Although not as famous among older railfans as the GG1, the South Shore 2-D+D-2 is significantly larger and heavier than the 2-C+C-2 GG1 and would be quite a sight pulling a freight train at IRM speeds of 30mph.

Maybe if you made enough modifications to a GG-1, you could turn it into a GG-1/2?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 7&nseq=208

That Wilmington creature is quite bizarre!

It is interesting to think about an updated GG-1 design to replace the AEM-7's and HHP's that are apparantly already coming to the end of their service life. Why not? Think Ford Mustang, Dodge Charger, et al. Not sure about the FRA requirements on crash strength, though. The G fleet was so successful that it begs the question of why reinvent the wheel (mag-lev is in the same category with things like ICE and TGV available)? Updated components and design improvents on things like traction motors, air brakes, and the like could indeed yield a very impressive and reliable motor.

Just a thought...

I can't imagine operating crews of today would care much for a GG1-style cab and its related visibility issues.

The new ford Mustang and Dodge Chargers are only "retro" in sheet metal only. Even then, it isn't an exact match, it's a copy of the styling on what amounts to a larger and more complex car.

For the record, the AEM-7s are getting fairly old. They've outlived their Amtrak diesel contemporaries. Not a bad service life, if you think about it.

Electric locomotive technology has come a long way since the original GG1. I imagine the reason you don't replicate it today, is that the technology has changed. A GG1 was designed to deal with problems that existed in the original PRR electrification. The quill drive was partly because of the massive size needed for the traction motors.

Why try to adapt an old design to today's requirements, when you can start from scratch, or order from the Europeans...

Frankly, the same issue comes to light when we look at the various proposals to make a GG1 "operate." You make so many changes, by the time you are finished, it isn't really a GG1, but a bastardized BW-Steeplecab in a huge body.

For the record, many of the AEM7's have already been substantially rebuilt at least once--and I'm talking down-to-the-frames, replace-all-the-internals rebuild.

I took a tour of the Wilmington Shops many years ago, and they had on "display" an AEM7 in the middle of a rebuild. Long story short, they showed off the "guts" of the rebuild; they were replacing internals that occupied the size of a modest living room with internals that took up the room of, say, a nice-sized walk-in closet. The shop crews told me, that, in theory, the smaller guts could replace the transformers and controls of a PRR GG1--provided, of course, that you had a spare couple hundred thousand dollars to buy them and then more money to rewire them to run the GG1........

Yes, that's one way to do it, if you have the money and a G which is roadworthy for high speed or you can make the necessary repairs. But then you might as have the transformer & switch group custom built and have a G which is in all respects genuine. But if you are just talking museum operation at low speed over short distances then stuffing some trolley car parts into the G body would make more sense.

Re: ATSF @ IRM. I never said they got no attention, just not as much as one might expect for one of the most fabled roads with a Chicago terminus & HQ. For really low attention relative to their general importance as Chicago railroads one must move beyond Joliet on the rail compass. But I digress.

Steve

Hey, you are the one who brought it up. First you purport that the reason IRM hasn't operated their GG1 is an anti-eastern railroad bias. Then you state that they are evidently anti-Santa Fe. Off of the top of my head, other than CSRM in Sacramento, who received the Santa Fe collection, I cannot think of a museum that has a large Santa Fe focus. I imagine it all boils down to what is available and when, rather than some grand conspiracy at Union against representing the Santa Fe in their collection. After all, don't tell that to the volunteers who are putting the original-style seats in the Santa Fe combine, or the ones who give tours in the Santa Fe lounge car, or the volunteers who spiffed up the FP45 for diesel days and made it operational as a control cab. They haven't gotten the news of IRM's anti-SantaFe conspiracy. But, I digress.

To bring this back to the topic, IRM caused quite a bit of consternation a few years ago with their GG1. They posed it out on the mainline for photographs with the pantograph raised. At least one photographer digitally blurred the background to make it look like the locomotive was moving. Whomever did the GG1 paint at IRM did a very good job.

From what I've read, it would appear easier and a better investment, to re-hab a certain NYC Mohawk, than to re-wire and try to convince a railroad to operate a survivor GG-1.
The engineering, the "oops factor" (we'll have try that again"), the space on the original trackage, the speed, everything!
I'd rather see the cash go into cosmetically restoring and stabilizing the remaining members of the fleet.

At least the naysayers have been relatively quiet during this discussion (rather than citing previous threads about what it would take to get a GG-1 running again). I appreciate the fresh discussion on this. Whether or not a GG-1 (or GG-1 carbody with a variety of innards) runs again (and I hope it does), at least the discussion is attempting to talk through scenarios-one way to preserve, and hopefully operate, one of these magnificent locomotives.

The discussion also brings an important side discussion that we as preservationists often overlook; does it have to run at all? Would making it run so change the "artifact" that it isn't really a GG1 anymore, but a B-W steeplecab in drag? The one thing the GG1 has going for it is that there are a lot of them still around, you wouldn't be bastardizing the only intact example.

As I get older and my outlook on preservation matures, I have come to the conclusion that not everything has to run in order to be "preserved." Do you need a GG1 to operate to demonstrate a heavy electric locomotive? Probably not if you have a South Shore 800 in the collection. Even getting a 1500v South Shore car to run on a 600v museum trackage involves some serious challenges. While easy to say, "throw trolley parts under the hood" isn't always as easy.

The one electric locomotive I wish had been saved was one of the Cleveland Union Terminal motors. The NYC converted them to 650v DC operation for use in the NYC area. Had one survived, you could have cosmetically restored it back to CUT appearance, with pantographs, but kept the 650v conversion inside. Even a New Haven passenger electric, which had the ability to run on 650v third rail into GCT would probably have been easier to covert to run on museum trackage today.

That is what I was referring to when I said it was not to scale. But my failing memory tells me that this loco looks a lot like the predecessor to the GG-1 which had a very similar body but only two trucks. I have several GG-1s like the one pictured but in Amtrak colors. The two that I just recently bought have the correct trucks, one in O gauge and one in HO that will be going on the block soon since I can't handle the little size like I used to.

Later!
Mr. Ed

Volunteers and donors vote with their time and $$ on what happens at IRM and at most any museum and it's only natural. I've never stated that IRM has no interest in other lines and see no reason to defend against something I never said. But anyone who denies IRM's overwhelming devotion (among steam roads) to the lines clockwise of Joliet on the compass is denying reality.

Steve

I'll second this, although I doubt anyone besides us will notice...

There are two problems with that.

1) It's not beating a dead horse. You see where an IRM insider said that running theirs using trolley equipment was given some serious consideration. Just because they passed on it doesn't mean it could not still happen.

The full restoration of one to a condition where Amtrak would accept it running at speed on the NEC may be far fetched barring a considerable fundraising effort (and that taking place only after it's been determined that it would be practical to do at all what with frame repairs and building a transformer). But jamming some trolley gear into IRM's and wiring them to 4 motors selected among 12, that's more of a time and effort thing. It could be done.

2) Saying something is beating a dead horse is basically saying a particular discussion should not be happening. As no one is forcing anyone to read this thread I take issue with anyone telling anyone not to talk about something so long as it is on topic with this board.

Steve