So I’m watching the P.R.R. house organ piece “P.R.R. Wheels of Steel” and the woman hooks fuel oil and water to the GG-1. Is the fuel oil used for the boiler? Why not use the electricity for the boiler? What do the E60s use for steam generation?
Thanks!!
If you lost the overhead electricity and the train was dead, how would you heat it in the winter time if it used electric heater coils? A fuel oil fired S/G now sounds like a good idea. Package S/G’s for small depots and passenger car terminals were already available in the 30’s.
I suspect the E60C used a standard ‘off the shelf’ S/G as well.
Jim
Electricity is the most expensive way to make heat. Since electric heating coils are generally a really low resistance, a lot of what’s generated gets consumed by the generating and transmitting internal resistance. Burning oil to make steam for heat considerably more efficient.
Interestingly, during the middle of WWII, the Swiss actually had a steam locomive that was converted from coal-burning to an electrically heated firebox. The idea was to conserve coal, with most Swiss electricity at the time from Hydroelectric stations. It was a switcher, I think 0-6-0T, if I remember, and it did not last long!
I’ve never heard of an 11,000 volt water heater…
Randy
Never heard of an 11,000 volt traction motor, either!
The GG-1’s, like the different New Haven, Great Northern, and PRR 11,000V 25Hz electrics that preceded and (in the case of the New Haven) followed them, had fairly complicated 25Hz transformers, that took 11,000 volts and made it available at various low-voltage taps from about 600V down to 24 or 48 volts for auxiliaries. The throttle did not insert or cuout resistors as in DC locomotives and streetcars and rapid transit and interurban cars but connected various taps on the transformer. I forget exactly how many throttle positions there were on a GG-1, but it was a lot more than 8. Somewhere between 18 and 40, I think. Someone should give the right answer. The particular transformers used on GG-1’s had a cooling flued that has been found to be a health hazard, and this complicates any future restoration project. A replacement transformer, more compact and durable, possibly even usable with only air cooling because of greater efficiency, would be easy to design, but it would be very very expensive. (While a student at MIT I designed transformers for the Mystic Transformer Co., Winchester, MA, commuting on the B&M from North Station, using my engine pass for the B&M as a test engineer.)
Well, I’m more than a little impressed ! [bow] Any information, stories, insights, advice, thoughts, “coulda-woulda-shoulda”, etc. that you can share from that time frame ? (and haven’t already someplace - if so, where ?)
This webpage by a former GG1 engineer says 22 notches for the throttle - as well as some other interesting details, and that sounds about right to me: http://piercehaviland.com/rail/pierce.html
(Once again, looking for an answer leads to something and a source I hadn’t known of before . . . . [tup] )
Excellent link. Very worthwhile reading, and glad to be reminded of the 22 throttle positions. However, if a GG-1 was restored, it could operate Harrisburg and Washington Union to NY and Sunnyside Yard, because that electrification remains currently at 25Hz, and if parts have a voltage increase to 12,500V, that can easily be accommodated by today’s improved insulation. However, if a GG-1 were restored, it would also be conceivable to include solid-state rectification equipment (in the location of the old boilers perhaps) so the motors could be fed dc. And yes, 25Hz ac commutator motors can run on dc, and the New Haven did this as a matter of course. Then, the locomotive could also run on 60Hz, with the new transformer designed for both 25Hz and 60Hz operation (not hard to do) and for current pickup at 25,000V as well as 12,500 and 11,000V.
Consider this part of the "rumor mill ", for what it’s worth I read several years ago a rail museum in possession of a GG-1 was taking about mounting a generator on a flatcar and powering the “G” that way. Don’t remember who it was, but obviously nothing came of it. I do remember one of the reasons the “G’s” were pulled from service was the PCB’s in the transformer cooling oil , then there was a “Emily Litella ‘NeverMind’” moment when it was discovered there weren’t that many PCB’s in the oil anyway, and what there were were harmless. At any rate, from what I’ve read the “G’s” were pretty worn out anyway after almost 50 years of use. I’d love to see one operating anyway. Got to love the GG-1. How many locomotives are there that look like they were popped out of a Jell-O mold?
For some more info on that, see: “Will a GG1 ever run again?” at the bottom of this web page:
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/GG1/
Also, photos of a cracked driver at: http://www.hebners.net/amtrak/amtGG1/gg1driverb.jpg
http://www.hebners.net/amtrak/amtGG1/gg1drivera.jpg
This webpage - http://www.spikesys.com/GG1/specs.html - says: “Control Notches: 22 for passenger service, 17 for freight” - maybe because of the “lock-out” bar on the 18th notch as described in the website I referenced above ?
I’ve already suggested that when the wires go up around HorseShoe Curve, one of the preserved GG1’s should be on the front of the inaugural train, even if it’s not under power and being pushed by the ‘real’ modern electric locomotive. If I had a few spare $million [:-^] , I’d be willing to fund a restoration of one to operating condition - even if the electrical ‘guts’ have to be different - just to have that magnificent carbody and the quill drive on display on the move again.
Paul: The electrical guts may be able to come from one of the soon to be retired AEM-7s (2013 - 2015 replacement by the ACS-64s) either AC or DC whichever would be easier with a leaning toward AC. OR— Maybe one of the AEMs that has a bent frame from an accident.
Your list shows many GG1s in fairly good frame shape? Now that would be a real AMTRAK heritage unit
This was informative for me–I had no idea that a GG-1 had an oil-fired heating system in it.
When I first read the title of the thread, I suspected a belated April Fool’s gag—something like "Water pump on a 1959 VW bug." [:D]
Concerning dave-k’s comment on the electrically heated steam locomotive, Ms. Junitatha posted a picture of one on an earlier thread, don’t remember which one unfortunately Wild looking thing! Now if it was up to me, I’d have passed on the pantograph installation, gone with a third rail mounted in between the outer two, and put pick-up rollers on the underside of the locomotive. Hey, it worked for Lionel!
According to this source (usual disclaimers apply) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_E60 - 7 (or more ?) of the E60CP’s did have steam generators (oil-fired, I suppose); 19 (or less ?) had Head-End Power (“HEP”) generators, which would have been motor-alternator sets (?).
EDIT: Someplace upstairs in the attic I have the definitive article on the GG1 that’s referenced below - it was like 17 pages long ! Also, Middleton’s electrification book and Karl Zimmerman’s book on the GG1. Maybe when I have more free time later this week I’ll retrieve them and see if they have anything more to say about this.
GG1 - history, development, career of the GG1
by Westing, Frederick - from Trains, March 1964, p. 20
(electric GG1 prr)
See also this thread - “Fuel oil for a GG1?” at:
http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=57098
And this one here on the GG1: http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/138024/1543132.aspx
Here’s a film that shows a GG1 being fueled. (The fueling scene is about 3:30 into the video). You’ll also notice the steam boiler popping off in another scene.
Lionel Third Rail? Yeh, it is an idea I already proposed to convert existing diesels to diesel-electric-electric operaton through tunnels. The idea is that the center third rail would only be through the tunnel and through heated slab-track transition areas at the portals. The electrification would involve the location of fixed “diesel-electric stationmotives” at a point near the portals to supply dc current to third rail in comformance with radio-slave-locomotive communication from the cab of the train. The diesels on the train would be allowed idle through the tunnel and the traction power picked up from the third rail at the point between the alternator’s rectivifier and the electronic inverter-frequency generator that power the ac-non-synchronous traction motors OR on comand, just the dc bus that is connected to the dc-tractrion motors. It would mean that trains through the tunnel would require all locomotives to be of similar type, all ac-traction motos or all dc-traction motors, since the control of the third rail power would be different for the two types of locomotives. However, it would allow trains to run through the Cascade Tunnel ever ten minutes instead of every hour or two. The reason for not simply providing a steady 600 or 750 volt dc current (amps varying with load) in the center third rail is to minimize the need for additional control equpment on the locomotives.
But the Swiss wanted to use their electric steam locomtive on existing electrified yard trackage, overhead wire, 16Hz AC, 15,000V. (If I remember correctly.) Thus the pantograph.
In the event of a power outage there would still need to be an electrical source for the steam generator electrode that turns the sprayed fuel oil into flame. Battery might handle it for a short while, but I doubt long term…
It was a one-off locomotive experiment and was not duplicated.
