Re: *More* RGS 41 Returns to Durango (and more video!)
| November 28, 2023 01:07AM |
|
John K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought I'd read that 37, 38, and 39 were to be
> the Crystal River engines, and that they were
> turned down in favor of the 2 C-19s and C-17. I
> suppose I should "fact check" before i post
Id
> also read that about the 340 (400)- curious why
> she was turned down? I'm guessing those selected
> had already done time on the RGS, and were winners
> with the crews.
You're jogging my memory, John, and you're right. That was the original plan but the Crystal River engines spent more time on the ties than on the rails so the Rio Grande offered the 3 C-19s and the C-17 ("70-Class") as substitutes with comparable tractive force (roughly 67,000 lbs total for the CR engines and 74,000 for the RG engines). And as we now know the 409, 411 and 420 were perfect matches for the RGS, offering superior service for 35 years. One of which has logged 142 years of reliable service.
As to 'why not 400', if you read Little Engines & Big Men by Lew Lathrop, a 3rd Division Rio Grande Engineer who started out at the same time as the 400's were built, there are several accounts of 400 running out of steam and other failures. And refer to Jeff Taylor's assessment of the 340 in the posts this last week. As he says she is "Lazy...and not too interested in running." She was not liked by crews due to poor performance.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought I'd read that 37, 38, and 39 were to be
> the Crystal River engines, and that they were
> turned down in favor of the 2 C-19s and C-17. I
> suppose I should "fact check" before i post
Id> also read that about the 340 (400)- curious why
> she was turned down? I'm guessing those selected
> had already done time on the RGS, and were winners
> with the crews.
You're jogging my memory, John, and you're right. That was the original plan but the Crystal River engines spent more time on the ties than on the rails so the Rio Grande offered the 3 C-19s and the C-17 ("70-Class") as substitutes with comparable tractive force (roughly 67,000 lbs total for the CR engines and 74,000 for the RG engines). And as we now know the 409, 411 and 420 were perfect matches for the RGS, offering superior service for 35 years. One of which has logged 142 years of reliable service.
As to 'why not 400', if you read Little Engines & Big Men by Lew Lathrop, a 3rd Division Rio Grande Engineer who started out at the same time as the 400's were built, there are several accounts of 400 running out of steam and other failures. And refer to Jeff Taylor's assessment of the 340 in the posts this last week. As he says she is "Lazy...and not too interested in running." She was not liked by crews due to poor performance.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
488 stops for water at Los Pinos tank on closing day Oct. 1979. Photo courtesy Don Richter
The NGDF was started by Don Richter and is currently operated in his memory by Nathan Holmes and others. Others who have contributed to the upkeep of this board are (in no particular order): Charles McCandless, Everett Lueck, Ted Wilton, Cole Adams, James Bane, John Moellmer, Jon Bentz, Linn Moedinger, lloyd lehrer, Rod Jensen, John Craft, Steven Forney, Herb Kelsey, Bill Ramaley, Russ Sperry (El Russo Loco), Josh McNeal, John West, Jim Armstrong, Bob Bergstrom, Greg Scholl, Blake Forbes Doug van Veelen and Mark Fuller.