Jerry,
>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.
Since this all started with Herb's remark
>critical aesthetic component
and my reply
>The day ALCo hung that cross-compound on the front of the smokebox destroyed everything relating to the philosophy of aesthetics.
Our NZGR 4-8-2 classes J, J
A, J
B were out and out luggers of tonnage at a walk
and at home blowing along the track in excess of 85mph with an Express Passenger; very, very highly regarded by the Crews that worked them. The 4-8-4 K, K
A, K
B classes were also luggers and good Passenger locos but were significantly rougher riding at speeds over 65mph, thusly the J was the preferred Passenger power.
However unlike the D&RGW with future classes -36 and -37, the NZGR on the K
A chose to emulate the aesthetically pleasing look of the twin shrouded pumps up front therefore retaining the "family" look in the design(s).
Not to be confused with anything to do with design performance but the visual appearance.
All the J and K classes and your Grande K classes were designed and performed well for what they were, but that snout on the -28 lets it down visually.
That IS my Point.
p.s.
Back in the mid-to late 80's there was a J
A in my Depot for wheel work that was owned by one of the Preservation Societies, and the guy's got it steamed up for a test run. Unfortunately for me I was called out to run a light loco rescue and they had gone and done the test run before I got back with the bung loco. I had missed my only chance at riding in the cab of a J being given an "unofficial workout" then.