I came across pictures of these locomotives, which were used to take passenger trains in and out of the Cleveland Union Terminal when local ordinance did not allow steaming within the city limits:

http://morphotoarchive.org/rvndb/rvnjpeg_img_rec.php?objno=RVN10359

After the war, when diesels replaced steam locomotives, they were no longer needed in Cleveland. The New York Central then had them modified to run off its

third rail system and used them to pull trains in and out of Grand Central Station.

I find it interesting that the locomotive's superstructure is so much shorter than the undercarriage, about two-thirds the length. I would be interested in any information about why they were designed like this.

Thank you,

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
# Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
* Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)

From: j.albert@snet.net

On 3/21/15 1:21 PM, bob wrote:

Electric locomotives of that era were heavy but not bulky.
The GG1, under its elegant streamlined
body, is in many ways similar. With improvements in technology post-war weights went down, so the number of axles was reduced significantly,
leading to much more compact machines.

The GG-1 was anything but "not bulky" inside.
What space there was, was jam-packed with equipment, leaving little room
for a man to move around inside them.

I know, I spent time "inside them" moving them around!

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
# Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
* Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)

From: rcp27@nospam.ac.uk

On 2015-03-21 01:00:17 +0000, peterwezeman@hotmail.com said:

I came across pictures of these locomotives, which were used to take passenger trains in and out of the Cleveland Union Terminal when local ordinance did not allow steaming within the city limits:

http://morphotoarchive.org/rvndb/rvnjpeg_img_rec.php?objno=RVN10359

After the war, when diesels replaced steam locomotives, they were no
longer needed in Cleveland. The New York Central then had them modified
to run off its third rail system and used them to pull trains in and
out of Grand Central Station.

I find it interesting that the locomotive's superstructure is so much
shorter than the undercarriage, about two-thirds the length. I would be interested in any information about why they were designed like this.

An interesting photograph, thanks for posting.

Electric locomotives of that era were heavy but not bulky. This meant
that while they required lots of axles to support the weight, there
wasn't that much actual volume required to be filled with it. A lot of electric locomotives of the 1920s and 1930s had relatively short bodies
on much longer frames. The "Crocodile" pattern is something of a
classic (google for Ce 6/8). The GG1, under its elegant streamlined
body, is in many ways similar. With improvements in technology
post-war weights went down, so the number of axles was reduced
significantly, leading to much more compact machines.

Robin

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
# Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
* Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)

From: rcp27@nospam.ac.uk

On 2015-03-21 17:38:19 +0000, John Albert said:

On 3/21/15 1:21 PM, bob wrote:

Electric locomotives of that era were heavy but not bulky.
The GG1, under its elegant streamlined
body, is in many ways similar. With improvements in technology post-war
weights went down, so the number of axles was reduced significantly,
leading to much more compact machines.

The GG-1 was anything but "not bulky" inside.
What space there was, was jam-packed with equipment, leaving little
room for a man to move around inside them.

I know, I spent time "inside them" moving them around!

I don't doubt that the GG1 were "compact" inside, but the basic layout,
with the cabs a long way back and the narrow "nose" sections sacrifices
a lot of potential internal space that would be available with a
cab-at-the-end layout. My point is the layout sacrifices a lot of
potential internal space because the internal equipment didn't need it.

Robin

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
# Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
* Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)

From: hankvc@blackhole.lostwells.org

In article <mekn6e$b5u$1@dont-email.me>, bob <rcp27@nospam.ac.uk> wrote:

On 2015-03-21 17:38:19 +0000, John Albert said:

On 3/21/15 1:21 PM, bob wrote:

Electric locomotives of that era were heavy but not bulky.
The GG1, under its elegant streamlined
body, is in many ways similar. With improvements in technology post-war >>> weights went down, so the number of axles was reduced significantly,
leading to much more compact machines.

The GG-1 was anything but "not bulky" inside.
What space there was, was jam-packed with equipment, leaving little
room for a man to move around inside them.

I know, I spent time "inside them" moving them around!

I don't doubt that the GG1 were "compact" inside, but the basic layout,
with the cabs a long way back and the narrow "nose" sections sacrifices
a lot of potential internal space that would be available with a >cab-at-the-end layout. My point is the layout sacrifices a lot of
potential internal space because the internal equipment didn't need it.

Well, if you'd ever had the opportunity to look inside the New Haven
EP-3a boxcab electrics, you wouldn't have found much unoccupied volume.
Keep in mind that the GG-1 was just another incarnation of the EP-3a
design, with larger motors and the streamlined shell. Both had to
accomodate a very large 25 hz stepdown transformer built with 1930's technology.

Hank

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
# Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
* Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)

peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:

I came across pictures of these locomotives, which were used to take passenger trains in and out of the Cleveland Union Terminal when local ordinance did not allow steaming within the city limits:

http://morphotoarchive.org/rvndb/rvnjpeg_img_rec.php?objno=RVN10359

[...] I find it interesting that the locomotive's superstructure is so
much shorter than the undercarriage, about two-thirds the length.

At first glance, it sure does look like the body of a streetcar or a
small electric locomotive, dropped onto the frame and wheels of a much
larger steam? locomotive.

I would be interested in any information about why they were designed
like this.

I don't *know*, but I can *guess*...

Looking at Wikipedia (would they lie to you?), the picture you linked
is probably a New York Central "P motor". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYC_P_Motor

These were preceded by the "T motor", which seems to have a similar
"short body, long frame" design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYC_T-Motor

The T motors in turn were preceded by the "S motor", which seems to
have been pretty early in the electric locomotive business (1904). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYC_S-Motor

The picture on the Wikipedia article, and others online, show that
the S motor body was just about as long as the frame - similar to a
modern diesel locomotive.

Two days after the S motors went into service, there was a bad
derailment, killing 24. Per Wiki, "The investigation identified design
flaws involving the long rigid wheelbase and its performance at high
speed. The solution was to convert the entire class to use 2 axle
leading and trailing trucks to better guide the locomotive around
curves." and "With weight split between powered and unpowered axles the
S motors were never completely satisfactory at pulling long heavy trains
at high speed. The 1907 accident only made matters worse with additional unpowered axles being added [...]".

The T motors had all powered axles. I suspect this might have been the motivation for making the frame longer, to have enough room to fit them
all in. If Alco-GE found that all of the control equipment,
transformers, cab, etc, would fit in less length than the frame, then it
seems reasonable to have a shorter body. Also, they may have re-used a
body design from some other locomotive.

The P motors had some idler axles as well, so they probably also needed
the long frame. If the body from the T motors worked, they probably
didn't see any reason to change it for the P motors.

Again, this is speculation based on Wikipedia articles. Take it with
as much salt as you think you need to.

Matt Roberds

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
# Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
* Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)

From: j.albert@snet.net

On 3/22/15 4:59 AM, mroberds@att.net wrote:

The T motors in turn were preceded by the "S motor", which seems to
have been pretty early in the electric locomotive business (1904). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYC_S-Motor

Back at the end of the 1960's, I got a ride around one of the "loops" in
GCT on one of these. I recall quite a bit of room in the cab, all the electrical equipment was in the "noses".

And as a Harmon hostler in 1983, got to climb up on one of the last
examples at Harmon yard. May have even moved it a bit, can't remember!

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
# Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
* Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)

On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 12:21:01 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:

On 2015-03-21 01:00:17 +0000, peterwezeman@hotmail.com said:

I came across pictures of these locomotives, which were used to take passenger trains in and out of the Cleveland Union Terminal when local ordinance did not allow steaming within the city limits:

http://morphotoarchive.org/rvndb/rvnjpeg_img_rec.php?objno=RVN10359

After the war, when diesels replaced steam locomotives, they were no longer needed in Cleveland. The New York Central then had them modified
to run off its third rail system and used them to pull trains in and
out of Grand Central Station.

I find it interesting that the locomotive's superstructure is so much shorter than the undercarriage, about two-thirds the length. I would be interested in any information about why they were designed like this.

An interesting photograph, thanks for posting.

Electric locomotives of that era were heavy but not bulky. This meant
that while they required lots of axles to support the weight, there
wasn't that much actual volume required to be filled with it. A lot of electric locomotives of the 1920s and 1930s had relatively short bodies
on much longer frames. The "Crocodile" pattern is something of a
classic (google for Ce 6/8). The GG1, under its elegant streamlined
body, is in many ways similar. With improvements in technology
post-war weights went down, so the number of axles was reduced significantly, leading to much more compact machines.

Robin

My thanks to all who replied. I conclude from the various comments that a locomotive like the Cleveland Union Terminal units, operating off 3,000 volts DC, needed a lot less electrical machinery on board than did for example a GG1 using 25 hz AC at much
higher voltage, and so needed less space to house it, hence the shorter superstructure.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
# Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
* Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)