Thanks for the update. I'd not heard it had gone by the wayside.

Doug

I located the photo I was looking for about the High Line. I was slightly in error. On page 45 of "The Pennsy's P5 electrics" is a photo of an electric, diesel lash-up. P5a 4753, P5a 4733, E2b 4939, AF16 (FA2) 9618, and AP20 (PA1) 5750B.
The P5 development was pre-GG1 and the E2b was the 1950 era post-GG1 development that lead to the E-44.

Doug

Cool. Thanks for the confirmation, Paolo.

Keith

Yes, I'm "in here somewhere." BMCo 109 was painted as it was because it came from the P&BR to Mine 33, not because of its occasional visits to the C&I shops for maintenance. BTW, the spare pair of trucks from that other early DL&W SC (425) came to 33 with the 109 and were stored at the C&I shops all the time that 109 was around. I hope the D-L saved those too when the 109 was purchased.

The pair of MU equipped SW1s at BM Mine 78 were indeed ex-C&BL 60 series. Mine 78 was a very short-lived affair and the two locos sat under the loader tipple for years after the mine went out of use. The forlorn looking unit in Windber, accompanied by several equally forlorn looking boxcars, is one of the Mine 78 locos.

Dave Hamley

Thanks for the information on the 109, Dave. Do you know if 109 was on the P&BR roster or was it just interplant at Sparrows Point?

Interestingly, both Mine 78 SW1s were purported to be in good shape mechanically when they were drug out to Stockhom Avenue in the 1990s. Number 1 is now off site, and may be on lease to whatever company is operating the First Miss Steel plant in Holsopple these days. I caught her working there probably 10 years ago, now. Number 2 has never moved. I do wonder if Rosebud will have a home for one of them now that they're reopening the 78 facilities.

And finally, I always found it interesting that Bethlehem-Johnstown rejected the use of standard gauge R/C power, with the exception of the SW1 at Williams Farm and the SW7/9 at the electric furnace (wonder where that one got to?) The C&BL SW1 fleet was rebuilt for r/c use and dispersed. Did 78's power come directly from the C&BL, or did it come via Lackawanna or another plant?

Keith

BM 109 was on the P&BR roster at one point, hence its 100 series road number. (ex-DL&W 425 was the P&BR 108).

C&BL had most of their SW1s in storage for a while before they began to disperse them. Thus it's very likely that the two at Mine 78 came directly from the C&BL, and their fresh Bethlehem shortlines family image of yellow and black with oval logo would tend to confirm that. I have pix of several SW1s in badly faded paint in storage at the CBL shops c.1966.

The last use of the CBL SW1s that I can recall seeing was a pair of them in MU on slag trains in the late 60s. I think they had MU on the cab end only, perhaps someone could confirm that.

Not to belabor the point, but the P5 and P5a electrics were capable of operating in multiple with the E2b experimental electric locomotives, after the E2b's were modified. I can find no evidence in any of my operating manuals and maintenance materials that any of those were able to operate in multiple unit with any diesels. I suspect the photo you have is a "doubleheader" with one crew on the electrics and another on the diesels, or perhaps the diesels were in tow. It was fairly common for diesels to be handled in this manner to Enola for maintenance.

Hi,
I asked over at PRR-Fax group.
The response was:
======================================
Subj: RE: [PRR-FAX] GG1 (and P5a) MUing with diesels.
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:40:36 -0800
From: H BONGAARDT <linbongaardt@msn.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------
List Members,

For many years, I believed that the E44s could MU with diesels. On 4/18/1965, I chased E44 #4436 and GP30 (EF22) #2203 from around Thorndale to Atglen to get a photo of the two headed toward Enola. My recollection was that it seemed that the EF22 was doing more than going along for the ride, i. e., that it was operating in multiple with the E44. However, the photo that I took does not show smoke emanating from the EF22.

My belief seemed to be validated by this passage in Al Stauffer's "Pennsy Power II", regarding the E44s: "Another feature of the E-44 permits its multiple-unit hookup with diesels, ut the electric must be the lead, or controlling engine." Alas, this seems to be untrue, except in the limited case described below by Dave Sweetland.

This subject came up a couple of years ago on this list and the final upshot is that a member of the list looked at the E44's electrical diagrams and concluded that it was not possible to MU an E44 with diesels, at least as a general mode of operation.

Oh, how I wish it were true!! I'd have a truly rare photo.

Lin Bongaardt

________________________________

To: prr@yahoogroups.com
From: prrdave@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:51:15 -0500
Subject: RE: [PRR-FAX] GG1 (and P5a) MUing with diesels.

The only exception was for EP20/EP22 units returning to Harrisburg Diesel Shop for monthly inspection With a special jumper, these "E" units did mu behind E44s and the trailing diesel units would only be in 1st notch. ... Dave Sweetland

======================================
I probably got my misinformation from Pennsy Power II.
There may have been some limited capability for around the shop type movement, but not mainline.

Doug vV

I've done a little bit of research on odd MU setups, and have yet to see where an electric and diesel can MU, at least both ways. The MILW had a system that allowed the Little Joes to control trailing diesels, but not the other way around.

A GE drawing that I have, detailing E-60 MU connections, shows that all of the 27 wires have roughly the same function on both diesel and electric, but with one glaring exception. If you energize wire 16 (fuel pump) on the diesel, it drops the pan! Something tells me that GE didn't want mixed diesel and electric lashups.

Then there is Clinchfield 4-6-0 number 1, now in the B&O Museum. It has an EMD MU receptacle on the rear of the tender, and a few extra air hoses. I think it had something to do with the unusual baggage cars that usually traveled with the engine, but I'm not sure-

There are a number of steam locomotives with "diesel boxes" that allow them to operate in MU with diesels using standard 27 point receptacles. Many of the diesel boxes were built by Jack Wheelihan. This method could be adapted to a GG1 without much problem, even in both cabs if necessary. Coming up with independent onboard support for the air brake system and electrical equipment would probably require a small genset and compressors.

Pushing a G motor around with diesels is an interesting concept. I was in a B-unit yesterday that had an 8 notch (!) hostler control. One of those and a 26 valve would be just fine. Main air could come through the MR line on the diesel.

On the electric side, how does CSX get power to the road slugs, IIRC made from GP-30s? In addition to powering the controls, you would have to get power to headlights, class, gauge and cab lights. FRA requires controlling units to have working cab heaters. (And then there are TM blowers, at least on the CSX road slugs. Are they 3-phase AC from the mothership's AR-whatever, or do they run on DC from the TM circuits?)

One approach to getting juice to the G motor would be to use the big flat side by side connectors that used to be on battery equipped passenger cars; I've also seen them on Alcos and MLWs. Then you can use 75V electric cab heaters, controls, and (with the normal resistors) standard headlight bulbs. Lots of Exane-

Of course if you went with a genset, the Gs had fuel tanks and boilers, so there is a place to put the fuel in and let the exhaust out. The genset, producing 220 AC for heat and (with x-fmr and rectifier) 75VDC, would do away the need for the "pusher" to have a battery connection. Any MU diesel could be used.

An interesting discussion, but it still does not address the fact that the frames were getting old and brittle. Also, as had been mentioned earlier, an electric without the catenary just doesn't look right. Where could you run it, under wire, these days?

If anyone wants to try this, I would suggest using 480VAC as there is very little in current locomotive service that uses 220V. Keep in mind that you would also need to figure in the power requirement for the speaker and amplifier system to make "GG1 whine" in response to the manipulation of the throttle. In order to be most effective this would probably reuire speakers spaced along both sides of the locomotive.

No one seems to have brought up the fact that the PRR's GG1's were equipped with high voltage asynchronous AC motors with a hollow armature shaft through which passed the axle, driving the spoked wheels through springs. Diesels use DC traction motors at 600V. The GG1's motors are unique to the GG1, will only run on AC, and there is no DC motor that could be substituted.

MILW could MU diesels with its electrics as their power was 1500VDC, not 11000V 25Hz AC like the PRR.

Use a motor-generator set - 1500VDC motor driving an 11000V 25Hz AC generator.
DvV

I honestly wonder what the appeal of watching a dead GG1 being shoved along by a Diesel would be. The GG1's were large and had a unique sound as they cruised - and they cruised - under wire. I think the money to execute such a project could be better used to effect a positive outcome for another restoration program.