One note is that the GG1’s were also retired because they were literally a safety hazard for crews. The engines had PCB’s, which are toxic chemicals, so the engines were serious health hazards.
One note about the P5a locomotive is that the cabs weren't modified for better visibility, the modifications actually made the visibility worse. The cabs were modified because a P5a hit a truck at a road crossing which killed the crew in the P5a. The cabs were originally located on the ends of these locomotives so the railroad decided to move the cabs from the ends of the locomotive to the center of the locomotive for better protection.
I like the information of the video, but the ultimate demised of the GG1 was electrical technology. This was the change to 60 Hz. electrical technology. This was the ultimate demise. Many changes involved the transformers and traction motors of the GG1 to be upgraded. This led to a decision to seek newer technology, and it has led to hampering of any restoration of any GG1 to an active mainline status.
Frame cracks are a big issue. Motors can be re-wound and transformers only need to work and fit, not be the originals. It is as simple as getting 11.5k volts from the wires to 600v for the motors and regulating it for speed.
Perhaps if we build a completely new gg1 with modern, clean transformers, modern technology, and maybe modern pantographs, then we might have a operational GG1
GG1's are actually very fast, during testing, the GG1's could reach 128 mph during testing. They were just geared for and operated at 100mph. *𝗶𝗳 𝗔𝗺𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗸 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗘𝗠-7𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗖𝗦-64'𝘀.*
While one may like to think that it would simply be a matter of re-gearing, there's more to going faster than longer legs. Think about a 105 ton AEM-7 going 140 mph, and what that means to structures such as bridge abutments on the right of way, in terms of side loading. A GG-1 weighed more than DOUBLE of what the AEM-7 weighs. Yes, the GG-1's easy tracking characteristics were remarkable, and yes, the G could start a much heavier train than today's equipment, and it could probably still out-accelerate modern locomotives, but there's no avoiding what it's like to run a machine like that over a bridge. Believe me, I'm solidly in the camp that thought the GG-1 was the most amazing machine, but time does go on, and the needs of the job have evolved. Wanna go fast? Go lightweight. Even the Acela is heavy, by comparison to what you see in Europe.
Regearing a locomotive to a significantly higher gear ratio is not always a good idea. For example: In the 1990s, the traffic between Budapest and Wien became so large, that the current fleet became obsolete while their machinery was very complicated. The Máv (the hungarian state railways) tried to answer this question with regearing 10 of the 56 V63 class heavy goods engines from 75 mph to 100 mph. This was not a good idea, because their traction power went down, and they have no 16 2/3 hz equipment. So the moral of the story: regearing not always answers the problem.
@@mozeskertesz6398 they ran these previously at higher speeds, on some occasions while hauling mail the GG-1s would be at 130mph. They have done this before, and these engines had been geared down before.
I remember when they were still running GG1's in Philadelphia where I grew up in the 60's. There's an illustration in this video that shows them lined up near a stadium. That was JFK stadium in South Philadelphia and the painting is the day of the Army/Navy football game. This was Greenwich yard in South Philadelphia where I played as a kid.
Where else would you even consider purchasing your underwear from other than Kmart, before you have to get home to watch The People's Court with Judge Wapner at 4?
One of my favorite train memories is of being pulled by two GG1's on the Broadway Limited from Philadelphia to New York when I was a kid. It was on the NEC, so Amtrak-owned and maintained track, and we were at top speed almost all the way. I remember it being so smooth in the old Santa Fe Budd-built car I was riding in that at times you'd never know we were moving if you didn't look out the window - and out the windows, the world was just rushing by. I also remember seeing those black GG1's pulling us at that speed every time we'd round a corner. I'm glad I have that memory; it's always been one of my favorite locomotives.
It's not even just locomotives! Does anyone have any idea how many OTHER products the "lightbulb company" is famous - or even infamous - for OTHER than incandescent lighting?
I've seen the GG1 on display at the Museum of Transportation outside St. Louis. In addition to the decrepit condition of most survivors, I've heard their insulation is all asbestos, adding significant cost to the restoration process. I've talked with steam crews who went through the restoration process of locomotives, and the asbestos issue caused them to pass on a number of viable restoration candidates.
The main reason for the retirement of the last GG1s in NJ transit service was the switch from 25 cycle power to 60 cycle power on the north east corridor. To return a GG1 to service would require a complete replacement of all the AC side of electrical equipment on board. If the PCB filled transformer have been removed, your about 1/3 there.
Nice video! Glad to see this series back. I also heard that GG1s can't run again since the overhead wires on the NEC are too low for the GG1 since the late 1990s with upgrades on the route for the Acela.
No the main reason GG1s can't run again. Is because of the transformers in the have been removed due to contacting carsigenic PCBs and the main trucks have stress fractures.
There are a few reasons the G won't run again. Catenary height could certainly be one of them. After the Penn Central merger, the GG-1 began to operate on the former New Haven Railroad. It was quickly discovered that in the area around New Rochelle, NY some of the catenary was low enough to cause the pantograph on the GG-1 to collapse far enough to lock itself down. The wires on that stretch of track were then raised. Other than that, the main power transformers were removed when the locomotives were retired, due to PCB's being used as a cooling fluid, which was common practice for most oil cooled electrical equipment at that time. Number 4800- the prototype GG-1- has an air-cooled transformer, which I assume was not removed, so maybe it's still theoretically operable. But the biggest reason is that the current (no pun here...) electrification is 60Hz, and the voltage is now higher than when the GG-1 still ran. The PRR and New Haven RR originally used similar electrifications. It was 11Kv at 25Hz. The reason for the use of 25Hz was to reduce eddy current losses in large transformers. Some other early electrifications around the world also used low frequency AC. But today we have no issue with this, and Amtrak would of course much prefer to buy its power from the grid.
@@UnionCountyPhotography While that's not completely a reason the G was retired, running a heavy machine across a bridge at high speed is not the best thing to do, as we've learned. Want to go fast? Go light weight. Look at Europe. As heavy as it was, the GG1 at the same time the was MUCH easier on the track than the E-60, which was no flyweight itself. And being heavy does have the advantage of being able to apply over 8000 short term hp to the rail without excessive wheel slip problems. One other detail of modern locomotives that is not often discussed is that inverter driven motors don't usually have much power at low speeds. It would be a real reminder to watch a GG1 accelerate a modern train from a standing start. Amfleet cars, although heavy by European standards, are featherweights compared to the old fashioned coach and Pullman cars that those locomotives pulled every day. I know which one I'd bet on, up to about 90 mph.....
GG1s are loaded with dangerous PCB's. Dangerous just to be around them. I saw GG1s in service many years ago. With the best horn of all time,,,the Leslie A200.
The FF-1 aka Big Liz was a one-off. 3931 was built for freight. But, she was too powerful at the time. Regularly snapping couplers off cars and had enough force to possibly crush a cabin car on the rear.
I saw the GG ones in action on the Northeast corridor in New Brunswick New Jersey doing the seventies and early 80s they hold 100 car freight trains and 20 passenger cars they were some beautiful locomotives
Great video! It brought back memories of GG-1's on the NEC at the went behind my back yard. They always felt so powerful and relatively quiet as the raced by.
I think you said the 1 in GG! was 3 powered axles-2 unpowered= 1, no G is 4-6-0 or 2-C so 2-C+C-2 is GG. 1 is first of wheel arrangement. The possibility of extending the wires to Pittsburgh was studied and passenger over the Allegheny summit would have required the larger 625 hp/ armature motors foundin the O-1,P-5 and L-6 classes on a 2-C+C-2 wheel arrangement- the GG-2, drawn but never built. The NYC investigated going to A.C and running wires to Buffalo. Same wheel arrangement with a cab that looked like a double ended A-Erie Diesel sketched by Paul Kieffer. There were only the first 2 P-5's actually P=5's, one boxcab received powered trucks and was classed as a P-5b. The remaining boxcabs and all center cabs were P-5a's. Incidentally New Haven EF_3's were very similar mechanically and electrically to GG-1's, albeit with friction bearings. They probably had a lot of good years in them when they were retired.Penn Central and Amtrak ran GG-1's through to New Haven.
You’re really about the Pennsylvania Railroad’s way of classifying locomotives. Penn Central kept the Pennsylvania Railroad locomotive classification on the prior Pennsylvania Railroad Territory’s. E-8’s were classified as EP-22. The E meant EMD, the P meant Passenger and the 22 meant 2,200 Horse Power. When NJTRO formed. I went with this railroad as a locomotive engineer. At first when I would hear the Erie Lackawanna Engineers talking about E-8’s. I didn’t know what locomotive they were talking. Until I saw one and realized they were talking about EP-22’s that were used on the Pennsylvania and Penn Central Railroads. That are actually E-8’s.
Just a clarification here: PRR FF1, "Big Liz" was built from the outset as a freight-only locomotive. It was slow on purpose in order to generate ungodly levels of tractive effort. This it did splendidly, to the point of ripping out couplers and derailing trains in pusher service. She was intended for heavy drag freight over the Allegheny Mountains to Pittsburgh, but alas, electrification there was shelved. Big Liz was scrapped in 1940.
If 4935 is our only hope, we’re never seeing a GG1 run again. That museum has absolutely no interest in restoring anything to working order ever since the whole debacle with Strasburg and 1223
The footage at the start to 0:38 from "GG1: An American Classic" still gives me goosebumps. I grew up with it since my Dad, who loves trains, recoded it off TV back when it aired (before my time).
As a kid I heard the saying that these were ugly and you did not know if they were coming or going since both ends were the same. I vaguely recall seeing one on the tracks in Columbia PA as a kid in the 1970's a black one. I also might have road a train from Lancaster to Philadelphia pulled by one of these, and seen them from the windows of the Trenton N.J. station around 1979-1980. My dad really like the steam trains so that was a big deal for me until around 1976 when I got my first Lionel diesel train engine. Finally bought a MTH GG1 engine last year.
Go there, and you'll understand. If you land in Paris, for example, you can get on the TGV without leaving the airport. The TGV station is in the terminal. And even standard equipment passenger trains in Europe routinely travel at 100+ mph. And all cities have frequent, reliable rail service. So people use it!
@@petera7403 I live in Europe, the Netherlands to be exact, but never knew that in the US you don't have a train line underneath a airport, that explains already something, yes trains out here will travel on average 100 MPH what speed do they have in the states?
@Trucking with Wim Hello! And thanks for your curiosity. Before answering I will say that I've been in the Netherlands a few times and have taken both local and intercity trains, as well as the former City Night Line to Italy. In general, the average American would be rather amazed at the European system. I've been lucky over the past 30 years... So, in answer to your question: Amtrak, as a government agency that operates passenger trains, has to contract with various railroads around the country to have their trains operated over different routes. Typically these railroads are companies such as CSX, Norfolk Southern and Burlington Northern Santa Fe. They are primarily in the freight business- what you call "goods trains". Amtrak requires these lines to have tracks in condition to permit speeds of about 135Kph. In some areas, particularly in the western US, we sometimes do see higher speeds. The somewhat notable exception to the 135Kph speed is on our Northeast Corridor (NEC), between the cities of Boston and Washington, DC. This is our only major electrified intercity line. It is also an exception because Amtrak actually owns most of this route. The vast majority of our trains are pulled by Diesel locomotives. While the NEC was electrified decades before Amtrak's existence, Amtrak has over recent years made improvements to the line to permit higher (by US standards...) speeds. Today, there are a few spots where the Acela train is permitted to reach speeds of about 241 Kph. There are still places on the NEC that are real "bottlenecks" such as sharp radius turns and traffic congestion. While Amtrak deserves credit for introducing Acela service, they have also created a logistic problem for themselves by having one train that is faster than the others on a line with heavy traffic. None of these issues would exist if we were to build a true, dedicated high speed line- as has been done in Europe. But I really don't want to get into politics... In general, there is currently no significant railroad line construction in the USA. At one time, the US had more trackage than any other country. While we still have a lot, many lines have been abandoned and removed. Take a look at the Amtrak National System Map, and you will see there are entire states that have no rail service. And even in the states that do have Amtrak service, there are not many routes. There are many more freight lines than passenger. If you can find it in the Netherlands, there is an excellent book that explains the history of electric railroading in the US. It's called When the Steam Railroads Electrified, by William Middleton.
@@petera7403 That explains a lot, for me it's almost to bad that not even every major city in a state is connected, I've also heard something of a new company having high speed in Florida, what about them, could that possibly mean something in the future?, in the Netherlands we don't have our own high speed train because they failed and basically unbolted themselves at their last test phase, in 2025 we are supposed to have new high speed trains, I'm gonna see if I'm able to find that book, sounds pretty interesting.
Amtrak should have Taken the Time to Overhaul and Rebuild the Inherited Fleet they gained in 1971. That way, there would have been more preserved engines today.
Impressive & ground-breaking for its time. My all-time favourite is the DB type 103 E-Lok ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-txi8iPAOlRs.html , from the same factory which gave the world Tiger tanks
You talk like you're in a hurry to go somewhere. If we're watching train videos it means we have time to relax so there's no need for you to rush through these things.
I was a FOGG… Friends of the GG1! Gave some of my allowance money towards restoration of 4935 (Blackjack) saw her at Washington Union Station during inauguration and saw Raymond Loewy there. A GG1 can be restored. As long as the frame is in good shape and no cracks. The transformer and traction motors are really should not be a problem. All you would need to do is install an updated transformer and re-wind the motor and commutator. In Europe they have electric locomotives that are just as old if not older and running on excursion trains and in some revenue trains all the time I know this because I’ve been aboard them on excursion trains. Maybe contact Deutsche Bahn in Germany or SBB Historic to see if they can handle the job and ship a GG1..4935 over there for refurbishment. I know I’m over simplifying it but I know it could be done.
Did you know that number 4876 at the B&O museum in Baltimore was the GG1 that became a runaway, ram off the end of the platform and fell through the floor at Washington Union terminal just before Dwight D Eisenhower‘s inauguration en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Pennsylvania_Railroad_train_wreck
Always remember if the R32s were one of the best subway cars then every railway and railroad has its own version of the R32 What i mean is in terms of reliability, years of service, history, and your mother
The original DC locomotives were class DD-1; the failures were not "FF-1s" (as noted there was only one of those) but the execrable L5s. Serious electrification beyond MUs involved 'analogues' of contemporary PRR steam (made bidirectional): the O1 classes (to match the E6 Atlantics) the P5
