Amtrak GG1 Fleet

rohr turbo wrote:IMO, the Metroliner represented the 'flagship service' in the East, not GG1-hauled coaches which were a bit of an embarrassment. I'll bet the GG1s were considered pedestrian workhorses (nearing end of their useful lives) like we think of AEM7s today.

In the early 70s, if Amtrak wanted a shiny beautiful train to symbolize a new generation of passenger train service, they had the UA Turbos.

I love GG1s, but I think they look ridiculous in Platinum Mist and a red clown nose. This handsome Loewy-designed locomotive actually looks better in PC black. again, just my opinion.

RT: The GG1s were hardly a "embarrassment" to Amtrak - it was what they inherited from the PRR/PC in the 70s and yes-they were getting old (1934-1943)
and heading toward the end of their useful lives...They got a reprieve of sorts with the problems of the E60CP motors and would not be fully replaced until
the AEM7 fleet was proven - 1981 would be that year...The coaches that Amtrak bought and inherited would change drastically after the Amfleet cars began
service beginning in 1975 - initially in the NEC...

I never minded the Amtrak color scheme used on the G's...What could have been used is a variation of the PRR color scheme that a few GG1s had which was
silver with a large PRR side keystone - to me anything was better then PC's "funeral black"...

Yes-the Metroliner MU's were a symbol to NYP-WAS NEC railroading during the 70s and the UA Turbo Trains could have been the other "future" high speed
train but they never worked out for Amtrak after their early years testing and cross country tour...They worked out OK for a time for CN and VIA but when
Amtrak was going to purchase one of VIA's trainsets it got badly damaged in a wreck and then written off...I remember reading that the UA Turbotrains only
were designed to have a maximum 15 year lifespan - short for rail cars - and were not good on fuel...

I feel that the GG1s were at least maintained somewhat well - the PC intercity passenger era only lasted 3 years and units in Amtrak service received funding
through Amtrak and the USDOT to keep them running during the PC/Amtrak years before Amtrak took title to the GG1s directly in 1976...

There were at least two more reasons that Amtrak would phase out the GG1s that I remember that were not previously mentioned - not being compatible for
HEP was one - for GG1s to be used with Amfleet a 690s series power car was needed - and the other not easily being able to be converted to 25 KV AC in which
Amtrak looked to reequip the NEC with at one point...

NJRN: That is true - #4800 is the only GG1 to wear Conrail blue and the short-lived Bicentennial paint scheme...

MACTRAXX

MACTRAXX wrote: RT: The GG1s were hardly a "embarrassment" to Amtrak - it was what they inherited from the PRR/PC in the 70s and yes-they were getting old (1934-1943)
and heading toward the end of their useful lives...

Hi Mactraxx,

I should clarify that I didn't mean the GG-1 was the 'embarrassment,' rather the coaches they pulled were of embarrassing poor service quality in the early 70s. Those trains were hardly the 'flagship' of the fleet as I thought the OP was saying. Admittedly I was not considering the LD trains that covered a few miles on the NEC as was pointed out.

If Amtrak had budget to freshly paint some Eastern trainsets for marketing and brand image purposes, I would think they'd choose something more forward-looking like the Metroliners and the Turbos. And yes I know the Turbos had big problems and a short life, but boy they looked futuristic.

I was 9 years old in summer of 1971 when my family took a trip from NJ to DC and the trains were pretty dreadful: couldn't see out windows, ratty seats, and poor AC. So I am basing my opinion on this. Maybe I'm wrong to generalize.

green_elite_cab wrote:While frame cracks were the main deciding factor, the PCBs in the GG1's transformers were a significant problem that likely contributed to their retirement. At the time, the EPA was getting serious about PCBs.

This is one of those enduring railfan myths. First off, let me guarantee that everyone reading this is within 10 miles of a polychlorinated biphenyl additive transformer. Second, the E60s were delivered by GE with PCB additives in their transformers. What are the EPA rules for PCBs? If you drain it from the transformer, such as for an inspection, you could not put it back in. The transformer had to be flushed and the old coolant disposed of by procedure. Back in those days we still had oil burning power plants and we were allowed to slip stream so much per day with the rest of the fuel per the EPA. Even upon retirement of the Gs the owners were still be responsible for disposal of the PCBs. The cracks in the truck frames and overall age of the motor, especially the transformer, ultimately lead to the Gs retirement.

The Penn Central renumbering mentioned in an earlier post was in June 1973:

PC 4930 to 4934 ex 4904 4905 4909 4915 1947

PC 4936 to 4939 ex 4921 4922 4923 4927

At that point PC was still operating 4935 which kept its original number

Amtrak GG1:

900 PC 4892
901 PC 4897
902:1 PC 4902 to 905
902:2 PC 4899
903 PC 4900
904 PC 4901
905 902:1
906 PC 4903
907 PC 4906 -
908:1 PC 4908 to 909
908:2 PC 4907
909 908:1
910 PC 4910
911 PC 4911
912 PC 4912
913 PC 4913
914 PC 4914
915 PC 4916
916 PC 4918
917 PC 4919
918 PC 4920
919 PC 4924
920 PC 4925
921 PC 4926
922 PC 4928
923 PC 4929
924 931
925 PC 4932
926 PC 4933
927 PC 4934
928 PC 4937
929 PC 4938
931 PC 4931 to 924

Apart from 907 and 918 which had been retired these units were all renumbered in 1979 by adding 4 to the front of the number meaning some got their original number back while others did not

On April 1 1976 Amtrak got ten more GG1 from PC/Conrail

These were assigned Amtrak 3 digit numbers but never carried them, retaining their PC numbers:
930 PC 4890
931:2 PC 4893
932 PC 4895
933 PC 4896
934 PC 4930:2
935 PC 4932:2
936 PC 4933:2
937 PC 4935
938 PC 4938:2
939 PC 4939

Martin Baumann wrote:

Apart from 907 and 918 which had been retired these units were all renumbered in 1979 by adding 4 to the front of the number meaning some got their original number back while others did not

907 was retired in 1976 918 was retired after a collision with MofW equipment at Edison NJ 4/20/1979