They probably didn't want to put money into them. Remember that there was a time when everyone expected a change to commercial frequency (60Hz instead of 25Hz) power obsoleting the whole fleet. That mostly did not happen. Apparently there are enough advantages to 25Hz that it's worth keeping when you have it even though it's not worth installing on new lines.

I believe the GG 1 locomotives were phased out when the frequency was changed from 25 to 60 cycles or Hertz as it is called now. The operating voltage was also raised. 60 cycle motors and transformers are both smaller and more efficient. I do not think there is any 25 cycle power distribution today. There may be some 25 cycle power still used for railroad signaling, not sure about that

Hi,

As I understood it, electrified freights from Enola over the low grade and the Trenton Cut-off were kept running until the equipment trusts for the E44s expired.

At that point, the cost of buying new electric power for the freights was considered but it was more cost effective to move freight over the ex-Reading and into New York City than the expense of using Amtrak (both track and electricity) segments to continue using the Low Grade.

It was my understanding that all Freight GG1s and the E44s were retired at that time (c1981). There was a move to use 60Hz electricity at one time but I've had mixed reports as to its success. One report was that the 60Hz caused excessive degradation in the Hudson Tubes.

The main reason for the retiring of the GG1s was metal fatigue in the frames. I had family working for the PRR/PC/CR/Amtrak until about 1985-1990 so my information is old and my memory may be flawed.

Doug vV

The old PRR electrification, and all of the old Reading, are still 25 cycle, not 60. Only some of the newer installations, like the rebuilt Lackawanna and the Long Branch are 60 cycle. Same for the NEC above New Haven.

The G motors were retired because of their frame issues, plain and simple; I heard once that NJT was spending something like 150K per year per unit on frame repairs. (I can't confirm that number though, the man that told me that figure 40 years ago is long gone).

This thread appears to have spawned a revival in threads discussing the GG1 and the technical aspects and challenges of a possible resurrection. Dougvv started a new thread entitled "GG1s" by seconding the observation I made in my previous post that maybe over the next 10 to 20 years there may be an opportunity to achieve some synergies in frame construction being that the T-1 group may also be casting some big frames.

Perhaps more important to any preservation-minded person or group interested in the GG1 is Mr. Redden's account of this experiment with fabricated replacement frames. Any documentation of this program - design specs, drawings, and/or test result data could be crucial in the preservation of a GG1. If the frame replacement effort was not successful, it could save some resources by eliminating a path that will not be beneficial. If the fabricated frame did work, then knowledge of the design would enable operational restoration with a less expensive and more easily available fabricated frame. With proper documentation supporting the use of a fabricated frame on a GG1, such a fabricated frame restoration would be historically correct to the era in which the fabricated frame was used.

Curiosity finally got to me so my wife and I drove up to Cooperstown Junction yesterday to check out the stored GG1's. It was sad to see them slowly rusting away with very little hope of preserving them. One thing that we noticed after looking at our pictures when we got home that Pennsy 4909, Amtrak 4932 appears to be numbered 4917 which was the Pennsy # for Amtrak 4934. Not sure what happened there. Didn't find any markings on the passenger car but I assume it was an ex D&H. A little puzzled by the car behind but I'm guessing that it may have been an Railway Post Office car because of the letter drop slot on the side of the car. Would appreciate it if someone could fill me in on those 2 cars.