Harry Ferguson & Ferguson Ploughs (part 1 of 4)
Their development and types 1917 – 1964
& History of the Company connected to that development.

Harry Ferguson said in the early years of plough development that ‘It is no more possible to design a plough which would be suitable for use with various sizes of tractors than it is to design a cart which can be drawn by a donkey or a Clydesdale, or a body that would be suitable for all makes of car.”

He spoke these words intending that this should be a guiding principle. His experiences with trailed ploughs whilst working for The Irish Board of Agri­culture in the First World War, together with Willie Sands, convinced him of the need for a much improved design of plough.

William Sands had joined Harry Ferguson’s staff of May Street Motors, Belfast, soon after the establishment of the company in 1911, where initially, cars were serviced and later sold from the premises, agencies for such makes as Vauxhall and Darracq were acquired. By 1912 the motor business was flourishing under Fergusons management; the name was changed to the company title of Harry Ferguson Ltd. In due course the company began to sell farm tractors and the agency for the American ‘Overtime” tractor was acquired. Ferguson and Sands took to promoting this tractor together with a three furrow ‘Cockshutt’ plough.

They quickly discovered that practical pub­lic demonstrations were the most effective way of selling the machinery, and they soon learnt how hard it was to please farmers whose critical eyes were on the lookout for poor ploughing quality of faulty machinery. However, with much tenacity they persevered and by 1917 had gained a reputation as skilled and proficient tractor ploughmen. They were duly noticed by officials of the Irish Board of Agriculture and were asked to look at the efficiency of the tractors in use during the spring ploughing up campaign of 1917. The Ger­man ‘U’ boat offfensive had reached a climax by 1916-17 and Britain was in urgent need of food production from its own sources. The Government requested that another half million acres should come under the plough in Ireland in 1917; in fact some 637,402 acres were ploughed up, whereas in England and Scotland combined only another 350,000 were ploughed. Thus in the final years of World War 1 England was receiving more food from Ireland than from any other country.

Such was the food crisis at that time, it was said that Britain only had about two weeks supply of food left, due to the devastation wreaked by the German ‘U’ boats. Ferguson and Sands could claim responsibility for some of the success of the ploughing campaign in Ireland in 1917; they started work on March 19th 1917 at 5.00 a.m. and travelled widely in their task of tuning tractors and setting ploughs and demonstrating techniques and machines. (It is interesting to note that these articles were first started by the author on March 19th 1987 by pure coincidence, i.e. 70 years later to the day.) At the same time they gained an insight to the shortcomings of ploughs of that era.

Ferguson later wrote to the ‘Implement and Machinery Review’ stating ‘I can assure you that the (Overtime) tractor presents only small difficulties, but the adjustment of the ploughs to get them to do really good work is my greatest difficulty and the ploughs are a more serious problem to the country at the present time when ploughing work is urgent, than are the tractors.

Among some of the problems facing Ferguson were those of setting compli­cated assemblies with lots of nuts and bolts, and that of breakage or distor­tion of the plough parts or structure if obstructions were encountered. If obstructions were large enough the result was the rearing up of the tractor and subsequent overturning with often fatal consequences to the driver. Not only were the tractors longitudinally unstable, but the ploughs whilst in operation were laterally unstable as Sands found out one day whilst riding a plough which suddenly turned over sideways and narrowly avoided landing on top of him. Also considerable physical strength was needed to make adjustments or to raise the ploughs out of work.

Suddenly, one day Ferguson turned to Sands and said ‘There must be a better way of doing the job, we’ll design a plough’. These words were the beginning of the Ferguson system as it later came to be known after some twenty years of unremitting toil, frustration, heart breaking setbacks and seemingly endless experiment and negotiations with other manufacturers, and then after a further ten year period which saw the start of a massive legal battle with a major manufacturer.

By the end of 1917 Sands had constructed a two furrow plough to Fergusons plans and ideas, which were to adhere to lightweight construction and for use behind the Ford ‘Eros’ tractor, the agricultural conversion of the Ford Model T car¹. This plough weighed only 220lb. i.e. 1/3 of the weight of other two furrow ploughs in its day, and had less than half the number of parts than other ploughs. It also operated without the need for depth wheels, because of its unique hitching arrangement, under the chassis of the tractor and forward of the line of the rear axle. This design was fundamental to the Ferguson system because it caused the line of draft to pull all four wheels of the tractor down onto the ground and overcame the tendency of the front wheels to lift if an obstruction was met by the plough. The plough was mounted very close to the rear wheels of the tractor so that the weight of the plough was carried on, and the depth of work controlled by the rear wheels of the tractor thus making the depth wheel device redundant. There was a shear pin incorporated in the linkage connecting the plough to the tractor which was designed to break if the plough hit a serious obstruction. The lifting device was by means of a lever conveniently placed by the driver’s seat connected to a series of links and compensating springs. The working parts of the plough were designed for ease of adjustment as well as low soil resistance and low draft requirement. This plough was the so called’ Belfast’ plough.
Ford ‘Eros’ model T conversion tractor, with first Ferguson plough experiment (Journal Volume 3 No.2)

The plough was demonstrated behind the ‘Eros’ conversion tractor and was quite well received, though the first prototype was made of cast iron and collapsed one day in front of some highly amused farmers, when it hit an obstruction and the shear pin failed to give the protection it was meant to do. Later ploughs were constructed of alloy steels. The plough sold in small numbers, but the demise of the ‘Eros’ tractor put a stop to any further developments. Henry Ford was busy with introducing the Fordson Model ‘F’ tractor at this time, so Ferguson immediately redesigned the plough to suit the new tractor. This plough was hitched to the Model ‘F’ with two parallel struts one above the other and was patented and named the ‘Duplex’ hitch. This was again a fundamental development as the arrangement was the beginning of a unit principle, that of the plough being part of the tractor utilizing the geometric forces and lines of draft to the best advantage to aid traction and keep excess weight to a minimum, and to stop the tractor front end rearing up also. Again the plough was hitched very close to the back axle of the tractor and a similar device in principal was used to lift the plough and to control the depth as on the Belfast types.

I n the autumn of 1917, Ferguson learned that Henry Ford’s right hand man was in England to discuss the setting up of manufacturing facilities for the Fordson Model ‘F’. Ferguson quickly seized the opportunity to meet with Charles Sorenson and to discuss his plough ideas. He later travelled to the U.S.A., to meet Henry Ford at the ‘Rouge’ plant at Dearborn, Michigan. The plough they took with them to demonstrate to Ford was made with bronze beams and the first alteration was to make steel beams for it. The plough was duly demonstrated to Ford and Sorenson who were both impressed. However Ford tried to offer Ferguson a job in his company, to which Ferguson was not interested so Ford offered to buy the patent rights, again a refusal carne from Ferguson, who was only interested in getting Ford  ‘to manufacture the plough for him. The two parties had met their equals in stubbornness’ and parted company without establishing anything more than a healthy respect for each other.

Ferguson was still not satisfied with the design and returned to Belfast to improve on it. However in Belfast the other directors of Harry Ferguson Ltd. were upset that the trip to Ford and Sorenson had not produced more tangible results and no prospect of revenue, and they tried to persuade Ferguson to give up the experiments with the plough. Due to the uncertainty that now surrounded the plough project, Willie Sands decided to leave Ferguson’s employ and go out alone. Ferguson however decided to carryon with the design and experimental work on the plough and turned to Archie Greer, a pattern maker by trade, who had joined the Ferguson company earlier and had already been doing some work on the plough ideas.

New problems arose with the plough not giving even working depth and after much tinkering Ferguson and Greer were forced to fit a depth wheel on the ploughs in 1921 to overcome the problem of erratic ploughing depth. At this stage Ferguson decided to try to find another manufacturer and returned to America. After much searching they met with a large blacksmith business the owner of which was one John Shunk of Bucyrus, Ohio. In May 1922 an agreement was signed amid much local rejoicing and acclaim for John Shunk to make the plough for Ferguson. In June 1922 Ferguson returned to Belfast in triumphant mood to much attention by the press. However very soon afterwards the news came from Bucyrus that Shunk could not under­take to manufacture and supply the ploughs, for reasons that were never made clear, so the whole deal fell through. Immediately Ferguson set sail for America again to search for another manufacturer. This time he approached Roderick Lean Co., who made disc harrows in Mansfield, Ohio, and a deal was signed with them for manufacture of the plough with some of the components being made by the Vulcan Plough Co. of Evansville, Indiana. Ferguson returned to Britain only to find that in the U.S.A. some problems had been encountered with the depth wheel causing loss of traction to the tractor. Therefore more experimental work was required to try to overcome the irregular depth problem but without the use of a depth wheel.

Ferguson went to see Sands, who returned to Harry Ferguson Ltd. By this time i.e. during 1923 Roderick Lean was producing ploughs and they were being sold, and therefore any alteration to the ploughs would have to be incorporated into a modification to ploughs already in service. Sands went to work and came up with a brilliantly successful device that could also be sold as a kit to be fitted to existing ploughs as well as built into new ones. This device was patented in December 1923 and incorporated a skid or small wheel at the rear of the plough running in the bottom of the furrow, con­nected to linkage and pivots to the ‘Duplex’ hitch at the front end of the plough.
(Image published in Journal Volume 4 No.2)

As the tractor wheels rose and fell over uneven ground the movement was translated to the plough frame via the skid (wheel) so as to maintain even level of depth. For example, if the rear wheels fell into a depression thereby tending to pull the plough deeper into the ground, the geometry of the linkage at the ‘Duplex’ hitch changed, this was transferred to the linkage to the skid at the rear of the plough, the skid was forced downwards thereby raising the frame of the plough and holding the shares at an even depth. The same effect occurred in reverse if the wheels went up over a rise in the ground and also the front wheels of the tractor influenced the skid as well as they too rose and fell in response to the ground undulations.

The floating skid did not however take very much weight of the plough off the tractor so that the traction advantages derived from weight transfer from the plough to the tractor were retained and loss of wheel adhesion was no longer a problem. The floating skid was a complete success and the depth wheel was a thing of the past. A small ceremony was held in a field at Anderstown, about three miles out of Belfast where the team did their field testing, and a depth wheel was ceremoniously buried. Sands was later to remark that depth wheels removed from ploughs in America when skids were fitted instead found a use as spittoons!

Copyright: Ferguson Club & John Baber. Club Journal Volume 1, No.4, Summer 1987.

This article is continued in a supplement, based on feedback received to Part 1.
Followed by a further four articles.

FERGUSON PLOUGHS: THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND TYPES 1917-64
Supplement to first article in Vol.1 No.4 by John Baber.

By way of a supplement to the first article which appeared in Volume 1. No. 4. issue of the Ferguson Club Journal, it has been decided to include the following comments and sketches of the early plough development period, before moving on to the experiences with the Sherman brothers in the mid 1920’s, and beyond.

Mr. Bill Martin of Greenmount Agricultural College, Co. Antrim has kindly sent some correspondence on the early development years of Ferguson ploughs, and some of his comments are included in this supplement. It should be mentioned that he together with the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum in 1984, produced a very interesting booklet on Harry Ferguson and his life and work, and it is recommended that anyone interested, should obtain a copy. There are some very interesting pho­tographs and patent diagrams in this publication which have not been reproduced in the Journal. It should be noted that sketches and diagrams appearing in this supplement are not intended to be very accurate. The author has studied contem­porary photographs of early Ferguson ploughs and has attempted to build working models, to try to follow the workings of early ploughs and the lifting mechanisms, due to the fact that so far, virtually no detailed original visual material has been found to refer to, nor has it been possible so far to find original machines to inspect. Therefore the sketches are the author’s artistic impressions only, based on what descriptive material exists at present. If anyone can come up with the real thing either in terms of detailed photographs or diagrams, or original ploughs from the period, then obvi­ously more authentic descriptions can be made. It is hoped to raise some comments and correspondence on this topic of early plough development, and if any members can throw any light on the subject. then please write in to correct any discrepancies. The author is willing to enter into private correspondence with anyone who would like to investigate the matter further. Also it is not. yet possible to reproduce all the material that is available due to copyright restrictions etc.

Mr. Bill Martin’s comments are as follows:
1) Ref. the ‘Eros’ tractor and plough, ‘the plough was mounted very close to the rear wheels’. ‘I do not think this was so at this stage. Photographs etc., would seem to show that it was in fact rather far behind the tractor – very similar to a contemporary trailed plough. However as work proceeded and problems arose with maintaining uniform depth, the Implement gradually moved closer to the rear axle in order to get it to follow the ground better’.

‘The shear pins were carried in a neat little magazine on the frame just forward of the disc coulter stem. The whole attachment system at this time was a kind of sub-frame attached to the clevis drawbar. It looked very similar to the pick up hitch attachment on present day Ford tractors and seemed to be about the same size. But it was between the plough and the tractor and therefore it pushed the plough backwards by approximately the length of a normal drawbar. It was spring assisted and worked by two levers both of which were eventually bolted to the tractor and convenient to the drivers right hand. One, with spring assistance, raised and lowered the plough, while the other ‘rocked’ it. and was the forerunner of the levelling box’.

2) ‘Eros demonstrations with Ferguson plough on the farm of a Mr. Thorington at Boreham, Chelmsford, on March 22nd 1918. Demonstration arranged by the Bates Motor Works Ltd., of Maldon, Essex’.

3) Introduction of Fordson Model ‘F’ tractor. ‘Ferguson immediately redesigned the plough to suit the new tractor’. ‘I do not think that the plough which was designed in 1919 incorporated the Duplex hitch. This came later when the linkage was more fully developed’.

‘It was about 1922/23 before a linkage of parallel struts was developed and even then I would hesitate to describe it as parallel struts. It was in fact two clevis type drawbars – one above the other with the additional (upper) one bolted to the pinion (rear axle) housing, using the bolts which held the right/left hand half axle (trumpet) housings in place’.

4) 1917 meeting with Charles Sorenson. ‘Ferguson was given encouragement and little else – a tea and sympathy job. He went to the U.S.A. after the war, about 1920/21 to demonstrate the idea. His (sample) prototype plough was made in bronze because of the lack of steel casting facilities in Belfast’.

5) Andersonstown (Anderstown) where a ceremony was held to bury the depth wheel. ‘The ground at that time belonged to people by the name of Bullick’.

6) Comments on the Duplex hitch. ‘This Duplex hitch bothers me. Basically Ferguson attached his ploughs to the tractor in one of three ways viz .
a. the earliest ploughs – using a sub frame attached to the tractor and similar to a modern pickup hitch as aforesaid i.e. Eros and early Fordson model ‘F’ tractor.
b. two clevis drawbars parallel to each other on the horizontal plane. This was the system used on the later Ferguson/Sherman of December 1925 onwards.
c. using variations of the three point linkage.’ I think this latter was the only one which could be described truly as the Duplex hitch, but I may be interpreting incor­rectly’.

7) Roderick Lean. ‘Did Lean actually produce any ploughs? There were high hopes at one time but I thought the deal fell through or Lean collapsed before production even began’.

Bill Martin has made other comments on parts of the articles which will appear ‘in future issues of the Ferguson Journal, but these will be reserved for later use when those articles appear. Two early patent diagrams appear in Bill Martin’s booklet, the first thing being Ferguson Plough Patent No. 119883 (1917) referring to the idea of a plough on a tractor being semi-mounted with two levers to control it, mounted on the tractor (i.e. a more advanced design than some of the available contemporary pho­tographs show). The second patent diagram deals with a mechanical three point lift driven off the main rear axle worm gear on the upper side presumably with a torque sensing device which when under pressure would act on the toplink and raise the plough to regain traction and maintain even depth, and the other drawings refer to an early hydraulic system with external ram it would seem and external linkage, but with lower link draft sensing device, but with the lifting device acting on the upper link(s) two in this case but converging to join at the tractor attachment point.

It would seem possible that a good many ideas were experimented upon, some were documented and patented, some not, and yet others were made up into prototypes and again some not, and others which went into production and again dependant on which company was prepared to manufacture or who could survive the longest in what were troubled economic times a few years after the First World War before the really bad times of the early 1930’s and beyond.

The following diagrams are by the author and again it is emphasised that they are an attenpt to explain in simple terms what might have happened:

Author’s artistic impression of hitching device and lift linkage of Ferguson plough to Fordson model ‘F’ tractor circa. 1918/1919. Post ‘Eros’, pre ‘Duplex Hitch’. It is thought that the ‘Eros’ had a similar arrangement in principle. The compression spring gave assistance to the driver to lift the plough, when the lift lever was pulled rearwards. The lift rod lifted the sub frame which pivoted about Pivot 1. The plough frame pivoted about Pivot 3 so that the front of the plough only was lifted i.e. the shares were lifted out of the ground, -but the plough skated or skidded along on a curved portion of the long rear landside at the rear. The plough frame was also free to pivot laterally about Pivot 2, which was attached to the bar carrying Pivot 3, with another Quadrant 2 fixed to the sub frame, with a lever carried vertically on, and bolted to the plough frame, thus giving the facility to level the plough laterally. It would seem that the plough was levelled longitudinally by choosing the correct position on Quadrant 1 with the lifting lever.

Other patent diagrams which still exist (see Bill Martin’s booklet), show a more complicated assembly with two levers by the driver, with a sub frame and spring assembly closer to the tractor axle, and with the plough levelling done through another linkage operating via an ‘eccentric’ shaft device running between two horizontal plates attached to the plough frame.

Author’s artistic impression on Operation of Early Ferguson Ploughs with Depth Wheel.

By applying hand pressure to hand lever, the spring assists, being under tension, and the plough frame rises as the bell crank at the base of the lever rotates around the fulcrum on the quadrant. The geometry of the linkage changes due to the various angles at which upper and, lower links are fixed to the plough frame. Pivot links 1 & 2 are free to rotate round each other, but link 3 is fixed to handle 4 and spring ancho­rage 5.

The frame on the rear of the tractor could well have been attached by an upper and lower clevis type drawbar device, the lower being the normal type on a model ‘F’ Fordson tractor but the upper being bolted to the housings using the existing bolt holes in the axle half (trumpet) housings to rear centre pinion housing.

Contemporary photographs also show two cranked levers, one horizontal on the right side of the plough adjacent to the lift lever quadrant, and another in a semi vertical plane on the left forward area of the plough. These may have been for use in controlling front furrow width and/or plough levelling but it is not known at present how they were fixed or how they worked, and no attempt has been made to repro­duce these devices in diagrammatical form.

Author’s artistic impression of Hitching Arrangement of early Ferguson Ploughs to Fordson Model ‘F’ tractor, Circa 1923 ‘Duplex Hitch’ using Depth Wheel.
Author’s artistic impression of Method of Operation of the ‘Floating Skid’ Depth Control Device on early Ferguson Ploughs, Circa 1924:

II the tractor rear wheel dropped into a depression, the angle of lower links would increase (in relation to the plough frame) thereby pulling on the linkage to the shaft (in relation to the headstock) which rotates anti- clockwise to push on the linkage via the bell crank & pivot to force the floating ~id down in the furrow bottom thereby holding the plough frame up to normal depth. The hand lift lever would have to float in the quadrant somewhat to allow this control.

A list of patents follows for Ferguson’s early designs ,lI1et work on ploughs and later lifting devices as attached to tractors in the years following the first world war and into the 1920’s.

Patent number 119883 issued on September 12th 1917 which would appear to deal with the early semi-mounted plough as attached to the ‘Eros’ conversion and early Fordson model ‘F’ tractors.
Patent number 160248 issued on December 13th 1919 which dealt with a linkage of pmallel type attachment.
Patent number 186172 issued on December 28th 1921 which again was involved with IIsing a linkage but with a depth wheel and this time the linkage was not parallel in the previous sense.
Patent number 195421 issued on November 3rd 1921 again involving the use of a linkage but using spring(s) for depth control.
Patent number 226033 issued on December 11th 1923 whereby a device was used to overcome the use of a depth wheel to a greater extent and presumably appertained to the first use of the floating skid idea.
** Patent number 253566 February 12th 1925 which was the first patent involving the use of hydraulic fluid pressure, electric motor or mechanical friction clutch drives, to control the depth and lifting mechanism of ploughs. Principal of draft control established.
Patent number 320084 issued on July 3rd 1928 dealt with the linkage again but with two upper link arms and one lower arm which were of the converging link geometry principle.

I his device was soon to be changed to the final design of two lower and one upper links which has proved to be so successful, and external devices attached to existing tractors under experiment were soon changed to internal hydraulic mechanisms ilIuminating in the decision to design and assemble a prototype tractor to Ferguson’s own specification such were the limitations of existing tractors at that time.

** This patent was entitled ‘Apparatus for Coupling Agricultural Implements to Trac­tors and Automatically Regulating the Depth of Work’.

Copyright: Ferguson Club & John Baber. Journal Vol.2 No.1, Autumn 1987.

Mr. Bill Martin of Greenmount Agricultural College, N.lreland has once again lent his Invaluable assistance in the compilation of the history of Ferguson ploughs. Following the supplement article In Vol. 2 No.1 issue of the journal Mr. Martin has sent these following photographs which, as can be seen, are of excellent quality and clarity. Mr. Martin writes that the plough is attached to a 1917 model ‘F’ Fordson tractor, one of the ‘original’ 5000 that were sent over, and belongs to: Mr. H. Lemon, 20 Ballycastle Road, Newtonards, Co. Down.

(Unfortunately the quality of the journal copy scanned for this article has not reproduced the photographs well. Some images have been replaced, if you have other images we could use please contact the website at website@fergusonclub.com)

The technical problems of this second type of plough were by then overcome. Unfortunately Roderick Lean encountered financial problems in 1924 and then went bankrupt. Once again Ferguson sailed to America to find other manufacturing facilities. On his previous trips he had encountered the Sherman brothers. Eber Sherman had worked for Ford at one time and he and his brother George had set up as main Fordson tractor distributors for the state of New York. When Ferguson showed the plough to them they saw its potential and an agreement was set up in December 1925 between Ferguson and the Sherman brothers for manufacture of the plough for the Fordson Model ‘F’ tractor. The company was set up with the name of Ferguson-Sherman Incorporated at Evansville; the first cheque issued was for the sum of 1 dollar and on the counterfoil equivalent was written the words as a reason for payment (the payee being Harry G. Ferguson) ‘Down Payment on Success of the Unit Principle’. Ferguson stayed in Evansville for about a year to help get the business on its feet, and the plough was soon in volume production, well received by farmers and sold well. Meanwhile the Ford Motor Company had noticed the developments and success.

Published in Journal Volume 7 No.1

Later Ferguson returned to Belfast where further work was done on lifting and draft controlling devices on the tractors themselves. The principle known as draft control was established in 1925 and patents were granted in June 1926 in the U.K. and America. The patent was entitled ‘Apparatus for Coupling Agricultural Implements to Tractors and Automatically Regulating the Depth of Work’

Many experiments were undertaken, mainly on a Fordson tractor to try to build a lifting device which incorporated automatic draft control. At first a mechanical device seemed to be the answer but as far back as 1924 the team had been tinkering with hydraulic systems, and this eventually proved to be the form in which implement carrying and control appeared on later tractors.

By 1927 the plough business had gone well with the Sherman brothers agreement but then another blow fell, Henry Ford had decided to abandon production of tractors in North America in 1928 and the Ferguson· Sherman plough business ceased production. Sands decided to leave Harry Ferguson Ltd. again and once again Archie Greer stepped in to help Ferguson with future research though once again the pressure was on Ferguson to give up his experimental work. With the plough business discontinued Ferguson undaunted pressed ahead with the tractor experiments and in late 1928 he returned to America to see if anything could be salvaged from the Ferguson·Sherman plough business and to try to interest manufacturers in the hydraulic control device which at that time, though far from perfect, was proving to be the answer technically speaking, to the problem of implement control on the back of the tractor. Several companies showed interest but in the end, because of the looming financial depression, no one wished to commit themselves to a new venture.

Meanwhile Sands had rejoined Ferguson and together with Greer they set about perfecting the hydraulic control system. By 1931 it was dear that no manufacturer was going to be interested in their ideas for some time to come, and in 1932 they decided to build a prototype tractor themselves. In 1933 the David Brown company of Huddersfield, England, received an order for gears, transmission and steering components for the prototype tractor. By the end of 1933 the tractor was completed and went on test. (This was named the Black tractor because it was painted black).

A good many problems remained with the hydraulic system however but in the meantime Ferguson had been cultivating relationships with a whole new batch of companies in the U.K. who might be persuaded into manufacturing the tractor By 1935, after much deliberation with both technical problems and the difficulties in finding a manufacturer David Brown of Huddersfield went into tractor and implement production, with Harry Ferguson Ltd., being set up as the sales company. The Belfast car business was changed to Harry Ferguson (Motors) Ltd. The tractor had been improved upon since 1933 and the hydraulic system design was nearing completion with the use of, and discovery of, control by ‘suction side cut off’ and ‘overload release’ with draft control using the compression forces in the top link. The tractor was known as the model ‘A’ and the colour scheme used was battleship-grey.

The implements Were also made by David Brown and were a two furrow plough, known as ‘Type B’ with a 10 inch general purpose body; a semi-digger two furrow 12 inch width body and a single furrow 16 inch type. A tiller, three row ridger, and three row cultivator were also made for the model ‘A’ tractor. The tractor was priced at £224 and each of the implements sold at £28.
See Andrew Boorman’s article Implements for the Ferguson Type ‘A’

The tractor and implements were shown to the public at the Royal Ulster Show (Balmoral Show) in May 1936. Also in May 1936 one of the first public demonstrations of the tractor and implements was conducted at Claston Farm, Dormington, Hereford.

The first public outing for the Ferguson ‘A’ in England took place on Dormington Court Farm near Hereford in May 1936. Here the tractor is performing the classic Ferguson demonstration of tilling a small fenced compound. Note the hop yards at the rear. Does anyone know anyone who was there? Copyright photo courtesy, Institute of Ag. History and Museum of Rural Life, Reading University

Since 1928 when the Ferguson­ Sherman company failed, further improvements had been made to the plough design, which now was adapted to the three point linkage and hydraulic control system. A cross shaft now ran across the front end of the plough in a horizontal and transverse plane, being cranked up at the offside and cranked down at the nearside to hold the plough frame level whilst the tractor ran in the furrow bottom. This very ingenious device allowed for front furrow width adjustment by cranking the cross shaft fore or aft, by placing a spanner on the flats created in the centre (on type B ploughs) of the cross shaft after first slackening off the two ‘U’ bolts that held the cross shaft to the underside of the plough beams.

It also acted as a brace between the two plough beams at the front end and when marking up before ploughing, a shallow opening furrow or scratch could be made by raising the front furrow out of work on the levelling box of the tractor right hand lift rod, and taking advantage of the additional angle of the frame created by the cranks on the cross shaft. The floating skid device was no longer required in its original form, but a shorter land side on the rear furrow was fitted with a rolling (wheel) landside fixed behind this on a spring loaded arm. This device helped to aid rapid penetration when entering the furrow at the headland as well as assisting stability of the plough both laterally and longitudinally whilst having a bearing on front furrow width and therefore draft. The general layout of the framework and working parts of the plough remained largely the same as earlier ploughs, though the double arm coulter stems were now fixed in a vertical plane instead of inclined as previously with a revised form of clamp to the plough beam. The plough headstock was now different for accommodating the top link; a distinguishing feature being the curved plate behind the top link pin mounting.

1937 Ferguson Type ‘B’ 10 inch 2 furrow plough (# missing). Note the distinctive curved plate top of headstock, also found on early David Brown (1939 on) implements which used many parts identical to Ferguson. Ferguson mouldboards are identical to Olver GP, Part No P1.  Photo A Boorman

The type ‘B’ plough then set the basic design of Ferguson ploughs for almost the next thirty years, with only minor changes occurring from then on. Production of equipment from what ultimately became the Ferguson-Brown company was quite limited due to poor response in the market place. It also became clear that some improvements were still needed in the tractor for it to be really successful. Partly because of this fact, Harry Ferguson and David Brown began to have differences of opinion. Ferguson also wanted Brown to reduce the price and build in greater volume but Brown could not agree with this line of argument. That the ideas behind the hydraulic system and all its associated advantages was absolutely correct and well ahead of its time was not in dispute, but David Brown wanted more power from the machine and more power meant heavier construction and this Ferguson would not have, so the two sides began to polarise and the parting began.

Ferguson, had always kept in touch with the Sherman brothers since their tie up in the 1920’s. Ferguson also knew that the elder brother, Eber, was on personal friendship terms with Henry Ford. The Sherman brothers also were involved in a company known as Sherman-Shepherd which imported British Fordson tractors into· the U.S.A. and therefore close ties with Ford of Detroit were maintained. Ferguson therefore asked the Shermans to come over to England in early 1938, to see a demonstration of the Ferguson-Brown equipment at work. They were suitably impressed by what they saw and went away to inform Ford of the advances that Ferguson had made in the 20 years since Ferguson had shown Ford his first plough designs. Ford, in 1938, was again experimenting with tractor design. When the Shermans reported to Ford on their findings in England he, Ford, remembered his earlier meeting with Ferguson, and asked the Shermans if Ferguson could be persuaded over to Dearborn. This, of course, was exactly what Ferguson wanted. He arranged for a tractor, No. 722 with a set of implements to be sent first to Belfast and then on to America. In October 1938 Ferguson with his lifelong friend John Williams sailed to New York to meet the Sherman brothers and they arranged for the tractor and implements to be trucked to Dearborn. Meanwhile David Brown had been told that Ferguson was on a trip to America, but no reason was given.

Bill Martin of Greenmount College, believes that three tractors were shipped with implements in October 1938. They were Nos. 717, 720 and 722. No. 717 and 720-were presumably dismantled for inspection by Ford laboratory/test engineers for evaluation purposes. No. 722 is the sole survivor and is now in the Ford Museum at Dearborn alongside the Ford/Ferguson prototype and Ford 8N (Minor).

Ford was away from Dearborn when Ferguson, Williams, and the Sherman brothers arrived and a few days were spent setting up the equipment together with Ford’s staff. Thus when Ford returned everything was organized for a very well prepared and executed demonstration. At three o’clock on a warm sunny October afternoon in the autumn of 1938 the scene was set for the historic occasion whereby Harry Ferguson and Henry Ford were to shake hands later that afternoon on an agreement to manufacture and sell Ferguson System tractors from Dearborn, Michigan, U.S.A.

Ferguson as soon as possible on his return to England, terminated his agreement with David Brown and so ended the period from June 1936 to January 1939 when just over 1200 tractors and associated implements were made.

Copyright: Ferguson Club & John Baber. Club Journal Vol.2 No.2, Spring 1988.

In this third feature article John Baber traces the history of Ferguson ploughs from 1939 to the 1960s. Acknowledgement to Colin Frazer’s book ‘Henry Ferguson, ‘Arthur Battelle, Fordson Magazine of Pro. E.P Neufeld’s ‘A Global Corporation’.

In January 1939 the great partnership between Harry Ferguson and Henry Ford began. It is remarkable to recall that by April 1939 the first prototypes of a new Ferguson System tractor were being tested and that by June the Ford-Ferguson 9N was launched to the public. At the same time the old Ferguson Sherman link was re-established with financial assistance from Ford. This new Ferguson/Sherman Corporation marketed the 9N tractor and also manufactured the implements for it.

The principle implement was, of course, the 2 furrow plough (2 bottom plow to our North American readers). The design followed the English ‘B’ type except for the increase in under-beam clearance to 22″. However there were several minor differences worth noting. The beams were more slender in appearance and had a revised fixing for the cross shaft with the ‘U’ bolts actually passing through the beam itself. The head­stock on early production ploughs was cast in two pieces with a slightly curved section to the vertical and inclined struts. On later ploughs the inclined struts were separate and flat in section as they had been on the ‘B’ type. The ‘B’s curve plate behind the top link pin was omitted. Coulter stems were mounted in recesses cast into the beams with an eye bolt to clamp them in place.

Other minor changes affected the coulter assemblies and the furrow wheel (rolling landslide). The two small brace bolts on the ‘B’s coulter forks were omitted and the furrow wheel mounting bracket, after first appearing as the English design, later came with the hanging clevis that both limited up and down movement and anchored the flat spring. (Early type design is shown in the exploded diagram). To allow for the use of the Ferguson spanner to assist in turning the cross shaft two flats were machined at each end instead of one central one. Turning of the top link pin was prevented by two cast protrusions that engaged the lynch pin.

Various changes were made during the War years. These appear to be mainly concerned with strength using a more robust saddle to carry the mouldboards and heavier beams without the holes in the forward ends. The word ‘Ford’ was stamped where the holes had been. It is interesting to note one aspect common to all Ferguson ploughs from 1936 to the late 1950s and that is the angle of the cross shaft in relation to the beams. It is not quite at right angles but slightly advanced on the right hand side. Likewise the disc coulters are set to slightly undercut the furrow wall.

In due course there were six American ploughs.
They were:-
The IOH, 2 furrow 10″ with a base similar to a Scotch or lea type
The 310H 3 Furrow 10″ with a base similar to a Scotch or lea type
The 12A 2 furrow 12″ general purpose base
The 12B 2 furrow 12″ semi-digger
The 14A 2 furrow 14″ general purpose
The 16A 1 furrow 16″ digger base with slip nose share.

The 9N was launched to the world’s press and several hundred invited guests from eighteen countries on 29th June 1939 at Dearborn. To demonstrate the ease with which the tractor and plough could be handled, an eight year old boy, David McClaren, drove around before the assembled company. The following September at New York’s World Fair daily demonstrations were given of the 9N and plough.

During 1939/40 a tractor plus implements were sent to the U.K. to demonstrate the ‘System’ and gain publicity. Ferguson’s main objective was, however, to persuade Ford Motor Co. at Dagenham to produce the 9N. Ford U.K. management was independent of the U.S. and had already made an agreement with the British Government to supply the Fordson ‘N’. They were not inclined to re-tool with the war under-way and did not want much to do with Ferguson. A further setback occurred in 1941 with the departure of the Sherman brothers. Implement manufacture continued under a new company, Harry Ferguson Inc. with the dynamic Roger Kyes as marketing manager. Kyes’ approach to problems was well illustrated by the steel shortage in 1942. Production of tractors all but ceased in the latter part of the year and cash flow was slashed. Kyes exhorted dealers to send scrap tractors for smelting, persuaded his industrial friends to part with second­-grade steel ingots and developed an austerity tractor, the 2N. Ferguson’s approach was to try some high level politicking including the President of the United States himself. Successfully, it must be added.

Ferguson continued to press for the manufacture of his equipment at the Dagenham plants but was continually rebuffed. He eventually wrote directly to Henry Ford stating that he wished to withdraw from that part of their ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ covering the manufacture of Ferguson System tractors in the eastern hemisphere i.e. Dagenham. Henry Ford’s private secretary, Frank Campsell, on seeing the letter was horrified. Fearing what reaction it would arouse it is believed that the letter was never shown to Henry Ford. It was placed in a drawer and left. possibly in the hope of maintaining the relationship.

In the early summer of 1943, as a result of growing interest in human nutrition and health, a conference was held at Hot Springs, Virginia. Ferguson saw this as a golden opportunity to expand interest in his philosophy or his ‘World Plan’. He arranged a series of demonstrations at nearby Bethesda in Maryland at which he presented his ‘Plan’ as being integral to the development and progress of his ‘System’ . Ferguson saw poverty. inflation and nutrition as the key elements to overcome for all mankind and his System as the ‘vehicle’ to achieve it.

Trevor Knox. who had joined the Ferguson team in the early 1930s. was assigned the task of finding a manufacturer in the U.K. The 9N tractors had, by mid 1943. begun to make their mark on the British market. A chance meeting between’ an acquaintance of Trevor Knox and an advertising executive who handled the Standard Motor Company’s account led to the eventual production of the famous TE20 at Coventry. War time restrictions were overcome by Ferguson’s extraordinary lobbying abilities: he even went as far as the then Chancellor. Sir Stafford Cripps and argued .. successfully. that Ferguson equipment was needed not only for our farms but as a dollar earner as well. Sufficient dollars were allocated to build’ 200 tractors a day including the purchase of ‘Continental Z 120’ engines from the U.S. and 3 million for implement parts. The first TE 20 (Tractor England) machines came off the assembly line in the autumn of 1946. Implements, including ploughs, were supplied by outside contractors such as Rubery Owen, a Midlands company.

The design of the post-war ploughs essentially reverted back to the pre-war ‘B’ type. The plough beams were of thicker section than the Sherman and differed from the ‘B’ in having a concave face to part of their length giving, at first glance, an H section appearance. The headstock was similar to the ‘B’ but minus the characteristic curved plate behind the top link pin. The brass patent/identification plate was located on the headstock instead of on the brace beam as on all earlier ploughs. The coulter clamps were fixed to the beams as on the ‘B’ models and similarly the cross shafts were, once again, a separate assembly bolted to the side of the beams. Cross shaft movement to adjust front furrow width was as on the Ferguson/Sherman ploughs (see illustration). A key was set into the underside of the cross shaft to prevent side movement. The settings shown in the table are critical and this key helped to maintain the correct shaft location. The double arm disc coulters were virtually the same as on all earlier. ploughs though, as with the Sherman models, the two small pins behind the coulter stems were absent. The furrow wheel was similar to the earlier types with the clevis arrangement to locate the spring against the lower pin and the top pin restricting upward movement.

A small L shaped piece was fitted below the top link pin, the pin stopper, to prevent rotation and consequent breakage of the retaining chains. Various accessories were developed for the British ploughs. Mouldboard extension plates and, later, single arm disc coulter, a third furrow conversion kit and a lever operated furrow width adjuster were introduced. Post War plough development, that had started in 1947 as a standard 2 furrow 10″ general to purpose type, proceeded until by the 1960s there was a choice of 5 bases and 176 different builds. All these models were built around one basic frame apart from the disc plough and reversibles. Even these shared some common parts. The British ploughs were designated as shown in the following chart in three series. Firstly, from 1947 to 1956, secondly from 1956 to 1958 and lastly all ploughs built after 1958. This last range was to set the pattern that continued until the mid 1960s.

Under the Ferguson name the conventional ploughs were identified thus: (1947-1956)
Type AE 28   Description                                    Weight  Price **

AE28 10H	2 furrow 10″ width general purpose base	3591b	£47-10-0
AE28 10B	2 furrow 10″ width semi-digger base	3641b	£47-10-0	•
AE28 12B	2 furrow 12″ width semi-digger base	3611b	£47-10-0
AE28 12C	2 furrow 12″ width Deep-digger base	3981b	£51-10-0
AE2816C	1 furrow 16″ width Deep-digger base	2581b	£38-00-0
AE283-8G	3 furrow 8″ width Lea type base	540lb	£76-00-0
AE28 3-1 OH	3 furrow 10″ width general purpose base	5251b	**
AE28 3-1 OB	3 furrow 10″ width semi-digger base	5331b	**
AE28 3-12B	3 furrow 12″ width semi-digger base	560lb	**
TAE2816C	Single furrow reversible 16″ width	5451b	£84-00-0
	Deep-digger base (bodies at 80° angle)
2PAE20	2 furrow disc plough	4481b	£63-00-0
3PAE20	3 furrow disc plough	672 Ib	£88-00-0
			approx .

** Prices denoted are for equipment supplied new in January 1952.

A third furrow conversion set was available for 10″ width ploughs at a cost of (1952) £26-10-0. Steel shares cost an extra 15 shillings each over cast iron. The 3-8G plough was supplied with a cast iron share. All other types had an option on cast iron. cast steel, or fabricated steel shares with the exception of the 12C and 16C ploughs which had steel shares only.

By the mid 1950’s when the company had merged with Massey Harris the conventional range was redesigned as:
FE93 mould board ploughs available with general purpose, ‘H’ base FE93 mouldboard ploughs available with semi digger ‘B’ base
FE93 mould board ploughs available with Digger ‘N’ base
FE94 mould board plough with Bar point ‘Y’ base – 12″ only
(with either disc coulters or large on-beam skim coulters)

Several new features were added to this range, i. e. Screw type. furrow width adjuster, greater clearance between bases, strengthened furrow wheel design, inverted ‘U’ strut from top link to mid beam on three furrow ploughs, improved single arm coulter design, simplified cross shaft clamp. The 8″ Lea base had been discontinued.

Cross Shaft Settings: Ferguson AE28 types:

Dimension for 8 inch three furrow plough …..5.875″ (150 mm)
Dimension for 10 inch two furrow plough… 9.875″ (240 mm)
Dimension for 10 inch three furrow plough .. 5.5″ (140 mm)
Dimension for 12 inch two furrow plough …7.5″ (190 mm)
Dimension for 12 inch three furrow plough …6.5″ (175 mm)
Dimension for 16 inch single furrow plough….8. 875″ (215 mm)
(Corrections were published in next edition Vol.3 No.1 of the journal)
Ferguson/Sherman same as above with addition of 14 inch 2 bottom plow 3

Copyright: Ferguson Club & John Baber. Club Journal Vol.2 No.3, Autumn 1988.