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!
Many thanks, cefinkjr and oltmannd. That was the most impressive-looking piece of railroad equipment I think I ever saw. I wish somebody somewhere had one still in operation.
Working backward through your questions: Don't forget that the couplers are attached to the frame and, even with the joint between the two main frames, there is absolutely NO slack allowing the resistance of the train to "cause one end of the loco to remain stationary, while the other end did the sliding". (OK, there might have been 1/64" of slack.) The point is that the presence or absence of a train had no influence on the lateral shifting of the car body and the electrical components.
As for both ends sliding at the same time and to the same degree, I imagine the bearings included a self-centering feature similar to that in many steam locomotives. (See my earlier post: Think steam-era technology.) I wish I could draw you a picture but a description will have to do: Imagine a very large piece of steel with a shallow V on its top surface. Attach that to the frame. Now put a second piece on top of the first but with a shallow V on its bottom surface. The car body rests on this piece. Finally, imagine a round steel (or brass?) rod --- the actual bearing --- between those two hunks of steel. The weight of the car body will tend to keep it centered above the frame below. That, in essence, is how the front engine of an articulated locomotive was kept centered under the boiler and, I suspect, would be very similar to the actual device used in a GG1.
ChuckAllen, TX
You might be able to get some clues from here:
http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5618.pdf
"Each frame casting has a pivot bearing and two spring-mounted side bearing plates joining it to the locomotive body."
Apparently the two pivot bearings kept the locomotive laterally and longitudinally centered over the frames and the two pair of sprung bearing plates bore the load towards the ends of the carbody. The springs allowed lateral motion between the frame and carbody.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Thanks for that, cefinkjr, and it does make the picture clearer. But I'm still confused. If the carbody was one piece, and the driving wheels were divided between two hinged-together components, and the full weight of the locomotive rested on those two components--then did each end of the carbody slide across the top of its end of the running gear when rounding a curve? If so, what enabled the opposite ends of the body to slide at the same time, and to the same degree? Wouldn't the pull of the train behind cause one end of the loco to remain stationary, while the other end did the sliding? Isn't this the way it worked with an articulated steam locomotive?
Perhaps the NYC engine did, in fact, have flat spots. It would not be the first engine to have them and it would not be the last. The Independent brake can be a terrible tool in the wrong hands. A application of the automatic (train) brake can flat spot engine wheels if the engineer does not keep the engine (independent) bailed off.
cefinkjr You may be interested to know that a GG-1 rode "like a Pullman". At least, the one I rode once from 30th Street Station to Lancaster did. Meanwhile, an NYC (ex-CUT) P1a that I had ridden from GCT out to Harmon rode like it had flat spots on every wheel. I never understood this since the two motors had the same wheel arrangements and were very close to the same weight.
You may be interested to know that a GG-1 rode "like a Pullman". At least, the one I rode once from 30th Street Station to Lancaster did. Meanwhile, an NYC (ex-CUT) P1a that I had ridden from GCT out to Harmon rode like it had flat spots on every wheel. I never understood this since the two motors had the same wheel arrangements and were very close to the same weight.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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?
Check this view of the running gear alone: http://ctr.trains.com/~/media/images/online%20extras/gg1%20in%20layers/gg1-12-1024.ashx. That pivot you see between the two main frames is the only one you're going to find (except the pivots of the lead and trailing trucks). The weight of everything above the running gear rested on bearings on the tops of the two frames. Do you think they might have been heavily greased???
Your asking about "truck swing" indicates you are thinking in Diesel terms. Forget Diesels; think steam-era technology. If you remember that a PRR Class G locomotive was a 4-6-0 and understand Pennsy's habit of combining class letters as needed to accurately describe a new locomotive, you'll realize that a GG-1 was two Ten Wheelers, back-to-back. Now look at that picture of the running gear again and it will make more sense to you.
During their lifetime that was the one complaint most frequently heard about the G motors, namely a very cramped space for the crew and restricted visibility forward. Pennsy's box cabs had great visibility but the crews were always accutely conscious of the fact that in the event of a collision they were toast!
Levantine Some time ago I visited the railroad museum in Roanoke, Va., and saw a GG1 on exhibit. Climbing up to cab level and peering into the window, I was surprised at how cramped a space the engineer had. With such a massive locomotive--and no prime mover involved--why would there be so little room for the crew?
Some time ago I visited the railroad museum in Roanoke, Va., and saw a GG1 on exhibit. Climbing up to cab level and peering into the window, I was surprised at how cramped a space the engineer had. With such a massive locomotive--and no prime mover involved--why would there be so little room for the crew?
All that, and they really weren't any larger than and E44 or E60.
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.
There was alot of equipment inside a GG1's carbody. In 2009 Classic Trains did a feature on the GG1. I found a link on the Classic Trains website you should find of interest as it contains cutaway drawings of the interior layout. Enjoy
http://ctr.trains.com/Online%20Extras/Equipment%20Rosters/2009/04/GG1%20in%20layers.aspx
Mike
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.