The Liverpool and Manchester Railway Locomotive
Competition—The conditions of the contest—The
competitors—The “Novelty”—The “Sanspareil”—The secret
of the steam blast stolen—Mr. Hick’s history of the
“Sanspareil”—The “Rocket”—Colburn’s comparison of
the “Rocket” and “Sanspareil”—Booth’s tubular boiler
fitted to the “Rocket”—The prize divided—History
of the “Rocket”—The “Perseverance” wihtdrawn from
competition—The “Cycloped” horse-propelled locomotive—
Winan’s manumotive vehicles for the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway—The directors purchase a dozen.
Although Walker and Rastrick had reported to the directors of the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway in favour of stationary engines,
there were some of them who were enlightened enough to be desirous of
giving steam locomotives a fair trial. The Stephensons being locomotive
engine builders, naturally were not behindhand in fully and frequently
describing the superiority of locomotive traction. Finally, at the
suggestion of Mr. Harrison, the directors offered a prize of £500, to
be awarded to the locomotive that at the trial appeared to be the best
machine competing. The following is a copy of the notice detailing the
conditions of the competition:—
“Railway Office, Liverpool, 25th April, 1829.
“Stipulations and Conditions on which the Directors of the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway offer a premium of £500 for
the most improved Locomotive Engine:—
“1st. The said engine must effectually consume its own
smoke, according to the provisions of the Railway Act, 7,
George IV.
“2nd. The engine, if it weighs six tons, must be capable of
drawing after it, day by day, on a well-constructed railway,
on a level plane, a train of carriages of the gross weight
of twenty tons, including the tender and water-tank, at a
rate of ten miles per hour, with a pressure of steam on the
boiler not exceeding fifty pounds per square inch.
“3rd. There must be two safety valves, one of which must be
completely out of the control of the engineman, and neither
of which must be fastened down while the engine is working.
“4th. The engine and boiler must be supported on springs,
and rest on six wheels, and the height from the ground to
the top of the chimney must not exceed fifteen feet.
“5th. The weight of the machine, with its complement of
water in the boiler, must at most not exceed six tons;
and a machine of less weight will be preferred if it draw
after it a proportionate weight; and, if the weight of the
engine, etc., does not exceed five tons, then the gross
weight to be drawn need not exceed fifteen tons, and in that
proportion for machines of still smaller weight; provided
that the engine, etc., shall still be on six wheels, unless
the weight (as above) be reduced to four-tons and a half
or under, in which case the boiler, etc., may be placed on
four wheels. And the Company shall be at liberty to put the
boiler, fire-tube, cylinders, etc., to a test of pressure
of water not exceeding 150 pounds per square inch, without
being answerable for any damage the machine may receive in
consequence.
“6th. There must be a mercurial gauge affixed to the machine
with index rod showing the steam pressure above forty-five
pounds per square inch.
“7th. The engine to be delivered complete for trial at the
Liverpool end of the railway not later than the 1st of
October next.
“8th. The price of the engine which may be accepted not to
exceed £550, delivered on the railway, and any engine not
approved to be taken back by owner.
“N.B.—The Railway Company will provide the engine tender with
a supply of water and fuel for the experiment. The distance
within the rails is four feet eight inches and a half.”
[Illustration: FIG. 13.—THE “NOVELTY,” ENTERED BY BRAITHWAITE AND
ERICSSON FOR THE RAINHILL PRIZE]
At this period there were but few men who understood even the outlines
of locomotive construction, and unfortunately all of these did not
take part in the competition. The fifth condition, limiting the weight
of the loaded locomotive to six tons, probably deterred some makers
from competing. Others had commenced constructing locomotives for the
competition, but were unable to finish them by the date mentioned in
the conditions.
The actual entries were as follows: 1. Braithwaite and Ericsson’s
“Novelty”; 2. Timothy Hackworth’s “Sanspareil”; 3. R. Stephenson’s
“Rocket”; 4. Burstall’s “Perseverance”; and 5. Brandreth’s “Cycloped.”
The “Novelty” (Fig. 13) was far and away the favourite engine at
Rainhill, its neat appearance and smartness attracting universal
attention. It was a “tank” engine, and probably the first locomotive
constructed to carry its supply of water and coal on the engine,
being thus complete without a tender. This raised a difficulty in
apportioning the load, as in the conditions it was arranged that the
tender was to be counted as part of the load hauled. The machine with
water and coal weighed 3 tons 17 cwt. 14 lb.; the allowance made for
the tender and fuel reduced the theoretical weight of the “Novelty,”
as an engine only, to 2 tons 13 cwt. 2 qr. 3½ lb.; the gross weight
hauled, including the locomotive, being 10 tons 14 cwt. 14 lb.
The “Novelty” was first tried upon October 10th, 1829—she had not
previously been upon a railway—and it was found necessary to make some
alterations to her wheels. Timothy Hackworth, although he had an engine
running in competition with the “Novelty,” generously offered to repair
the defect, and he personally took out the broken portion, welded it,
and replaced it in position with his own hands.
The trials were conducted upon a level portion of line at Rainhill,
on a course only one and a half miles in length, and at either end an
additional eighth of a mile was allowed for the purpose of getting up
the speed and stopping after the run of a mile and a half. The engines
had to make forty runs over the course, or a distance of sixty miles,
in all, which was computed to be equal to a return journey between
Liverpool and Manchester.
After running two trips of one and a half miles each, the pipe from the
pump to the boiler burst, in consequence of the cock between the boiler
and pump having, by accident, been closed. The “Novelty” and train
covered the first trip in five minutes thirty-six seconds, and the
return in six minutes forty seconds; being at the rate of 16.07 and 13½
miles an hour respectively. After being repaired, the engine, with its
train, made an unofficial trip, and developed a speed of 21 ⅙ miles an
hour. Without a load the “Novelty” attained a speed of nearly thirty
miles an hour.
The “Novelty” was again tried on October 14th, but upon its third
trip part of the boiler gave way, and it was decided to withdraw the
locomotive from competition.
The boiler of the “Novelty” was partly vertical and partly horizontal;
the latter portion was about 12ft. long and 15in. in diameter. In the
former was the fire-box, surrounded by water, coke being supplied
through what at first might be mistaken for the funnel of a steam
fire-engine. This was, however, kept air-tight, the fuel being
introduced by means of a descending hopper. The area of the fire-grate
was 1.8 sq. ft., the fire-box heating surface 9½ sq. ft., and the
heating surface of the tubes, 33 sq. ft.
The air entered below the fire-bars by a pipe traversing the length of
the engine, and connected with bellows fixed above the frame at the
other extreme of the engine. The bellows were worked by the engine,
so that the “Novelty” was provided with a forced draught. The heated
air was forced through a tube, which made three journeys through
the horizontal portion of the boiler, and was consequently 36ft. in
length. It was 4in. in diameter at the grate end, and 3in. at the
other extreme, where it was turned up as a chimney. The cylinders were
located over the pair of wheels at the bellows end of the machine. They
were fixed vertically, the diameter being 6in., and length of stroke
12in. The piston-rods worked through the top covers, and by means of
cross-heads, side-rods, and bell-cranks the motion was conveyed to the
crank axle beneath the vertical portion of the boiler, although, as
previously mentioned, the cylinders were over the other pair of wheels.
The wheels were 4ft. 2.1in. in diameter, and chains were provided for
coupling the wheels together; but these were not used at Rainhill.
The water was carried in a tank located between the axles below the
frame. The construction of the “Novelty” was only decided upon on
August 1st, 1829, but so expeditiously was the work carried out that
she was constructed in London, and delivered in Liverpool—a lengthy
journey at that time—by September 29th, 1829. Her distinguishing
colours at Rainhill were copper and blue.
After the conclusion of the Rainhill Competition several alterations
were made in the design of this engine, the position of the cylinders
being altered from vertical to horizontal by Watson and Daglish, and in
1833 she was working on the St. Helens and Runcorn Gap Railway.
Although, through an accident, the “Novelty” had to be withdrawn from
competing for the prize at Rainhill, the directors of the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway were so well satisfied with her performances that
they gave Braithwaite and Ericsson an order for some locomotives of the
same design. A description of these will be found in Chapter IV.
[Illustration: FIG. 14.—HACKWORTH’S “SANSPAREIL,” ONE OF THE
COMPETITORS AT RAINHILL]
The engine next in order was Timothy Hackworth’s “Sanspareil,” (Fig.
14), now preserved in the South Kensington Museum.
The engine-shops at Shildon were not in a position to construct the
whole of this locomotive; consequently Hackworth was forced to obtain
the boiler and cylinders from other makers. The former was constructed
at Bedlington Ironworks, and was of cylindrical form, 6ft. long, 4ft.
2in. diameter, with one end flat and the other hemispherical. The
heating surface was provided by means of a double return tube, the
fire-grate and chimney being both at the same end.
The area of the fire-grate was 10 sq. ft., the heating surface of same
15.7 sq. ft., the remaining heating surface 74½ sq. ft.
The cylinders were constructed by B. Stephenson and Co., and six had to
be made before two perfect ones were obtained, the sixth one, indeed,
only being fitted at Liverpool when the contest was in progress.
It has been stated that these cylinders were purposely constructed
in a faulty manner to prevent the “Sanspareil” beating the “Rocket.”
This may or may not be true, but it is very evident that, save for
Stephenson’s imperfect workmanship in this respect, the “Sanspareil”
would have won the £500 prize. When the “Sanspareil” was competing
for the prize, one of the cylinders supplied by Stephenson and Co.
burst, and it was found that the metal was only one-sixteenth of an
inch thick! A nice state of things certainly! The cylinders were 7in.
diameter, the stroke being 18in. The engine was carried on four wheels,
4ft. 6in. diameter. Total weight of engine, 4 tons 15 cwt. 2 qr.
She was, of course, fitted with Hackworth’s exhaust steam blast.
During some preliminary trips at Rainhill, Stephenson was greatly
surprised to see how well the “Sanspareil” ran, and he noticed she
always had a good supply of steam, so he got upon the engine and had
a ride on her. During this trip he said to Hackworth, “Timothy, what
makes the sparks fly out of the chimney?” Hackworth touched the exhaust
pipe near the cylinders, and answered, “It is the end of this little
fellow that does the business.”
After Stephenson got off the engine, John Thompson, the driver (he
was Hackworth’s foreman at Shildon), said to Hackworth, “Why did you
tell him how you did it, sir? He will be trying to fit up the ‘Rocket’
in the same way.” Hackworth said he did not think so, but Thompson
determined to watch the “Sanspareil” all night. He therefore locked
himself in the shed containing the engine that night, but towards
daybreak sleep overcame him, and when he awoke he saw two men getting
out of the window of the shed, and he found the chimney door of the
“Sanspareil” open, and some materials inside the chimney. The secret
of the exhaust steam blast was stolen! The next evening the “Rocket”
again appeared; this time she was fitted with a similar contrivance.
The above is Hackworth’s foreman’s version of the theft, but the
“Practical Mechanic’s Journal” for June, 1850, gives the tale as told
by the man who committed the theft.
When in repair, the “Sanspareil” ran faster, took a heavier load,
and consumed less coke than the “Rocket,” and whilst the latter was
remodelled within twelve months of the Rainhill contest, the former
worked with practically no alteration until 1844. In 1864 she was
presented to the South Kensington Museum by Mr. John Hick, M.P., Bolton.
The following is an extract from her history, as supplied by Mr. Hick
to the Museum authorities:—
“After the Rainhill trial the engine was purchased by the Liverpool
and Manchester Railway Company, and used by them for various purposes.
In 1831, the engine was purchased by Mr. John Hargreaves, of Bolton,
and was employed by him in the conveyance of passengers and general
traffic on the Bolton and Leigh Railway for several years. In 1837, Mr.
Hargreaves had the engine thoroughly repaired, and put on a pair of new
cylinders of larger dimensions than the old ones, so as to increase the
power. The original wood-spoked wheels were also removed at this time,
and replaced with cast-iron hollow-spoked wheels.
“One pair of these are under the engine at the present time. The engine
continued regularly at work in conveying coals, general goods, and
passengers until 1844, when, being found much too small and short of
power for the rapidly increasing traffic, Mr. Hargreaves took her to
his colliery at Coppull, near Chorley, Lancashire, where the engine was
fixed near a coal-pit. One axle and one pair of wheels were removed,
and upon the other toothed gear was fitted, in order to give motion
to winding and pumping apparatus, and the engine commenced its work
as a regular fixed colliery engine, pumping and winding in the most
satisfactory manner until the end of the year 1863; having raised many
thousand tons of coal and many million gallons of water, and even
at the time above named was in fair working order, and only removed
because the coal in the pit was exhausted.
“I hope the old engine will now find a permanent resting place in the
Kensington Museum, where her end will be peace, if not pieces. Mr.
Hargreaves has kindly given me the old engine, in consequence of my
having told him of my intention with regard to her. And having restored
her as far as possible by collecting and putting together the available
materials, I have pleasure in presenting this interesting relic to the
Museum.”
[Illustration: FIG. 15.—STEPHENSON’S “ROCKET,” THE WINNER OF THE
RAINHILL PRIZE OF £500.]
The “Rocket” (Fig. 15), was entered in the name of Robert Stephenson,
and was constructed at the Forth Street Works, Newcastle-on-Tyne, in
1829. Her distinguishing colours were yellow and black, with a white
chimney. She was the first engine to be tried at Rainhill. Her weight
was 4 tons 5 cwt.; load (including tender), 12¾ tons; total, 17 tons.
During the first twenty trips she attained a maximum speed of 24.43
miles an hour, the average being 13.42 mile’s an hour; during the
second twenty trips an average speed of 14.2 miles an hour was the
result, with a maximum speed of 24 miles an hour. These short trips of
one and a half miles each just suited the design of the “Rocket,” as
the steam raised before starting on each trip was sufficient to work
her the one and a half miles; had the trips been longer, she—not then
being furnished with a proper blast, but with that illustrated on Page
25—would probably have stopped for want of steam. Of this Z. Colburn
significantly states: “The ‘Rocket,’ on the first day of her trial,
derived but little benefit from the discharge of the exhaust steam up
the chimney; and, indeed, made steam nearly as freely when standing as
when running.” Without a load, or tender even, she attained a speed
of 29½ miles an hour. The authority just quoted says: “The real power
of the ‘Sanspareil’ is to be estimated by its rate of evaporation,
which was one-third greater than that of the ‘Rocket,’ and thus the
‘Sanspareil,’ after allowing for its greater weight, was the most
powerful engine brought forward for trial.... As far as it had gone,
the mean rate of speed (of the ‘Sanspareil’) was greater than that of
the ‘Rocket’ up to the same stage of the experiment.”
The boiler of the “Rocket” was cylindrical, with flat ends, 6ft. long,
3ft. 4in. diameter; the fire-box was 3ft. long, 2ft. broad, and about
3ft. deep; between the box and the outer casing was a space of 3in.
filled with water. The cylinders were placed at an angle of 45 degrees
at the fire-box end, the connecting-rod being attached to a pin on the
leading wheels, which were 4ft. 8½in. diameter, that of the cylinders
being 8in.; the stroke was 16½in.
The “Rocket” had a great advantage over other engines because she was
supplied with a tubular boiler, containing 25 tubes of 3in. diameter.
The idea of the tubular boiler did not originate with the Stephensons.
Mr. Booth, the Secretary of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway,
suggested their use in the “Rocket”; but before this the tubular
locomotive boiler had been patented by a Frenchman (M. Sequin), on
February 22nd, 1828. Mr. Booth, however, states that he was unaware
of the French patent, and, so far as he was concerned, the tubular
boiler was an original discovery. The use of these tubes increased
the evaporating power of the boiler three-fold, and at the same time
reduced the consumption of coke 40 per cent.; yet the “Rocket,” with
this great advantage, was not equal to the “Sanspareil,” until the
former was fitted with Hackworth’s blast. When this had been done,
the “Rocket” was capable of hauling 20 tons (engine included) up an
incline of 1 in 96, at 16 miles an hour, for a distance of one and a
half miles. The prize of £500 was divided between Robert Stephenson,
the constructor of the “Rocket,” and Mr. Booth, the suggester of the
tubular boiler, which enabled that locomotive to be entitled to the
prize. Tubular boilers had been successfully used in steam road coaches
as early as 1821.
After running a year or so, the “Rocket” was rebuilt, the cylinders
being placed in a slightly inclined position over the trailing wheels,
but still working the leading wheels; a smoke-box was added, and other
improvements introduced.
The “Rocket” was bought in the year 1837, from the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway, by Mr. J. Thompson, of Kirkhouse, the lessee of the
Earl of Carlisle’s coal and lime works.
Here the engine was worked for five or six years on the Midgeholme
line—a local line belonging to Mr. Thompson—for forwarding his coals
from the pits towards Carlisle.
Soon after the engine was placed on this line the great contest for
East Cumberland took place, when Sir J. Graham was superseded by Mayor
Aglionby, and she was used for conveying the Alston express with the
state of the poll from Midgeholme to Kirkhouse. Upon that occasion the
“Rocket” was driven by Mr. Mark Thompson, and accomplished her share
of the work, a distance of upwards of four miles, in 4½ minutes, thus
reaching a speed nearly equal to 60 miles an hour. On the introduction
of heavier and more powerful engines, the “Rocket” was “laid up in
ordinary” in the yard at Kirkhouse. This historic steam locomotive
is now preserved in the South Kensington Museum. It must not be
forgotten, however, that the “Rocket” has been rebuilt, and its design
considerably altered, since the Rainhill competition of 1829.
The last of the steam locomotives entered for trial at Rainhill remains
to be described. The “Perseverance” was constructed by Mr. Burstall,
of Edinburgh. He was already known as a maker of steam road coaches.
Unfortunately for the success, or rather want of success, of the
“Perseverance,” Mr. Burstall designed his railway locomotive on much
the same lines as his steam coaches.
The “Perseverance” had the misfortune to have some damage done to its
wheels, etc., when being unloaded at Rainhill off the wagon on which it
had been conveyed from Liverpool. A preliminary trial was made, and Mr.
Burstall, finding the engine was unable to attain a higher speed than
about six miles an hour, withdrew his locomotive from competition.
The boiler was horizontal, and the water was admitted to shallow trays
placed over the fire, and in this way was immediately converted into
steam. The cylinders were vertical, and worked horizontal beams placed
above them; the wheels were worked by cranks fixed on the beams about
half-way between the cylinders and the centre pivots of the beams. The
second pair of wheels was driven by means of an axle with bevel wheels
at each end, which conveyed the motion from the one axle to the other.
This engine was distinguished by having the wheels painted red.
Although not “steam” locomotives, we think it right to give a few
details of the “Cycloped,” (Fig. 16), and also of Winans’ manumotive
carriage, both of which were exhibited at Rainhill. The former was
worked by a horse or horses fastened on a frame supported by four
wheels; the horses walked at a speed of one and a quarter miles an
hour, on an endless platform formed of planks of wood. The horses being
firmly attached to the frame could not go forward when they essayed to
walk, and the consequence of their using their legs was the revolving
of the floor, which worked round drums geared to the driving wheels.
This motion caused the vehicle to move forward on the rails at a speed
of about three miles an hour, with a load of fifty passengers. Had the
horses moved at a quicker rate, the speed of the “Cycloped” would have
been increased in a proportionate ratio.
[Illustration: FIG. 16.—WINANS’ “CYCLOPED” HORSE LOCOMOTIVE]
Winans’ carriage was worked by two men, who turned a windlass, which
actuated the wheels. It accommodated six passengers, and it was
facetiously proposed that those passengers who worked at the windlasses
should be conveyed by such vehicles at reduced rates. Although we now
smile at the simplicity of such vehicles ever having been suggested for
working on a railway, the Directors of the Liverpool and Manchester
Railway were considerably taken with the idea of Winans’ man-propelled
carriages, and they engaged two well-known engineers to report on
their adaptability for passenger traffic on the railway. As might be
expected, the experts reported against the proposed use of Winans’
machines; but, despite this adverse report, the Directors of the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway actually bought twelve of these
“manumotive” carriages of Winans. The purchase was made prior to March,
1830, and as we do not read of their being used after the railway was
opened in September, 1830, we may conclude that during the six months
that elapsed between the purchase and the opening of the line the
Directors had come to the same conclusion regarding the machines as did
the engineers who reported against their use on the railway.