Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: 492

May 17, 2005 08:05AM
I too would love to see some of the K-37's back in service. (OK, I'll admitt, I would like to see all of them back in service) I think that something is missing with their absence. One thing that has always puzzled me on their reputation for being hard on track, why did the Rio Grande continue to keep some of them in operation long after some of the K-36's were set aside? I have seen photos of the 485 after the pit escapade, and it doesn't look that bad that it couldn't have been repaired. They repaired 492 after the rock accident 7 years later. I would have thought that the Rio Grande would have known that they caused track damadge and would have retired them earlier if it truly was an issue. The issues of older boilers and other issues are all valid, but from the bleachers, it would appear that the track issue was a non-issue to D&RG. I sure wish that someone with great financial resources had a thing for the 490's
Steve
Subject Author Posted

492

480 May 16, 2005 06:30PM

Re: 492

Carlos Llamas May 16, 2005 08:05PM

Re: 492

Dave Peterson May 16, 2005 11:12PM

Re: 492

Steve C May 17, 2005 08:05AM

Re: 492 *LINK*

Greg Scholl May 17, 2005 08:30AM

Re: 492

Earl May 17, 2005 01:52PM

Well said--they aren't bad engines. *NM*

William Reed May 18, 2005 08:04AM



Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.