E44

[Conrail Quality]

The New Haven never had any E44's. The only reason they could afford the E33's was that the N&W had no use for them, and sold them off cheap. As for the GG-1's, I say the worst is NJ Transit black with tiny lettering, and Conrail CR stencils. The best was the Pennsy silver scheme(why did the Pennsy have to get rid of it?). I can't understand the Penn Central hatred. When clean, PC paint looked very sharp(of course, PC couldn't afford to clean their equipment, but they could afford to pay dividends and buy theme parks ). Okay, maybe I do understand some of the hatred.

[Woody Elmore]

The PC "hatred" is a reaction to the ruination of what had been two classy railroads and the company being straddled with other no profit lines.

[Frankford el car]

You think the GG-1 in Acela colors look's sharp?! Of all the depravities!  Have you no shame?! There may be children in this room!

[Woody Elmore]

Above my desk at my school office I have a framed lithograph of a green GG-1 with cat whisker striping. It reminds me of the glory days of the PRR. The GG-1s wore a paint scheme planned by the designer of the engine to complement and enhance its flowing lines.

The wide stripes weren't too bad at all and I'll add that I liked the GG-1 in Congressional silver.

A GG-1 in PC black reminds me of the sad, quick death of two railroad giants. The companies were raided for cash. I get angry everytime I go by Republic Airport in Long Island. Republic Fairchild Aviation (of  p-47, f-84, f-105 and a-10 fame) was also put out of business by corporate raiders.

Recently some Long Island politician had the great brainstorm that if more stuff came and went on train, there'd be less truck traffic! It's  clueless guys like this who allow stuff like PC to happen.

Sorry to get off topic but Penn Central was a complete disaster. I know people who have PC stock certificates framed on their walls - the frame being worth more than the stock.

Please, no more atrocious GG-1 pictures in lurid paint schemes (but the Acela isn't all that bad!) Ban everything but PRR color schemes. And, hey, isn't the thread about E-44 engines?

[r.cprmier]

And, hey, isn't the thread about E-44 engines?

Yup.    E-44 engines...

...And unless  I miss my guess, wasn't there differences betwixt the 44 and 33?  Like maybe Faively pans v. the standard Westinghouse type pans.
Also, the E-33s I know of had rectification atop the unit, thereby earning it (at least on the New haven) the cuddly name "Brick".

Rich

[Frankford el car]

The E-44's were rectifier units also. Contrary to the opinion of GG-1's in black, I think the E-44's in black with "PENNSYLVANIA" on the long hoods, unit number below the cab windows, and the twin Faively pantographs, were one of the few freight electrics, to look good in that color.  After Amtrak decided the E60-CP's to be illsuited for passenger service, I wonder how they would have done, if like some GG-1's, and the P5a boxcabs and modifieds before them, they'd been regeared for freight service, and sold to Conrail. Picture a pair of E60's on the point of a northbound solid string of Tropicana reefers between Baltimore and Philly, or Philly and Kearney, N.J. Or maybe dragging a string of quad-hoppers eastbound through Coatesville, Thorndale, or Paoli, on their way to the Delaware River docks in Philly.

[r.cprmier]

In terms of appearance, I have always liked the Westinghouse type pans on a locomotive.  I realize that Faivley pans are good and have their place, as current applications suggest.

I wasn't aware that E-44s were rectifier locomotives; for some reason, I had the impression that they were pure ac.  They did look good!  What was that electric that Pennsy had with a nose that looked like an Alco FA-2?
I have seen several pics of them, mostly on head opf a freight, or sitting in Enola.

RIch

[Conrail Quality]

Are you thinking of one of the six GE E2b experimentals?

[Woody Elmore]

Wow - haven't thought about the E2bs in years. Pennsy was a great railroad - they tried almost every kind of engine out there.

They certainly tried many, if not all the early diesels. They were less adventurous with electrics probably because the electric divisions were not a big part of the railroad.

For the painters out there who like to do "what if" paint schemes - what would a Pennsy E-44 look like (you could say that the Pennsy was trying one or two which they leased.)

[r.cprmier]

Those E2b's are it.  They were handsome motors, like the New Haven EF-3s.  What is that motor behind that consist in the picture?  It looks a little like the New Haven EF-2.  I know it isn't but the resemblance is there. 

I model mostly steam, but am a fanatic over New Haven "motors"-I thought they were huge, powerful, magificent beasts!  What was always interesting was the fact that, technologically speaking, the New Haven was the leader in this type of motive development; especially as the GG-1 was built from the EP-3's standards.  As I have many times said, I would have loved to have grown up around Blatchley Ave in New Haven, Ct.  Yep:  Baseball and the New Haven Railroad!

Rich

Rich   

[Conrail Quality]

Behind the E2-b's is a P5a, a real failure. The P5's lasted so long not because they were good performers, but because Pennsy managment didn't want to look stupid getting rid of 90+ new electric locomotives, failures or not. The fact is, all the Pennsy-designed electrics were failures. The AA-1's were basically unusable, the L5a's were unreliable, the P5a's were outright dangerous for crews (among other flaws), the R1 was too long, it couldn't make some of the turns on the NEC, and the L6's and 01's were underpowered. The DD-1's and GG1's were based on New Haven designs, and the E44's were based on the E33's, a Virginian design. The DD-2's were basically just modified GG-1's. Naturally, those were the only four that actually worked right.

Not an anti-Pennsy rant, just an interesting observation...

[r.cprmier]

You wouldn't think that, given the close proximity to so much technology such as GE/ALCO, Westinghouse/Baldwin, that things would have been a walk in the park for Pennsy's motor development.

I know that the New Haven had some very progressive-thinking people in the right places at the right time.  New Haven engineers (non-train) were a lot of the cream of the crop, and were used extensively in places like the Cascade Tunnel, the Hoosac Tunnel, too many bridges to  count-and of course in the electrification of Milwaulkee Road, etc, B&M through the tunnel, etc.

It is not too "out of the box" to realize that, given the talent pool and the successes of the New Haven, the PRR would turn to them, both for tech, and also to try to acquire it.      Also, it is ironic that, during the PC consolidation, one of the stipulations the PCC had to agree to was to take in the New Haven.  Ahhhh, things do change, do they not??!

Rich

[Woody Elmore]

The PRR, Standard Railway of the World, had a very cheap - er, parsimonious, management, They ran engines into the ground so even though their electrics may have been duds, the money was spent and the engines used.

One of the two prototype magazines - either Trains or Railfan, ran an article about the early days of the PC. Both railroads had engines laid up that were inoperable because they were run until they were junk. PC management had to basically search every siding in both systems. There were diesels that had been cannibalized for their motors or other parts and just left sitting but still on the inventory as being operable.

Don't get me started with the PC.

[Frankford el car]

Actually, the Pennsy's DD-2's were the Great Northern's Y-1 class boxcabs come East, when the GN sold them to the PRR after de-electrification of their Cascade Route. One of which (but to my knowledge, not acquired by the Pennsy) was rebuilt after a bad accident, with a couple of EMD F-unit bodies spliced together, as a replacement carbody. From what I read, one of the problems the Pennsy experienced with them, was severe interference with the two-way radio system they were using onboard trains, at the time.

[Frankford el car]

As for the P5a, crew survival in a grade crossing accident in the boxcabs (engineer and fireman would see it about to happen "up close and personal"...), resulted in the P5a "Modified" version, which resembled a shruken GG-1. Same locomotive mechanically, and could MU with the boxcabs, but with a "centered" cab. There was also at least one P5b, an upgraded boxcab, but no others got the modifications given to that unit. The majority of them lasted in freight service, until around 1966.