Why did they take the GG1 out of service?
…The GG1 started life back in the mid 30’s…so for the most part, they had served their term. There were about 140 of them produced.
They were design created by Industrial designer, Raymond Lowey.
I do know they had the torque curve to pull a train out of the station and get it moving…!
They were old, they were having cracked frame problems, and Amtrak was thinking of upping the voltage supplied to the overhead wires on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) where the GG1’s ran. All of these put the GG1’s out of service. Incidentally, the voltage on the NEC stayed the same, so theoreticly the GG1s could still runon the NEC, if any of them were restored to running order (as compared to a cosmetic resotration which just makes it look pretty).
As the others have already noted there were many things that all came together at the same time. It was not just one thing. Another was that the transformers inside had PCBs in them that the environmental protection agency got all excited about. Oh dear - oh me - oh my, what if one wrecks! Environmental disaster! … NOT.
I believe there was a thread about this not long ago on the Prototype Information for Model Railroader’s sub-forum.
I’m not sure the only PCB worry was in case of a wreck. I remember reading in the Philly newspapers that Paoli yard, storage for Pennsylvania RR, SEPTA commuter equipment was a bit of an environmental hazard due to PCB’s which apparently leaked out of transformers over the long lifetime of service. If PCB’s leaked out of self propelled electric coaches in normal yard storage I assume it would also leak out of locomotives.
I’m also assuming that the new equipment does not have transformers that use PCB’s. Does anyone know if that’s the case? It’d be ironic if we didn’t achieve 2 of the goals stated in this thread for doing away with GG1’s: changing the voltage and eliminating PCB hazard.
GG1s were a good engine, but they got old. I know they spent their last days on NJTransit based out of South Amboy. I think they weren’t compatible with the new electrical system…? I know the old MU’s had a similar problem.
GG1’s just like any other piece of industrial equipment gets replaced by more efficient modern replacements. Part of efficiency is having a ready supply of repair part available. Manufacturers of the parts for the GG1’s had moved their parts production on to other more profitable products years before the end of the line for the active GG1 fleet.
At least we (as a society) were smart enough to preseve several of them. I’ve personally seen the one in the St. Louis Transportation Museum and one in the station museum in Harrisburg PA. I would like to see a collection of them all together with each historical paint scheme that they wore through the years.
G’s were drafty, noisy, and were not easy on you if you had to do alot of backing-up without a radio. They were fast and since they have been gone, I miss them alot. The PCB’s in the transformers were replaced with another mineral oil based coolant in the latter 70’s. Amtrak did up the voltage in the trasmission lines from 11,500v to 13,500v. I think the G’s could have handled that. There was just too much metal fatigue and the cost of machining replacement parts that are no longer manufactered was too high. You guys are right…they were just past their prime. [2c]
My thoughts at the time were that you had without a doubt the most successful electric locomotive ever built. If you can’t repair them after 60 years of service why not copy them with updated internals. CR wanted out of the electric engine operation and Amtrak in their infinite wisdom chose the GE E60CP engine which turned out to be junk. Everybody loves the AEM7 engines however except the railfans.
I remember back in the mid 70’s asking a former PRR electrical engineer about why not replace GG1’s with GG1’s. His response was that the advances in electrical engineering alone could reduce weight, increase the efficiency of a locomotive, not to mention new building materiasls to offset metal fatigue. He had the same answer as to why the electrical catenary system should be revamped.
Actually, it was because there weren’t any foundries who were willing to cast such a large frame…
Problems with the GG1, poor visibility, unable to run on Commercial Frequency AC power, High power consumption for the horsepower output, many replacement parts no longer manufactured, cast frames cracking, PCBs in the Transformer.
In short, if you redesign a GG-1 and incorporate, better visibility, better ergonomics, better electronics, better running gear, better traction motors, better HEP, you end up with a AEM-7 or HHP-8, and its more powerfull, rides better, can do higher speeds etc.
pardon my lack of knowledge, I thought they were double enders, with duplicate controls on both sides of the midship cabs. If so, couldn’t you back up by changing ends, ie walk from one side of the cab to the other?
Are you saying that they were single enders and had to be turned at the end of the line?
Or are you talking about keeping the engine at the front of the train and needing to push the train backwards? If that’s what you meant, how is backing them up any worse than backing up any other locomotive? You can’t see to the back end of the train any worse or better.
Don Phillips’ writing in the November 2008 Trains issue http://cs.trains.com/forums/1541826/ShowPost.aspx
you may run afoul of SOME of the folks on the Don Phillips thread. Don’t you do mean SOME railfans? I don’t have any problem with AEM7’s, as far as I can tell they’re half a GG1, but can still haul trains just as fast, so what’s not to like?
speaking of HEP, I asked my father why there was a steam locomotive coming out of 30th St Philly, he explained that the smoke I saw was from the steam generator which passenger GG1’s had to heat the coaches. So next time someone tried the trick question “an electric train travels Washington to New York at 100 mph, the wind is from the west at 20 mph, which way does the smoke go?” I had a smart aleck answer ready when people would say “electric locomotives don’t have smoke”.
By the way, I’m pretty sure HEP refers to electrical power to the coaches, usually supplied by the locomotive, hence the Head End part of the abbreviation. But there are operations that have used some generator in a separate car, for example Toronto’s GO transit has a regular locomotive at one end, and an Auxiluary Power-Control Car at the other end to supply hotel power. I like the term Hotel Power better to describe heating, air conditioning , lights, etc…
The term HEP actually came from Europe, and was originaly Hotel Electric Power as per construction manuals of early TEE trains.
As for Steam generators your correct and Passenger electrics like the EP-5 and GG-1 and EP-3 had fuel tanks and water tanks to run the Steam generator for car heat.
I also remember a picture in TRAINS showing a New York Central T-motor in suburban service with smoke coming out of the s/g stack.
Rick-
Thanks for the info, and it’s good to see you in here. How’s life been treating you?
Dealing with frame cracks was not new. You just weld them up and normalize and you’re good to go. No need for new castings.
But, everybody has the right idea. Time had just passed them by. A “perfect storm” of PCBs (even after mineral oil was used, the PCBs still leached out of the insulation), better propulsion technology (DC traction motors, solid state control system), lots of parts (high maintenance cost), impending catenary frequency/voltage change, Conrail dropping all electric frt service, etc. All of these were in the mix that led to the demise.
Since the voltage/freq on the NEC-south did NOT change, if someone wanted to supply the $$ for a new transformer, a GG1 could be put back into service (would likely have to come up with $50-100K for Amtrak cab signal/speed control, too)