TVRM put in a modern “desk style” control stand in thier Southern E8. So that locomotive is no longer historic and is now just a toy?

I wholeheartedly agree, but there are some of us that don't agree that this should be the goal of "preservation". Rivets are still made, as are rivet snaps, so the only reason I can see for the change is convenience. Real preservation isn't supposed to be about convenience, its supposed to be about preserving the technology... notice I didn't say "original fabric." We all recognize that the railroads replaced original fabric as a matter of course; but they typically did so employing the same technology as the original. At the point the original technology became obsolete the equipment was retired... and that stopped the clock; froze the artifact in time, and that is what we must strive to preserve.

It's really a question of mission statement; are we working to preserve the technology, or just the experience that John Q. Public has when he sees our work? If the later, that's a pretty low bar; John Q. would have the same experience if he were presented with a technologically correct piece; but I can't say the same for those of us who have an interest in the technology.

Just a small thought here, but for those of you concerned with keeping every single aspect of a piece of equipment original, why are there still two (technically three) GG1’s currently sitting in worse shape than the lost locos of Roanoke? The two in Cooperstown and the one in the B&O museum may be saved, but I certainly would not call them preserved.

That begs the question, why let a piece of machinery rot when it could be used to represent the class it is apart of? I would understand the preservationists’ historic fabric standpoint if we were looking at a class that DIDN’T have 15 identical survivors as well as the prototype. Personally, I say updating one of the ones in NY and cosmetically preserving the other to show what it was like before the operational rebuild would be the best option, if a group were to undertake the task. One GG1 updated to modern standards still leaves 15 originals... That’s like saying Levin’s E8’s shouldn’t have been restored because they have ditch lights. Even railroads themselves often altered locomotives before preservation. Take UP 4141 (the locomotive that Bush himself operated) for example. The locomotive has had all of its traction motors, generator, prime mover, and even MU/air hoses removed to be displayed. What’s the point in arguing that a GG1 shouldn’t be modified, yet staying quiet when a modern locomotive is preserved with even less “historic fabric?”

It's not at all different!

And it's the reason museums don't do that type of thing to items that are being preserved.

Are you actually saying that the 4876 and the Cooperstown GG1s are being preserved?
What exactly is your definition of "preserved" then? Just because a piece of equipment is old and owned by a non profit, does not automatically mean that it is "preserved".

In my opinion either of those locomotives would be excellent candidates for this type of rebuild, and the attempt to do such experimentation may have more educational potential than any static GG1 on display. Just imagine the ability to take an iconic locomotive, re-engineer the technology to modern methods while learning how the original worked and how to use new technology to accomplish the same goal. Doing this does no harm to the locomotive (since the other option is to let it finish dissolving into the earth) but it does open the opportunity for learning.

I would be interested in assisting such a non profit get off the ground.

That's a valid argument, except don't call it railway preservation, call it something else. Electric flavored scenic railroad comes to mind.

The big problem is no one can foresee the future, so no one can tell which of these fifteen will still be with us a century from now. Beautiful preserved pieces have been lost to fires; some really nice pieces were lost to the "national emergency" scrap drives during WWII. But I will grant you that one out of fifteen will likely not make a difference.

But how many is enough to ensure preservation? Five? Three? Two? I really don't care about GG1's, I think they are ugly, but I really have the hots to see a jackshaft locomotive run, and if I win the lottery I plan to buy the DD1 and gut it to make room for a solid state drive... never mind that it's the last of its breed. According to some posters here, that would be OK, so you better hope the state of Pennsylvania never goes bankrupt and has a fire sale.

Which is why I hold out great hope for all the replication projects, and not just the T1 project, the little engines, too. That is the only way we are going to satisfy the ride experience without consuming our history.

So Tennessee Valley isn’t preserving their locomotives? You’ll have to tell them to change their mission statement!

My point exactly. One GG1 to be rebuilt with a place to operate would leave 15 other entirely original locomotives spread between Texas and New York. In all honesty, had the AEM7 not come about, who's to say the GG1's wouldn't have been upgraded to newer tech eventually?

Now all of this talk begs answers to the larger questions. Who holds the "titles" to the 4909 and the 4917, the Cooperstown G's? Out of the two is in better mechanical shape? What is the B&O museum's take on a feasibility inspection of 4876? Would the West Chester Railway or another, similar road with still-standing cat poles consider bringing back electrification? If answers could be provided to even some of these questions, a plan could technically be thought up and put into action. IMO as proposed before, if the two G's could be pulled from Cooperstown, one could be cosmetically restored to its original appearance while the other subject to rebuilding.

Small update here: I have actually come into contact with an individual who may know who owns the Cooperstown NY GG1's. He is going to make some calls and inform me tomorrow of what he finds. The locomotives are currently on the Cooperstown and Charlotte Valley Railroad. The employees and residents surrounding them have wanted to get them out for some time apparently.

I've heard that at least one of the Cooperstown GG1s still has its transformer.

Well, I don't have to tell them anything, but their mission seems to be more to give the customers the ride experience rather than actually preserve the technology.

One thing to remember: GG1's have cast steel frames and had operated for some 40 years, mostly on jointed raii.

A little anecdote: during GG1 production, around 1939, the USN wanted to equip some ocean-going Fleet Auxiliaries (e.g. ocean-going tugs and fleet minesweepers, also one small submarine) with Alco diesels. They insisted on replacing castings on the engines with weldments account the flexing and twisting ships endure on the high seas. The USN version of the engine was the 540T; same bore and stroke as the 538T/539T.

As is noted earlier in this discussion, as their service time increased, the GG1's developed cracks in their cast frames which frequently needed welded.

Moreover, they were obsolete. Among other things, their braking is brake shoes on the wheels. No dynamic or regenerative. The drive wheels use steel tires that are heat-shrunk onto hubs. Too much braking on the tires will heat them enough to risk their expanding to come off the tires. Steam engines also have this problem. With 10-20 standardweight cars and 85-90 mph, you can bail off the engine brakes and let the train stop you. With Amfleet (about 55 tons per car) and 125 mph, the motor may be as heavy as the train. Amfleet do have two discs per axle and rolokrons (anti wheel-slide) but it's asking a lot with a freewheeling GG1 up front.

Phil Mulligan

Regarding just the question about the "efficiency" of "modern" 25cy transformers, I agree it will not be enough to be a game-changer.

People see how much smaller, lighter, faster, and cheaper electronics have become over the years and extrapolate that. 10-20% is probably a good estimate. Don't compare 25cy transformers to computers!

When people say "efficiency" they may mean different things. From a strict definition, the efficiency of the transformer is its rated output kVA at unity power factor divided by the input power consumed at that operating point. What has improved since the 1940s is the material science of "magnet steel". Modern silicon steels achieve a higher effective mu and a tighter BH curve (less hysteresis loss).

Getting higher mu means less ampere-turns of excitation current and fewer turns means less copper, thus less I^2R loss. The improved materials also translate into less steel required and lower volume/weight. Better insulation on the windings also allows you to push more kVA into a smaller package.

But all of this doesn't mean that suddenly you are going to fit that 25cy, 4600kVA transformer into half the space. There is no free lunch here.

The locomotive boiler is a tricky example in rail preservation ethics, because it is essentially a consumable item, like wheels/tires and brake shoes.

WIth consumables, do you replace it in kind, using as much as possible the same materials, tooling and techniques, or do you do the "convenient" thing and go with a modern, off-the-shelf type replacement? Not everyone is going to have the same answer on that.

With your specific example, going with a welded boiler when rivetting is still possible in the modern age seems like convenience. It also substantially alters the appearance of the artifact.

But to continue the analogy, some of what is perennially proposed, such as towing a power unit behind a GG1, is more akin to replacing the boiler and cylinders of a steam engine with a modern diesel engine that is mechanically coupled to the wheels. To "operate" an electric locomotive bypassing its entire control system and just exciting its traction motors from the prime mover/generator of a diesel power plant is completely unauthentic.

If the point is just to get railfan videos of a GG1 operating over a certain piece of track, just make up a long train with some historic-looking coaches and hide a few diesel locos at the back end to push the whole thing. Just be sure to pan at the right moment and cut the video before the noise of the belching diesel overwhelms the audio track!

I mean, not that anyone asked my opinion, but that never stopped me from giving it!

I'm not a diseasel person and I don't know what a 'control stand' from an E8 originally looked like. Why was the original control stand replaced? Was it damaged beyond repair, or missing entirely, and an identical or similar piece of equipment could not be acquired through trade with other museums?

In my opinion, organizations with the word "museum" in their name should make all reasonable attempts to preserve the technological history of the industry. In theory, that's the divide between museum operations and "heritage railway" operations where the latter's goal is to give the public an "old-timey" experience that isn't necessarily authentic.