PRR electric locos on RDG

[BlockLine_4111]

Did PRR E33, E44, GG1 ever operate on RDG ? I am assuming they could because of similar or equivalent systems (11kV/25Hz).

[rushhour]

I dont think they ever did. They were rivals to some extant. If they did, it would be news to me.

[jlpack153]

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember reading that for years the electrical systems on the RDG and PRR were not compatible. Plus, RDG electrification was only on commuter lines so there would not have been much of a reason to use the heavy PRR power.

[Clearfield]

I believe that the AC voltages were similar, but the frequencies were different, like 20hz (or cycles for those who remember them) for the Reading and 60hz for PRR.

[geep39]

I don't think that the RDG's power distribution system was heavy enough to handle such locomotives in the first place. The Reading did investigate using electric locomotives, however, and they even had conceptual drawings of locomotives! I suspect that the extra catenary necessary plus the inflexibility, extra crews, and cost of electric locomotives overshadowed any savings or speed that they would get.

[EDM5970]

Both systems were 11k, 25 cycle AC, but there has been a popular misconception for years that they were different

There is a story that I was once told by a retired (and since passed on) RDG engineman about a detouring PRR passenger train with a GG-1, being pulled over the RDG by diesels. The PRR engineman offered to help out the diesels by putting up his pans, but the RDG trainmaster or RFE told him no!!!!, the power was different; the RDG was AC and the Penn was DC-

It wasn't until SEPTA "merged" the two commuter operations that they considered running PRR MUs on the RDG and vice versa. When the tunnel was completed, they had to take the buss bars off the RDG cars, as each end of the tunnel was fed from each of the respective systems, and they didn't want the MU buss bars to "bridge" the two power distribution systems.

In terms of ampacity, I don't have any real numbers (or wire sizes) but I just happened to be in West Trenton last night, and took a look at the wire. Gut feeling, but I don't think it is big enough to feed a G motor, at least under any kind of sustained load.

[BlockLine_4111]

The PRR was AC not DC (just like the RDG).

[EDM5970]

4111,

Read my post more carefully. I stated in the first line that they were the same. I was relating the RDG supervisor's belief that the two systems were different-

[geep39]

Funny thing about that power system. I happened to be lucky enough to get a tour of the power distribution system at Wayne Junction, where I was shown the new converters, etc. I thought that the hot ticket was to go to 25,000 Volts @ 60 cycles, and asked my guide, but apparently, old habits are hard to break! They built a new system to the old 11,000 V, 25 cycles!

[EDM5970]

To convert to 25K would have most likely required replacement of much of the MU fleet, unless the cars are capable of being switched over to the new voltage. If not, at a milion or so per car, it would be clearly cheaper to retain the old voltage and rebuild the substations. There also may be too many other things to change before converting to the "current" standard of 25K, 60 cycle.

I have read that some of the older systems (and I'm not sure about the RDG, so please don't quote me), used their substations for much more than traction power. The 11K was usually stepped down from a much higher voltage transmission line; I remember the PRR as being 133K, but again may be wrong.

Anyway, since the railroads were transmitting (and often generating) their own power, they put additional transformers on the transmission line, and used their own power for signals, switch machines, compressors for electro-pneumatic interlockings, station lights, etc.

I'm not sure if the RDG was ever that way, and I doubt if too much of it still is in SEPTA times, but it may have been a factor, even if the cars could run on the new power.

[BlockLine_4111]

Let me see if I follow this correctly. Both the PRR & RDG were 11kV/25Hz systems but the PRR was a higher current (or amperage) draw system. A locomotive (or MU) current draw should be a function of the load it is under so in theory the PRR electro motors could have ran lite or w/small consists under the RDG cat system.

[Franklin Gowen]

The 8/1968 issue of "Trains" magazine has a 1930s photograph of a PRR train detouring over the RDG at West Trenton, NJ due to a wreck on the NY-DC mainline. What makes this photo really nifty is that the original GG-1 is still in the consist (albeit with pantographs down), and the "oomph" is being provided by a PRR L-1 Mikado coupled ahead of the GG-1. This would tend to support the theory that the RDG's main electric traction equipment at Wayne Junction might not have been able to handle the current draw of a large electric motor hauling a long passenger consist.

[Ken W2KB]

Changing to 60 Hz 25kV would also require replacement of the transformers and all insulators - thousands of them, all while keeping the RR running. Changing over the rolling equipment is cheap and easy by conparison.

[BlockLine_4111]

Franklin -

They should have let him raise the pan on the GG1. Whimpy railroading in my opinion.

4111

[geep39]

If you saw the power control desk at Wayne Junction, you would see that more power was sent to parts of the system that needed it most, due to heavier traffic, and power could be shut off to areas affected by an accident or if maintenance was necessary in a section, or even if there was no traffic. I wouldn't call it "wimpy" but the Reading had a reputation for being FRUGAL, that is, not buying more than you needed, not like the PRR that must have had everything running full blast all the time!