Perhaps Gavin or someone who has more Garrett experience can give a better answer.
But, my take on it is that the market for narrow gauge Garretts was pretty much reduced to the D&RGW and RGS, Uintah, and maybe the EBT and SV after 1920. Most of the other lines had dwindling tonnage, and were relatively short, and could get by well enough with the existing power. Since the EBT and SV were handling the trains well with their relatively new 2-8-2's, I doubt that they would have been looking for much new motive power. The D&RG considered articulated about 1919, and the D&RGW bought more 2-8-2s and looked at articulateds in the 1920's, but chose to build the K-37's instead. The RGS was too broke. Another factor would be the need for new engine houses - I don't think a 2-8-2 + 2-8-2 would have fit any of the turn tables or roundhouse stalls, except at Salida and Alamosa. Gunnison, Durango, Montrose, and Chama at least would have needed new engine terminals. The D&RGW was trying to make the narrow gauge less of a money loser, but it wasn't spending any more than it had to - notice the K-37's instead of new articulateds. The K-28 and K-36 locos fit most existing roundhouses, but larger turntables were required in a few locations.
I've wondered why none of the standard gauge lines tried Garretts. Size of equipment perhaps? the North American clearance is much more generous than most of the lines where Garretts ran. My theory is that to get the size of coal and water capacity possible with conventional six axle tenders in the USA, the coal and water bunkers for a USA Garrett would be much higher - and the engine crew's field of vision would be much smaller. So this could represent a pair of problems from the operating department perspective. Reducing servicing stops was desirable, and being able to see obstacles in mountain territory is highly desirable. So I can imagine that a Garrett with a water or coal bunker big enough to match up to a big 4-8-2, 2-10-2 or 2-8-8-2 would have the crew vision qualities of shoving a box car ahead of a 4-8-2. Additionally, the simple articulated on the Mallet design was already coming into use in the USA, doing what the railroads wanted - one big locomotive with one crew instead of a pair of 2-8-2s or 2-8-0s and two crews. The fuel costs weren't the issue as much as the crew costs. And, again, the simple articulated fit existing engine terminals, and railroads were nothing if not conservative.
My theory and a buck buys a bad cuppa coffee . . . Any thoughts from t'other side of the pond, Gavin?
Charlie
-30-
