Re: K-28 Questions

george pearce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As much as all of this makes perfect sense, I
> still feel that you have missed the mark, although
> J.B. Blane came closest with his explanation. The
> real reason, along with the weight problem, was
> the size problem. You see, the K28's, being so
> much bigger and wider than the Mudhens, wouldn't
> have fitted into the tunnels if they had air pumps
> mounted on the side. The bean counters of the day
> studied this problem and decided that it would be
> cheaper to make new mounts at the front of the
> smokeboxes and hang them there, rather than a)
> widen out all the tunnels and narrow cuts b) have
> the crew take off the pumps and throw them on top
> of the tender while going through a
> restricted-clearance area.That's my story and I'm
> sticking to it!!


Look again. The runningboards and tanks on a K-28 are as wide or wider than a c-c pump would be. Besides, '36s & '37s are wider and no tunnels needed to be rebuilt for them.

Not even close.

At the time they were built Alco was building some locomotives for the Northern Pacific or Great Northern, can't remember which, and they were built with the dual c-c pumps on the smokebox front. The D&RGW mechanical department liked the looks of them and ordered the K-28's the same way, only with one pump. I doubt seriously that management cared a hoot about fireman visibility. Most crewmen leaned their heads out the window to look ahead, putting themselves outboard of the runningboards anyway.

OK, and now here's the real skinny on this deal, the thumping of the pump made the headlight bounce up and down and the Rio Grande management decided this would be a cheap way to put a Mars light on their narrow gauge passenger power.