Because of PCBs in the transformers on a G motor, it is doubtful one will ever run again without a total gutting and transformer replacement.
I remember, when I worked for PC and CR, that many of thee
GG1s developed cracks in the truck frames that required
constant welding.
The PCBs and asbestos can be dealt with, it's only a matter of money and will. To see one in Tuscan Red on the NEC again would be amazing!
The AC motors on the GG1 will not operate on 60 Hz power which is present north of NYC and on several other lines connected to the Corridor.
Only one or two G's still have their original transformers, and the NEC now runs on a completely different current than what the G's originally used. These could potentially be overcome with updated electronics, but there is one issue that could not.
The GG-1's frames.
In their later years of use, GG-1's were plagued by cracking frames, and were only repaired to "make it last a little longer". Even today, you could walk up to any G and look at the many cracks and weld repairs that were done. The cast frames have simply had it after almost daily use, pounding the rails for nearly 50 years. It's amazing they lasted as long as they did.
S. ConnorOnly one or two G's still have their original transformers, and the NEC now runs on a completely different current than what the G's originally used. These could potentially be overcome with updated electronics, but there is one issue that could not. The GG-1's frames. In their later years of use, GG-1's were plagued by cracking frames, and were only repaired to "make it last a little longer". Even today, you could walk up to any G and look at the many cracks and weld repairs that were done. The cast frames have simply had it after almost daily use, pounding the rails for nearly 50 years. It's amazing they lasted as long as they did.
Like anything else made by man - If it was once made, it can be remade - all it takes is the desire and the finances. New frames can be cast for a price - how high that price would be is the question.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
S. Connorthe NEC now runs on a completely different current than what the G's originally used.
If I had the cash I'd be right in the thick of it!
I don't know so much about electrification on this scale, but would it be possible to forget about the overhead and bring the juice with you? Could diesel generators in a dedicated car do the job?
Becky
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
Penny TrainsIf I had the cash I'd be right in the thick of it! I don't know so much about electrification on this scale, but would it be possible to forget about the overhead and bring the juice with you? Could diesel generators in a dedicated car do the job? Becky
Making a GG1 into a diesel electric would be a sacriledge of the highest order.
While at it, lets recreate a three-'unit'-set of these, just for the heck of it, for another Missing Link in Electric Locomotive Evolution?https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Alco_Westinghouse_EL3A_1925.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f4/5e/6c/f45e6c4ca256fb2ded605dec344ad914.jpgI understand these had Liquid Rheostats and the conductive solution would boil under load, resulting in steam from top of car body simulating that there were S/Gs on board.Would like to see good film footage of these at work.If there is money left over, why not build a few VGN 2-10-10-2s? which lasted about 30 years, except for one 1 that blew up in 1941. 48 inch Cyls on the front engine.http://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=19454http://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=93488A great road, the Virginian, even in Diesel Days.Every kid wanted the Lionel Train Master.Thank You.
Penny Trains If I had the cash I'd be right in the thick of it! I don't know so much about electrification on this scale, but would it be possible to forget about the overhead and bring the juice with you? Could diesel generators in a dedicated car do the job? Becky
That was discussed in a rail magazine article years ago, a rail museum with a GG1 (somewhere) was kicking around the idea of running their GG1 off a car mounted generator. Don't remember what mag I read it in, but obviously nothing came of it.
Theoretically I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done.
More Great Information.
Thank You.
NDG While at it, lets recreate a three-'unit'-set of these, just for the heck of it, for another Missing Link in Electric Locomotive Evolution?https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Alco_Westinghouse_EL3A_1925.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f4/5e/6c/f45e6c4ca256fb2ded605dec344ad914.jpgI understand these had Liquid Rheostats and the conductive solution would boil under load, resulting in steam from top of car body simulating that there were S/Gs on board.
While at it, lets recreate a three-'unit'-set of these, just for the heck of it, for another Missing Link in Electric Locomotive Evolution?https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Alco_Westinghouse_EL3A_1925.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f4/5e/6c/f45e6c4ca256fb2ded605dec344ad914.jpgI understand these had Liquid Rheostats and the conductive solution would boil under load, resulting in steam from top of car body simulating that there were S/Gs on board.
I think there's a typo in the wikimedia label, IIRC the Virginian locomotives were Baldwin Westinghouse - Alco would normally partner with GE, not Westinghouse.
The N&W phase converter locomotives also used liquid rheostats. Both locomotives used wound rotor three phase induction motors, the rheostats were used to increase starting torque - high resistance provided good starting torque, low resistance offered good running efficiency.
The wiki actually has it right, the squareheads were Alco-Westinghouse, although that was not the norm.
The following may apply. From eBay.http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t62/NDGee/Alco%20Westinghouse%20Dec%201925%20VGN%20EL1%2065818_zpsk9peztqz.jpgThank You.
I checked H. Reid's classic book on the Virginian. It doesn't say why Alco built the running gear on the EL-1A and EL-3A electrics (instead of Baldwin) but Reid's prose suggests that Virginian did its own design work with Westinghouse's help on the entire electrification project. All of the steam VGN got in the 1920s came from Alco-Richmond (except a 2-8-8-0 rebuilt from the front and a 2-8-2 rebuilt from the, um, "Aft" end of VGN's Triplex...). The Squareheads' carbodies and running gear came from Alco-Schenectady.
Here are all the relevant factors:To make a vintage GG1 run again (as opposed to building a replica), you would need:1) a boatload of money and an available GG1;2) a railroad upon which to operate (your own or someone else's); and3) a way to fix the frame cracks (and any other issues, such as Positive Train Control or the like) to the satisfaction of the host railroad.Gutting a GG1 and replacing the "guts" with more modern guts is an option, but not a cheap one. In dollars, six figures easily, more likely seven figures. People who know more than I do about this say that the capacity to cast and anneal a frame of this size simply doesn't exist anymore in the United States, so a fabricated frame of this size is going to be another high-six/low-seven figures. And if we go this far, heck, just build the rest from scratch as well.And what would you have at the end? The moral equivalent of one of those fiberglass-body "kit cars" built on a modern car frame with a modern engine, not an actual antique car.Now, where are you going to run this creation? Virtually all the former trackage that GG1s operated on is controlled by Amtrak, with maybe a few miles of SEPTA and NJ Transit also qualifying. Amtrak IS NOT going to permit an old-frame GG1 to operate over its lines. Period. They have rejected the proposed haulage of a dead GG1 over their tracks. The ONLY reason GG1 4935 was allowed to move from Lancaster County to Washington Union Terminal and back for display for WUT's centennial celebration was because the officials that approve and reject such special movements were directly overruled by Amtrak's president and VPs with a "we won't ask you for another hundred years!" excuse.The only rail museum that currently has the infrastructure to operate a GG1 and has one is the Illinois Railway Museum, and their overhead is 600V DC, not 11KV AC. One could rejigger the inside of a GG1 to operate on 600V DC, but for what? All that money and work just to see what would sound like a battery hybrid putter up and down the track, with probably half the lights in the Union, Ill. area dimming as it accelerates from a stop?So: Not impossible, but HIGHLY improbable.
CSSHEGEWISCH The wiki actually has it right, the squareheads were Alco-Westinghouse, although that was not the norm.
Learn something new every day... (h/t to NDG as well)
Won't get started on the Lima built electric locomotive shells that never got the electrical gear installed.
I presume that you are talking about the L-6 shells that sat at Altoona for years before being cut up. I agree, the story behind that situation is most interesting.
A facts and corections, and a repeat of an idea that I presented some time ago. First, do any of the GG-1's that have been preserved have frames without any sign of cracking. If so, a restored and practical GG-1 is possible. Much of the catenary, nearly all south of Harold Tower and Sunnyside in New York City, is still 25 Hz, and the raised voltage from 11,000 to 12,500 volts should not be a problem if old cotton insulation is replaced with modern plastic, which should be done in anycase. But eventually, the entire NEC will be 60Hz, and a completely restored GG-1 just won't work. So, what to do? The transformers have to be replaced anyway, because the old ones used a toxic cooling flued that won't pass modern environmental rules. The saving point, though, is that AC-commutator motors work fine on dc, without any modification. (Not induction or any type of synchronous motor, just commutator motors.) My solution was to save all the elecdtricals of three DC AEM-7s, transformers, rectifiers, electronics, etc, and adapting all this to the twelve motors that power a GG-1(two-per-axle). Whether the multi-notch GG-1 controller could be retained might be a problem, and possibly a new power control stand would have to be designed and built. But the result should be a powerful and useful locomotive that can run on any existing or futre NEC power for occasional excursion service and not give any exterior visual evidence of internal changes. Sort of what could have been done if Amtrak or NJT really wanted to keep GG-1s in service.
Cost? milllions of course.
Buslist Because of PCBs in the transformers on a G motor, it is doubtful one will ever run again without a total gutting and transformer replacement.
From what I have researched, all preserved examples have had both the transformers and the mercury rectifiers removed and replaced with concrete ballast of the same weight. These engines will never run again under their own power.
At least one GG1 sent to the National Train Day event in Washington DC in recent years had gondolas loaded with stone fore and aft of the GG1 acting as brake cars because the brakes were not functional on it. I don't know if they ran auxiliary brake lines to connect the two gondolas or if they used the ancient lines in the GG1 but this thing hadn't gone anywhere by itself in decades.
*EDIT:* PRR 4935 would be a notable exception since it was given special attention by Amtrak and rail fans. Does anyone know if 4935 was visiting National Train Day with those other GG1s a few years ago?
aegrotatioFrom what I have researched, all preserved examples have had both the transformers and the mercury rectifiers removed and replaced with concrete ballast of the same weight. These engines will never run again under their own power.
I have to wonder whether the technical knowledge of some of these posters concerning what has been done to preserved GG1s, or what supposedly makes it likely a GG1 will 'never run again,' is trustworthy. If you provide me with the blueprints of the mercury rectifiers used on the GG1, I will personally make the replacement components for you in a very short time, at small cost to whoever will be doing the restoration.
One point being made is a good one, but counter to what the poster seems to want to establish: to my knowledge, all the PCB-containing transformers have indeed been removed from preserved GG1s (with associated structural damage and crude re-ballasting attempts). However, it should be noted that this involves less, rather than more, actual restoration work (if we assume, as most do, that there would be no way to remediate the PCB problem during the restoration, or 'grandfather' the use of PCBs through a proper safeguarding program if the transformers remained intact (but drained or passivated).
As Dave Klepper has repeatedly noted, there is no particular reason why an 'external restoration' of an operable GG1 needs to replicate the precise multitap main transformer architecture that PRR used, let alone the 1930s construction of the main transformers themselves. However, when I looked into this a few years ago, I found a number of academic and commercial sources that could design (and if necessary provide) an electrical replacement with the appropriate windings and taps to make the locomotive operable, either at full or reduced power. Since that time, both the cost and expertise needed to produce technology for transversion of high-voltage power-frequency AC to feed GE twin motors at high speed have gone down. If there were suitable interest in financing a 'return to operation' of a GG1, it wouldn't be a particularly difficult exercise.
The brake arrangement on a GG1, as on many other locomotives with large cast underframes (the Centipede being a notorious example) is complicated, and even a moment's reflection will tell you that a one-time move for a special event is better conducted (and done much, much less expensively or riskily) by isolating the locomotive brake and using external cars with modern brakes for the move. The GG1 was notable for being underbraked relative to its mass for high-speed service, notably with Amfleet consists (ask me why the 120mph Metroliner program was terminated "early"!) and it isn't surprising that additional service-brake capacity would have to be provided, even with the locomotive brake adapted for automatic operation and cut in and working. Also not surprising is that in the NEC you would want to do the move with a minimum number of cars and consist length (instead of, say, the rake of empty intermodal cars used for ATSF 3751) and that those cars would be ballasted enough to provide braking integrity for the heavy locomotive between them without substantial risk of wheelslide.
The real issue with restoring a GG1 to operation is -- here -- what you would do with the thing that justifies hot-rodding it. As noted elsewhere on these Forums, you can adapt one to run on preserved trackage at IRM with a relatively simple DC kludge, but most of the usual 'venues' that would run electrified equipment are woefully ill-suited to something this size, power, and speed. So you're looking at excursions on suitable ex-PRR or New Haven (or perhaps Reading) trackage, with permission from the Government agencies and appropriate insurance protection for the potential business-interruption risk they face, even before you start doing budgets for the fix. If you thought Lion Gardiner turned into a rust bucket with astonishing speed, you have not watched how GG1s started to dissolve even while still nominally in service (this gave me much more respect for the Wilmington shop people than I should have had in the last years of the freight electrification!) and so any restoration would also involve considerable structural upkeep. Granted, this is one of the most famous locomotives in the world, but it has a limited space to run and I suspect a relatively quick 'burnout' for the number of seats you could sell on cost-effective excursions per year. Even if you built the thing into a 'slug' powered from some APU in a disguised adjacent car, or set it up with a modified push-pull control desk, you still have a very heavy locomotive out at the end of a lightweight consist, with plenty of body work, frame crystallization amelioration, and ongoing care required just to keep it rollable on public display. That is the real reason I think we're unlikely to see a GG1 return to operation. And I thoroughly hope I am wrong... whether it's a full restoration, a hot-rodding job, or just a theatrical prop set-up.
aegrotatio From what I have researched, all preserved examples have had both the transformers and the mercury rectifiers removed...
From what I have researched, all preserved examples have had both the transformers and the mercury rectifiers removed...
That said, after all this time the transformers would have to be replaced regardless of the cooling medium used. It is usually transformer breakdown or failure that sidelines an ageing electric.
The big obsticle to returning a G to life is the truck frames. They can be removed, stripped to the casting, flipped over, heated back into form, gaps filed, cracks welded and, finally, heated for stress relief. It is not a technological problem; it is a money problem. How many fantrips will you need to run to recoup the cost? One could never break even on a venture like this. It would take a fan or group of fans with deep pockets to make it happen. Should it happen? Well, duh.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
D.CarletonThey can be removed, stripped to the casting, flipped over, heated back into form, gaps filed, cracks welded and, finally, heated for stress relief.
One procedure that was being discussed in the mid-'70s involved stripping, cleaning and etching the underframes, then constructing an appropriate jig and enclosure to heat them for an extended period to redissolve the "crystallization" cracking, then slowly taking them down through normalization as appropriate for original casting. Then you'd do NDT and some residual metalstitching (keyhole welding, more likely, today) on cracks that did not correctly close.
The point is the same, however: it's a money problem, and a significant one. And yes, you'd likely never break even. And yes, it should happen if there's any way to accomplish it*.
*Including perhaps the sort of money-throwing efforts done with 1361, if the chance ever comes again -- but with better planning, scheduling, and knowledge about project management...
RME D.Carleton They can be removed, stripped to the casting, flipped over, heated back into form, gaps filed, cracks welded and, finally, heated for stress relief. One procedure that was being discussed in the mid-'70s involved stripping, cleaning and etching the underframes, then constructing an appropriate jig and enclosure to heat them for an extended period to redissolve the "crystallization" cracking, then slowly taking them down through normalization as appropriate for original casting. Then you'd do NDT and some residual metalstitching (keyhole welding, more likely, today) on cracks that did not correctly close. The point is the same, however: it's a money problem, and a significant one. And yes, you'd likely never break even. And yes, it should happen if there's any way to accomplish it*. *Including perhaps the sort of money-throwing efforts done with 1361, if the chance ever comes again -- but with better planning, scheduling, and knowledge about project management...
D.Carleton They can be removed, stripped to the casting, flipped over, heated back into form, gaps filed, cracks welded and, finally, heated for stress relief.
Would frame crystallization be any worse than on a similar aged steam engine?
MidlandMike Would frame crystallization be any worse than on a similar aged steam engine?
D.CarletonI cannot speak for every steam locomotive but none of the ones I have ever worked with showed manifistations of the cracking seen on the Gs.
There's a bit of a difference: cast beds were generally designed with larger sections, less requirement for weight reduction, and of course were sited "between the drivers" (where the most longitudinal or oscillating stress loading occurred) in almost all cases. Where these kind of design principles could not be or were not applied (for example as in some Australian Garratts) alarming or expensive cast-bed cracking could be and was observed. There is no inherent unbreakable magic in a cast-steel underframe, whether or not GSC propaganda was effective...
The G cracking was in part a result of either the alloy or the treatment used in the detail casting, the "crystallization" leading to preferential stress raising. Had the art of finite-element analysis (or the use of computers in design) been available to GE or Baldwin at the time the GG1 underframes were designed, some of the stresses could have been better adjusted for, but the fundamental alloy change leading to the cracking was (at the time, anyway) the stated reason why rework of the existing underframes, or any extensive rebuilding of the GG1s into more modern power, was not undertaken even as a demonstration project.
Somewhere I have the drawings of the 'welded-frame' alternative, including chevron springs for the driving axles (in part to get rid of some of the pedestal loading issues) that was at one point in the mid-Seventies being considered for rebuilt high-speed GG1s. The tire problem killed that reason, it was thought that truck-borne power made better sense if true high speed weren't going to be required, and (in the event) toasters made much better sense for Amtrak service than a large quill-drive 4-6-6-4.
I'm pretty sure that a recast GG1 frame, put back into heavy service on uncertain PC trackwork, would start slowly recrystallizing. I have never thought this was a necessarily 'aging' process, so I don't think there is a likelihood that recast frames would have a time limit before needing another rework, and any excursion schedule that would continue to pay its expenses would not work the frame, or the restored G on it, anywhere near as often as what would have been seen in regular service.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.