This has been covered multiple times, here and on other lists, and I refer you to those discussions for more detail.

The principal issue was 'crystallization' in the cast frames (and this probably remains the greatest cost-effectiveness issue for any 'restoration to operation' for one of these locomotives.

Yes, replacing the transformers is a significant thing. In no small part this is related to the way the Gs implemented speed control, with a great many taps all custom-provided.

I don't think there is any intolerable issue with the 'twin motors' -- which by the way run quite happily on comparatively low-voltage DC -- other than they have been sitting up for many years now. We have members here who are familiar with the amount of work Wilmington had to put into the GG1s who can comment much more definitively on what to expect and what to watch for here.

Something shocking to me (perhaps I'm overreacting) is how quickly the GG1 began almost to dissolve when not being actively maintained. At this point many of the 'sirviving' examples would need the moral equivalent of a full automotive restoration to be safe to run, far more extensive than what I expect 4800 will be getting (for $400,000+) just for cosmetic restoration.

I rather liked Dave Klepper's idea of putting 3 AEM-7s (the DC kind originally) worth of more modern components into one of the G carbodies. That would get you a workable solution that could, as reasonably as any alternative, operate on the remaining HV infrastructure, either at 25Hz or 60 Hz. It would be a 'rod', of course, and not a historically-correct GG1, but the need for that choice was essentially mandated the moment Pyroil became a controlled dangerous substance ...

I am glossing over all the other concerns with restoring the physical systems on a G (either using the original parts or adapting those from AEM-7s or other modern sources). Throw enough dollars and anything might be possible, and it could be argued that even if you don't do full historic preservation on one of these, there are other examples that adequately represent "historical integrity".

As noted, you could (relatively easily) rig up a DC connection through some kind of dropping resistor setup that would let you motor one or two axles of a GG1 from a 600V trolley line. Then a select museum, like perhaps IRM, could motor the thing up and down a few miles of trackage with some cars in tow. Would still have some semblance of the gear whine, and perhaps provide 100% of what many GG1 fans would want to see. Of course, if you thought the Electroliner at Rockport produces a giant sucking sound when the controller is opened up a bit quickly ... well, you get the idea.

I apologize to the many on this preservation list who are appalled that I have gone into as much non-preservation detail as this.

Your solution is an echo of the recent exchange regarding what makes a "real" ALCO PA restoration. If it looks like one, and reasonably sounds like one, and runs like one, then for all intents and purposes, it is one!

The GG1's, like the MP54's of the PRR and LIRR seemed to just oxidize into paper, once their run days were concluded.

If you look carefully at 4800, you will notice numerous patches on the body made of aluminum flashing, fastened with pop rivets. These were repairs made years ago to simply hide rust-through along the floor line. All of this will have to be repaired by cutting out the rusted areas and welding in new steel. Perhaps most difficult, the steel on top of the carbody supporting the pantographs is rusting through. The pans will have to be lifted off so the damaged steel can be removed and new steel welded in place. In all cases, the plates will have to be custom-fitted, and since the dies to make the various curves no longer exist, a great deal of custom forming will be necessary. The interior of the locomotive was gutted when the transformers were removed and PCB contamination was remediated. In addition, in numerous places on the body, the sheets and rivets have parted company, and a lot of steel and rivets will have to be replaced. The necessary materials and parts cannot be found at Home Depot or the local hardware store. All that is why the estimate to cosmetically restore the locomotive is $400,000.

Dang it! I was all set to steal that loco and go on a joy ride... Foiled again.

Not to mention removing all of the blood I left on the low doorway openings when I worked on those rascals! I still have a scar on my forehead from an argument with a G gangway between the engineer's and fireman's side. The floor of every G I ever worked on was like a sieve. Traveling down the main in winter it snowed worse inside the cab than it did outside. We would stuff our pant legs with newspaper and blouse the cuff with the safety elastic bands provided by the railroad.


Keith (retired engineer)

Was it the damn flange on the angled I-beam that got you?

I know this isn't quite the place for GG1 war stories unrelated to the general topic of rot-related restoration woes ... but please, tell more.

In a word...yes. The passageway from the engineer's side to the fireman's side was designed for munchkins. G's were not designed to be easy on the crews. Just to get in you would have to put your grip down on the ground, then climb up and open the cab door. Then climb back down and toss your grip ten feet up in through the now open door....then climb up again to get into the thing.
As to why it would not be really practical to restore a G to operation....the big reason would be metal fatigue in the cast engine beds. By the time I was working with them, they were a mass of welds on top of welds where the castings had cracked.

Keith

Nothing to do with GG1's, but something to do with a cousin. Keith was the last engineer to move a New Haven EP5 "Jet" under it's own power.
True fact you can drop at cocktail parties!

Flange got me repeatedly.

There actually is a cure for the frame crystallization, and in the '70s we identified at least 6 companies that could handle the scale (contrary to 'railfan wisdom' that thinks knowledge of this died with GSC). As I remember the discussion going, this involved stripping and cleaning the castings thoroughly, and making sure that any 'open' cracks are identified and 'fluxed, and cut out and properly welded (with the right filler metallurgy). Then you jig the casting at the pedestals and other control points, and heat it in controlled atmosphere to soak close to liquidus temp for a reasonably long time, then cool it at a controlled rate. That option is still theoretically open if anyone were to find a need to run a GG1 at high speed again -- but I don't think there is anyone with deep enough pockets (or enough organizational enthusiasm) to set up a project to accomplish that, more's the pity. Not sure you need it for low-speed short-distance museum work, where detection and reasonable early warning of progressive cracking failure might be sufficient for safety purposes.

I had quite enough excitement and 'interesting times' with GG1s going 110 miles an hour with Amfleet consists, thank you very much. Theoretically I know how to fix a G so it can run in Corridor traffic, and it's not quite cubic dollars to get there, just more than any private operator would care to spend for a few moments of joy. And, regrettably, that doesn't include the effect on the Corridor track geometry from a G running at traffic speed...

The question I have that some here might be able to answer is how to move one other than on it's wheels. Photos suggest the car body lifts off the trucks, leaving the two power trucks (and pony trucks) connected by a large pinion. (specifically photo of 4866 on page 56 of The Remarkable GG1, Zimmermann)

This would suggest to my very amateur eyes that it could be possible to jack up the body off the trucks, aka how they lifted RDG 2100 recently, roll the trucks out and roll a proper sized flat under. Separated, the trucks could also be moved on flats or perhaps by semi-truck. Of course the clearances would need to be checked but seeing how steam locomotives have been moved on top of flats recently, we can bless the age of double stack trains.

Bob

Bob, you are probably right, and the weight of the carbody, while still substantial, will be considerably less with all the iron and copper in the transformers gone.

The frames are as you indicate separable at the pivot pin, and probably could be lightened by removing the motor assemblies. Someone who worked at Wilmington would know exactly how to lift the motors and how to block them for storage or transport when removed. You'd want some sort of weather cover over the quill drive, but this would be relatively easy to fabricate (with gasket, and held down by some of the motor installation fasteners). Might be easier to check the roller bearings, or move the underframes around (or rig them for transport) with the motors off. One underframe with its pony truck to a flatbed or flatcar ought to be easy.

Then you would 'reconstitute' the underframe at the receiving end of the trip, arrange for the jacks to raise the carbody to 'ready' position over the track, and push the underframes back into position...

The two GG1s in question ex-PRR 4917 and 4909 are stranded in Cooperstown due to their choice of roller bearing according to CSX. As of mid 2015 CSX will no longer transport any sort of railcar, locomotive or freight transport with either Hyatt or Timken sealed bearings. This is considered by their mechanical department to be an extension of their already long standing ban against friction bearing equipment due to "new safety standards". Unless The Henry Ford can afford to pay the required waiver or somehow have the unit moved by truck it's a no go by company policy,

Cameron

That's what I get. Wouldn't even require a particularly tall lift. Might be able to do it with jacks and cribs.

Right. And that can be a roll-up if you build a bit of track.

Anything is impossible if you naysay it. That makes a person who doesn't naysay into a miracle worker.

I was thinking about the jacking arrangement used for Reading 2100 this morning, which if I recall correctly was leased. There is a perhaps important difference between 2100 and a GG1 carbody, though: wouldn't it be better to lift the GG1 at its quarter points, not at its ends? (If I recall correctly, there are marked 'jack here' locations with some kind of pad that were reasonably near where the effective quarter points with transformers etc. intact would have been).

If you did a two-crane lift with bridles, the attach points here would eliminate the need to lift both ends at the same speed or to the same elevation; if you cribbed and jacked, you would set up separate arrangements at the four points and not use the lateral 'bridge' arrangement as used for steam locomotives with strong integral frames. Not sure what you would need for rack bracing longitudinally and transversely other than good foundations under the four sets of cribbing, and the time the carbody is actually lifted could be measured in hours, and the operation conducted in good still weather...

At least two G's were cut either in half's or three sections - just a thought, nothing more!

frame of G
http://ctr.trains.com/~/media/images/on ... -1024.ashx

Overview of construction
http://ctr.trains.com/railroad-referenc ... -in-layers

cut into 3 sections
http://www.borail.org/PRR-No-4876-GG-1.aspx

cut in half
http://sbiii.com/prr.html#g-half
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 067&nseq=0

Just an idea to get one or both out of their present location.
OR
As traffic drops for CSX with a lot of pressure and preparation(mechanical and physical appearance), make it look nice ( reference the Amtrak G moves) perhaps you could convince them on the move.