Talk:Pennsylvania Railroad class GG1

Untitled

I felt that some mention should be made that famed industrial designer Raymond Loewy should be made, since he had a hand in "styling" the GG1. Tom 00:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Tommel

I moved "This arrangement is called 2-C+C-2 in AAR wheel arrangement notation. Each driven axle was powered by two 410 hp (305 kW) GEA-627-A1 traction motors mounted above and to either side of the axle. Drive was through a reduction gear and a quill drive assembly." to a paragraph where it seemed to fi better then where it previously was. Tommel 16:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Railroad tycoon

Can a reference to the presence of the GG1 in Railroad Tycoon be made? It was the best locomotive in the game, with a reliability considered "outstanding", the second-highest in the game. Afonso Silva 22:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold!

Atlant 15:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Three phase motors?

I read somewhere that the GG-1 used three-phase motors, therefore preventing the lack of starting torque associated with single-phase motors. That means somehow the alternate current was rectified and three phases were generated on board again. The problem is I can't find the source and I haven't found that information elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canonicus (talk • contribs).

The PRR used 25 Hz power partially so they could use ordinary series traction motors (running, essentially, as "universal" motors). I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised to hear that the GG1 used anything other than those.

In the technical discussion, I recently added a reference and quote regarding the GG1's propulsion commutator design ac motors: that they are not brushless ac induction motors which have very poor starting characteristics. But so far I found nothing regarding speed control of these motors. One on line writer said that the locomotives carried a step down transformer and added that there are 22 steps on the engineer's throttle. But so far have found nothing that can be quoted and cited. This is an important part of the GG1 locmotive: starting heavy loads, then increasing speed through changes to the motor magnetic fields. JW DeVore, June 27, 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.240.143 (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

In series wound AC motors the speed is proportional to the voltage applied, just like a DC motor. (In an induction motor the speed is proportional to the frequency.) On a straight AC locomotive the method to obtain different voltages was through transformer taps (resistance grids would have been wasteful since AC can be transformed). A 22 position controller would have been sufficient for smooth acceleration. There are photos of the controllers showing the number of notches and propulsion info is located in some books I don't have with me right now. I can go look it up this weekend if you want.Sturmovik (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Atlant 01:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

This article is currently at Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 18:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has been delisted per WP:GA/R because it does not meet GA criteria. Once the article is brought up to standards, it can be renominated. Lack of citations is the biggest issue. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 18:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fuel and water

This is an electric locomotive, but there is an old film on Youtube showing a GG1 being filled with fuel oil and water ([1]). Why would this be, if the locomotive is electric? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Most likely for the onboard boilers used to supply heat to passenger cars. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 15:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the fuel oil was for firing the steam generator, for car heating. WuhWuzDat 01:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanx! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PRR GG1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517040044/http://www.usps.com/images/stamps/99/all_aboard.htm to http://www.usps.com/images/stamps/99/all_aboard.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PRR GG1. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5618.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Amtrak-era speeds

Do we have more information about speed restrictions in the 1970s? This GAO report says (page 29) that they were limited to 85 MPH. Mackensen (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

GG-1 speeds bounced around a bit and one would likely need to research Amtrak equipment speed lists in historic Employee timetables. At some point a select number were re-geared by Amtrak in the late 70's for 110mph, but they started to have bearing overheating problems as a result and were bumped back down. There is also the issue that half the fleet was owned by Conrail for freight service. They were geared for 90 and Amtrak may have limited them to 85.Sturmovik (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverting of my status update on ex-PRR GG1 #4909

Two editors with tens of thousands of prior edits have deleted my sourced status update since yesterday. Both the Henry Ford Museum (Dearborn, MI) and the Leatherstocking Railway Museum (NY State) will confirm my new facts, which apply as of 1/27/22. One of these “tyrant editors” snottily commented: “not the way we do business here.” I want a good explanation now; request restoration by ANY editor who is NOT a dictatorial, obsessed control-freak with nothing better to do; plus formal arbitration If these are not swiftly forthcoming. Thank you. 2600:1004:B145:683D:B492:7B4:B37A:C4C5 (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

As I briefly explained in my edit summary, "I received an email from a guy" is not a reliable source that we can use for verification purposes. How am I, a person who did not receive that email, able to verify that the locomotive has changed hands? If either organisation wishes to post an official update on their website that the train has moved, then we will happily allow the change, but just "I know a guy who said it's true" isn't a source we can use.

Only slightly relevant to this thread, but in general when "two editors with tens of thousands of edits" revert a third, they probably have a good reason for doing so. Dismissing them out of hand as being "tyrants" is kind of like telling the manager of a grocery store that their clerks are stocking the products incorrectly; you might be right, but chances are pretty good they know what they're doing.

Also, and really not on-topic, your previous threads were removed because they were the equivalent of yelling "I'm gonna sue!", which we don't take kindly to. Primefac (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Continuing to force the inaccurate description of this engine as “sold to the Henry Ford Museum”, after it could not be moved there and after that museum deeded it back to the selling museum on 1/27/22, is an act of consummate stupidity. I have no interest in “playing games” with any of you Wikiaddicts, but all of you “tyrant editors” ought to have a primary duty to the current, as well as the past, TRUTH. The engine has sat on a siding in rural upstate NY for 38 years as I write, and will never leave it. Get your heads out of the clouds, and either delete the “sold to” clause or put back my far-better description of the legal status quo as of 1/27/22. Otherwise, all of you are nothing but willful vandals. 2600:1004:B145:683D:B492:7B4:B37A:C4C5 (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

You speak "TRUTH" but offer no sources or other evidence to indicate that what you speak really is "the truth". From the source that states it was sold to the Henry Ford, there was a second similar engine in the same yard - might this be the locomotive you've seen "for the last 38 years"? I also note that the Henry Ford's website still says it's in their collection. In other words, unless they (or someone else) release a published statement indicating that the locomotive is no longer owned by the Henry Ford, the content of the article will stay here.

As an additional note, I am being incredibly lenient by restoring your incredibly rude comments, actually responding to you, and not blocking your IP, because I am more interested in making sure we do "get it right". I'm not a big believer in TRUTH but I do like accuracy, and I would like to convince you that insulting us isn't going to get the article changed - sources will. Primefac (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Let me try to explain to the IP address why we seem doggedly insistent on "getting it wrong". Because "anyone can edit", people mistakenly think that the point of Wikipedia is to incorporate information super fast as soon as anyone knows about it, like a newswire or something. Unfortunately, because Wikipedia is now famous and influential, lots of people would like to push information into it that isn't true. As a result, we go by what reliable, published sources say. Sometimes that leaves us out of date, and with statements that are no longer true due to recent changes, but that's the price we have to pay for having other people help vet or filter that information. Has this information made it into Railpace somewhere? That's probably something that I could cite to make your change stick. Choess (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Henry Ford Museum action

This museum is hardly about to publish the fact that it quietly donated that GG1 back to the Leatherstocking Museum on 1/27/22. Accordingly, I strongly recommend that you do one of two things if you keep rejecting my prior edits:

(1)Call the HFM at (313)982-6020 and ask for the appropriate Board member who was involved in the 1/27/22 donation back to Leatherstocking.

(2)Email my own source: (Redacted). He personally owns the other GG1 at his museum (also bought in 1983), but did the 1/27/22 deal with HFM on 1/27/22, after several decades of giving HFM’s paid contractors access to it to remove asbestos and PCB’s; repair brakes on it for a move that will now never happen; et al.

If these primary sources are not enough for you as Wiki Guardian Angel of Purity, just forget it. I can hardly force HFB to issue a press release on what to then is a minor, $15,000 return donation from an ancient purchase of done three decades ago.

Donald L. Pevsner Attorney-at-Law [pro bono publico] Railroad Historian Syndicated Columnist on Consumer Affairs (1984-1988, wit 20 million weekly readers) 2600:1004:B145:683D:B492:7B4:B37A:C4C5 (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If your source wants to jump on Twitter and make a post indicating the above, by all means go for it (and I do mean that seriously, we'd use a primary source from the Museum or the owner as verification). As mentioned in the main section, we can't just take the word of someone who says it's true because they spoke to someone else; it has to be verifiable somewhere. Hell, even if I were to email or call the Museum, I couldn't change the article because I cannot be the source. If something needs changing on Wikipedia, we need to be able to point to a website, publication, or other medium to say "yes, it happened". Primefac (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

PRR GG1 #4909

On Monday AM, I will call the Chief Curator at the Henry Ford Museum: Matt Anderson. If he is not in, I will try for the Curator of Transportation: Marc Greuther. Either way, I will ask one or both of them to edit the Wiki GG1 article to remove the parenthetical text on “(purchased by the Henry Ford Museum)” under locomotive #4909. Will this satisfy your “rule book”? Please reply ASAP. Thank you. -DLP- 2600:1004:B114:5E9B:7581:95A1:A10C:A8F7 (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure the answer to that is no. It needs a source. The museum can put out a source or press release stating so. Getting people who agree with you to edit WP articles could be considered meatpuppetry wizzito | say hello! 03:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Wizzito. If you're going to call them, tell them to make a post somewhere (social media, official publication, whatever). Just as you or I cannot change the information without a published source, neither can the Chief Curator of the museum (for all of the reasons previously stated in the other threads). Primefac (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)