I have to say this was more imaginative and prone for people to take seriously than a "NYC was found in a long forgotten shed" or "UP is going to restore and run a big boy".

Actually...could it be possible...i know I dont know the actual power needed to opperate a GG1...but through transformers and stuff...

Howard, you're really on to something here, the Flux Capacitor could be the thing which makes GG1 travel possible!

Uh . . . Fred . . ,

There is a boiler, a water tank, and a Diesel fuel bunker in many of the GG-1's.

*

*


*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

It was used to provide the steam heat for passenger trains.

(No April Fool)

Steve Zuiderveen

As I said to Brother Mitchell last night, One of the components in a well done hoax is that it is plausible on first read.

Somewhere in the hard drive of a moribund laptop I have a copy of a PRR equipment diagram for a proposed dual power CC in what looked very much like a P5a Modified body.

The idea in the original post is feasible - very expensive, probably about as economically sound an investment as "Springtime for Hitler", - and sounds like great fun.

Since friends of mine are involved in the ground up restoration and return to service of several Long Island FA powerpacks I did not make the connection with the date. I began wondering about the cracks in the frames and the running gear and how much gloss black paint was needed to hide them from the FRA.

GME

Heh. I was hoping you guys would let me slide on that one. A lot of the early diesels had steam generators aboard also. A few years ago, I had to ponder for a while what the extra exhaust stack and steam hoses were for on a RS-2.

Obviously you are familiar with the "Prince of Darkness". I thought I was the only double masochist (Rail Preservation and British vehicles...) lurking in this forum.

You are not alone - 5 Triumphs & 3 BSA Victors. ""first Englishman in orbit - the guy that didn't use the compression release on his MX-500"

These steam locos are a cakewalk to get running compared to them beezers.

They're Not? :-(

I've owned 1 Triumph TR7 and 4 Rover Sterlings... If Lucas components had been used in GG1's, they'd have been gone by 1940!

Gary,
You are NOT the only double masochist.
And not the only devotee of the Prince Of Darkness, either.
I am Rovronr -- 1962 Series II Land Rover, and ex-C&NW brakie.
Fortunately these days I'm sober.
Three addictions just wouldn't be appropo.
Fact is, Lucas electrics would make no appreciable difference in the operability of any of the remaining GG1s. Although I suspect GG1s leak about the same amount of oil as any single British car.

I've found that the basic difference between working on an MG or Triumph (2 wheeled variety) and working on a locomotive or passenger car is the size of the hammer.................................... :) (Currently 2 MGB's and a Bonneville 750)

A Rover 2000 TC and an Austin Healy Sprite (along with two Simcas and a Renault). I have never claimed sanity.

GME

So, accepting the reality of the April 1 post, and from the perspective (and insulation) of something like 3000 miles away, would it be possible to restore and run a GG1? I assume you would need to gut the transformers and install contemporary electrical systems, without PCB’s, asbestos or other interesting traditional ingredients. I would assume very deep pockets.

I have heard the rumors (from this distance at least) of frame cracks and other issues.

It clear that a GG1 is one of the most identifiable icons in American railroading (this coming from a Californian who likes 19th century narrow gauge)

Owner of two Fiat Bartoni spiders, with decent electricals, and really stinky steel… At least Fiat included roll up windows which is more than can be said for the various British builders....

In answer to your question, how much money do you have to burn?

From what I was told (and shown) at a Wilmington Shops open house years ago, the current electrical package being used to upgrade the Amtrak AEM-7's, i.e. the totality of boxes, etc. that process the electricity between the pantographs and the motors is about the size of an average older-house bathroom, or several refrigerators strapped together. And they don't all have to sit next to one another. There's still stuff like cooling fans, etc. to worry about, but the basic point is that it can supposedly be done without the big massive transformers of old--just like radios can now be implanted in packets smaller than the AAA batteries used to power them, instead of using arrays of tubes and iron-ring transformers.

The popular legend was that it was ultimately frame stress cracks that ultimately hastened the condemnation of the GG1's in 1987, but that could have been wishful thinking. Assuming that was the issue, would there have been a way to repair the frame, and at what cost? I'm told that a frame such as the ones under the G's and the Baldwin Centipedes would be basically impossible to replace today, at least in kind. Aside from that, what about motor condition/durability, bearings to replace, the old PCB clean-up issue, etc.

It's entirely possible that had, say, Bennett Levin or Scott K. been "mad" enough to pursue an operable GG1 at "any costs", it's likely that they would have been able to do so for perhaps about the same amount of money thus far spent on the PRR K4s 1361 since 1985......... but it's also likely they might be still at work after all that money............