This forum is dedicated to Riding Scale Railroading with propulsion using other than steam (Hydraulics, diesel engines, gas engines, electric motors, hybrid etc.)
rwheller wrote:As to finding space inside the GG1 for all the things you need, it is a null problem. Unless you will be "running alongside" the locomotive, you would have some sort of car behind it. A baggage car will give you all kinds of space. A simple electrical connection between the car and locomotive would allow all kinds of space in the car for, say, batteries. A 4QD control system would give you dynamic braking, which negates the need for a working brake system on the locomotive. The train brake system components can be in the following car (or cars) as well. Don't forget the obligatory sound system and speakers. Just picture you running a 5 stripe Tuscan GG1 with a cut of PRR cars behind it. Heavenly!
rwheller. A little addition for your good idea.
I`ll have my fun
running my GG1.
With a power
car behind it,
sure will get
up and Git!!
If RMI is designing the locomotive, they would want it to be self contained, with just the basics. There is enough room in the loco for four good size interstate batteries giving a full 48 volts of running power. The 4QD takes up practically no space and leaves room for speakers, a Phoenix system and an amplifier. The loco is ready to go. There is your basic locomotive. Everything else can be put in the first car if desired. If they want to put a large motor in the loco itself with some form of drive train, that can be done too. One of our members has four batteries and a 15 hp motor plus the brake system and all controls inside a GP7. It is smaller than a GG1 and runs for days working hard without a charge. It can be done, easily! The issue will be the final cost. A metal shell would help add to the weight for traction, but a fiberglass shell would be easier for production and detailing once the initial mold is produced. I would almost be willing to mortgage the house to get one - almost!
A caveat however. If someone is going to plop down the obvious cost for this locomotive he/she will expect pulling power! Like the prototype. RMI can NOT skimp in powering the locomotive or it will not sell once the lack of power is found out. Power will not be the place to pinch pennies. Just a thought.
John, don't see why the length would be a major concern. The real G's were almost 80 feet over the couplers. In 1.5" scale that works out to 10 feet. Certainly the larger steam locos like 4-8-4 Northerns would be at least that long. The only real difference...would be a tender could be separated from the locomotive. Might be difficult to break the G down into smaller modules. More to the point...how would the G be constructed? If built similar to the prototype...the two trucks would be joined by a universal joint. The problem then becomes...how does the body sit on the trucks? Would have to believe a multi-section hood would create more problems than it solves.
No doubt, it's not an easy loco to model. And if you look back near the start of this thread, I posted a photo of 1.5" scale GG-1...and it looks like the #4917 may be up for sale soon. To be determined. Carl B.
Life is like a sewer...what you get out of it depends on what you put into it!
I don't walk on water...I just learned where some of the stepping stones are!
I love mankind...it's some of the people I can't stand!
Attached are a few photos of my 1" scale GG1 sheet steel body. Obviously there is still a lot of work to be done, but it's moving along after a lot of trial and error. The trucks and chassis are also a challenge!
Please keep us all posted on the progress of this project. There is a lot of us PRR fans out here waiting with bated breath to hear more. Progress pictures would be great. RH
Folks talk about the GG-1 being a niche model mostly of interest to those in the Northeast.
I don't think this is necessarily true. Lionel has sold an awful lot of the "O" gauge G's over the years and many other manufacturers have copied the Lionel G and some have been built to scale and also sold well.
Keith (Who many years ago ran the G's on the Northeast Corridor)
Perhaps you're over thinking the body a bit. In actuality, it's just a 10 foot long canoe with a custom shaped hull. I'd contact a local manufacturer of canoes and see what they think.
GG-1 Trucks
To cast these in one piece will require a huge 5 ft long pattern with a compound split line. read....expensive.
I would give consideration to pouring 4-5 smaller (and simpler) casting out of steel. Bring these back to the shop, machine as necessary and then clamp the pieces into a welding fixture and weld it all together. For your somewhat limited run of 25-40 locos, I believe that this will be cheaper. Finding foundries willing to pour steel will be easier than finding foundries willing to pour cast iron or ductile. The steel heats are cleaner and therefore more environmentally friendly.
Mark, I fabricated my chassis and trucks from steel, the biggest problem in doing that is the deformation caused by welding. I made a jig for everything and clamped the parts tight but still got some distortions, however, steel allows you lots of flexibility in construction and is worth the extra care and work. I ran half of the chassis on my test track and it was very encouraging, the suspension was stiff but when all of the weight is added I think it should be alright.
I also feel the same way about the body material, with steel if you make a mistake you can cut it out or lap over it with no problem. It also facilitates the use of all kinds of attachment methods from mechanical fasteners, adhesives, brazing, soldering and welding. This brings me to the purpose of this post, I'd like to hear if anyone has experience, advice or an opinion on the use of lead body filler instead of bondo. After carefully grinding and hammering the seams on the body, there are still pits and low spots that are typical in brazen sheet metal. I know bondo is easier, but would lead be better? I'd like your thoughts and comments, as I haven't used lead before. My wife said not to take any chances with the lead as I am stupid enough; is it worth losing a few more IQ points to get a durable body? John
I have worked lead as body filler in custom automotive body work. It is the most resistant to damage of any fill material I can think of. Working temperatures are precise, and the sub-straight may have problems with the continued soak. The material has to be chemically clean to bond the body lead that is in 1/4 x 5/8 bars of 70/30, for the best plastic range that can be spread with a waxed wooden paddle. The body part is heated, wiped with an acidified cotton cloth, and the lead pushed into the panel and twisted off. Many spots are made this way until the panel is tinned and material excess exists. The torch is worked until the surface smooths (slicks) a bit showing the right temperature, where we can use the wood paddle to draw and drag the material into the shape of the panel in rough dimension. Too much heat, and your lead is on the floor. Not enough, and it will clump and furrow when pulled. No bees wax, and the lead will freeze roughly to the wood, and ruin the surface of the pull.
This is an art and skill all its own. I think the 70's body assembly was the last this method was used in the roof to rear quarter assemblies, for durability, as the lead would not crack, just bend in collisions, but remain on the job. In various forms, body design left this method of building in limbo, and moved to sealed butt panels, and the like.
Finding the body lead may be the first problem, but a wood mold can make bars for you of the right alloy, and recycling the stub ends is easier than trying to use them up as shorts. The alloy is important as it has plastic qualities at the right temp for the work.
There are dangers of lead and tin fume, burns from dropped material, and the frustration factor of the learning curve.
Many bondo type agents exist, in reinforced polyester fillers, light weight and heavy fillers, and stranded (Gorilla Hair) type fillers, that offer the convenience without the hazards.
IMHO, today I would not consider the lead option, as too complex, and would go with any of the plastic filler options. Any damage to the filler in the future would be simple to re-do.
If you have holes due to imperfect welding, consider torch welding the pinholes closed with filler rod, or bronze. Surfacing with filler, lean and thin, will give you a good finish.
Cheers.
Big Dave, former Millwright, Electrician, Environmental conditioning, and back yard Fixxit guy. Now retired, persuing boats, trains, and broken relics.
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of Smart. My computer beat me at chess, but not kickboxing
It is not getting caught in the rain, its learning to dance in it. People saying good morning, should have to prove it.