Locomotive plow chain placement

[tonyk375]

Anyone have a better picture of how the chains attach to the plow itself?
C&S 60 doesn't have the chains on the plow.
Here is a picture of the #9 but I think they are just dropped in the hole.
and a picture of how it is modeled on my 537.

[Chris Walker]

Tony,

looks like those support chains end in a J-hook to me,

DPL OP-6112
https://digital.denverlibrary.org/digital/collection/p15330coll22/id/42324

[tonyk375]

Would be great to see where the hooks attach to the plow.

[tonyk375]

Anyone have a better copy of this photo?

[Chris Walker]

tonyk375 wrote

Would be great to see where the hooks attach to the plow.

Tony,

It is my understanding that these chains support the heavy extended shank for the knuckle coupler not to support the plow hence the J-hooks emerging out from under the shank, that you showed entering the oval cavity in the first Post pictures.

[tonyk375]

Thanks Chris.  I had never seen the J hook you pointed out.  That solves how it was attached. Agree the chains support the shank. The picture of 64 with the plow raised shows this.  I should have said the Plow end.
One of the chains always seems to veer off center though.  Wonder where it went?

[Mike Trent]

Tony, the J hook was only used in the earliest use of the plows, to raise them. As can be imagined, this would have been an extremely difficult and dangerous endeavour given the weight of the plow while working in snow and ice.

Unfornutately, the only surviving rig is on #60, but it is probably how all of them were. There are two heavy hinges, just as would have been used to raise the point. This indicates there was an ability to do it as necessary. Most likely, it would have been done to help clear rock, or timber from under the plow during operations if the locomotive became stuck, but it would have been done using a jack or even a block and tackle,  not with the chain attached to the smokebox.

The chain itself could be the most frequently misinterpreted detail in the modeling world.

It is actually, whether one long chain joined by a turnbuckle, or two chains connected end to end with two turnbuckles, configured in a loop which was literally hooked to a welded hook at the top of the smokebox front, then run through TWO of the holes in the extended coupler pocket that ran from the pilot beam to the coupler itself.

It's only function was to help prevent sagging due to the enormous weight of the plow forward of the beam, but also to help keeping the rig from sagging during use.

The turnbuckles were used all the time to loosen the chain to open the door to bore flues.

As a testament of the strength of the setup without the chain, consider that the first item stolen from #60 was that chain very soon after being placed on display in 1941, to this very day. It does not sag at all.

So, as is often the case with such things, the chain was considered necessary, but it's design and application is actually very simple and easy.

One hook at the top, the two forward holes in the extended pocket and you're good to go.

I attach my chains through the holes, if they are holes, from the top with a dab of acc. I've never actually run down through one hole and up through the other. If the extended pocked isn't bored, I just attach the ends to the casting indentations.

Just as with the prototype, the chain should only be snug enough to not appear loose, it really could never have been over tightened with a flimsy turnbuckle.

Hope this helps.

Mike

PS Early pictures of #537 on the C&S show the headlight mounted squarely at the front of the smoke box. When a plow was set up for it, they had to move the headlight forward for the chain, added a hook behind the headlight, and cut the wood pilot beam at angles to bolt on the plow. There were three holes in the extended beam. The chain went through the first and second holes. The first was right at the front, just behind the blade. That should help the angle on yours.

[Chris Walker]

edit: sorry Mike replied while I was writing....

tonyk375 wrote

Thanks Chris.  I had never seen the J hook you pointed out.  That solves how it was attached. Agree the chains support the shank. The picture of 64 with the plow raised shows this.  I should have said the Plow end.
One of the chains always seems to veer off center though.  Wonder where it went?

Hi Tony,

I would have pointed out (what appeared to me to be) the J-hook in the photo the first time but I assumed it was obvious in that enlargement.

Re picture of 64, that is pre-automatic couplers and the extended shank solution.  I don't think they raised the butterfly plow after fitting extended shank, I haven't seen a photo of one raised with said knuckle, nor do I see how the base of the shank is fitted to the pilot beam to allow it, other than being fixed.  
Those chains (on the 64) are an Endless Chain Hoist not the twin support chains with Turnbuckles like on the 9, 73 etc.  Turnbucked chains are for tensioned support not hoisting into the raised position.

You may recall Derrell pointing out the extended Link in a photo he thought was taken after conversion to auto couplers on C&S #7x when in plow service at Pitkin, maybe that was to avoid this issue?

Which leads me to suggest that the plow with ex. shank coupler fitted didn't get raised, possibly any loco that was to lead with a plow, just didn't have the front coupler?  There doesn't appear to be any clearance what-so-ever to clear the Shank protrusion even if the couplerhead was removed.

And the veering of the chains;

After looking at a lot more pictures, I am now of the thinking that could possibly be from that the chains terminated through the shank in a line astern fashion rather than side by side, and individually into an inverted T anchor.   Maybe both side by side and line astern was done, just not noticed?  There is also a possibility that the J-hook could also be doubled/paired even.  Not many photographers got that close enough to record such detail with definition.

However looking at the several photos taken of both sides of the #73 by Otto Perry, those do seem to confirm the inverted T anchor.  Problem I see is there maybe two ways that it was done, a pair of J-hooks(sometimes in the logging industry called Sisterhooks) or a singular inverted T but both anchored line astern.

https://digital.denverlibrary.org/digital/collection/p15330coll22/id/42341
DPL OP-6128




All food for thought, I'm distracted with minecar frame building in my Shop at the moment, might have another look through photo's later tonight.

Anyone reading passing through Breckenridge soon?  

[Mike Trent]

Thanks, Chris. Of course, you are spot on. They never could have raised the plows with the extended pocket.

The one on #9 currently is purely a modern fabrication. Probably sort of a 12" scale model of a 1/4" scale casting. #60's is real.

I'll point out here again, that there were two different types  of plow blades. All of the ones on the Moguls were 42" high, and so is the one on #60.

Conversely, the ones on all of the other consolidations are only 36" tall, probably so as not to interfere with the lower smokebox doors.

[tonyk375]

Great information guys!

[Mike Trent]

I just read my last post about the two types of plows.

I don't think I mentioned that the plow on #60 is a 42" plow, same as was carried on the Moguls.

There are no 36" plows that survived. I've mentioned this before, but the 36" plows emerged as a "thing" during the elevation drawings for the Overland B-4-E On3 engines. Arendt Garritsen simply couldn't get #60's plow to fit on the 2-8-0's. They were 6" too tall.

And, best wishes for ALL OF US in 2021!