| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| GG1 discusssion on Trainorders https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12803 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | bobyar2001 [ Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | GG1 discusssion on Trainorders |
This has been discussed before, but it concerns the possibility of operating a GG1 again, including some comments from a couple of people who actually sound like they might know what they are talking about: http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,905438 If I recall, a couple of G's still have transformers and electrical gear intact, and it sounds like Washington to NYC is still 11,000 volts at 25 cycles. There have been some comments about cracks in the truck frames, but it would seem that with the numerous examples saved, a couple of usable trucks could be assembled, and if not, there are welding techniques that might repair them. Some Trainorders posters noted cab ergonomics and other problems, but I don't anyone would suggest other than occasional special operations of a restored unit. Money, of course, would be a major factor, but we're talking technical problems here for now. Any further comments? |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: GG1 discusssion on Trainorders |
Suffice it to say that the electricals are the least of your worries. I've been told by an electrical engineer with lots of railroad experience (a fellow steam and special chaser) that the modern transformers/rectifiers that would be needed could easily fit in boxes the size of a couple refrigerators and/or freezers. Space is not the problem. (I once saw the electrical guts of an AEM7 under rebuild sitting on the floor of Wilmington Shops. They were the size of a small car or a couple bookcases.) The problems: 1) Cost. The electricals simply to drop 11Kv (or presumable 25Kv in the future) would probably cost somewhere close to six figures unless someone finds a donor AEM7. And for what? A couple trips a year, tops? And that's just electricals--I haven't gone into the stuff below..... 2) Safety equipment. Ergonomics aside, Amtrak and NJ Transit, who have a monopoly on electric track a G can run on, would never permit it unless a LOT of newer control circuitry, cab signals, ATC, etc. were added. Not after Chase 1987. The space exists, but rigging it to function with G controls, etc. would be a poser. (Ask Brother Levin about the safety equipment in PRR E8s 5711 and 5809 that had to be retained to keep them Amtrak-certified.) 3) Frames: This is debatable. I've been TOLD by those who seemingly would know (people from Wilmington Shops, etc.) that the frames COULD be repaired, but that it would be so expensive as to consider making new frames from scratch--IF that's possible. Remember, we're not talking just four-wheel trucks here; we're talking an articulated frame almost as big as some Mallets. The upshot of ALL of this combined: the expenditure that would be spent to get a somewhat-roadworthy GG1 running again would NEVER be recouped by fares. Heck, unless Amtrak got power-short enough to lease it short-term (such as might be happening right now, what with Acelas being withdrawn for repairs), it would become yet another "hangar queen", all dressed up with nowhere to go, just like [insert your favorite mothballed steamer here]. Now, should someone want to try this on, say, the Illinois Railway Museum's trolley wire, be my guest, but I don't want to be around when every light in Union and McHenry(?) County goes dim! |
|
| Author: | bobyar2001 [ Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: GG1 discusssion on Trainorders |
I knew this would bring our resident expert out, but still some questions to be answered here: If the mainline is still 11KV-25 cycle, why is all new electrical gear required? Flushing PCBs out of the transformers, certainly, but all new electricals? Aren't the cab signals on the Corridor still pretty much as they have always been? The ones I used to test on Amtrak units and those we have on our CP units seem to work about the same as what I have seen described from steam days. I suspect the G's may not have had modern alerters or clean cab radios, but what else is required? |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: GG1 discusssion on Trainorders |
The previous discussion assumes--somewhat correctly--that we are dealing with a GG1 that has had its transformers ripped out. That supposedly means every GG1 except possibly/allegedly/maybe/"call rumor control" PRR 4917/ATK 4934, originally saved by the Wilmington & Western and now somewhere in some weeds near Cooperstown, NY, which is rumored to have arrived at the W&W with transformers intact. In addition, supposedly 4800 at Strasburg/RRMPa has intact transformers, but I was told that there were cracks in either the cases or the transformer cores that made it ineligible for such a reactivation scheme (though, come to think of it, I'm willing to wager that the rumor mill mutated "frame cracks" into "transformer cracks"). The engineer I spoke with who ran the numbers said that anyone attempting to use the old transformers would be asking for trouble. Remember that the mercury ignitron rectifiers used in the PRR E44's of the 1960s were far more compact and effective, permitting an almost equally powerful loco (though not as fast) in less weight and space. Certainly, IF you had the old gear, you could do it--but this assumes you have the gear. And IF we're putting new solid-state transformers in the GG1, we might as well add the necessary boxes to do the 12/25KV and expand the market to Boston--IF Amtrak gives us a train slot. I will defer to experts better than me, but I doubt that after the horrible Chase crash of 1987 that they're going to let a GG1 out on the main with anything less than the same cab control and safety equipment they have on the newer locomotives--more than just cab signals. Certainly, Amtrak *might* make an exception for a one-off like the American Freedom Train were such an occasion to arise again, but in our hypothetical, we;re talking hauling paying passengers on the Northeast Corridor. Oh, and let's also look at something I forgot to mention in my original answer: the electrical motors and quill drive. Yes, like an old streetcar, they might be cajoled to work, but they're by now still far enough from "off-the-shelf" that I would wonder if they would pass inspection. For all our discussion, however, what really throws cold water on any such discussion is this: A restored GG1 would have exactly two places to run: New York to Washington D.C. (or to Boston if we put in those other two cabinets) and Philly to Harrisburg. Even if we talked Amtrak into cooperating, or Amtrak disappeared next week and suddenly the Philly-Harrisburg line is deeded to the RR Museum of Pa., there's just too limited a market for the restored GG1 to be economically feasible. |
|
| Author: | Scott [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: GG1 discusssion on Trainorders |
Gentlemen: A question from the left coast: What was the "Chase accident of 1987"? Also, are your issues the same if we wanted to "restore" a MILW "Little Joe"? No place to run that in the west however. Thanks Scott |
|
| Author: | survivingworldsteam [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: GG1 discusssion on Trainorders |
Scott wrote: Also, are your issues the same if we wanted to "restore" a MILW "Little Joe"? No place to run that in the west however.
It is my understanding from the IRM film in my possession that the IRM does have a working MLW "Little Joe"; and it has been ran from time to time. I'm sure someone from the IRM will correct me if this is no longer the case. I'm sure it is a huge drain on power each time it is ran. But it must be a sight when it does! -James Hefner Hebrews 10:20a Surviving World Steam Project |
|
| Author: | John Redden [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Weld repairs on frames? Doubtful on Amtrak |
A.D. Mitchell IV wrote: 3) Frames: This is debatable. I've been TOLD by those who seemingly would know (people from Wilmington Shops, etc.) that the frames COULD be repaired, but that it would be so expensive as to consider making new frames from scratch--IF that's possible. Remember, we're not talking just four-wheel trucks here; we're talking an articulated frame almost as big as some Mallets. I was once told by a Mechanical Engineer, who worked for NYC/PC/CR, that "all" of the GG1s had serious cracks and weld repairs in their frames. They tried an experiment with one of them (my fading memory thinks that it was the 4900, but my recollection on the number is highly suspect). They took this one engine and replaced the cast frames with welded-up versions. This was apparently considered a success, but was not repeated. Assuming this cracking problem is factual, and given the extremely high standard to which Amtrak holds "foreign" cars (i.e. Private Varnish), it would seem highly unlikely that they would permit a "foreign" locomotive with truck cracks and weld repairs, to operate on their lines. Perhaps some of the folks with experience in dealing with PVs on Amtrak could comment on this. . . |
|
| Author: | Frank Hicks [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: GG1 discusssion on Trainorders |
survivingworldsteam wrote: It is my understanding from the IRM film in my possession that the IRM does have a working MLW "Little Joe"; and it has been ran from time to time. I'm sure someone from the IRM will correct me if this is no longer the case.
I'm sure it is a huge drain on power each time it is ran. But it must be a sight when it does! Actually, IRM's "Little Joe" isn't from the Milwaukee Road but rather from the Chicago South Shore & South Bend, which ran them on 1500vDC rather than 3000vDC like on the Milwaukee Road. This means it runs at about 40% its original speed (and I believe other slight modifications, like compressor motors, might have been made), but is essentially fully operational. At the moment CSS&SB 803 is out of service for some minor air issues, and even when it's operable it's very rarely used because our overhead isn't really configured for pantograph operation. |
|
| Author: | Bob Kutella [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: GG1 discusssion on Trainorders |
" Now, should someone want to try this on, say, the Illinois Railway Museum's trolley wire, be my guest, but I don't want to be around when every light in Union and McHenry(?) County goes dim!" Thanks Sandy, but our 600 volt DC just won't cut it, previously POSED pictures not to the contrary. And you know, those things roll pretty easily despite their weight. I was invovled a few years ago when we were painting ours, and the loco was moved and chocked with hardwood 2x4's on a very slight downhill. (Where would you get anything other than FLAT in NE Illinois?). After uncoupling the mover loco, that beast paused a few seconds and calmly rolled over the chocks and merrily along a few hundred feet. It did not bounce over them as much as reduce them to newsprint thickness. Bob Kutella |
|
| Author: | JimBoylan [ Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chase crash & GG1 discusssion |
The "Chase", Md. crash in 1987 at Gunpow interlocking just South of the Gunpowder Falls bridge, was when 3 light Northbound ConRail diesels ran through some signals and a switch set against them at as much as 60 m.p.h. They stopped in front of Amtrak's Northbound Colonial, which managed to slow from 128 to 105 m.p.h. before the crash. The ConRail locos didn't have speed control (like a GG1 does have) to force them to slow down at the signals aproaching the Stop signal before the switch. Does every surviving GG1 have cracked frames? What about running it on SEPTA, where GG1s have run in the past? |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chase crash & GG1 discusssion |
Quote: Does every surviving GG1 have cracked frames? Even assuming we're going to fish around and find the best frame of the bunch, then what? Quote: What about running it on SEPTA, where GG1s have run in the past?
I can't personally think of any ex-PRR line owned by SEPTA and not Amtrak where GG1's have operated, but even if I can, are you suggesting running a 100-mph GG1 on the Chestnut Hill Line, or some similar commuter branch? What's the point, other than to see a GG1 move under power? Such a proposal MIGHT stand a better chance with NJ Transit, and even then you're dealing with Amtrak on the NE Corridor OR incompatible electricity (seriously, you want to see a G on the Lackawanna? You sick puppy....) |
|
| Author: | JimBoylan [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chase crash & GG1 discusssion |
Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote: I can't personally think of any ex-PRR line owned by SEPTA and not Amtrak where GG1's have operated, but even if I can, are you suggesting running a 100-mph GG1 on the Chestnut Hill Line, or some similar commuter branch? Unfortunately, the historical PRR branches are Chestnut Hill, West Chester, and possibly Mannayunk.
Chestnut Hill was used as part of a detour route with the Fort Washington Branch and the Trenton Cutoff to get passenger trains past wrecks East of Frazer and South of Morrisville. West Chester had charters, possibly to the schools. I don't know about GG1s on Mannaynk, but I have seen E-33s in helper service there. When I mentioned SEPTA, I was really thinking of the Reading side, West Trenton and Lansdale branches. There are some 70 m.p.h. parts. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|