Chris, if you do not like the looks of a K28 that is a personal opinion, but to say the K28s are a bad design is simply not accurate.
I have ridden in the cab of K36s on both the C&TS and D&S and time in a K28 cab. Had an engineer compare a K36 to a K28 this way. A K36 is a dump truck while a K28 is a BMW or Ferrari. The trailing truck on a K36 is forward under the firebox with the cab sticking out in space making a ride on one like a bucking horse. The trailing truck on a K28 is under the fireman and engineer seats making for a better ride.
1. The D&RGW did not build more K28s as they cost more than a K36. A K28 cost $34,270.33 vs $27,898.05 for a K36.
2. The D&RGW needed a more powerful locomotive, the K28s were build primarily for passenger and mixed train service. The K36s were 36,000 lbs tractive effort vs 27,500 for the K28s.
Note: the D&RGW almost did not buy the K36s. Baldwin proposed a 4-8-2 design which would been an M36.
A D&RGW engineer who started in 1915 and retired in 1970 told me he ran K28s at 45 mph between Gunnison and Sargents and no way he would have done that on a K36 or K37.
The K28s were the most reliable D&RGW K class narrow gauge engines. On the D&S, the most reliable engine has been the 473.
The following D&RGW Repair Cost Chart from 1934 and 35 shows the K36 maintenance costs were higher than the K28s even though the K28s ran about twice as many miles. 11.10 center per mile for a K28 vs 12.47 for a K36 in 1934 and 9.45 cents for a K28 and 14.67 for a K36 in 1935.
I spent hours talking with a number of D&RGW engineers who ran these engines for years. Frank Wright ran a brand new K28 for its first time in 1923. I have spent hours with D&S crews and they all say the same thing, a K28 is a sport model and a K36 is a MACK truck.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2018 08:03AM by Jerry474.