mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (01/16/86)
In article <1625@brl-tgr.ARPA> Chuck.Weinstock@a.sei.cmu.edu writes: >I thought that, in addition to the hazards of the chemicals in their >transformers, that the GG1's were retired because the power for the NE >Corridor was being changed over to 60 cycle to be supplied by local power >companies, and that the GG1's couldn't be modified to run on the new power. >Is this true? Has the power indeed been changed? This was originally the reason, but (as someone else pointed out) the change was never made. Both the E60's and the AEM7's are built to run on the new power, should the change ever be made. Looking at the numbers I have, it's clear why they remain out of service: (a) The PCB problem-- which I suspect could be remedied, but for (b) Their age and (c) They are too slow: on the corridor over-100 mph is a necessity to maintain schedules. (Ah, the day when 100 mph is too slow!) There are a number of GG1s in the Wilmington maint. yard, all in black. I suspect some still run, but with enough AEM7s, scrapping or sale seems not too far off. (Although AMTRAK is holding onto some ancient diesels too...) C. Wingate
tanner@ki4pv.UUCP (Tanner Andrews) (01/17/86)
] umcp-cs!mango writes that GG1's are too slow at 100MPH for ] corridor service This is true, for the local fast runs up the corridor. Also, some of the fast long-distance runs get pulled faster than 100 MPH up the corridor (last time I rode #20, I clocked it doing 110). However, many long-haul trains (those carrying amfleet-2 coaches rather than heritage) can't be pulled at 100MPH. Thus, our fine florida trains generally poke along around 80 or 90 even in the corridor. Worse: they require two AEM's to pull them due to the length of train. What we need is about 2 GG1 locos to pull our florida trains, and any other long trains that can't go full-speed. One GG1 will easily pull an 18-car florida train at top speed for that train. It's sure cheaper to use one existing and already-owned loco than to buy two new ones. -- <std dsclm, copies upon request> Tanner Andrews, KI4PV uucp: ...!decvax!ucf-cs!ki4pv!tanner
jis1@mtgzz.UUCP (j.mukerji) (01/20/86)
> This was originally the reason, but (as someone else pointed out) the change > was never made. Both the E60's and the AEM7's are built to run on the new > power, should the change ever be made. Looking at the numbers I have, it's > clear why they remain out of service: > > (a) The PCB problem-- which I suspect could be remedied, but for > > (b) Their age and > > (c) They are too slow: on the corridor over-100 mph is a necessity to > maintain schedules. (Ah, the day when 100 mph is too slow!) > Actually, the E60s are never scheduled to run over 85mph. They have a sad tendency to chew up the track and jump off them and higher speeds. That is why you will never see them on Metroliners or even on non-Metroliner NYC-Washington trains. Typically, you see them on the Florida trains and sometimes on the Clockers. I suspect that the real reason for retiring the GG-1s was that their cost of maintenance was becoming progressively exorbitent. But then I am told that the E60s have a similar problem. Jishnu Mukerji AT&T Information Systems Labs Middletown NJ mtgzz!jis1
2212msr@whuts.UUCP (ROBIN) (01/22/86)
> In article <1625@brl-tgr.ARPA> Chuck.Weinstock@a.sei.cmu.edu writes: > > >I thought that, in addition to the hazards of the chemicals in their > >transformers, that the GG1's were retired because the power for the NE > >Corridor was being changed over to 60 cycle to be supplied by local power > >companies, and that the GG1's couldn't be modified to run on the new power. > >Is this true? Has the power indeed been changed? > > This was originally the reason, but (as someone else pointed out) the change > was never made. Both the E60's and the AEM7's are built to run on the new > power, should the change ever be made. Looking at the numbers I have, it's > clear why they remain out of service: > > (a) The PCB problem-- which I suspect could be remedied, but for > > (b) Their age and > > (c) They are too slow: on the corridor over-100 mph is a necessity to > maintain schedules. (Ah, the day when 100 mph is too slow!) In a word - bull. the gg-1s were retired due to high maintenance cost and metal fatigue in the frames. look at any g and you will see numerous welds where the frame have crystalized, cracked and been repaired by welding. yes - orginally they were supposed to change the voltage to 25KV and the gg-1 was not changeable (?) due to fact that they used transformers and AC motors, rather than rectification and dc mortors. gg-1s maintained 100+ mph schedules for years and were capable of continueing to do so. most gg-1s had been regeared w/'90'mph gears in the early sixties - which limied them to ~107. thos w/100mph gears could maintian the 100+ schedules, pro probably up to 110-112 average. but they were getting to be very unreliable mechanically and having structural deterioration as well.
midkiff@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (01/25/86)
This may be a stupid question, but how do you tell how fast a train is going while riding on it? Sam Midkiff [ihnp4 | pur-ee}!uiucdcs!midkiff
jis1@mtgzz.UUCP (j.mukerji) (01/26/86)
> This may be a stupid question, but how do you tell how fast a train is > going while riding on it? > > Sam Midkiff You could look for the mileposts that are usually posted along the track. Once you have discovered what them you can time them as you pas them and then compute the speed from that. If you are riding the Jersey Arrows on NJTransit or the M1/M2 on LIRR you can walk up to the first car and take a peek at the speedometer on the motorman's console. It is really amazing how "not fast" 85mph feels on the well maintained tracks of the North East Corridor even when riding in a NJTransit commuter train! Jishnu Mukerji