The new Trains magazine shows Amtrak E60s being scrapped. I know zippo about electric train technology, so here goes: could a GG1 have its "innards" removed, replaced with E60 innards, and then run somewhere (yes, assuming you find the track to do this)?

> The new Trains magazine shows Amtrak E60s
> being scrapped. I know zippo about electric
> train technology, so here goes: could a GG1
> have its "innards" removed,
> replaced with E60 innards, and then run
> somewhere (yes, assuming you find the track
> to do this)?

1) The traction motors on a G aren't the same as on the E60's. Don't assume that a different "power supply" will work.

2) Even if one were to successfully construct a "work-around" to the electrical-supply problem, those who know have told me that the big problem a potential operator would encounter would be cracks in the frames. This was supposedly a big reason for their retirement over the years, as opposed to the final retirement of the fleet. Also, I don't know if the vintage electric motors would be up to a high-speed revival, or whether new motors could be inserted.

Now, perhaps the inspiration for a "new" GG1 could be found in a preposterous toy-train offering of several years ago, when one manufacturer made a GG1 with a C-C diesel underframe (either Alco or FM trucks, I can't remember which), complete with fuel tank! Gee, think anyone trackside would notice a GG1 with an E60 underframe? >;-D


LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

A few years ago, there was a TV commercial saying "anything is possible: you can teach a dog to say 'I love you'" and sure enough there was a dog sounding just so.

I suppose you could transplant an E60 transformer and switchgear to control a GG1's 6 pair of motors the way an E60 controlled its 6 motors. The taps and resistances would need rearranged which may or not entail rebuilding the transformer.

But remember: no GG1 has run in 20 years. High voltage AC wiring has a finite life as do cast frames. The trucks are over 60 years old for any GG1 and will need thoroughly inspected.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

> The new Trains magazine shows Amtrak E60s
> being scrapped. I know zippo about electric
> train technology, so here goes: could a GG1
> have its "innards" removed,
> replaced with E60 innards, and then run
> somewhere (yes, assuming you find the track
> to do this)?

Leaving aside entirely whether they would physically fit inside the hood, the answer is still "NO" in any meanignful sense.

The GG-1 was a pure AC machine--it took high voltage AC from the wire, stepped it down, and applied it to 12 600 volt AC motors on 6 axles.

The E-60 by contrast was a rectifier, that is, a locomotive that converts high voltage AC wire current to low voltage DC current for application to conventional traction motors.

To put it another way, the E-60 uses DC traction motors mounted in the trucks and on the axles in a "nose" or "wheelbarrow" mount exactly like any other first-or second-generation diesel electric; the GG-1 used a completely different system, AC motors mouted with a quill system.

There are many reasons such a conversion would be impossible, but even if it were, you'd have a Frankenstein's monster-- a machine that had nothing in common with a real GG-1 but a superficial shape.

eledbetter@rypn.org

A fellow approached us once for our opinion on whether it would be practical to install enough automobile batteries in a GG1 to make it power a fan trip. I respect original ideas, and as far as I can tell, that was an original idea.


Strasburg Rail Road
kelly@strasburgrailroad.com

Every traction/streetcar museum in the USA is taking commercial power in AC and converting it to
DC at about 600 volts.

As Eric said, the GG1 is an AC machine all the way, And 15 cycles not the 60 cycles available today. Too many problems to solve.

In a related question, what sort of power is the Northeast Corridor running trains on today? AC or DC and at what voltage?

Ted Miles



ted_miles@nps.gov

> A fellow approached us once for our opinion
> on whether it would be practical to install
> enough automobile batteries in a GG1 to make
> it power a fan trip. I respect original
> ideas, and as far as I can tell, that was an
> original idea.

And probably not quite as far-fetched as it sounds at first reading. Battery technology has come a long way.
As far as original ideas.....if a GG1 was available in near-operating condition couldn't one rig it with a large AC generator car?
J


jeff_acock@hotmail.com

Ex-PRR NEC uses same voltage and frequency it always did: 11kv AC at 25 Hz. If a GG1 were in running order with current cab signals it could run on present Amtrak in the ex-PRR territory, at least where construction since 1982 hasn't changed the clearances.

PRR's low frequency AC commutator traction motors are similar to those on NH EP-1 thru EP-4 motors which could and did run on 600v DC into NYC's GCT.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

> As far as original ideas.....if a GG1 was
> available in near-operating condition
> couldn't one rig it with a large AC
> generator car?

Don't think that idea hasn't been conjured up either. My electrical-engineer friend and I once crunched the numbers to see if we could make this work. The problem is/was that GG1's were rated at 4,620 continuous horsepower, but were capable of short-term overloads that could (momentarily) produce on the order of 8-10,000 hp. This is why electrics like the GG1 excelled in starting heavier trains from a dead stop.

Our back-of-the envelope calculations at the time (late 1980s) figured that we could hook up the equivalent of two GP35's to a GG1 (with some modifications to the generators as well) to produce enough power to at least haul a modest excursion with lightweight equipment, though at considerably less acceleration than expected. To match the real pans-up ability of a GG1, however, we ended up deciding it'd take the equivalent of two B40-8's or more, and that the GE engines would still be too sluggish to be up to the job. Now, possibly three British Rail "Deltics" at 3300 hp apiece, a total of six high-speed opposed-piston engines.......... but even then, no matter which of these two options you take, that's about 300 tons or more of locomotive dead weight you're dragging about, even discarding the diesels' traction motors........


LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

How about two C-130 turboshafts?

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

Other than the fact that both designs convert electrical energy into tractive effort, the two have almost nothing in common.

I kinda get a kick out of these sort of intellectual excursions-but here is the operative question: Do you fellows think that Amtrak or MN or NJT is going to let someone run a kitbashed GG-1 under their wires ?

There is as much chance of that happening as there is that some of us will wake up in the morning with the same amount of hair we had 25 years ago :-)

> The new Trains magazine shows Amtrak E60s
> being scrapped. I know zippo about electric
> train technology, so here goes: could a GG1
> have its "innards" removed,
> replaced with E60 innards, and then run
> somewhere (yes, assuming you find the track
> to do this)?


newhaven0401-NOSPAM-@verizon.net

> Other than the fact that both designs
> convert electrical energy into tractive
> effort, the two have almost nothing in
> common.

> I kinda get a kick out of these sort of
> intellectual excursions-but here is the
> operative question: Do you fellows think
> that Amtrak or MN or NJT is going to let
> someone run a kitbashed GG-1 under their
> wires ?

> There is as much chance of that happening as
> there is that some of us will wake up in the
> morning with the same amount of hair we had
> 25 years ago :-)

Theoretically it's quite possible to run a GG1 with an E-60 "powerpack", although there might be issues of power comsumption (i.e one E-60 "power pack" probably wouldn't be enough). A GG1 has 12 380 V series wound, inductively compensated motors which would work just fine on DC. The compensating winding is there to impove the power factor and reduce bruch arcking, which is a problem with AC, and would be non-functioning under DC. Problems would arise with the auxiliary equipment (blower motors, the motors in mg-sets, the air compressor motor) because these were all driven by induction motors. There would have to be an inverter installed to make the various voltages at 25 cycles or all the motors changed for DC ones.

No traction motor which uses a commutator will operate on 60 cycles without frying the commutator. This is why the NEC, NH, GN, VG, N&W, BM etc. were all 25 cycles. It's AC in the transformer and DC in the traction motor. The optimum frequency is 15 2/3 cycles, which is why so many European AC installations are 16 cycle.

And, no, Atk probably wouldn't run it even if you went to all the expense to put the package together.

Isn't the NEC 13 kv?

> Other than the fact that both designs
> convert electrical energy into tractive
> effort, the two have almost nothing in
> common.

> I kinda get a kick out of these sort of
> intellectual excursions-but here is the
> operative question: Do you fellows think
> that Amtrak or MN or NJT is going to let
> someone run a kitbashed GG-1 under their
> wires ?

> There is as much chance of that happening as
> there is that some of us will wake up in the
> morning with the same amount of hair we had
> 25 years ago :-)

I have really enjoyed the response to this. This was strictly a "what-if" for folks who understand this stuff (good education for the rest of us). I had no delusions that Amtrak/Metro North etc would contemplate such an operation. But-if someone had come with an "a-HAH!"....well, no such, so moot point. Thanks to all of you for sharing your expertise on this topic.

John,

I mentioned models up above, now I had another thought for you.

There must be video tapes and maybe now even DVDs of those motors doing their thing on the old Pennsy and elsewhere.

That might be a way to re-live their past without a time machine. My s gauge model is one of my best runng models, looks like she flows right over the
tracks.

Ted Miles

ted_miles@nps.gov