|
Mike:
You're right, the patent application and drawings are for the so-called Clifton chute, not the Kerr chute, which was patented well before 1883. As for your story from Bob Richardson, he told that one to me, too, and there were a good many more. Here
is what I have written on the subject in the 1899 chapter of my opus on the first 10 years of the C&S:
When a locomotive took coal from any type of coal platform or chute, the engineer was to complete and sign a ticket with the engine number, date and amount of coal taken, leaving the ticket in a locked
box at the coaling station or with the station agent or operator. This allowed the accounting department to keep track of company coal – a substantial expense.
Some coal chutes of the type employed by the UPD&G, and later the C&S, also required the engineer or fireman to reverse a number board (literally) on the pocket from which coal had been taken to indicate the pocket had been emptied.
The process was more complex than most enginemen thought necessary, and there were problems with compliance.
When problems arose at Elizabeth, on the line between
Denver and Colorado Springs, near the end of 1897, UPD&G general auditor A.D. Parker sent his chief clerk, W.A. Dixon, out to investigate the situation, report and make recommendations.
Dixon’s December 21 report to Parker is enlightening, particularly as to the effort involved in keeping the coal chutes full:
“After interviewing the agent and the coal heaver at this place I would say that the fault lies with the engineers as to the shortage of coal.
“My investigation also brings out that the trouble is occasioned entirely by the night trains; no trouble whatever with the day engineers.
There are six chutes located about 800 feet from the station.
The heaver loads them at night, putting from two to five tons in each chute.
Boards are used, hung up and marked with the number of tons in each chute.
The engineer is supposed to turn the board with unmarked side out after unloading, but the agent charges that the engineers do not do this, but leave the boards with marked side out.
The next engineer who wants coal sees this, pulls the chute, and finding no coal, breaks the board.
The six chutes are in two groups of three each.
There is only one box for tickets.
The two groups are about fifteen feet apart.
Engineers, it is charged, invariably take coal and give tickets on the return trip [since the depot and operator were some 800 feet away].
“I would respectfully make the following suggestions.
As there is an operator here all night, make him responsible for the collection of the tickets.
Get six locks on the chutes, each of a different pattern or combination.
Have the chutes numbered in large letters one to six inclusive, locks numbered correspondingly.
The heaver at night will notify the operator how many tons in each chute.
When an engineer wants coal he must call at the station, tell the operator how many tons he wants, give the operator tickets for that amount, and the operator will then give him a key.
The reason I suggest having the chutes locked is the engineer might say he wanted three tons, give tickets for that amount and then go and pull a chute holding five tons.
The shortage at this station has undoubtedly been caused by just such a method.
The heaver puts five tons in a chute, marks it as such and in the morning finds tickets for only four tons.
“If you do not think it feasible to put locks on the chutes, I think there should be a box for tickets on each chute instead of only one box for the six chutes.
These boxes should be locked and the agent have keys for them himself alone.
Mr. Egan [superintendent of motive power M.F. Egan] should issue instructions to the engineers to put tickets in the box belonging to that particular chute.
Also, after the engineer has taken coal, to see that board showing the marked side out with the number of tons, [has] been turned, showing the plain side, so that when the next engineer comes along he would know that the chute was empty.
Engineers should also be instructed to leave tickets at the time of taking coal instead of waiting for the return trip.
The heaver is paid by the ton but can make nothing either by loading the chutes light or over, as he is paid on the billed weight of the car and all of which is loaded into the chutes.
The engineers dispute the number of tons as the heaver claims therein.
“The method used for arriving at the number of tons in each chute [pocket] by the heaver is arrived at by taking the total number of tons in a car and distributing it among the six chutes [i.e., pockets].
The chutes when loaded hold six tons each, but the heaver informs me he rarely loads more than five tons in one chute.
[Two pockets would have to be emptied to fill the tender of the largest 2-8-0s on the roster at the turn of the century.]
If the coal could be weighed and each chute marked off showing ton by ton, the engineers could not then raise any objection to number of tons claimed by the heaver.
It happens in many cases that the tickets are turned in the next day after the engineer has taken the coal, and as I understand it, the fuel clerk in your office is from four to six days back of date of daily report of this station in rendering his report
to the Supt. M.P. It may be the fuel clerk reports tickets short which he would receive the following day, but even if such as the case it would account for but a small part of the differences.
What I would like to see is this, viz, the chutes numbered, marked as to each ton, and locked.
The Supt. M.P. issues instructions to the engineers to stop here for coal (because if it got troublesome to them at all they would run by), give tickets to operator at station, turn board with plain side out after getting their coal.
Div. Supt. notify the night operator that he would be held personally responsible for all coal not accounted for at night, and as Mr. Connell hires the heaver, have him instruct the heaver to report at once to the agent any irregularities.
“I have impressed [on] both the agent and the heaver the importance of accounting for every ton and look for whatever improvement it may be in their power to give.”
Several of Dixon’s recommendations were put into effect, but the idea of locking each pocket was simply impractical, and the chalk-marked boards with the amount
of coal in each pocket were soon abandoned, too.
Hol
From: CBQ@groups.io <CBQ@groups.io> on behalf of Mike Decker <mdecker@gwtc.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 8:46 AM
To: CBQ@groups.io <CBQ@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Aurora coal chute 1868
I see by the Patent papers that one of the applicants is a 'J. E. Clifton'. That leads me to believe that these are the chutes that are popularly called the 'Clifton Pocket Coal Chutes'. Among others, the Rio Grande Southern narrow gauge in Colorado
used them. John T. Carruthers built an 'O' scale model of the Vance Junction chutes, which used to be on display at the Colorado Railroad Museum. I haven't been down there in years, so I can't say if it's still there.
When Bob Richardson got the C&S Mechanical records from the Denver Roundhouse, they included the Master Mechanic's Personnel records, account the Engineers worked for the Mechanical Department, not the Operating Department. The BN probably never thought of
that. One of the Investigations involved the Clifton chute at Colorado Springs. Seems like the Passenger job stopped to coal up at one of the pockets. Freight trains generally cut off the engine to spot for coal, but comparatively light Passenger trains
generally brought the whole train up. There were little wooden 'tags' in holders on the outer faces of the chutes, which were labeled, on one side, with the number of tons of coal in that 'pocket'. The other side was lettered 'Empty'. Well...somebody had
emptied the first pocket he came to, but neglected to turn the tag around. This happened about three times, by which time he was starting to 'rough handle' the train. The Conductor came up to remonstrate with the Engineer about it, and they got in a fist
fight, that's where the 'party' came in. The Master Mechanic allowed as how the Engineer had been severely provoked by other people failing to comply with the tag instructions, however, that was no excuse for beating up on the Conductor. I don't remember
the Discipline Assessed, but I suspect it was a number of 'Demerits, or 'Brownies'.
Mike.
_._,_._,_
Groups.io Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#58215) |
Reply To Group
| Reply To Sender
|
Mute This Topic
| New Topic
Your Subscription |
Contact Group Owner |
Unsubscribe
[archives@nauer.org]
_._,_._,_
|