Re: The case against K-37s

I would have been very interested in what the D&RGW locos would look like today if the D&RGW decided that a T.E.of 28,000-30,000 is the max and that they were not going to use rail any heavier than 70# ASCE. Then when they ordered new locos from Baldwin again in 1928 - 1930's, prior to building its K-37s, those “new” locos would have been a bit smaller but they would have been development of the K-27, 28 and 36 and would be very interesting and probably very “correct to the eye” when considering the track gauge. I always thought the K-27 and its replacement the K-28 were both close to the perfect size and power for the 3' gauge using few or no tie plates and 70# rail or somewhat less.

Along that line of thought, it’s Interesting that the WP&Y #70 inside framed Mike's have “bar type” Hodges trailing trucks and they were delivered in 1942(?), so I guess anything Baldwin made for 3' gauge till then would have had a fabricated (bar and plate) Hodges trailing truck and not been much different than the WP&Y #73. The Uintah #50 & 51 had a cast steel Delta trailing truck and they were built in 1928, so I don't know why the cast Delta didn't make it to anything after the K-36? If it were used on the K-37 it may have corrected some of the problems of excessive resistance (to turning) on the K-37.

What do you guys think of the Baldwin Guatemalan RY #180-204 numbered Mikes delivered up until 1948, they look like more modern versions of the K-36 to me, (I despise the ugly link blocks on then though), only they have a better trailing truck and smoke box throttles and a few modern options.

Loco112