Knowing that there are many GG1 fans around I thought I’d share this article. My wife and I visited the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village recently. I failed to keep any details on the locomotives seen at Greenfield Village. Tried to gain some information on-line and came across this recent tidbit! I understand why a GG1 won’t be restored to run again but having seen how the Ford Museum handles things I bet whatever comes out will look first class.
Hey, what’s really cool is that I used (Microsoft) Live search on the town, and with bird’s eye view, you can see BOTH GG-1’s on the siding. I’m glad that some of these are being saved. I can remember seeing GG1’s on the NorthEast Corridor. Pretty cool!
It’s really nice that the Henry Ford museum is going to restore the GG-1 cosmetically! Only one thing, it will never move by itself again. I would like to see a real GG-1 run on the tracks again and put some diesel engines to shame! 5400 horsepower was a lot to play with from one engine.
Not sure of the specs. I do have a operating manual for a GG1 from the Pennsy that was given to me by an engineer. It is currently at my parent’s house in NJ. I will have to get that sent down here sometime. The true measure of their abilities was how long they were in service. Everything from the Pennsy, to Amtrak and Conrail had a piece of the action.
If memory serves me one of the unique attributes of the GG1 is that its power requirement is for 25 cycle AC as opposed to 60 cycle used everywhere else in north america. This feature alone would preclude ever being able to see one of these under power again.
Dennis, that’s where I got my numbers, the “Engineman’s Instruction Book”.
Twenty-five hertz is still in use in the Northeast Corridor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_electrification_in_the_United_States Seventy-five megawatts at 11 kilovolts and 25 hertz is generated at Niagara Falls. The plant has been in operation since 1905. A decision will be made next year whether to switch to 60 hertz.
The real problem with running a GG1 is the transformer oil.
Twenty-five hertz is easier than 60 hertz for the universal motors of a locomotive like a GG1 (no hyphen) to use. In Europe they use 16 2/3 hertz, generated synchronously as one-third of the usual power frequency of 50 hertz, for the same reason.
Whether it was rated at 5400 or 4620 horsepower, one thing the GG1 – and in fact all straight electrics – has going for it is that it’s “prime mover” is not carried with it. Thus the limiting factor when starting or accelerating a train is motor temperature and not rated horsepower.
Thanks Bob. With regard to Niagra Falls “Slowly I turn…”, they have a very interesting program on the History Channel on the power generation from Niagra. Now sure which program title it was, but lots of great engineering in that project.
For starting a train with a Diesel-electric, steam, or electric locomotive alike, power is not much of a consideration. Power is velocity multiplied by tractive effort; so for all three types, more than enough tractive effort is available for starting. At least this is true for a locomotive that is able to develop high torque at low speeds long enough to get the job done, which is generally true for all of these. An exception was the PRR’s S2 steam turbine, which is why there was only one prototype, even though Lionel built thousands of 671s, 681s, and 682s.
The GG1s transformers contained PCB cooling oil, which is linked with several cancers and liver disease and I believe was outlawed around 1977 according to several web sites.
There is a GG1 at the Museum of the American Railroad (former Age of Steam Museum) here in Dallas at Fair Park (and will move to Frisco TX in the next year or so to have more space). According to the docents at MAR, the transformers had to be removed due to the risk of the PCBs leaking as the transformers aged.
The PCB-containing cooling oil does not need to be a factor in the restoration to operating condiditon of a GG1. It was (is?) very common in transformers and other similar applications to remove the PCB oil, flush the transformer, refill it with approved oil and put it back in use. The railroads could have continued to use the GG1s had they wanted to. Perhaps there were other valid reasons involved but the pcb oil was an excuse, not a reason.
BTW: The Ford Museum has an awesome C&O Allegheny that has been inside the museum since about 1955.
There are a lot of reasons why the GG1 can not be used today but I think cost of restoring one to current power, 60 hertz, would be one of the biggest factors and two the cost of replacing rusted out metal flooring is another factor. Another thing to consider might be the couplers that are in use, may need to be updated as well, older style couplers was a maor factor in some shortlines giving up passenger service.
You might be able to buy a new electric locomotive for less than two/thirds the cost of rebuilding a GG1.
With the electrical compoents neededing to be replaced, such as the transformers, the 25Hz vs. 60Hz issue would not really be an issue.
There are items known as Static Variable Frequency Controllers (SVFCs) that are availiable that can change a frequency input to a different output, oftentimes, that can be changed rapidly too. So the entire thing of 25Hz being a concern is a moot point.
Another issue that comes up with the GG1 is the fact that several of them exhibited frame cracking over age. That is one of the bigger issues that sent many of the GG1s to the scrappers.
The biggest issue is the cost of replacing the wiring, with all of the asbestos used in it, and the PCBs in the transformers. The motors themselves should not be that hard to refurbish, so it is a matter of ripping out hazmat out othe GG1, and designing and installing new wiring. First off the fame would need to be checked for damage and cracking, and then work could begin.
Considering that it would likely be a one time project, it would most likely cost more to refurbish and restore a GG1 to running order than a new AEM-7, which has a higher horsepower to weight ratio to boot.
I would love to see the GG1 back in service. I am sure that many of us out there would too. It’s simply a matter of getting the hazmat out and new design wiring in, and that costs more money than most groups can afford.
I think that the practicality of restoring a GG1 depends a lot on what one means by the word “restore”. The non-functional cosmetic restoration is obviously the cheapest and a completely functional locomotive with the original transformer, running under the existing 11-kilovolt 25-hertz catenary is the most expensive. For now, at least, there is no need to generate that voltage.
There are intermediate possibilities, however. One could be “restored” in the same way as the Union Pacific’s E9s, to look like GG1s on the outside but powered differently, perhaps involving a Diesel engine and adapting the motors to DC, which may be practical. The result may need to be only powerful enough to run light or with a couple of cars. I personally don’t see a point to such halfway measures, which are not much different than pushing a dummy GG1 with another locomotive.
“personally don’t see a point to such halfway measures, which are not much different than pushing a dummy GG1 with another locomotive.”
Bob,
I couldn’t agree more. If you’re going to restore one to operation, at least do it right. Because I see the value in historical mechanical/electrical mechanisms, I feel very strongly on this subject. Some folks will point to cosmetic appearance as being significant. Although GG-1s are darn good looking locomotives, they would not have achieved nearly the same level of fame which they did were it not for their long-lived operation. Thus, I see a considerable amout of value in attempting to preserve at least the mechanical and electrical aspects, even if one is not returned to operation(i.e. I hate to see a “empty shell” restoration).
There is a possibility, I see, however, which would allow keeping the original GG-1 mostly intact, but also allow its operation outside of 25hz cantenary. I would think it would be entirely possible to install a diesel engine and 25hz generator in a boxcar or some other sort of trailing car. The electricity generated by this could then be fed into the GG-1s transformer, and the locomotive operated just as if it were operating by overhead wire.
Of course, with the GG-1 transformers having largely been scrapped, there’s probably not much chance of this ever happening. I’m not sure if #4800 retains its transformer, however it’s my understanding that it had an air-cooled transformer as opposed to the PCB-laden designs of the later models.
In any case, I’ve heard the transformer described as being something akin to an overgrown ZW, with a wiper which contacted different turns of the secondary winding. Likewise, the traction motors were described as being a basic open-frame universal design, not unlike the ones used in our O-gauge trains. With this in mind, electrical rehab couldn’t be too terribly difficult.
The GG1’s transformer was much like a toy-train transformer; but I would say more like a prewar one than a ZW. It had discrete taps, which were selected by the engineman’s controller. There was also a low-voltage buck-boost winding that was placed in series with the tap selected, tripling the number of notches available, for a whopping total of 66!
I think that the Lionel GG1 comes closest of all model locomotives to duplicating the function as well as the appearance of its prototype:
o It is an electric locomotive.
o It can receive its supply voltage through its pantographs.
o Its speed is controlled by changing taps on the secondary winding of a transformer, albeit one external to the locomotive.
o It uses series-wound motors.
o It can run on 25-hertz AC, as with the type C or RX transformer.