

My understanding is that the crash occurred because the loco simply lost all its braking power.

Why didn't the engineer just pan down? Wouldn't that have either thrown the trainset into emergency stop or let the loco coast to a stop??

Inquiring Minds...
Moop Moop! [:D]
Allen from Chicago