I find it interesting that I've seen various, equally authoritative, sources that say the restrictions on the Gunnison-Cimarron section were due to clearances or due to weight limits. I've long suspected that both were true, one for certain bridges and the other for other bridges. Perhaps both were true for some bridges also and some bridges (there were about 10 of the large ones) would have been ok as thay sat!
Could there also could have been clearance issues with lineside rock formations at places?
I do know that the clearance limits between Gunnison & Cimmaron were the tightest on the D&RGW 3' gauge lines, post WWII.
Interestingly, the tightest Std. gauge clearances were on the Montrose-Grand Jct. section, btw.
All this leads me to wonder just how much work, at what cost, would have been needed to allow the use of the larger engines between Gunnison & Montrose. After all, I can remember when K-36/37's were not allowed past Rockwood on the Silverton branch, and it didn't take Mr. Bradshaw long to change that.
For the conspiracy minded, given that the 1938 Branch Line Report reprinted by the CRRM admited that the Gunnison-Montrose section was "paying it's way" but still recommended it to be abandoned, perhaps the work needed was not undertaken to help with this program? D&RGW was certainly reluctant to invest in the line, as is shown by the ICC report on the abandonment in which D&RGW claims that $1 million would be required to solve the problems near Cedar Creek (the slides that started in '42 or so) were contradicted by testimony from a local contruction firm (which had done work on contract for D&RGW on the slide area) estimated less than $100K of work would solve the problem.
hank
