Compiled from a previous thread:
Best and Worst K-37 Locomotives
Below, Jason asked for a critique of how the K37s operated and here it is. #497 was the only operable K-37 since the end of freight service in 1868. It had most of the attributes and problems of the other class members. I operated 497 on both the D&SNG and the C&TS, so I will start with it.
497. This engine rode somewhat smoother than the 480s, which belied some serious tracking problems. It was very stiff, and was notorious for kicking curves out of alignment. On both roads it actually broke foot-long sections of rail out of the track! It steamed excellent. Unlike most other engines, the fire was banked in the front, which meant quite a wind-up on the old No.4 scoop! The injectors were quite problematic. After the water level in the tender dropped below 4000 gallons, they overheated and would not start. This might have been due to leaky check valves (470s and 480s had better check valves) and the high location of the injector. The good news was that 490s had low crown sheets, so you could get away with low water-for a while. Nevertheless, I never passed Cresco tank without taking water there. As it turned out, neither did D&RGW crews. The water capacity was high in those big boilers, popping off forever. Due to the low steam dome, they worked water easily. Lots of lazy firemen found that if you let the fire burn out going down grade, it was very hard to get the fire burning again! Could they pull? Oh yeah, they were good for one more car up Cumbres. Its trailing truck was poorly designed, and occasionally the spring equalizer came apart on the road. Spring problems were common in general on this heavy engine. The stiffness of the engine may have been due to the primitive lateral equalizer on the number one driver. Despite some correction by John Bush and Mad Jack, it never worked right .Once on soggy track, I literally saw the curve start to kink 20 feet ahead of the engine!
In general these engines were decidedly home-made. The big boiler was cobbled into a frame, and the frames on most 490s cracked right over the trailing truck. The engines had a Chambers throttle. They had two valve surfaces . When they leaked, they were hard to open, and were on or off. Mark Yeamans designed a better one that worked well for the rest of the engine's operating life. The engine was comfortable to run after the throttle was rebuilt and the handle no long stuck right in your ear! Like the 480s , the 497 was a real dirty engine.
Some hearsay on other 490s...
490- a problem engine ,being experimental to begin with . It derailed frequently.
491. This engine was famous for its steaming ability. It was the only D&RGW narrow gauge engine with thermic siphons.
492. This engine had a relatively good reputation. It was fitted with a new boiler barrel in 1948, and would be a good candidate for rebuilding, better than 497.
493. This engine also had a good reputation. '
494 and 495. Both of these engines were notorious for their terrible throttles.
496. A cracked boiler or steam dome made this the first engine to be retired.
498. This was also a relatively good engine.
499. The favorite. Alamosa crews tried to keep this engine on their end of the narrow gauge. Old-timers liked the permanent plow, which could wing rocks off the track with no stopping! Nothing but good things are said of this engine. Perhaps it had fewer of the endemic problems of the other 490s. It also was one of the few 490s ever used on passenger trains.
The common problems associated with 490s were...1.Rough on track 2. Lots of mechanical problems especially with springs. 3. Some tenders would easily derail, especially when water was low and when backing up. Re-railing tenders was hard due to the standard-gauge trucks preventing the placement of re-railing frogs. 4. Terrible throttles 5. A continuous problem with broken stay bolts. The bottom line is Burnham was no Baldwin!
El Coke
Hi John- Jim Pearce always said the 498 was a great locomotive to fire and was one of his favorites. After I got the hang of the long throw on the 497 I actually liked firing it as it was a great steamer (if you had the stamina). One problem with the 490's was the low placed fire door than required anyone over 6 feet tall to REALLY stoop low to get coal all the way to the front. I can remember a certain tall fireman on the C&TS that hated the '97 because of its low door and had a very difficult time keeping it hot...
John--Great summary of the K37's, 497 in particular. I fired for George Connor on the first test run of the 497 after its restoration in the D&S shop--a caboose hop to Hermosa. As you know, the fire box on those engines is longer than the K36's and doesn't slope downward in front. I had heard that the K37's were best fired heavily toward the front, so, keeping in mind the length of the fire box, as we left town, I began heaving coal as far forward as I could. Unfortunately, and unknown to me, because I was throwing it at a downward angle, as you would on a K36, it was hitting the grates and piling up about two thirds of the way toward the front of the fire box. As soon as I noticed that, I began trying to heave it over the mound, which resulted in it hitting the brick arch and getting deflected down, just about on top of the mound. I think we had left the yard a little behind on steam, and by time we topped out at 36th street, the steam was down around 175--this with an essentially light engine. I wasn't too concerned, as there was nothing but level track ahead for a couple miles. With continued shoveling, the steam gage seemed to be stuck around 170. Somewhere out by the glider air strip, the guys on the caboose signaled for a stop. It seems there was a hot box on the caboose. While everyone was checking that out, I had a peek in the fire box and discovered a mound resembling the tomb of the unknown soldier right in the middle of the fire box. It was huge. Naturally, in the excitement of getting under way with a newly-shopped engine, we left the yard with no clinker hook, so I had no way to reach in and knock the mound down. So I just turned up the blower and eventually, as the guys were repairing the journal bearing on the caboose, the mound burned itself down and the steam pressure came back. I don't remember going on to Rockwood, so we must have backed back into town. I felt like a rank beginner, but luckily no one on the consist was paying any attention to what was going on with the fireman.
I believe I was assigned as engineer the first week the 497 entered passenger service on the D&S. Boy was that a miserable engine to run. The throttle was impossible--either wide open or closed. Spotting tanks was a nightmare. If you came up short, you'd have to put one foot on the backhead and jerk the throttle with both hands to get it open, then slam it shut and go for the brake lever. Earl Knoob made a great recording of the 497 with Dave, The Sandman, Elwood fighting that throttle, I believe at Hermosa Tank. I would love to have seen a video of that. I think that first week I ran the 497 was when I decided we had to re-design that throttle. After that week on the 497, I was assigned the 481, and it felt like going from a Sherman tank to a Mercedes Benz.
By the time I built the new throttle for the 497, I was pretty much a persona-non-gratis in the D&S operating department, having quit one too many times in the summer to go back to sea, so I only got to run that engine for a couple miles on one trip with the new throttle. It seemed much improved, but I think I could have made it even better had I had an opportunity to operate it a little more and get a feel for what improvements it might need.
It'd be great to see the 497 or, even better, the 492 back in service, but it sure doesn't seem likely any time soon.
It bears repeating, for the benefit of anyone who might not be aware, that 497 was restored to service by the D&S in Durango because it was already there when Bradshaw bought the line. 497 was left in Durango, along with all the empty freight cars it could have added to the last Eastbound train because the only available division engineer to run it as the second engine laid off to attend his Mother's birthday party. The D&RGW couldn't reach agreement with the Union on deadhead wages to bus an engine crew over from Alamosa, so everything was left. God bless Momma Payne!
Both 497 and 481 (which was actually planned for eventual use on the Silverton Branch by the D&RGW) sat unused in the Durango Yard for over 12 years, serving only to be used as a source for parts to keep the 470's going during those years. It is simply amazing that such an odd twist of fate ended up preserving so many freight cars. I think it might be a safe bet that none of the 490's would have been restored to this day, had things not happened the way they did back in '68.
Mike Trent
Not being an expert on steam locomotives but having seen both 492 and 497 when I was in Chama in September, I'm really having a difficult time understanding why 492 would be a better rebuild candidate. I guess it really doesn't make much difference as money is not there now.
I'm wondering if, during a rebuild, some of the problems that cause track damage could be addressed and solved. Also, if the fire was banked in the front and it was difficult to toss coal that far, some genius ought to invent a new, spring loaded shovel, which could easily throw coal further. In the interest of historical accuracy, I doubt if an "old No. 4 Scoop" is used.
"In the interest of historical accuracy, I doubt if an "old No. 4 Scoop" is used."
John that is exactly what was used for decades to fire hand fired coal burning locomotives. Sometimes they were customized by rounding the corners a bit, but the #4 was the most common size.
The reason 492 would have been a good candidate for restoration is that it has a much newer boiler. The 490 series engines are all 1903 Baldwins. 492 has a 1948 boiler barrel, as was pointed out earlier. As I indicated, 497 was restored simply because it had been abandoned in serviceable condition in Durango in 1968 and was still in Durango when Bradshaw bought the Silverton Branch from the D&RGW. There wasn't any search made to determine which 490 would be the best one to restore, because he only had one at the time and it was already there.
Now that 497 has been set aside, it may make more sense to consider 492 to be restored because of the far newer boiler barrel.
Mike,
I think that Bradshaw had the 493, 498, and 499 trucked in during the early 80's. I assume that the 497 was chosen because it was stored serviceable as was the 481. And from what I understand it didn't take a lot of work to get the 481 put back into service. I also think that in 1968 the 493, 498, 492 were all in the roundhouse and stored as serviceable. I know that the President of the D&RGW had plans for the 493 and 498 which is probably why the 492 was sold to the C&TS in 1970. You would think that if the 492 has a much newer boiler barrel that it would be a good candidate for the shops since it would probably last much longer than any of the operating K-36's. We can only hope that it see's the rails again on Cumbres.
William
Coker,
I your opinion was the 497 much rougher on the track due to it not being square in the lead truck/driver? I understand that once it got the lead truck from the 492 it handled a lot better. Say if the 493 or 498 were put back into service before the 497 back in 1984 and there was not the issue of not being square would that have made a difference? How many accounts did the D&RGW have with K-37's breaking sections of rail? You think that would have given them one more excuse for abandonment. Just some of my thoughts--I think if another K-37 is restored there will be different results on how it handles the rails than the 497 did, just my opinion. Thanks.
William
William,
Some good (and tough) questions. I think 497's poor tracking problems had several sources. They were ...1. The crude centering device on the number one driver did not work right for the reasons John Bush recounted above. 2. The engine had spring problems, and this may have affected its ability to negotiate curves. The engine's big problem was a lot of boiler on a K-36 frame. 3. Like the K-36s the K-37s had a lot of overhang in the back of the engine. This certainly may have been another factor in these big engines' tracking, as the tender and the drawbar stiffened the tracking somewhat. 4. At some point the D&RGW took the elevation out of many of the curves. Elevation works better at high speeds. At lower speeds there is accelerated rail wear. Apparently the K-37s liked the elevation, which actually lessens radius. K-37s did break more rail than other engines, simply because of its high axle loadings. If it wasn't at least 70 lb rail, it would break it, even in straight track. Like I said above, some engines in the K-37 class seemed to do just fine and were well-liked engines by crews. An interesting note- the best K-37 was kept in Alamosa (499). The worst K-37 (490) pensioned off on the Farmington branch, the last hurrah for any engine going to the dead-line.
With support of what both the Johns have stated and if I may inject a little more from my point of view. The K-37’s will always be stiff in the curves as the trail truck axle center is about 14” farther back than a K-36 The curves are what they are , "tight", and the engines are monsters.
At that point 14" farther back the swing of the trail truck still has to be limited to what the buffers and draw bars can deal with. This forces a lot of goofy things to happen in the front half of the engine with respect to a K-36.
And it also accounts for all the welding repairs to the K-37s frames under the fire box and Busted trail truck springs & rigging
This also explains the track movement out ahead of the engine in soggy roadbed and the busting of rails and the difficulty with the centering device on the #1 drivers.
As John B stated we never did the hole running gear & spring rigging in the 1990’s at C&TS . I did ponder what might out to be done differently with respect to the K-36’s when It finally received a full overhaul.
The K-37s and the K-36’s are basically the same locomotive running gear back to the #4 driver. As I remember it the spring equalizers between #3 & #4 drivers are a little shorter on a K-37 also.
Jack
Thanks for your responses to those questions. It just seems that if they were so notorious for being bad engines that near the end more of the 37's would have been sidelined. It seems that both classes the 36's and 37's as you pointed out had there "bad ducks." I guess it's surprising that the 499 was retired before the end. I believe in the end it was the 492, 493, 497, and 498 which all except for the 492 ran until 1968 along with 483, 484, 488 & 487--I think the 488 last ran in 1966. So could it be said that those eight were the best of both classes or was it just circumstance that kept those particular engines in service. I know the Grande stated that the 482 wasn't capable of seeing service ever again--alas and thankfully it is in operation to this day. I guess bottom line is they performed their jobs much better than anyone expected and longer than probably expected as well. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge--it is appreciated.
William
Having said what I said before about K-37s all being true I must also say this..
With respect to the K-36’s the K-37’s are more work, mostly to the track department. For the Shop they tend to need stay bolts at inopportune times but the rest isn’t so bad.
There are only so many K-36’s available and a few years back about all of them were still running this tells that a future need for K-37’s is quit possible.
Personally I would enjoy seeing a few the 37’s running again. They are still a favorite of mine also.
Jack
Dennis
