Everybody know there's a GG-1 on Display in Hoboken?
Joseph David Farrell
GG-1 sitting right to the road right outside NJ Transit Hoboken
station.
The gate is usually open and so long as you stay OFF the tracks, you
go in and look up close and take photos.
J. Farrell
tobias köhler
> In case anyone was curious and was not aware - there is an Ex-Pennsy
> GG-1 sitting right to the road right outside NJ Transit Hoboken
> station.
Yes, I was there and took photos, but found it's in a rather rusty
state, unfortunately ....
Still an impressive engine! Looking from the Hudson river, it's on the
right side of the tracks.
Chris Jacks
1980. It will probably never run again as NJT has changed the voltage
on most of their lines and the GG1s used some PCB-laden chemical in the
engine's generators, which may have been removed.
C.J.
Joseph David Farrell wrote:
> In case anyone was curious and was not aware - there is an Ex-Pennsy
> GG-1 sitting right to the road right outside NJ Transit Hoboken
> station.
>
John Wilson
PCB-laden chemical", they used PCB. And it wasn't in "generators",
which they didn't have; it's the insulating fluid and coolant in the
transformers.
A digression that may be of interest: power plant steam turbine
generators are cooled in two ways. The stator, where the heavy current
is, is cooled by water circulating through passages in the winding
conductors. The rotor, which has the spinning field winding, runs in,
would you believe, pure hydrogen. There are fancy shaft seals that use
an active system to provide oil pressure to exactly balance the hydrogen
pressure inside the machine, since that's about the only way to keep
hydrogen from leaking out. Reasons for hydrogen are great thermal
performance and low windage losses. If anything disrupts the shaft
seals, it's awfully easy to get a hydrogen fire going at the end of the
unit, which gets real interesting, since a hydrogen flame is almost
invisible. (Watch a Shuttle launch carefully sometime; the bright
flames come from the solid boosters, and you can hardly see the hydrogen
flames from the main engines at all.)
There's no reason not to continue to use PCB insulation if it's in
existing apparatus that's operating normally, unless they've changed the
rules in the last few years. But if it's spilled, it has to be treated
as a toxic spill (as opposed to the alternative mineral oil, which is
hazardous because of fire danger, but is not considered especially
toxic, certainly not in the same class as PCBs), and PCB-filled or
PCB-contaminated transformers cannot be overhauled without an expensive
decontamination process (to protect employees who handle the innards of
the transformer during the overhaul). I believe a lot of PCB-insulated
transformers are still in service around utility systems and industrial
facilities. A lot more have been decontaminated and backfilled with
oil, or if the fire-resistance of PCB was really needed (say, for indoor
locations), newer alternative fluids that are less flammible than oil.
What I'm driving at is that the presence of PCBs, while it contributed
substantially to the decision to take the Gs out of service, was not the
main motivation. That came from the mechanical condition, especially
stress cracking of the frames that is practically unfixable. (AFAIK,
there's no annealing furnace in the US big enough to do the job, even if
Amtrak wanted to strip the machinery down to the frame to do it.)
73,
JohnW
Inlinebob
the big girls.
Rob
nasa...@my-deja.com
if they could, it'd be $$$$$.
Better luck getting a bunch of the MP-54s still floating around going -
and those things have dry transformers (no PCBs), are damm simple, and I
think had arch bar trucks.
BTW - I've heard of a few DL&W mus getting converted to 600V DC, as I
believe the last remaining IC one is (and a number of South Shore ones
have).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Silas Warner
nasa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> BTW - I've heard of a few DL&W mus getting converted to 600V DC, as I
> believe the last remaining IC one is (and a number of South Shore ones
> have).
The IC and South Shore lines, ever since 1928, have been 1500VDC.
Actually, the South Shore was AC for a while, but went to DC when
the Illinois Central electrified.
Silas Warner
dave pierson
DL&W ran two motors permanently in series, for 1500v on each
motor. I'm reasonably sure the IC & CSS&SB units were two
750V motors, permanently in series. The latter case, expecially,
would, at a glance, be apropos for 600vdc with just a LITTLE
wiring fiddling. Performance would not be 'to spec'...
Another possibility is that 'railway motors' came in standard
(withion a manufacturer) size. It MAY be (i say _may_) that there
is a 600vdc 'Trolley' motor with the same mounting holes, etc.
(There is a tale of the 'dawn to dusk' run of the (Pioneer) Zephyr,
from Denver to Chicago: Day before, one of the traction motor
bearings failed. They salvaged one from the trolley company
Which Fit, and made the run on that.... (MAY have had to file
it.))
--
thanks
dave pierson |the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Smart Modular Technology |the opinions, my own.
334 South St |
Shrewsbury, Mass |pie...@mail.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing." A J
Raffles
"Internet: net of a million lies..." after Vernor Vinge
Matthew Johnson
dpearting Hoboken on a Pascack Valley Line train.
Joseph David Farrell wrote in message ...
Steve Kraus
>I'm reasonably sure the IC & CSS&SB units were two
>750V motors, permanently in series.
Can't say about the South Shore but Westinghouse
and GE offered the IC 1500V motors (a then new
design apparently) but IC decided to play it safe
and stick with 750V motors wired so that they
stay paired in series even at max power.
> The latter case, expecially, would, at a glance, be
> apropos for 600vdc with just a LITTLE wiring fiddling.
IRM which owns the only remaining (old) IC motor/trailer
set (I think there are trailers elsewhere) has run
it on their 600V trolley. AFIAK they replaced the MG set
(for low voltage control circuits) and compressor with
trolley equipment but I don't think they made any changes
to the propulsion wiring. They would just sweep the
controller through the notches faster and obviously they
can't get the higher speeds but that's unnnecessary on
their short demonstration railway. The pans didn't work
properly on their overhead, though.
Steve Kraus
> again true, but one thing that the PCB's did cause was that before any G
> left the property it had the transformers (and PCB's) removed and properly
> desposed of, thus NO GG1 can ever be operated under it's own power again.
> (short of putting in new transformers at enormous cost)
Supposedly one of the extant GG1's retained its
transformer. The difficulty in replacing it on
the others is that it would have to be entirely
custom made not only because it's designed for
25Hz but it has complex multi-tapped secondaries
with switchgear mounted directly on it. No doubt
when they yanked the transformers the switchgroups
attached to the outside went with them.
If...and it's a big if...an inspection of the
various G's finds one that can be restored
mechanically then either the one transformer
should be put in that unit OR it would make
an interesting project to create one from scratch.
Difficult but not impossible given that the
designs probably still are on file somewhere
and unlike other skills, transformer winding is
not a lost art. Laminated iron and wire, mostly.
It could be done, given expert supervision.
John Wilson
Steve Kraus wrote:
>
> Access Systems wrote:
> > again true, but one thing that the PCB's did cause was that before any G
> > left the property it had the transformers (and PCB's) removed and properly
> > desposed of, thus NO GG1 can ever be operated under it's own power again.
> > (short of putting in new transformers at enormous cost)
>
> Supposedly one of the extant GG1's retained its
> transformer.
Presumably this would be 4800, the first of the breed, which was built
with an "air-blast" transformer (what we would call forced-air-cooled
dry-type today). No PCB or any other kind of fluid.
...
73,
JohnW
Jim Fahlstedt
Steve Kraus wrote:
> Access Systems wrote:
> > again true, but one thing that the PCB's did cause was that before any G
> > left the property it had the transformers (and PCB's) removed and properly
> > desposed of, thus NO GG1 can ever be operated under it's own power again.
> > (short of putting in new transformers at enormous cost)
>
> Supposedly one of the extant GG1's retained its
> transformer. The difficulty in replacing it on
> the others is that it would have to be entirely
> custom made not only because it's designed for
> 25Hz but it has complex multi-tapped secondaries
> with switchgear mounted directly on it. No doubt
> when they yanked the transformers the switchgroups
> attached to the outside went with them.
>
> If...and it's a big if...an inspection of the
> various G's finds one that can be restored
> mechanically then either the one transformer
> should be put in that unit OR it would make
> an interesting project to create one from scratch.
> Difficult but not impossible given that the
> designs probably still are on file somewhere
> and unlike other skills, transformer winding is
> not a lost art. Laminated iron and wire, mostly.
> It could be done, given expert supervision.
I was told by one of the electrical geniuses at the Illinois Railway Museum that
it was possible to rewire a GG-1 to run on 600 VDC. This would eliminate the
problem of the missing transformer and would permit demonstration runs on the
tracks of some of the museums that own them.
Jim Fahlstedt
Steve Hoskins
Jim Fahlstedt <jfa...@netmcr.com> wrote:
But would the rails of such museums be able to hold up the overly heavy GG-1?
I can just see it now, a GG-1 buries itself in soft dirt.......
dave pierson
> In article <381B0618...@netmcr.com>,
> Jim Fahlstedt <jfa...@netmcr.com> wrote:
> >I was told by one of the electrical geniuses at the Illinois Railway Museum that
> >it was possible to rewire a GG-1 to run on 600 VDC.
Possible yes. Semi major job. exceeding limited performance.
IIR the motors are 300v nominal. They are AC Series Commutator motors,
so they will run on AC OR DC.
This would eliminate the
> >problem of the missing transformer and would permit demonstration runs on the
> >tracks of some of the museums that own them.
>
> But would the rails of such museums be able to hold up the overly heavy GG-1?
> I can just see it now, a GG-1 buries itself in soft dirt.......
--
dave pierson
> In article <381B0618...@netmcr.com>,
> Jim Fahlstedt <jfa...@netmcr.com> wrote:
> >I was told by one of the electrical geniuses at the Illinois Railway Museum that
> >it was possible to rewire a GG-1 to run on 600 VDC.
Possible, yes. Exceeding limited performance. The motors are 300vac
(if i
recall the voltage correctly.) They are SC Series Commutator motors
(twin
armature, to get technical...), so the willrun on AC _or_ DC. However
the control gear is set up for AC (whats left, which is likely
little..)
>> This would eliminate the problem of the missing transformer and would permit
>>demonstration runs on the tracks of some of the museums that own them.
> But would the rails of such museums be able to hold up the overly heavy GG-1?
Overly Heavy????
One of the _features_ of the GG1 was (is) LIGHT axle load, both stayic
and
dynamic, by main line standards.
On theother hand they were designed for _main_ _line_ standards.
Trolley
axle loads are a lot lighter.
Steve Kraus
> Possible, yes. Exceeding limited performance. The motors are 300vac
> (if i recall the voltage correctly.)
Hmmm...seems a tad low considering the 600VDC motor
design was 40 years old by then and the MILW 3000VDC
electrification used 1500V motors. Of course an AC
motor must be insulated for the peak voltage (1.41
times higher than Vrms). On the other hand I don't
know if I've seen it mentioned so I can't say that
you're wrong.
>However the control gear is set up for AC (whats left, which
>is likely little..)
For them to do this (unlikely) would require installing
a complete trolley-type system assuming room can be found
inside to build a rack for the resistors that normally
hang under a car and providing a method of air cooling
them. Whether that can be fit into the space of the old
transformer is questionable. Just to tool around their 5
mile line with a few cars in tow would not require all motors
to be powered so probably easiest to wire just 4 as with the
typical interurban car.
I'd be more interested in seeing a restoration (or
internal conversion) that enables a G to run on the
NEC.
nasa...@my-deja.com
Steve Kraus <sf-k...@BLOCKERgovst.edu> wrote:
> Hmmm...seems a tad low considering the 600VDC motor
> design was 40 years old by then and the MILW 3000VDC
> electrification used 1500V motors.
It may / may not be low. BTW - the GG-1s motors are based off of the
MP-54's motors, which was a big plus for the PRR. Don't know if any
parts interchange on them though.
> >However the control gear is set up for AC (whats left, which
> >is likely little..)
Why? Unless they were robbed for parts, the only things that were
likely removed was the transformer, preventive coils, and maybe the
switch group, though I thought there was at least one complete GG-1 out
there.
> For them to do this (unlikely) would require installing
> a complete trolley-type system assuming room can be found
> inside to build a rack for the resistors that normally
> hang under a car and providing a method of air cooling
> them. Whether that can be fit into the space of the old
> transformer is questionable. Just to tool around their 5
> mile line with a few cars in tow would not require all motors
> to be powered so probably easiest to wire just 4 as with the
> typical interurban car
Might as well just stick a diesel in there - the electrical requirements
would likely outstrip what a 600v trolley line can provide.
> I'd be more interested in seeing a restoration (or
> internal conversion) that enables a G to run on the
> NEC.
You'll never see a GG-1 run again, unless someone steps forward to cast
a new set of trucks.
The GG-1 was NOT retired because of PCBs. It was NOT retired because
the NEC was converted to 25kv AC. The NEC was, and still is below NY
11kv 25hz. Ditto for most of Septa (but not NJT?)
The GG-1 was retired because the trucks on them were littarally falling
apart. In order to run one again, you'd need to fabricate new trucks.
Finding enough parts to make a complete loco would likely be easy, and
even if there aren't any transformers left, winding a new one would be
expensive, but not impossible. But you'd still need tottaly new trucks
- and nobody casts things that large anymore.
It's a great dream, but unless a miracle happens, you'll never see one
run again. Unless Bill Gates is a railfan :)
P. Wezeman
> In article <381B21...@BLOCKERgovst.edu>,
> Steve Kraus <sf-k...@BLOCKERgovst.edu> wrote:
----snip----
> > I'd be more interested in seeing a restoration (or
> > internal conversion) that enables a G to run on the
> > NEC.
>
> You'll never see a GG-1 run again, unless someone steps forward to cast
> a new set of trucks.
>
> The GG-1 was NOT retired because of PCBs. It was NOT retired because
> the NEC was converted to 25kv AC. The NEC was, and still is below NY
> 11kv 25hz. Ditto for most of Septa (but not NJT?)
>
> The GG-1 was retired because the trucks on them were littarally falling
> apart. In order to run one again, you'd need to fabricate new trucks.
> Finding enough parts to make a complete loco would likely be easy, and
> even if there aren't any transformers left, winding a new one would be
> expensive, but not impossible. But you'd still need tottaly new trucks
> - and nobody casts things that large anymore.
----snip----
Could the truck frames be hogged out of billet stock or
weldments on a big CNC milling machine? There are mills big enough
to do ship's propellers.
Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist
"Carpe Cyprinidae"
Steve Kraus
>>is likely little..)
nasa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Why? Unless they were robbed for parts, the only things that were
> likely removed was the transformer, preventive coils, and maybe the
> switch group, though I thought there was at least one complete GG-1 out
> there.
That wasn't my quote despite the attribution but
nevertheless: Besides what you cite, what else is
there? The tap switches attached to the outside of
the transformer tank would no doubt get removed with
it. The others might remain. Either way that's a
big chunk of the HV control system. The LV components
would still be there presumably.
> Might as well just stick a diesel in there - the electrical requirements
> would likely outstrip what a 600v trolley line can provide.
Nah. It's the load that matters and in the fantasy
scenario I cited we're talking about a G plus a
few hundred tons of train doing 10-15 mph. Plus
keep in mind that G motors aren't very powerful.
It did have 12 of them to develop the power it
did. The trolley wiring scenario was only going
to utilize 4 of them.
> You'll never see a GG-1 run again, unless someone steps forward to cast
> a new set of trucks.
> The GG-1 was retired because the trucks on them were littarally falling
> apart.
While some were no doubt pulled from service because the
frame cracking had rendered them unsafe I believe most were
retired while still serviceable meaning whatever cracks a
given unit had were still deemed to be within acceptable
margins of safety. At least that would be true of the later
retirements. Thus there may be some extant which are better
than others. One of these *might* be a candidate for welding
repair. I know little on that topic but it's certainly true
that amazing things can be done nowadays with the latest
techniques. I seem to recall that Mid Continents's C&NW 1385
had a drive wheel center so badly cracked that it literally
fell apart when the tire was removed and this was repaired
by welding. A GG-1 truck frame is a much bigger project
but it might well be within the scope of the doable and not
necessarily for impossible amounts of money. Someone pointed
out that such a repair would require annealing to do it right...
[Side question: Weren't welding repairs done over the years?
Did they anneal? If not then maybe that's why they didn't last.]
..and such a furnace might be hard to find. But I'm not so sure.
One of the reasons that the art of casting huge complex articles
out of steel (like the integral steam locomotive frame + cylinders
+ boiler saddle) has gone by the wayside is BECAUSE of vast
improvements in welding technology. One might presume that the
modern fabricated replacements for giant castings would also need
to be annealed. There are also still some huge castings made
(think of the components of a steel mill itself) that might need
such treatment. So I'd bet the furnaces are out there.
Amazing that no one seems to be actively pursuing this. Not that
we would necessarily know about it here but I don't know of any
G's being stripped down either.
James E.Mack
NJT. They run on only 25 HZ 11000 volts. Any thing today that is 25 HZ
cost money. At the time NJT ran the wire to Long Branch. By using 60 HZ
south of Perth Amboy they saved a lot of money. The GG1s could not go to
Long Branch. This ended the GG1s being used.
nasa...@my-deja.com
> That wasn't my quote despite the attribution but
> nevertheless: Besides what you cite, what else is
> there? The tap switches attached to the outside of
> the transformer tank would no doubt get removed with
> it. The others might remain. Either way that's a
> big chunk of the HV control system. The LV components
> would still be there presumably.
True, assuming the tap switches were removed, there's not much left,
save for the reverser, notching transformer (AFIAK not PCB), and a few
misc reactance coils / contactors. Anyway, this is all speculation -
I've heard that a nu,mber of GG-1s had their transformers drained and
backfilled with sand or concrete. I'm not aware of any definitave
survey of the remaining GG-1s and their components though.
> While some were no doubt pulled from service because the
> frame cracking had rendered them unsafe I believe most were
> retired while still serviceable meaning whatever cracks a
> given unit had were still deemed to be within acceptable
> margins of safety.
But they've likely deteriprated over the years, and besides, those
trucks still have a few million miles of fatigue on them!
> [Side question: Weren't welding repairs done over the years?
Yes.
> Did they anneal? If not then maybe that's why they didn't last.]
Likely no - the frames are HUGE, that would require more or less
complete dissasembly of them, and you'd still need a big furnace.
> ..and such a furnace might be hard to find. But I'm not so sure.
> One of the reasons that the art of casting huge complex articles
> out of steel (like the integral steam locomotive frame + cylinders
> + boiler saddle) has gone by the wayside is BECAUSE of vast
> improvements in welding technology.
And cost. And also because fabricated stuff can be made to last better.
Cast stuff is normally brittle. Fabricated RR trucks are nothing new -
IND subway (NY) used them on the R-1s
> One might presume that the
> modern fabricated replacements for giant castings would also need
> to be annealed. There are also still some huge castings made
> (think of the components of a steel mill itself) that might need
> such treatment. So I'd bet the furnaces are out there.
Possibly. But then, how many steel mills are built each year?
> Amazing that no one seems to be actively pursuing this. Not that
> we would necessarily know about it here but I don't know of any
> G's being stripped down either.
It's because it'd cost a lot no matter how you went about it. And U.S.
rail fans generally shun electrics. So there's no desire. No desire =
no funds. Nobody has yet to step forward to even propose this. Finding
(or scrapeing up) a complete GG-1 is the first big hurdle - finding a
solution to the truck issue is the second, and finding the money is the
third. Not to mention, it'd be nice to do excursions on the NEC once
it's done - would Amtrak even allow that? One can run a steamer
anywhere, but 11kv 25hz AC isn't found everywhere - only on the NEC or
Septa. Restoring electrics isn't an unknown art - plenty of trolley
museums deal with more or less the same equipment all the time.
I personally would *love* to see it - I was born too late to see them in
action. But I'm not sure it can be done - and if it can it'll take a
LOT of money to do.
That said, I'd still like to see it happen!
TRAINDOC
she and old Rivets # 4800 are at the RRM of PA in Strasburg and Blackjack looks
pretty sound and mayoperate if and big if the wizards of the Stasburg railroad
were involved she may take to the rails .As for the frame cracks.When this
occurred the PRR/PC/CR/Amtrak/NJT all welded the fractures closed but this was
only a temporary fix.Look guys the grand ladies rocked the rails as the flew by
and with the changes in the overheard clearances and the feeling toward a
cherished piece of work such as a GG1 rolling the NEC I don;t think Amtrak
would allow her to strut her stuff and to operate on a 5 mi track is demeaning
to it.This is like sticking diesel engine in the firebox of a big boy it runs
but it is not the same. I for one would love to see a special on the NEC with
4935 and a pure PRR varnish doing what it did best fly the pants off the rails.
Sal
dave pierson
> Why? Unless they were robbed for parts, the only things that were
> likely removed was the transformer, preventive coils, and maybe the
> switch group, though I thought there was at least one complete GG-1 out
> there.
Whose control gear would be useless in a pure DC conversion...
It's a totally differnt arrangement inside.
> The GG-1 was NOT retired because of PCBs. It was NOT retired because
> the NEC was converted to 25kv AC. The NEC was, and still is below NY
> 11kv 25hz. Ditto for most of Septa (but not NJT?)
Both contributed.
In the real world (which is a frightfully complex place) there
is usually more than one reason.
dave pierson
> The GG-1 was NOT retired because of PCBs. It was NOT retired because
> the NEC was converted to 25kv AC. The NEC was, and still is below NY
> 11kv 25hz.
..and above, roughly as far as SHELL on MN.
> Ditto for most of Septa (but not NJT?)
I THINK all of NJT, except the corridor is 60Hz.
dave pierson
> dave pierson wrote:
> > Possible, yes. Exceeding limited performance. The motors are 300vac
> > (if i recall the voltage correctly.)
> Hmmm...seems a tad low considering the 600VDC motor
> design was 40 years old by then and the MILW 3000VDC
> electrification used 1500V motors.
Those were DC motors... 8)>>
> Of course an AC motor must be insulated for the peak voltage (1.41
> times higher than Vrms).
The issue, If I Recall, was as much the commutation problems
as the voltage, per se. Its harder to get good commutation
on an AC Series motor than a DC series motor. cf AIEE papers
on the design of the GG1.
> On the other hand I don't know if I've seen it mentioned so I can't
> say that you're wrong.
And I dunno if i can find the exact reference... 8)>>
> >However the control gear is set up for AC (whats left, which
> >is likely little..)
> I'd be more interested in seeing a restoration (or
> internal conversion) that enables a G to run on the
> NEC.
UNlikely, for reasons others have outlined...
dave pierson
> The GG-1s are AC locomotives with AC motors.
Indeed. Specifically, AC Series Commutator Motors. (Yet
More specifically twin armature AC Series Commutator Motors).
_if_ the appropriate control gear were applied (expensive)
the motors would be Quite Happy on DC. (This is how the NYNH&H
ran on DC into GCT....) Reference apropos AIEE papers 0r
GG1 Operators Manual.
dave pierson
> It's because it'd cost a lot no matter how you went about it. And U.S.
> rail fans generally shun electrics. So there's no desire. No desire =
> no funds. Nobody has yet to step forward to even propose this. Finding
> (or scrapeing up) a complete GG-1 is the first big hurdle - finding a
> solution to the truck issue is the second, and finding the money is the
> third. Not to mention, it'd be nice to do excursions on the NEC once
> it's done - would Amtrak even allow that? One can run a steamer
> anywhere, but 11kv 25hz AC isn't found everywhere - only on the NEC or
> Septa. Restoring electrics isn't an unknown art - plenty of trolley
> museums deal with more or less the same equipment all the time.
Sure. on 600vdc. Most electricians are competent/trained on that.
11kvac is a Differnt Set of training & quals...
Steve Kraus
> I personally would *love* to see it - I was born too late to see them in
> action. But I'm not sure it can be done - and if it can it'll take a
> LOT of money to do.
> That said, I'd still like to see it happen!
Well that's two of us. I think it's almost
irresponsible if the museum-owners of G's who
are in relatively close proximity to the NEC
haven't at least done a rough evalutation of
their unit by now so they know exactly what
they have and how far fetched a restoration
of their G would be. Especially if some
really do have their transformers, however
entombed.
dave pierson
I can't think of any reason to fill the transformer
with sand (or anyway to do it). I suppose concrete
could be pumped in, if thin enough. Purpose escapes me, as
it would neither would 'entomb' the PCB remnants & either
would make the unit harder to move.
Motor (Voltage) Details:
(this gets complex...)
I'm working from the engineman's handbook... (No IIR excuses...)
There are 6 motored axles.
Each is driven by a twin armature series comutator motor.
This amounts to twelve motors.
These are grouped permanently 4 in series, to make 3 groups, which
are permanently in parallel.
Looking at the tapping chart, the max voltage is 1328 (no load)
which means 334vac across any one 'motor', no load, max, RMS.
(unless I've slipped into gnu math...)
Andrew C. Toppan
> Well that's two of us. I think it's almost
> irresponsible if the museum-owners of G's who
> are in relatively close proximity to the NEC
> haven't at least done a rough evalutation of
How do you know they haven't?
They're probably in a pretty good position to know what condition the
units were in when they were donated, so they probably know if it's
worthwhile to think about it...
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online - http://www.uss-salem.org/
Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more
Sweiland99
80`s it was in rough shape someday i hope to go back and see it as i will
never see one here in new england
Steve Hoskins
sweil...@aol.comnospam (Sweiland99) wrote:
I guess being an old fart like myself, I was very lucky to have gotten
a cab ride in one from Penn Station to Newark 30 years ago. Couldn't see
much through that tiny little window whiel standing behind the engineer,
and as I remember, I didn't think it was a big deal (at 14 years old) but
now that I look back, I consider myself VERY lucky!
dave pierson
> In article sweil...@aol.comnospam (Sweiland99) wrote:
> >I was lucky enough to see a gg1 at the altoona museum as a kid back in the mid
> >80`s it was in rough shape someday i hope to go back and see it as i will
> >never see one here in new england
> I guess being an old fart like myself, I was very lucky to have gotten
> a cab ride in one from Penn Station to Newark 30 years ago. Couldn't see
> much through that tiny little window while standing behind the engineer,
I was standing behind a GG1 engineer waiting to get into a train show
about then. His comment was _they_ couldn't see much from there,
either... 8)>>
> and as I remember, I didn't think it was a big deal (at 14 years old) but
> now that I look back, I consider myself VERY lucky!
Closest I ever got to that was crawling thru one in AMTRAK
Wilington Shops (NRHS tour ) & one in Roanoke Museum (at the
old site....)
James Robinson
>
> nasa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > I personally would *love* to see it - I was born too late to see them in
> > action.
> Well that's two of us. I think it's almost
> irresponsible if the museum-owners of G's who
> are in relatively close proximity to the NEC
> haven't at least done a rough evalutation of
> their unit by now so they know exactly what
> they have and how far fetched a restoration
> of their G would be.
Now that opens up an interesting debate about the role of museum
curators.
I remember a number of years ago, "The General" (of Andrew's Raiders
fame) was overhauled, with modifications to meet more recent safety
standards, and steamed up to tour around the countryside. Museum
purists were aghast. They felt that it was irresponsible of the owners
to have risked such an irreplaceable artifact. As well, they criticized
the modifications that had been made to the locomotive as butchery and
not true to its original design. They felt that the locomotive should
have been preserved in as close to original condition as possible.
I admit that with so many G's now "preserved" it is not quite the same
issue, but it does make one think about what should be done with
historic objects that people are trying to preserve for future
generations. Certainly with steam engines the sound and motion were
part of the experience. Stationary preservation just doesn't seem to
have quite the same attraction as a fully operating locomotive.
Steve Kraus
> How do you know they haven't?
I don't, Andrew. I'm hoping that they have and
calling them names if they haven't.
> They're probably in a pretty good position to know what condition the
> units were in when they were donated, so they probably know if it's
> worthwhile to think about it...
I agree. But I fear that many may have been concerned
solely with getting their girl back in pinstripes
and little else.
Matthew Mitchell
dave pierson <pie...@mail.dec.com> wrote:
> I THINK all of NJT, except the corridor is 60Hz.
That's a little unclear. The Corridor is indeed 25 Hz, while the Morris
and Essex (ex EL converted from 3000 VDC in the 80s) is 60 Hz, as is the
latest segment of the North Jersey Coast electrification.
All of SEPTA's territory is 25 Hz. The Pennsy side gets power from Amtrak,
while the Reading side has static convertors north of Wayne Jct. They were
put in in the late 80s. Before then, they had rotary converters that made
getting home at night a crapshoot.