Who is entitled to the honour of constructing the Wylam
locomotives?—The claims of Hackworth, Hedley and
Foster—“Puffing Billy”—Rebuilt as an eight-wheel
engine—Stewart’s locomotive—Sharp practice causes
Stewart to abandon locomotive building—George
Stephenson as a locomotive builder—His hazy views as to
his first engine—“Blucher”—The German General proves
a failure—Stephenson and Dodd’s engine—Stephenson’s
third engine, with (so-called) steam springs—Competent
critics condemn Stephenson’s engines—The “Royal
William”—The “Locomotion”—Hackworth, General Manager
of the Stockton and Darlington Railway—Horse haulage
cheaper than Stephenson’s locomotives—Hackworth to
the rescue—The “Royal George,” the first successful
locomotive—The “exhaust” steam blast—Rival claimants
and its invention—Locomotive versus stationary engine
—“Twin Sisters”—“Lancashire Witch”—“Agenoria”—The
“Maniac”, a Forth Street production.
We have now arrived at a point in the evolution of the steam locomotive
where the claims of several men are in competition. The facts as to the
experiments and construction of the engines at Wylam are not disputed.
The question at issue is as to whom the honour of the success should
be given. Christopher Blackett, of the Wylam Colliery, as previously
stated, ordered a locomotive of Trevithick, but never used it. He,
however, determined to make a trial of steam haulage on his plate way,
and in 1811 some kind of experiments were made, having in view the
above-mentioned object. At this time Timothy Hackworth was foreman of
the smiths (he would now be called an engineer), and William Hedley
was coal-viewer at Wylam. The friends of both Hackworth and Hedley
claim for their respective heroes the honour of these early essays
in locomotive construction. But it is probable the honours should be
shared by both, as well as by Jonathan Foster, who also assisted in the
experiments and construction of the Wylam locomotives.
Hedley was colliery-viewer at Wylam, and therefore, most likely,
Hackworth was, to an extent, under his orders, and probably had to
defer to, and act under, the instructions of Hedley.
But Hackworth’s position as foreman-smith did not preclude him from
making suggestions and introducing improvements of his own into the
locomotives under construction.
It is stated that Hedley was jealous because Hackworth obtained the
praise for building the Wylam locomotives (or “Timothy’s Dillies,”
as they were locally called), and to force Hackworth to leave Wylam,
Hedley required him to do some repairs to the machinery on Sundays.
Now, Timothy was a fervent Wesleyan, and spent his Sundays in local
preaching, so he naturally refused to violate his conscience by working
on that day. Consequently Hackworth sought employment elsewhere.
[Illustration: FIG. 4.—HACKWORTH’S “WYLAM DILLY,” GENERALLY KNOWN AS
HEDLEY’S “PUFFING BILLY”]
On the other hand, it was a sore point with Hackworth that George
Stephenson spent his Sundays at Wylam taking sketches and particulars
of the locomotives at that time at work on the Wylam Railway, the
result of which observations was apparent in the locomotive built by
Stephenson at Killingworth in 1814.
The Wylam experimentalists in October, 1812, constructed a four-wheel
vehicle driven by manual power working cranks connected with spur
wheels. The carriage was loaded until sufficient weight had been placed
upon it to cause the wheels to turn round without progressing.
The experiment, however, satisfied Mr. Blackett that locomotive engines
with smooth wheels could be employed in drawing loads on his tramroad;
and the construction of an engine was immediately proceeded with. This
was completed and put to work early in 1813. It had a cast-iron boiler,
and a single internal flue; the solitary cylinder was 6in. in diameter,
and a fly-wheel was employed after the model of Trevithick’s engine.
The steam pressure was 50lb. This four-wheel engine drew six coal
trucks at five miles an hour, and, therefore, did the work of three
horses—not a very powerful example of a steam locomotive, it will be
observed. This engine being somewhat of a failure, it was decided to
build another, and one with a wrought-iron boiler and a return tube was
constructed. In his engine (Fig. 4) it will be noticed the fire-box and
chimney were both at the same end of the boiler. Two vertical cylinders
were fixed over the trailing wheels of “Puffing Billy” (for it is this
historical locomotive, now preserved in the South Kensington Museum,
that is now being described). The piston-rods were connected to beams
of the “Grasshopper” pattern, being both centred at the funnel end
of the engine. The driving-rods were connected with these beams at
about their centres, and passed down to spur wheels, which, by means
of toothed wheels on either side, communicated the motion to the four
carrying wheels. The spent steam was conveyed from the cylinders to
the chimney by means of two horizontal pipes laid along the top of the
boiler. It was soon discovered that the cast-iron tram-plates, which
were only of four square inch section, were unable to bear the weight
of “Puffing Billy,” and another change was decided upon.
The engine was therefore placed on two four-wheel trucks (Fig. 5), so
that the weight was distributed on eight instead of four wheels, the
same method of spur gearing was employed, and the whole of the wheels
were actuated by means of intermediate cog-wheels. To prevent, as
far as possible, the noise caused by the escaping steam, a vertical
cylinder was fixed on the top of the boiler between the cylinders and
the funnel. Into this chamber the spent steam was discharged, and
from it the same was allowed to escape gradually into the chimney.
In addition to the improvement of a return tube, with its extended
heating surface, with which this class of engine was provided, the
funnel was only 12in. in diameter, as compared with 22in. diameter as
used by Stephenson in his early engines. As already stated, the Wylam
locomotives were locally called “Timothy’s Dillies,” after Timothy
Hackworth, to whose inventive genius they were popularly ascribed.
In 1830, the cast-iron plates on the road from Wylam to Leamington
were removed, and the course was relaid with edge rails, so that the
necessity for eight-wheel engines was at an end. “Timothy’s Dillies”
were then reconverted to four-wheel locomotives, and continued at work
on the line till about 1862.
[Illustration: FIG. 5.—HACKWORTH’S OR HEDLEY’S SECOND DESIGN, AS USED
ON THE WYLAM RAILWAY IN 1815]
Not many locomotive writers are acquainted with the fact that in 1814
William Stewart, of Newport, Mon., constructed a locomotive for the
Park End Colliery Company, which was tried on the Lydney Railway, and
found to work in a satisfactory manner. The Park End Colliery Company
were paying about £3,000 a year to contractors for horse haulage of
their coal to the Forest of Dean Canal, and Stewart undertook to do the
same by locomotive power for half that sum. The Company accepted his
terms, and he set about the construction of his engine. Whilst this
was progressing the contractors who provided the horses were told at
each monthly settlement that the Company were going to use a locomotive
to haul the coal, as horse-power was too expensive. By means of these
threats the contractors were induced each month to accept a less price
than previously for “leading” the coal over the tramroad. Upon the
specified date Stewart’s locomotive was duly delivered on the line, and
accepted by the Park End Colliery Company for doing the work required;
but the engineer was informed that the horse-power contractors were
then only receiving £2,000 a year for the work, and that as Stewart
had agreed to provide locomotive power at one-half of the sum paid for
horses, he would only receive £1,000 a year.
Stewart was so highly indignant at this piece of sharp practice that
he refused to have anything further to do with the Park End Colliery
Company, and at once removed his locomotive off their tramroad, and
took it back to Newport.
The earliest attempts of George Stephenson in connection with the
evolution of the steam locomotive now deserve attention. Stephenson
himself is not very clear about his first engine, for, speaking at
Newcastle at the opening of the Newcastle and Darlington Railway in
1844, he said that thirty-two years ago he constructed his first
engine. “We called the engine ‘My Lord,’ after Lord Ravensworth, who
provided the money for its construction.” Both these statements are
erroneous, for Stephenson did not build his first engine till 1814,
and thirty-two years before 1844 would have been 1812. Then the engine
could not have been called “My Lord,” after Lord Ravensworth, for the
title did not exist in 1814, the gentleman alluded to being only Sir
Thomas Liddell till the coronation of King George IV. in 1821, when he
was created Lord Ravensworth.
The “Blucher,” as this engine was in fact usually called, was first
tried on the Killingworth Railway on July 25th, 1814; she had a
wrought-iron boiler, 8ft. long and 2ft. 10in. diameter, with a single
flue 20in. diameter, turned up in front to form a chimney. The power
was applied by means of two vertical cylinders located partly within
the boiler, and projecting from its top, close together, and near the
middle. The cylinders were 8in. diameter, the stroke 2ft. The motion
was conveyed to the wheels by means of cross-heads and connecting-rods
working on small spur wheels (Fig. 6), which engaged the four carrying
wheels by means of cogged wheels fitted on the axles of the flanged
rail-wheels; these were only 3ft. in diameter, and were 3ft. apart.
The spur wheels engaged another cogged wheel, placed between them, for
the purpose of keeping the cranks at right angles. No springs were
provided for the engine, which was mounted on a wooden frame, but the
water barrel was fixed to one end of a lever, and also weighted; the
other end of this lever was fixed to the frame of the engine. This
arrangement did duty for springs!
[Illustration: FIG. 6.—STEPHENSON’S INITIAL DRIVING GEAR FOR
LOCOMOTIVES]
The best work done by “Blucher” was the hauling of loaded coal-wagons,
weighing 30 tons, up an incline of 1 in 450, at about four miles an
hour. This first effort of Stephenson had no original points about
it; the method of working was copied from the Wylam engines, whilst
Trevithick’s practice was followed with regard to the position of the
cylinders—_i.e._, their location, partly within the boiler. The average
speed did not exceed three miles an hour, and after twelve months’
working the machine was found to be more expensive than the horses it
was designed to replace at a less cost. The absence of springs was
specially manifested, for by this time the engine was so much shaken
and injured by the vibration that the Killingworth Colliery owners were
called upon a second time to find the money to enable Stephenson to
construct another locomotive.
The second engine (Fig. 7) constructed by George Stephenson was built
under the patent granted to Dodd and Stephenson on 28th February,
1815. In this engine vertical cylinders, partly encased in the boiler,
were again employed; but their position was altered, one being placed
at each extremity of the boiler over the wheels, the intermediate
spur wheels formerly used for keeping the cranks at right angles
were abandoned, and the axles were cranked. A connecting-rod was
fitted on these cranks, thus coupling the two axles. To give greater
adhesion, the wheels of the tender were connected with those of the
engine by means of an endless chain passing over cogs on the one pair
of engine wheels, and over the adjoining pair of tender wheels; by
these methods six pairs of wheels were coupled. The mechanics engaged
were not, however, capable of forging proper crank axles, and these
had to be abandoned, and an endless chain coupling employed for the
engine wheels, similar to the one connecting the tender and engine, as
previously described.
[Illustration: FIG. 7.—STEPHENSON AND DODD’S PATENT ENGINE, BUILT IN
1815]
This engine had no springs, and, to avoid excessive friction arising
from the bad state of the tramroad, Stephenson employed “ball
and socket” joints between the ends of the cross-heads and the
connecting-rods. In this way the necessary parallelism between the ends
of the cross-heads and the axles was maintained. The spent steam in the
engine was turned into the chimney, as in Trevithick’s Pen-y-darren
locomotive. This locomotive commenced to work on 6th March, 1815.
George Stephenson constructed a third engine (Fig. 8), under a patent
granted to Lock and Stephenson on 30th September, 1816; this patent
covered several matters, the most important in connection with the
engine being malleable iron wheels, instead of cast-iron, and what has
been described as “steam springs.” The patentees called them “floating
pistons”; of this description Colburn says emphatically “they are not,”
and the same authority continues, “and they (Lock and Stephenson)
added, evidently without understanding the true action of the pistons,
which were different in principle from the action of springs, that
inasmuch as they acted upon an elastic fluid, they produced the desired
effect, with much more accuracy than could be obtained by employing the
finest springs of steel to suspend the engine. The whole arrangement
was, on the contrary, defective in principle and objectionable on
the score of leakage, wear, etc.; and, as a matter of course, was
ultimately abandoned.”
[Illustration: FIG. 8.—STEPHENSON’S IMPROVED ENGINE, AS ALTERED, FITTED
WITH STEEL SPRINGS (INVENTED BY NICHOLAS WOOD)]
In the drawings attached to the patent specification this engine is
shown with six wheels, and the chain coupling is employed. Lecount
says: “The six wheels were continued in use as long as the steam
springs were applied, and when steel springs were adopted they were
again reduced to four.” So much praise has been given to Stephenson
for the “great improvements” he is supposed to have introduced into
the construction of the locomotive, that it will not be uninteresting
if we here reproduce the extremely pertinent remarks of Galloway, the
well-known authority on the steam engine, which go far to prove that
it was only the great success obtained by George Stephenson from the
construction of the Liverpool and Manchester and other railways, that
caused historians and biographers to either magnify his locomotive
successes, or to gloss over the evident faults in the design and
construction of his engines. In his “History of the Steam Engine,”
published in 1827, Galloway says: These locomotive engines have been
long in use at Killingworth Colliery, near Newcastle, and at Hilton
Colliery on the Wear, so that their advantages and defects have been
sufficiently submitted to the test of experiment; and it appears that,
notwithstanding the great exertions on the part of the inventor, Mr.
Stephenson, to bring them into use on the different railroads, now
either constructing or in agitation, it has been the opinion of several
able engineers that they do not possess those advantages which the
inventor had anticipated; indeed, there cannot be a better proof of
the doubt entertained regarding their utility than the fact that it
has been determined that no locomotive engine shall be used on the
projected railroad between Newcastle and Carlisle, since, had their
advantages been very apparent, the persons living immediately on the
spot in which they are used, namely, Newcastle, would be acquainted
therewith.
“The principal objections seem to be the difficulty of surmounting
even the slightest ascent, for it has been found that a rise of only
one-eighth of an inch in a yard, or of eighteen feet in a mile, retards
the speed of one of these engines in a very great degree; so much so,
indeed, that it has been considered necessary, in some parts where
used, to aid their ascent with their load, by fixed engines, which
drag them forward by means of ropes coiling round a drum. The spring
steam cylinders below the boiler were found very defective, for in the
ascending stroke of the working piston they were forced inwards by the
connecting-rod pulling at the wheel and turning it round, and in the
descending stroke the same pistons were forced as much outwards. This
motion or play rendered it necessary to increase the length of the
working cylinder as much as there was play in the lower ones, to avoid
the danger of breaking or seriously injuring the top and bottom of the
former by the striking of the piston when it was forced too much up or
down.”
Stephenson must have felt himself to be a personage of some importance
when he received an order from the Duke of Portland for a steam
locomotive. The engine, which had six wheels, was duly built and
delivered in 1817, when it was put to work on the tramroad connecting
the Duke’s Kilmarnock Collieries with the harbour at Troon; but,
after a short trial, its use was abandoned, as the weight of the
engine frequently broke the cast-iron tram-plates. It has been stated
that “this engine afterwards worked on the Gloucester and Cheltenham
Tramroad until 1839, when the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway bought
the line, and took up the cast-iron tram-plates.”
There is no doubt that a six-wheel engine with vertical cylinders
partly encased in the top of the boiler, and called the “Royal
William,” was actually at work on this line—the fact having been
commemorated by the striking of a bronze medal; but there is nothing to
show that the “Royal William” and the engine built for the Kilmarnock
and Troon Tramroad were one and the same locomotive; whilst it is
certain that the Gloucester and Cheltenham Tramroad was not purchased
by the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway, but jointly by the Cheltenham
and Great Western Union Railway and the Birmingham and Gloucester
Railway, the price paid being £35,000.
It would appear from a letter written by George Stephenson, and dated
Killingworth Colliery, 28th June, 1821, that he had but little idea
to what a great degree the development of the steam locomotive would
be carried. The letter, which was addressed to Robert Stevenson, the
celebrated Edinburgh engineer, proceeded as follows: “I have lately
started a new locomotive engine with some improvements on the others
which you saw. It has far surpassed my expectations. I am confident
that a railway on which my engine can work is far superior to a canal.
On a long and favourable railway I would start my engine to travel 60
miles a day, with from 40 to 60 tons of goods.” Taking Stephenson’s
“day” to mean twelve working hours, his idea of maximum speed did
not exceed five miles an hour at that time. Before this—in December,
1824—Charles MacLaren had published in the _Scotsman_ his opinion that
by the use of the steam locomotive “we shall be carried at the rate of
400 miles a day,” or an average speed of 33⅓ miles an hour.
Yet such is the irony of fate, that MacLaren, the true prophet, is
forgotten, and George Stephenson is everywhere extolled.
The Hetton (Coal) Railway was opened on November 18th, 1822, and five
of Stephenson’s “improved Killingworth” locomotives were placed upon
the level portions. These engines were capable of hauling a train of
about 64 tons, the maximum speed being four miles an hour.
[Illustration: FIG. 9.—“LOCOMOTION,” THE FIRST ENGINE TO RUN ON A
PUBLIC RAILWAY (THE STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON RAILWAY)]
The Stockton and Darlington Railway, the first public railway, was
opened on September 27th, 1825. The “Locomotion” (Fig. 9) was the first
engine on the line. It was constructed at the Forth Street Works of R.
Stephenson and Co., at Newcastle-on-Tyne. At this early period these
now celebrated Forth Street Works were little better than a collection
of smiths’ forges.
Timothy Hackworth had been manager of these works, and he had a good
deal to do with the construction of “Locomotion.” His improvement of
the coupling-rods in place of the endless chain previously used for the
purpose by Stephenson is worthy of passing notice. George Stephenson
expressed a very strong desire that Hackworth should remain in charge
of the Forth Street Works, and went so far as to offer him one-half of
his (Stephenson’s) share in the business if he would remain. Hackworth
agreed to do so if his name were added to that of the firm and he were
publicly recognised as a partner; but this proposition was not accepted
by Stephenson.
Hackworth then took premises in Newcastle, and intended to commence
business as an engine-builder on his own account, he having already
received several orders from the collieries, etc., where his skill
was well known and appreciated. George Stephenson, having heard of
Hackworth’s plans for carrying on a rival engine factory at Newcastle,
saw Hackworth, and persuaded him to relinquish the proposition and
accept the office of general manager and engineer to the Stockton and
Darlington Railway.
Hackworth commenced these duties in June, 1825, and removed to
Darlington. The “Locomotion” had four coupled wheels, 4ft. in diameter;
two vertical cylinders, 10in. in diameter, placed partly within the
boiler; the stroke was 24in.; steam pressure, 25lb. per square inch;
weight in working order, 6½ tons. The tender was of wood, with a coal
capacity of three-quarter ton, and a sheet-iron tank holding 240
gallons; weight loaded, 2¼ tons. The tender was supported on four
wheels, each of 30in. diameter. This engine worked on the Stockton
and Darlington Railway till 1850. In September, 1835, “Locomotion”
engaged in a race with the mail coach for a distance of four miles, and
only beat the horses by one hundred yards! She was used to open the
Middlesbrough and Redcar Railway on June 4th, 1846, being under the
charge of Messrs. Plews and Hopkins on this occasion, when she hauled
one carriage and two trucks, and took thirty-five minutes to cover
the eight miles. From 1850 to 1857 she was used as a pumping engine
by Pease at his West Collieries, South Durham, after which she was
mounted on a pedestal at North Road Station, Darlington. This engine
was in steam upon the Darlington line during the celebration of the
Stockton and Darlington Railway jubilee in September, 1875. She has
been exhibited as follows:—1876, at Philadelphia; 1881, Stephenson
Centenary; 1886, Liverpool; and 1889, Paris. In April, 1892, she was
removed from North Road to Bank Top, Darlington.
The Forth Street Works in 1826 supplied three more engines to the
Stockton and Darlington Railway, named “Hope,” “Black Diamond,” and
“Diligence.” These locomotives possessed many faults; indeed, they were
frequently stopped by a strong wind, and the horse-drawn trains behind
the locomotive-propelled ones were delayed because the engines could
not proceed. “Jemmy” Stephenson (brother to George) was the principal
engine-driver, and he was known far and near as most prolific in the
use of oaths of a far from Parliamentary style.
“Jemmy” would be cursing his engine and the horsemen cursing “Jemmy”
for the delay; and, indeed, the usual result was a general skirmish.
We have already stated that Hackworth was a deeply religious man, and
these scenes of lawlessness made a deep impression on his mind, so that
he sought for some means to improve the locomotives, the radical fault
of which was the shortness of steam—Hackworth knowing that if things
progressed smoothly “Jemmy” would have fewer occasions to display his
oratorical gift. After eighteen months’ working of the Stockton and
Darlington Railway it was found that locomotive haulage was much more
expensive than horse-power; indeed, for every pound spent on horse
power about three pounds were paid for locomotive power for doing an
exactly similar amount of work.
The £100 stock of the Stockton and Darlington Railway quickly fell to
£50, and the shareholders began to get alarmed.
There were two opposite interests at stake—that of the general body
of shareholders and that of the locomotive builders (Messrs. Pease
and Richardson), who were also large shareholders in, and directors
of the Stockton and Darlington Railway, as well as partners in the
firm of R. Stephenson and Co. The question as to retaining the use of
locomotive engines was fully discussed at a meeting of the principal
proprietors, and Hackworth, as manager and engineer of the railway, was
asked to give his opinion on the point. He replied: “Gentlemen, if you
will allow me to make you an engine in my own way, I will engage that
it shall answer your purpose.” To have refused him permission would
have shown clearly to the other proprietors that Pease and Richardson
did not care for the principles of steam locomotion, but that it was
the locomotives constructed at the Forth Street Works they wished to
retain. Therefore, after some discussion, it was agreed that “as a last
experiment Timothy shall be allowed to carry out his plan.”
Hackworth’s opportunity had now arrived, and the result was the
production of the first really successful locomotive steam engine.
But although the shareholders “as a last experiment” gave Hackworth
leave to build a locomotive on his own plan, they do not appear to have
had much belief in the success of the venture, for the boiler of an old
locomotive was given him to use in the construction of the new engine.
[Illustration: FIG. 10.—THE FIRST SUCCESSFUL LOCOMOTIVE, HACKWORTH’S
“ROYAL GEORGE,” STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON RAILWAY, 1827]
The engine was originally a four-wheel engine, provided with four
cylinders, two to each pair of wheels, and it is stated to have been
the first built in which a single pair of wheels was worked by two
pistons actuating cranks placed at right angles to each other. She was
built by Wilson, of Newcastle, and was the fifth engine supplied to the
Stockton and Darlington Railway.
This boiler was a plain cylinder, 4ft. 4in. in diameter, and 13ft.
long. A wrought-iron tube of [symbol] shape provided the heating
surface, the vapour from the furnace travelling from the fire-grate
up and down the tube to the chimney, which was at the same end of the
boiler as the grate; indeed, the chimney was an elongation of the tube
continued through the end of the boiler and turned up vertically.
This return tube gave the new engine twice the heating surface of the
ordinary engines, which were only provided with one straight tube. The
locomotive was called the “Royal George” (Fig. 10), and was supported
on six-coupled wheels, each of 4ft. diameter.
[Illustration: FIG. 11.—HACKWORTH’S BLAST PIPE IN THE “ROYAL GEORGE”.]
The cylinders were placed in a vertical position over the pair of
wheels farthest from the chimney. They were 11in. diameter, the stroke
being 20in. Four of the wheels were provided with springs, but the
pair connected to the pistons were not so fitted, the position of the
cylinders rendering it impossible for springs to be used. The other
improvements to be noted in the construction of the “Royal George” are:—
(1.) Springs instead of weights for the safety valves.
(2.) The short-stroked pumps.
(3.) Self-lubricating bearings fitted with oil reservoirs.
(4.) The cylinders placed central with the crank journals and
the centre of its orbit.
(5.) The first example of six-coupled wheels.
(6.) The first really spring-mounted locomotive, the springs
performing the double functions of “bearing springs” and
“balance beams.”
(7.) A portion of the exhaust steam used as a jet beneath the
fire-grate and part also for heating the feed-water; and
last and most important—so important, indeed, that it has
been described as the “life-breath of the high-pressure
locomotive”—_the Steam Blast_. (Fig. 11.)
Trevithick, Nicholson, Stephenson, Gurney, and others have been
credited with the production of this valuable contrivance, but an
inquiry into the facts conclusively proves that before Hackworth built
the “Royal George” the real nature of the exhaust steam blast was
not understood by any of those who have since been credited with the
invention.
Doubtless several locomotive experimentalists, after various endeavours
to get rid of the spent steam, at last turned the escape pipe into the
chimney, as the most practical way of discharging the exhaust steam.
Trevithick did so, and George Stephenson and others simply followed
Trevithick’s example, but knew nothing of the value of the exhaust
steam as a means of increasing the heating powers of the locomotive.
[Illustration: FIG. 12.—WASTE STEAM-PIPE IN STEPHENSON’S “ROCKET”]
The claims of both Stephenson and Trevithick appear to be founded on
the use of the words “steam blast” by N. Wood in his “Treatise,” when
describing the exhaust steam arrangement. This he probably did, not
understanding the true nature of the blast, or contracted orifice, as
invented by Hackworth.
It is abundantly evident that Trevithick was absolutely ignorant of
the effect of the blast on the fire, for in his patent (No. 2,599) no
mention is made of it, although the specification is most minutely
drawn; indeed, thirteen years later Trevithick actually patented
“fanners, etc., for creating an artificial draught in the chimney.”
Nicholson, in his patent (No. 2,990) dated November 22nd, 1806, also
says, “The steam must be high pressure; _the steam draught cannot be
produced by exhaust steam_”. This clearly shows he was not aware of the
exhaust steam blast; indeed, he expressly states that _exhaust steam
cannot be used_. With regard to George Stephenson, the fact that as
late as July 25th, 1828, he wrote to Timothy Hackworth, “We have tried
the new locomotive engine (‘Lancashire Witch’) at Bolton; we have also
tried the blast to it for burning coke, and I believe it will answer.
_There are two bellows, worked by eccentrics underneath the tender._”
It will, therefore, be observed that Stephenson’s “blast” was produced
by bellows. This letter was written ten months after Hackworth had
successfully used the steam blast in the “Royal George.”
It will be shown later that it was only at the Rainhill trials, in
October, 1829, that Stephenson learned Hackworth’s secret of the blast
pipe. Although Gurney, in 1822, used a coned pipe, he expressly states
that the steam must be continuously ejected at a high velocity from a
high-pressure boiler, which distinctly shows he did not use exhaust
steam as Hackworth did.
Walker and Rastrick were the engineers engaged by the directors of the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway to report on the advantages to be
gained from the adoption of stationary or locomotive engines on the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway. They decided in favour of the former,
but they stated in their report, “Hackworth’s engine (‘Royal George’)
is undoubtedly the most powerful that has yet been made, as the amount
of tons conveyed by it, compared with the other engines, proves.” The
first year’s work of the “Royal George” consisted of conveying 22,442
tons of goods 20 miles, at a cost of only £466, whilst the same amount
of work performed by horses cost £998, showing a saving by the use
of the “Royal George” of £532 in one year. The “Royal George” was
numbered, 1½, in the books of the S. and D. R.
This was the first time that a locomotive engine had worked for a whole
year at a cheaper rate than horses. Upon this result being known to the
Stockton and Darlington Railway directors, one of them exclaimed, “All
we want is plenty of Timothy’s locomotives.” The “Royal George” worked
night and day upon the Stockton and Darlington Railway until December,
1840, when she was sold to the Wingate Grange Colliery for _£125 more
than her original cost_.
R. Stephenson and Co. in 1828 supplied a six-wheel coupled engine,
“Experiment,” to the Stockton and Darlington Railway. This locomotive
had inclined outside cylinders, 9in. diameter, with a stroke of 24in.;
the wheels were 4ft. diameter. This engine did not give nearly so
satisfactory results as Hackworth’s “Royal George.”
Reference must here be made to Stevenson’s locomotive, “Twin Sisters,”
used in the construction of the Lancashire and Manchester Railway. She
had two fire-boxes and boilers, and two chimneys; she was supported on
six-coupled wheels of 4ft. diameter; the cylinders were outside in an
inclined position. The “Lancashire Witch” (previously mentioned) was
built by Stephenson and Co. in 1828 and sold to the Bolton and Leigh
Railway. She was supported on four coupled wheels, 4ft. diameter; the
cylinders were outside, 9in. diameter, fixed in an inclined position,
projecting over the top and at the rear of the boiler. The engine is
only mentioned for the purpose of noticing the fact that the fire was
urged by means of bellows, worked by eccentrics fixed on the leading
axle of the four-wheeled tender, which was specially built with outside
frames for the purpose of allowing sufficient room to locate the
bellows, etc. Yet some people have assurance enough to state that at
the time Stephenson built this engine, and provided it with bellows for
the purpose of urging the fire, he was fully acquainted with the nature
and advantages of the steam blast!!
In the South Kensington Museum there is preserved the “Agenoria,” a
locomotive built for the Shutt End Railway by Foster, Rastrick and Co.
in 1829, the engine being put to work on June 2nd in that year. It is a
four-wheel engine, with vertical cylinders, 7½in. diameter, placed at
the fire-box end; the stroke is 3ft., and the motion is taken from two
beams fixed over the top of the boiler, which is 10ft. long and 4ft.
diameter. The slide-valve eccentrics are loose upon the axle, and to
enable the engine to work both ways a clutch is provided, as also is
hand gear to the valves, to enable the axle to make a half turn, and so
bring either the forward or backward clutch into action. The chimney
was of abnormal height. The “Agenoria” worked for some thirty years.
In 1829 R. Stephenson and Co. supplied an engine named “Rocket,”
No. 7, to the Stockton and Darlington Railway, similar in general
design to “Experiment,” No. 6 (already referred to). This engine was
delivered at the time Hackworth was attending the Rainhill locomotive
contest, and a director of the Stockton and Darlington Railway wrote to
Hackworth, describing the shortcomings of this engine as follows:—“The
new one last sent was at work scarcely a week before it was completely
condemned and not fit to be used in its present state. The hand gear
and valves have no control in working it. When standing without the
wagons at Tully’s a few day ago it started by itself when the steam
was shut off, and all that Jem Stephenson could do he could not stop
it; it ran down the branch with such speed that old Jem was crying out
for help, everyone expecting to see them dashed to atoms; the depôts
being quite clear of wagons, this would have been the case had not the
teamers and others thrown blocks in the way and fortunately threw it
off. A similar occurrence took place on the following day in going down
to Stockton. As soon as the wagons were unhooked at the top of the run,
away goes ‘Maniac,’ defying all the power and skill of her jockey, old
Jem; nor could it be stopped until it arrived near the staiths. Had a
coach been on the road coming up, its passengers would have been in
a most dangerous position. The force-pump is nearly useless, having
had, every day it was at work, to fill the boiler with pails at each
of the watering-places. No fewer than three times the lead plug has
melted out. This ‘Maniac’ was a Forth Street production, and at last
was obliged to be towed up to the ‘hospital’ by a real ‘Timothy’ in
front, on six wheels, and actually had twenty-four wagons in the rear
as guard. It is now at headquarters at Shildon.”
Such was the opinion expressed by a director of the Stockton and
Darlington concerning a Stephenson locomotive!