You guys forget that there was electric railroading west of Harrisburg. Don’t forget the MIwaukee Road boxcabs (1915-1974) or the BiPolars. Yes, they weren’t as fast as teh GG1, but they were sure good haulin’ freight (and a few sleek passenger trains too) up those Mountains in MOntana and Washington.
Yes, however; we were talking about the BEST electric locomotive! Yuk-yuk! [:-,]
please explain to me why they have so many notches.
Chad, I suppose it was because GG-1’s were AC powered and with each notch you received instant and all power available in that notch. Having more notches and smaller increments of power in each helped in train handling. Too much power all at once would break knuckles and pull out drawbars. DC powered electrics have a smoother transition and need less notches. Hope this explaination helps. [;)]
Thanks Rick, that makes perfect sense. I didn’t think about throttle response time.
The GG-1 seems to be a favorite
I voted for the GG1, but nobody’s mentioned the box-cab siderod engines used by the Norfolk and Western and the Virginian in the Appalachians.
Some of the N&W engines (two-unit, phase converter AC engines) worked for 35 years hauling coal tonnage on 2% Elkhorn Mountain, as tough a duty as any locomotive ever had to deal with anywhere.
The Virginian engines (three-unit, phase converter) were more modern (N&W had four two-unit sets that were almost duplicates of these to go with their 12 earlier sets) from about ten years later, and had to do the same thing on Clark’s Gap, VGN’s own 2% climb out of the hole at Mullens, W. Va.
Ugly things, but were fascinating to watch and were never found wanting. They made real money for their owners.
Old Timer
Being a life long middle westerner, I hate to have to concede anything to people east of Ohio, but the GG1 is probably the right call. After all, what would we know? Little Joes on the South Shore??
Jay
The most powerful locomotive is I believe the Swedish IORE with an output of 14000hp and not 7000. Basically it is a derivative of the Eurosprinter locs like the one in my signature. Most Eurosprinter 4 axle locs are between 8000-9500hp, with the IORE having two transformers rather than the one.
here is a good picture…
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/se/private/MTAB/P1170079.jpg
But for US loc… I like the GG1 for a classic, but the Acela operated by Amtrak is my favorite… if it is indeed American…
click here for a cool clip of how fast it can go…
http://www.trainweb.org/railpix/video/Acela1.mpg
Well - If you count both head as one locomotive - then yes - it is 14000 hp. But both heads can be operated seperately - thus really 7000 hp per head (note that they are even numberd differently).
Abnd the most powerful in terms of power is russian E100 with jus 12600 hp in a single loco.
EDIT: and if by “truly american” you mean catastrophic failure then yes - Acela is truly american 
Thanks for that clarification uzurpator, I have never seen the IORE operated as just one loc, so I assumed it was only intended to run as both sections. They are then basically less powerful 3-axle versions of the BR152 mated together, and weighted down with some balast?
As for the E100, I am not familiar with this model, do you have a picture or webpage link to a picture?
uzurpator-Numerous reports indicate that the Acela riders really like the trains. Not withstanding the problems “catastrophic failure” is a little over the top. You have a better design?
ACELA EXPRESS
BR1116:
Iore as in a single config:
http://homepage.swissonline.ch/Christener/Kiruna/Bilder/107-0703_IMG.JPG
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/se/private/MTAB/IORE_102_gaellivare_010831.jpg
Construction of the loco
http://hem.passagen.se/plf66/typer-sv/typer-mtab-iore-07.html
As for EP100 (sorry fo E100 :p) it should look somewhat like this:
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/ru/electric/EP200/ru_ep200-0001_01.jpg
jeaton:
Don’t ask how much the passangers like the trains. Ask: “How much was achieved for the $ spent, and how much could be achieved for that $?”.
Acela facts:
Power / Weight: 16.3 kW/tonne (compare to TGV Duplex, 23 kW/tonne)
Power / Seat: 30.3 kW/seat (compare to TGV Duplex, 16.2 kW/seat)
Weight / Seat: 1.9 tonne/seat (compare to TGV Duplex, 0.7 tonne/seat)
“The Acela Express is built about 45% heavier than a typical TGV.”
Overall - intresting read:
http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/acela.html
Don’t miss the problem with yaw dampers and cracking frames… The problems were severe enough for amtrak to cancel the last ordered trains…
Thanks for the info, as for the Engineering problems with the Acela, it’s only fair to mention that this is Canada/America’s first real attempt at highspeed rail, while the French and Germans have been at it for decades… We (the traveller) need to take electric more seriously in the US, then we can invest in the engineering to make it profitable. Even the top speed of 150mph is not much more than general purpose locs like the BR1116 in my signature block… While TGV and ICE3 are close to 200mph… With the type of terrain found in the US, and the engineering capability of the US, we could make a 300mph railway, we just don’t put the money behind it.
uz
I agree that the Acela had many problems, including the name. Dave Gunn was reported as saying that he alwas thought acela was the room under the parlor. Your link notes that the weight issue was the consequence of FRA crash standards. There were probably other engineering issues that were a consequence of regulatory and environmental conditions. It is also well known that change requests made during design and testing also impacted the project costs. I am not going to suggest that every shortcoming of the trains have been overcome or ever will be overcome, but the service provides an operating profit for Amtrak and passenger satisfaction is high. I just can’t describe it as a failure.
On the other hand, there is the Turbo-Train project for New York. Now, that is a project that could be described as a dismal failure. No doubt, a bad idea in the first place.
Jay
The late great GG1
Despite being outvoted, I still say the EF-3. Mention has been made of other locomotives equalling three F-3’s but the EF-3 equalled four GP-9’s! Long frieghts on the Pennsy required two GG-1’s and two E-44’s. But somehow the EF-3 could handle anything by itself without any problems and still make up time with the Colonial or the Senator into Penn Station. Basically the EP-3, the EP-4, and GG-1, and the EF-3 all had similar design characteristics. The design of the GG-1 was based on the EP-3 after the Pennsy borrowed one for testing in service. The EP-4 came after the first GG-1’s but was contemporary with the latter ones. Then the EF-3 came last of these AC quil-drive commutator motor 25 Hz AC electrics, all 4-6-6-4. The GG-1 cab was not particularly comfortable, but the EP-4 and EF-3 cabs, one on each end, were typical of diesel practice and crews liked them.
Not yet! Its has a few more years to go to catch the GG1.
Many years ago, in TRAINS,I recall reading of a single GG1 leaving Washington over an hour late with a train from the South,with 20+ heaveweight cars,and arriving in Pennsylvania Station on time.