Skip to main content

After a request to the Moderators, this topic has been graciously reopened.  With the Vision Line GG1 out, it would be wonderful to see videos, photos and comparisons of what is still in my mind, the finest locomotive ever built!
This original post dates from 2008 so the most current information cab be found at the end of the thread.  Thank you!

Good Afternoon (AZ Time).

I took some time to get some photos together to compare the various manufacturers of scale GG1s.

We start with all the motors in a row. From left to right we have a Lionel JLC, a Weaver, a Williams, and a Proto 2 MTH. These were chosen since they are all single stripe and Brunswick Green.

GG1-01


Now Looking at the individual locomotives in the same order you will note the following details of each:

GG1-02GG1-03GG1-04GG1-05


The Lionel JLC is a formidable model and is the only one commonly available one with the FARR intake filters high up on each end of the hoods. (Eliot - Sorry I didn't back to you sooner on this). Many consider it a aesthetic violation. It was done by the PRR in a program from the late 50's through the 60's on several GG1s to prevent fine particles of snow from being sucked off the track in through the filters and shorting out the motors. It happened twice in PRR history and it crippled passenger train operations.

GG1-09


The Weaver model is brass construction with cast wheels and a plate frame. It was the first mass produced scale GG1 yet it is still a very fine model. The brass allows for a level of detail that suited the GG1. The only problem is the gold stripe with the gold on the keystone. The Lionel version is correct. This, while very attractive is not representative of the prototype. Having said that, the prototypes were not washed often per PRR standard practice so the color would suit it better if it were weathered.

GG1-08

The Williams scale model is one of the best values for a new GG1 and can negotiate an 0-42 curve in a pinch. This model shares the same style of paint and keystone as the Weaver version. It is a plastic body and does lack a few of the details found in the Weaver, but it is close. The frame and wheels appear to be from the same manufacturer or molds and they are interchangeable. The particular issue with this model is that this is a road number never produced. The highest numbered GG1 was 4938 during its Pennsy years. A good smooth runner and easy to find, so these are always nice additions to the roster.

GG1-07

The MTH Proto-2 model with the operable pantographs is an excellent model. Again its underframe parts are interchangeable with Weaver / Williams. The MTH model however has stepped it up on detail. The pantograph is accurate for this road number with the single contactor on the top versus the double contactor of most. It has a see through linen filter screen which is also a nice feature. While this is not the PRR version, this number is one of many that got to keep its stripes and was simply stenciled over with PC and later CR letters.

GG1-06

Now a comparision of the fronts of a few of these models:

GG1-10

Granted the GG1 to the left is not one of the sample group, but it is representative of the level of detail found on both the Weaver and Williams models. The Tuscan GG1 is the original MTH Proto-1 release. You can clearly see the level of difference in the detailing of the front. The MTH lacks clarity in the depth of the detail and the pilot is not nearly as detailed. The Lionel version is crisp. To be fair, these two are 9 years apart on production.

The 4925 JLC version has a wealth of great detail on the front and the MTH freight version below it is also sporting added detail.

GG1-17

This photo shows how the JLC version is a bit closer to scale than all the others. It is actually about 5/8"-3/4" longer. The two GG1s were lined up with the back aligned. The wide angle photograph distorts the view somewhat, but it is certainly noticeable when placed side by side. When pulling trains or lined up, I honestly don't find it to be that obvious.

GG1-11

And finally, see the level of detail at the bottom of the JLC version, which is unique among these models. From the open spokes, the detail on the builders plate, this is truly a well detailed model. If anything, my only complaint on detail is that the plates were starting to show their seams on the prototype by the time this motor received its filter modifications. How neat would that have been to work into the molding!

GG1-15

Overall, I find things that are attractive in all these models. The JLC is the finest example in terms of detail, but the non functional and rigid pantographs are truly a hassle. I am probably going to modify them down the road and use manual ones or see if I can get the MTH ones to work. The Weaver, while being the oldest, are very crisp and nice models. When priced right, I wouldn't hesitate to pick up more. MTH continues to refine the GG1 and has offered the most variations and road numbers, but I would like to see the sound set upgraded a bit or simply a version without sound at a cheaper price. Finally the Williams are the old standby. When all else fails, these will run, run, and run. Perfect for train shows where you need to run for long stretches of time.

I apologize for the length of this and I hope there is something useful for you in here!

Attachments

Images (13)
  • GG1-01
  • GG1-02
  • GG1-03
  • GG1-04
  • GG1-05
  • GG1-09
  • GG1-08
  • GG1-07
  • GG1-06
  • GG1-10
  • GG1-17
  • GG1-11
  • GG1-15
Last edited by GG1 4877
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I had the JLC 4925 and had more than a little trouble with it. For one
thing it didn't like 072 curves and was reluctant to run properly on them.
I traded the piece off to a dealer who has had no apparent problems with
it in this regard, and I'm glad for him. There's no doubt that this
is the best overall looking "G" out there. Too bad mine was such a pain
in the backside.
quote:
Originally posted by jaygee:
I had the JLC 4925 and had more than a little trouble with it. For one
thing it didn't like 072 curves and was reluctant to run properly on them.
I traded the piece off to a dealer who has had no apparent problems with
it in this regard, and I'm glad for him. There's no doubt that this
is the best overall looking "G" out there. Too bad mine was such a pain
in the backside.


Mine had a the front pantograph fail after only four hours of running time. I've had no problem with it on 072 so far, but it certainly did not run the 063 of my old layout very well at all.

I would agree that these are touchy to say the least and when I get the wire up someday, I will have problems running this one. Price is the main reason I only have the one.

Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with it.
Jonathan,
You did a masterful job with your photos and descriptions.
Truly one of the best photo comparisons I have seen on the Forum.
Very detailed and enlightening.
You have taught me quite a bit about the GG1 models and differences.
I also have to admit that I have the same green single stripe you used in your comparisons and I never realized that it had the FARR filters. I really missed that one. Wow.
Thanks again.
eliot
quote:
The scale versions are about 19" long with the JLC about 19-3/4". The prototype was just shy of 80' at 79'-6" (whoever came up with that is beyond me).

quote:
Nice review. I'm a little disturbed that MTH, Weaver and Williams all lied about the fact that their versions were scale.

How were these lengths measured on the models?

We need to be careful when comparing 3-rail models to prototype length measurements. The 79'6" length of the prototype is over the coupler faces. Since our couplers are so huge, we should not use this measurement. The prototype was 76' 8 and 3/16" long over the car body (excluding the couplers) and this is the measurement that we should compare to the model. In 1/48, a "scale" GG1 should be 19 and 3/16" long over the car body.

Jonathan, if you thought 79'6" was wierd, how about 76 feet 8 and 3/16 inches?

Bob Bartizek
Hi Jonathan! Thanks for your great educational thread filled with lots of great photos! Below are three photos and an excerpt from the book "By Streamliner-New York to Florida" about the FARR filters on the GG1's. The GG1's had to be replaced with motive power from the Southern railroads that took trains all the way into New York during the Storm!









Tom
quote:
Originally posted by Bob:
The 79'6" length of the prototype is over the coupler faces. Since our couplers are so huge, we should not use this measurement. The prototype was 76' 8 and 3/16" long over the car body (excluding the couplers) and this is the measurement that we should compare to the model. In 1/48, a "scale" GG1 should be 19 and 3/16" long over the car body.

Jonathan, if you thought 79'6" was wierd, how about 76 feet 8 and 3/16 inches?

Bob Bartizek


Bob,

You made me do a double check of my measurement and I came up with this:

JLC: 19-1/8" carbody length. Only off 3 inches from prototype. Pretty good for 3RS 0
Others: 18-21/32 carbody length. Off about 2'1-1/2" from prototype.

You've got me wondering how much off my other locos are now! Smile I've decided a while back I could live with the 1/2" +/-.
quote:
Originally posted by SPMan:
The only problem I've had with mine is that the horn quit working and nothing I do will get it to work again. Have you had any experience replacing horns in these? I need a step by step explanation on how to install one. Thanks, Ray


Ray,

You can order replacement the replacement horn and bell for something like $30.00 from Williams. It is the standard Tru-blast II sound, but I think it is simply a plug in module.
What is surprising is looking at the photos, all look the same at first glance then you start noticing the smaller details. In other words, each manufacturer took the time to measure, scale, and detail the their model as close as possible to the prototype, rather than play "loosey goosey" with dimensions or detail placements or to get internal mechanisms/boards to fit.

Hats off to Jonathan for detailed report and the manufacturers for their models. I don't recall any other model similarly made by all the train manufacturers so that each one could be lined up for comparison against the other.

Sam
Sandpatch Tom, thanks for the photos of the RF&P and ACL diesels under wire over the Pennsy during the storm. I don't have any Pennsylvania cars to go with my Williams scale GG1 but I can justify pulling my ACL and Seaboard cars with my GG1 like they did from Washington D.C. to N.Y. in the good ole days'

Johnathan, thanks for the advice on the plug in horn board for my Williams GG1. I'll check that out. Ray
quote:
JLC: 19-1/8" carbody length. Only off 3 inches from prototype. Pretty good for 3RS 0
Others: 18-21/32 carbody length. Off about 2'1-1/2" from prototype.



So maybe MTH, Weaver and Williams can post how they make an engine 15/32" short and call it scale. That's quite a bit short of scale. How can we trust these people in the future? Now that these facts are out when will the sell off begin?
quote:
Originally posted by SAIL LOCO:
quote:
JLC: 19-1/8" carbody length. Only off 3 inches from prototype. Pretty good for 3RS 0
Others: 18-21/32 carbody length. Off about 2'1-1/2" from prototype.



So maybe MTH, Weaver and Williams can post how they make an engine 15/32" short and call it scale. That's quite a bit short of scale. How can we trust these people in the future? Now that these facts are out when will the sell off begin?


Mike,

One can only hope soon! Big Grin I would love to add another 100 or so to my collection someday.
Do we know who was the guy at the Pennsy who designed the "modified" PRR P5a carbody? Originally the P5a's were boxcabs. Then a fatal crew accident occurred in 1934 and the basis of the now famously unique high-nosed-sloping-from-the-windows-shape sprang from the desire for crew protection.
In August 1934 the first GG1 (with a carbody based on the "modified" P5a) that became #4800 "Old Rivets" was delivered for testing.
Any idea who did it? The answer is NOT Raymond Loewy. He did his work based on #4800 (which took it's cue from the P5a) after it was built. Loewy's magic occurred by stipulating a welded body, removing the nose steps, using sans-serif lettering and those fabulous 5-stripes of gold.
Bu that unique GG1 shape; who done it?
I would guess that the designer of the P5a (modified) would have been J.V.B. Duer since he was the lead engineer of the electification program for the PRR.

Seeing that the Pennsy was run by the engineers in its best years, that would be my first thought.

My second thought would be George Gibbs, who consulted heavily with the PRR during this period and was the one who suggested that PRR borrow a NH EP-3, which was the motor the GG1 was based on.

That is a great question. Thanks for posing it!
Thank you for reminding me of George Gibbs!

I had distant cousins that were father and son and were both were consulting engineers for Gibbs & Hill, the company that was the electrical engineering firm for the great Pennsy electrification. Unfortunately, they are no longer with us and I was too young to ask intelligent questions.

Oh well!
First off as Fish and a few others said here is my thanks for time well spent on posting this. Billville does not have cat power yet but I had a great time riding in GG-1's while working vacation relief position on the New Havens electric side for ten years. It was a shame what PC did in the end to such glorious engines with a splash of black paint and a few white letters.

For some that would wonder as part of my job I would attach clamp-on amp probes with peak holding features on the leading impedance pot connections so we could see how the track circuit and pots were behaving under load on the power side. Drawing over 2000 Amps at 11,000 volts could cause "lightning like" damage to the Signal System. This would occur if a "pot" got out of balance in terms of currant flow. A mismatch of ten percent from one rail to the other would "swamp" the special track circuits with 25 cycle power seeking "ground" and cause the signals to dump in the engineers face [at best] or burn up instruments at worst. It was common to see readings climb to 480 amps on each of the 2 pot leads being tested. As the engine was approaching while getting up to speed they drew the most power. GG-1's were powerful and very graceful in motion...
Thanks Jonathon, excellent read and very thorough review. The only G that I have is a Lionel 2360 from 1958, but the G's have always been my favorite engine.

I can still remember my father coming in from a conference in Washington back in the eary 70's. I remember the ominous-looking G leaning inwards above me while standing on the platform at the Metuchen, NJ train station.
JD-Train said,
quote:
How long are the scale GG1's? Could I run them with a string of 15" aluminum cars or would they just look silly?


Hi Jim! I shot a few photos for you with 15" K-Line Congressional streamlined cars with a scale MTH GG1. I think they look ok together, especially when your only other option is to run a traditional GG1 with them. The traditional GG1 is very nostalgic but comes across very toy like! I think the market is ripe for a longer 0-31 GG1 that has a better semi-scale appearance to it. I am like you, before going all scale I use to run scale MTH GG1's with my 15" cars, this definitely makes the better looking train out of the two options available!


The K-Line 15" streamliner cars look best with a scale GG1 out of the 15" cars available as they are scale in height and width and are only short in length.






Traditional GG1's are just toooooo toy like in appearence!


Traditional GG1's look short even with 15" cars!


Tom
Tom,

Thanks for the pictures!!!

I had been accumulating stuff for about 4 years until I got my layout up and running last Summer. Smile

I had the K-Line KCC semi-scale GG1 that I was very keen to run. When I took it out of the box, and put it on the track to actually run it, it just looked so stubby. It didn't have the graceful lines of the real thing! So, off to eBay it went.

With your pictures and Jonathan's, I think that I will get the Williams scale GG1, as it fits both my layout and my budget! I'll go ahead and run them with the 15" K-Line cars I have now, and maybe later buy a set of larger cars (I'll keep the 15" cars to run behind my scale K4).

Good Thread

Jim
quote:
Originally posted by jd-train:
Could I run them with a string of 15" aluminum cars or would they just look silly?

Jim

To my eyes that would look very silly. I find the appearance of a GG1 pulling less than 20-inch cars very unrealist and it is not pleasing to my eyes.

Based on Sand Patch Tom's pictures, the scale GG1 looks like it's pulling a string of Air Stream RV trailers. I used to run a scale GG1 pulling 11 Williams 18-inch passenger cars. That looked like a GG1 pulling highway busses down the track.

That practice is not for me. But to each his own.
quote:
What is surprising is looking at the photos, all look the same at first glance then you start noticing the smaller details.

The thing that I notice is that there is quite a bit of difference in the body contours near the ends. Which one do you think is closest to being correct?
quote:
Originally posted by Big Jim:
quote:
What is surprising is looking at the photos, all look the same at first glance then you start noticing the smaller details.

The thing that I notice is that there is quite a bit of difference in the body contours near the ends. Which one do you think is closest to being correct?


Interesting question. Here are some photos of the prototype the road numbers are based off of. What do you think?

GG1 4925
GG1 4925 PC Version

GG1 4840 Conrail Version
quote:
Originally posted by ChessieMan:
Johnathan, which is your favorite O scale model? Do you know where I can find a Lionel green single stripe model at a good price?


ChessieMan - I'm almost embarrassed to say that I won mine on Ebay for less than $500.00. That is the place to find them now as Lionel only cataloged them from one year as far as I know.

A fair price for one would seem to be in the $500-$600 range and they do appear on Ebay from time to time. I have not seen any in this scheme recently.

I have to say that my favorites are the Lionel and the Weaver for looks. The Weaver horn though has to be the worst horn EVER in model railroad history. If I could afford a Kohs though, that would be my outright favorite.

In terms of running for club activity or extended time, you cannot beat a Williams though. Since my original post, I've added two more to the fleet, a Williams 5 stripe with sound and a Conrail MTH proto-1. The Williams with sound works surprisingly well for it's age.

PRRfan - if you can widen the clearance, the Williams will negotiate an 0-42 curve most of the time. Since the swing points are centered on the drive wheels, it does have a knack for swinging through some interesting curves.
quote:
Originally posted by GG-1 4877:
quote:
Originally posted by Big Jim:
quote:
What is surprising is looking at the photos, all look the same at first glance then you start noticing the smaller details.

The thing that I notice is that there is quite a bit of difference in the body contours near the ends. Which one do you think is closest to being correct?


Interesting question. Here are some photos of the prototype the road numbers are based off of. What do you think?

GG1 4925
GG1 4925 PC Version
GG1 4840 Conrail Version

I think Lionel came the closest to capturing the correct contour, with Weaver second. Regardless of fidelity to prototype, Williams is the best value by far.

I've got to get a Lionel model for myself. However, I am not buying that ugly silver version.
A few more scale color schemes for anyone interested!


GG1 4935: Originally nothing special about this one other than it being one of the last to be built (4938 the last one). However, in 1977 some serious railfans and Amtrak got together to restore this road number to it's original paint scheme. Amtrak did the mechanical work and helped with the paint job. It ran in regular service after a re-christening by none other than Raymond Loewy himself. In ran regularly until 1981 and was occasionally seen in NJDOT service on the NY&LB north of South Amboy. This is a great model for those who want to run a GG1 in PRR colors behind an Amtrak train. When pulling HEP equipped cars, there was a converted baggage behind the motor that provied the head end power. It was also teamed with NJT 4877 on the farewell to steam heat run on the NEC in 1982.


GG1 4866: This was one of three painted to go with the new Budd Congressional sets which arrived in 1952. The other road numbers were 4872 and 4880. Sadly, none of these road numbers were preserved and 4872 was only scrapped within the last 5 years. This scheme did not last long as the rust tended to streak on the silver paint. We all know how much the PRR valued maintenance and all at that point!


Only two GG1s received this paint scheme and 4911 was not one of them! Shame on you Weaver! 4907 and 4916 were painted for a while in the single stripe tuscan scheme. As a side note, when Russian Premier Kruschev visited President Eisenhower, he was apparently very upset that the two GG1s that pulled their special train were not these two! He was hoping for the 'red' ones. True story!


GG1 4800: While this is not an accurate version of "Rivets", 4800 was the only GG1 to receive Conrail blue colors. This MTH version comes close to representing the feel of the original though. As you might recall, the 4800 was painted in 1976 to Bicentennial colors and you either loved or hated the scheme. At the end of 1976, it received the blue 'dip job' that so many locomotives hastilly received. GG1s were mostly taken out of service by 1977, so it did not run long in this scheme. All other CR GG1s were painted PC black with small CR stenciling on the carbody or retained Brunswick screen with a single stripe with the CR stencil. Sadly, outside of 4800 and 4856 (Harrisburg) none of the Conrail units (mainly the early production ones) have been preserved as these were delivered with cast pilots in lieu of the drop coupler pilots of later models.

I was at the PRR railroad museum a few weeks back. As soon as I edit some photos, I'll print current pictures of the 4935 and the 4800. Currently 4800 has been repainted in solid brunswick, but I hear it is getting prepared for some additional restoration work.

Had to correct the last number for the Silver one - sorry for any mis-information!
Last edited by GG1 4877
quote:
Originally posted by BillP:
Jonathan,

What about the web stripe paint scheme?


Bill I don't have a version of that one yet! If I get it, it will likely be a Williams. I've already pre-ordered two 4800's from 3rd Rail and can't justify another ....... wait, maybe I can find a way to work that out?

Does anyone know if the 3rd Rail version will have the roof top conduit and the dome number boards top and center on the ends?

Scott?
quote:
Originally posted by AlanH:
 
Here's a version of a Penn Central GG1 that I don't recall being made by any of the model train manufacturers:

                      

Look closely at the "PC" logo.
 


Alan,

Actually that was a fairly common 'early PC' scheme for a number of GG1s circa 1968 and 1969. The all white won out I'm sure because of cost. You're right I haven't see an O version of that yet! PC had a few interesting variations including the blue "American Railroads" paint scheme of 1969 on 4902.

Also, I have not seen many of the Amtrak schemes done. White Helvetica on the single stripe brunswick motors, the savings bond G, a Lionel JLC red, white and silver with the Farr filters or the black PC colors with Amtrak written out on the sides.
Jonathan,
The plan is for the Sunset 4899 and 4800 engines to have the detailing peculiar to both road numbers.

Regarding another earlier post you made on this topic about the silver with red stripe engines, were they not intended for the Seaboard's trains such as the Silver Meteor and Silver Star, hence only 3 engines painted that way? I used to see these silver GG1's pulling the SAL trains through Baltimore frequently.

The 5 stripe tuscan locomotives were painted that way for the Congressional and Senator in 1952 and necessitated at least 4 engines painted thusly. I have seen conflicting reports as to how many were originally painted tuscan 5 stripe in 1952 but it was at least 4.

Your thoughts?
quote:
Originally posted by rheil:
Jonathan,
The plan is for the Sunset 4899 and 4800 engines to have the detailing peculiar to both road numbers.

Regarding another earlier post you made on this topic about the silver with red stripe engines, were they not intended for the Seaboard's trains such as the Silver Meteor and Silver Star, hence only 3 engines painted that way? I used to see these silver GG1's pulling the SAL trains through Baltimore frequently.

The 5 stripe tuscan locomotives were painted that way for the Congressional and Senator in 1952 and necessitated at least 4 engines painted thusly. I have seen conflicting reports as to how many were originally painted tuscan 5 stripe in 1952 but it was at least 4.

Your thoughts?


As I understand it, the silver ones were painted for Congressional service orginally, but as Pennsy practice was to run any passenger geared motor with any train, it would completely make sense that the through Seaboard trains would draw a silver one on occassion as they never ran to Harrisburg or Enola during their silver years.

As to the 5 stripe tuscan red motors, I know of at least 10 that ended up in that scheme and they were the original power for the 1952 Budd sets. In 1952 4908-4913 were painted that scheme and in 1953 4876, 4856, 4857 and 4929 got the tuscan scheme as well.

4877 doesn't really count as it was brunswick during its entire PRR career and only painted Tuscan by NJ Transit in 1982. I understand that at the conclusion of its current restoration effort it will again wear brunswick green.

As to finally seeing a correct set of Congo cars with sqaure end observations and all would be living in PRR heaven .... Hint, hint .... Wink

Of course you would have to make the 4999 accurate. I guess I should have suspected nothing less. How much time do I have before payment is due on those, I may have to rethink my position and add one more to my pre-order ... Confused
quote:
Originally posted by BillP:
Jonathan,

Do you add command to the Williams versions?

I have upgraded 4 of them to command and like the results.


Bill,

I surprise even myself when I admit that I'm still a 'conventional' person! I have so many conventional locos that I can't justify the cost of upgrading them all at this point. I am still holding out for a 'universal' standard, so I may have the hands on the throttle for quite a long time. Since all these models share similar components, I would see how command would be a pretty easy fit into the carbody. Do you add sound too and if so, who do you recommend?
quote:
Originally posted by GG-1 4877:
Good Afternoon (AZ Time).

I took some time to get some photos together to compare the various manufacturers of scale GG1s....
...
I apologize for the length of this and I hope there is something useful for you in here!

Jonathan,You should not have apologized for the length of your generous review. In fact, I hope Rich and/or Allan see this and consider presenting an expanded version of it in OGR. That way, more hobbysts than we can be so informed and able to preserve this valuable insight. Thank you very much.
Frank
quote:
Originally posted by AlanH:
quote:
Originally posted by scale rail:

Jonathan, this mean you like GG-1's?

Just a guess.

Don

No, he doesn't.     He likes GG1's!   (no hypen between the "G" and "1").   Big Grin
 


Alan,

You astutely pointed out something that I didn't know until I got on this forum and after I registered my screen name! Of course I have corrected this situation now ... sorry for the reposted image!



Don, my wife nearly accused me of having an affair with 4935 when I was at the PRR musuem in Strasburg at the end of June. She thinks it's more of an obsession.
quote:
Originally posted by GG-1 4877:

Alan,

You astutely pointed out something that I didn't know until I got on this forum and after I registered my screen name!     Of course I have corrected this situation now ... sorry for the reposted image!


Hey, welcome to the club.     I'd been corrected more than once...     until it finally sunk in!!  

Ya just gotta like those   GG-1's             ... oops     I mean GG1's !!!   Big Grin
 
                                       
 
quote:
Originally posted by scale rail:
Jonathan, your plate has the last four numbers to my wife's cell phone. What gives? Anyway, why not call it a GG-One? Don



Oops

Believe it or not I saw another AZ plate last week with PRR GG1. It even had five stripes across the tailgate and a PRR logo in the center.

As to the cell phone number? I've never been San Rafeal ... I swear! Eek

I did just pick up my architectural license in California this spring though .. Roll Eyes
To complement this great thread, I thought I would post links to photographs of two very historic GG1's taken by me. The 4879, shown crossing the Raritan River Bridge into Perth Amboy on 8/23/82, was assigned to Train 3323 on 10/29/83, the last revenue trip powered by a G. Having been an NJCL commuter at the time with 3323 being my regular evening train, yours truly had the great privilege to be one of the 4879's last passengers. Note the PRR P70 coach bringing up the markers in the photograph.

www.rr-fallenflags.org/njdot/njt4879crc.jpg

The 4882, pictured eastbound at South Amboy on 5/9/81, was the last G to operate under its own power when it towed two other G's back to the shop following completion of NJ Transit's Matawan headquartered retirement bash for the locomotives on 10/29/83. The class was officially stricken from NJT's roster the following Monday.

www.rr-fallenflags.org/njdot/njt4882crc.jpg

Enjoy,

Bob
Hi, Jonathan.

The 1734 is presently in the URHS collection. Unfortunately, it, along with the famous 4879, is included on the URHS' list of pieces being offered to other organizations. The 4879 is in particularly bad condition and quite possibly beyond restoration at this point.

Your idea regarding a GG1 book is a good idea. Perhaps we can sell the idea to OGR management. Heaven knows we can come up with enough narrative and photographic material to fill a moderately priced softcover volume. I suspect such a book would prove to be quite popular within the three rail community.

Regards,

Bob
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Rubin:
Joathan, waiting for the answer to your trivia question. I thought I knew most of the GG1 trivia answers but the Faively pantograph question is a great one. I would assume it was tested on the run to New Haven but honestly I don't have a clue. Great Post. Jerry


Jerry,

The answer is GG1 4899. It happened during the later PRR years (post 56 at least as it is shown in my photograph pulling the Keystone cars through North Philadelphia. I dug it out of Don Ball's "The Pennsylvania Railroad, 1940s & 1950's" which is all color and a wonderful resource for that era.

Interestly enough, it was only the rear pantograph that was substituted. I think it must have been replaced to the original type at some point as there are not a lot of photos of it with this configuration. Interesting variation for someone who has the interest in modeling it!

I am surprised we have not seen a scale Keystone set from MTH considering how much Pennsy they produce. Hmmm...another thread for another day.
Jonathan,

I used ElectricRR Cruise Commander Combos which give you cruise control and sound. Although the sound is a bit sparse when compared to the JLC GG1 sounds. Just Bell, Horn and while running a random compressor going off. I guess they figure the hum of your can motor is the running sounds.

For a little extra you can add two electro-couplers and complete the package.

After install you wind up with directional lighting as well.

For me the most difficult part of the install was drilling two holes in the bottom of the metal frame for putting in the run/prog switch. The main board just attached where the GG1 e-unit was.
Jonathan, I have all of Don's books, I'll dig mine out and take a look. Thought you might be interested in this article since I get this question all the time from folks who ride the non electric lines to Newark Penn Station and then change to Corridor trains to go into NYP. The third rail only works on two tracks for Amtrak in NYP to allow them to run trains up the west side of the city to Montreal. No third rail in the tunnels west. Regards, Jerry

July 6, 2008
Bombardier lands NJ Transit dual-power locomotive contract
After a long development process, New Jersey Transit is expected to award a $325.42 million contract ($309.92 million plus 5% for contingencies) to Bombardier Transportation for 26 dual-power (diesel/a.c. catenary, also known as "electric-diesel") locomotives at its July 9 board meeting. The contract includes spare parts and is "subject to the availability of funds," according to NJT's board agenda.

The new-technology locomotives fall under NJT's $1.29 billion Fiscal Year 2009 capital program. They will replace the oldest units in the agency's fleet, some of which are 40 years old. The procurement is part of NJT's ongoing rolling stock modernization program, which also includes 326 Bombardier MultiLevel commuter railcars, 27 Bombardier ALP-46 electric locomotives, 110 electric multiple-units, and 1,365 new buses.

"The purchase of dual-powered locomotives is a cost-effective solution for operating in both electrified and non-electrified territory," NJT's board agenda item states. "Dual-powered locomotives will provide the flexibility to operate throughout the entire system as needed" and "will also allow NJT to develop operational experience with dual-power capability in anticipation of the Access to the Region's Core project (Trans-Hudson Express Tunnel), which is designed to provide one-seat, direct rail service to New York City."

Traditional dual-mode (diesel/third-rail-electric) propulsion has been around for quite some time in North America, but dual-power rolling stock that combines a.c. catenary with diesel propulsion has, until now, never been seriously attempted here. For at least the past two years, NJT and Montreal's AMT (Agence Metropolitaine de Transport) have been collaborating on workable, cost-effective dual-power equipment to provide passengers with one-seat rides between electrified and non-electrified territory. NJT already operates services where a transfer is required; AMT plans to construct new lines that feed into an existing electrified line.

STV, Inc. provided engineering assistance to NJT and AMT on the dual-power locomotives. These locomotives, which will cost about $12 million each, are designed to satisfy several of NJT's operating constraints. Among these are Amtrak's Northeast Corridor tunnel clearances (the locked-down-pantograph height in the Hudson River tunnels is 14 feet 7 inches), carbody space (no more than 75 feet long), noise levels, EPA emissions compliance (Tier II, with Tier III coming up in 2010), performance, and"”most problematic"”weight. Amtrak's maximum locomotive weight on the Northeast Corridor is 288,000 pounds gross rail load for speeds above 79 mph.

The challenge has been to fit a diesel power plant and electrical transformer into one carbody within those parameters. How do you distribute weight on four axles (NJT's preference), provide good adhesion on grades, and not be off the charts on curving forces? One way is to reduce unsprung mass by suspending the traction motors on the trucks, not the axles (this is done with the Alstom Transport PL42AC diesel and Bombardier ALP46 electric). As for the diesel engine, a traditional 16- or 12-cylinder low-speed (900 rpm) diesel is too heavy. A high-speed (1,800 rpm) diesel is much lighter yet just as powerful, but its components will have a much higher wear rate. The solution is utilizing not one but two engine/generator sets, with computerized engine management that equalizes engine service hours.

AMT expects to order as many as 20 dual-power locomotives in its five-year capital plan. This agency has the same operating constraints as NJT, namely, the three-mile-long tunnel on the 25Kv-electrified Deux Montagnes Line, which serves Montreal's Central Station. AMT plans to connect the non-electrified Blainville Line to the Deux Montagnes Line just outside the tunnel, and construct the new, non-electrified Repentigny-Mascouche Line, which will feed into the Deux Montages at Mont-Royal.
The development of a dual mode locomotive is welcomed news for riders of the North Jersey Coast Line. Such motive power will make a single seat ride between Bay Head and New York Penn Station a reality.

Original third rail installed by PRR as part of its Manhattan Transfer electrification project remained in the North River Tunnels after conversion to catenary operation. The third rail was used to supply power to MOW trains. It turned out these trains were the last bastion for two traction classics. They were the initially the responsibility of the remaining DD1's. Upon retirement of the last DD1, a former NYC T-motor was transferred to NYP for this operation. During the 70's, you could often spot the T-motor and its train sitting on a siding just west of NYP.

Bob

Add Reply

Post

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×