Rick’s plow wouldn’t be very appropriate for 52 or 53, as steep wedge plows without a lifting edge are subject to derailment from uneven side loads, since they need speed to bull through. However Rick’s plow is intriguing to me as a possible partial solution to ballast regulation.
Harry had studied railroad snow plow theory and passed both his knowledge and interest to me many years ago. It’s sort of quintessential Maine two foot railroading to study snow plow theory, I think. Arranging the leading edge to first lift the snow before wedging it out is an important feature to reduce side load and derailment hazard. 52’s current plow is designed with that theory. This design has its own problems, though, as the lifting of the snow puts a tremendous vertical load on the locomotive’s lead axle springs. Indeed, 52’s springs have suffered from plow duty, and have recently been replaced (not solely due to plowing however).
In fact a major motivator for No 53, for me, has always been a locomotive with sufficient traction to properly handle a modern diesel locomotive pony plow design on both ends. These plows have a shallow wedge angle and steep cutting edge angle, and work like a lathe tool. Snow is clearly sheared at the cutting edge- natural throwing it up- then it’s thrown out by the shallow wedge. At present the plan is to outfit 53 with such plows on both ends, both with flanging attachments.
Flanged track is wonderful…
I don’t mean any of this to be discouraging to this conversation. I did want to pass on that we’ve got a fair amount of thought into the topic,
Thanks
Jason
