The era of “light” and combination locomotives—Samuel’s
“Lilliputian” and “Little Wonder”—The broad-gauge
“Fairfield,” constructed by Bridges Adams—Samuel’s
“Enfield”—Original broad-gauge “singles” converted into
tank engines—The rise of “tank” engines, “saddle,” and
“well”—Adams’ “light” engines on Irish railways—The Norfolk
Railway adopts them—England’s “Little England” exhibited
at the 1851 Exhibition—Supplied to the Edinburgh and
Glasgow, the Liverpool and Stockton, Dundee and Perth,
and Blackwall Railways—Hawthorne’s “Plews” for the Y.N.
and B.R.—Crampton’s monster “Liverpool”—Taylor’s design
for a locomotive—Pearson’s prototype of the “Fairlie”
engine—Ritchie’s non-oscillating engine—Timothy Hackworth
again to the front—His celebrated “Sanspareil, No. 2”—
His challenge to Robert Stephenson unaccepted—Bury’s
“Wrekin”—Caledonian Railway locomotive, No. 15—“Mac’s
Mangle” on the L. and N.W.R.
Many curious contrivances were introduced into the construction of
the locomotive about the period now under review. Among these early
proposals for the improvement of locomotion, few are more interesting
than the combined locomotive and carriage introduced some fifty years
ago by Mr. W. Bridges Adams.
Mr. Adams had a wide experience of every section of railway
construction. Indeed, in the preface to one of his books, in writing
of his experience, he says that he had “years of practical utility in
planning the construction of nearly all machines that run on roads and
rails also—from navvy’s barrow up to a locomotive engine.”
Nor are Mr. Adams’ contributions to railway literature inconsiderable,
for, besides writing several books between 1838 and 1862, he was at
one time editor of a periodical, and also wrote voluminously under the
pseudonym of “Junius Redivivus.”
Having thus briefly mentioned Mr. W. B. Adams as being entitled to a
far more important position in the evolution of our locomotives than
is usually accorded him, we will now proceed to discuss the subject of
combined locomotives and railway carriages, of which Mr. Adams was the
chief advocate. The first machine of the kind, however, appears to have
been constructed by Mr. Samuels, of the Eastern Counties Railway, for
the purpose of quickly and economically conveying the officials of the
railway over the system.
This engine was apparently called both the “Lilliputian” and the
“Little Wonder.” It was constructed in 1847, and made its first trip
to Cambridge on Saturday, October 23rd, leaving London at 10.30 a.m.,
and reaching the University town at 2.45 p.m. Stops were made at three
intermediate stations for water, etc., which occupied about half an
hour, so that the 57½ miles were covered in about 105 minutes’ running
time.
The total length of the “Little Wonder” was 12ft. 6in., in which space
was included the boiler, machinery, water-tank, and seats for seven
passengers. The frame was hung below the axles, and carried on four
wheels 3ft. 4in. diameter.
The floor was 9in. above rail level. The machinery consisted of two
cylinders, 3½in. diameter, and placed one on each side of the vertical
boiler; the driving axle was cranked. The stroke was 6in. The boiler
was cylindrical in shape, 19in. diameter and 4ft. 3in. high; it
contained 35 tubes, 3ft. 3in. long and 1½in. diameter; the tube heating
surface being 38 sq. ft. The fire-box was circular in shape, 16in.
diameter and 14in. high, its heating surface being 5½ sq. ft.
The link motion, feed pumps, etc., were provided. The water-tank held
40 gallons, and was placed under the seats. The usual speed of the
“Little Wonder” with a full load was 30 miles an hour; and as high a
rate as 44 miles an hour was often attained. The coke consumption was
only 2½lb. per mile. The weight of the whole vehicle, including fuel
and water, was only 25½ cwt.
Samuels’ initial effort with light locomotives having been so
successful, it occurred to him that branch traffic could be much more
cheaply worked by means of a combined engine and carriage, instead of
the usual locomotive and train of carriages.
Mr. Adams also had for some time been in favour of a combination of the
kind, and Mr. Gregory, the engineer of the Bristol and Exeter Railway,
was also in favour of the system being tried on the short branches of
that railway, the passenger carriages on one at least of which were
at that time drawn by horses. Acting upon the advice of Mr. Gregory,
the directors of the Bristol and Exeter Railway ordered Mr. Adams to
construct a vehicle and engine for working the traffic on the Tiverton
branch. The machine was completed in December, 1848, and a satisfactory
trial of it was made upon the broad-gauge metals of the West London
Railway. This combination, which was constructed by Mr. Adams at
Fairfield Works, Bow, E., was called the “Fairfield” (Fig. 49), and was
brought into use on the Tiverton branch on December 23rd, 1848.
Its length was 39ft., and the boiler was placed in a vertical position.
The driving wheels were 4ft. 6in. diameter, and were originally made of
solid wrought-iron. The middle and trailing wheels, 3ft. 6in. diameter,
were of wood, and loose on their axles as well as their journals, the
middle wheels having a lateral transverse of 6in.
[Illustration: FIG. 49.—THE “FAIRFIELD,” ADAMS’S COMBINED BROAD-GAUGE
ENGINE AND TRAIN, FOR THE BRISTOL AND EXETER RAILWAY]
The boiler was vertical, 3ft. in diameter and 6ft. high, and contained
150 tubes; the fire-box was 2ft. high and 2ft. 6in. in diameter. The
cylinder was 8in. diameter, with 12in. stroke. The connecting-rods
worked on a separate crank-shaft, which communicated with the driving
wheels by side-rods, the axle of the driving wheels being straight,
with crank pins on the outside.
The boiler was placed behind the driving axle, the tank, capable of
holding 200 gallons of water, being in front of it; and the coke-box
was attached to the front part of the carriage behind the driver. The
working pressure was 100lb.
The bottom of the framing was within 9in. of the rails, so that by
keeping the centre of gravity low greater safety might be ensured at
high speed, and freedom from oscillation obtained.
The first-class carriage was in the form of a saloon, and accommodated
sixteen passengers; whilst the second-class compartment seated
thirty-two. The entire weight of the machine was about 10 tons, and
when occupied with forty-eight passengers it amounted to about 12½ tons.
On the experimental trip, on December 8th, 1848, the “Fairfield” left
Paddington Station at 10.30 a.m. for Swindon, 77 miles down the line,
with a party of gentlemen connected with various railways. Mr. Gooch
officiated as driver on both the up and down journeys.
Though the rails were greasy from the prevailing rain, in addition to
a head wind—and, what was worse, a leak in the boiler—the machine
soon attained considerable speed, and for a portion of the way reached
the rate of 49 miles an hour. On arriving at Swindon the fire was
extinguished, the leak partially repaired, and, after a reasonable
sojourn, the party returned to town. The run back was exceedingly
satisfactory, the speed of 49 miles being maintained for a considerable
part of the way, the passage from Slough to Paddington being performed
in 30 minutes.
As previously stated, the crank-shaft was unprovided with wheels, the
motion being conveyed to the driving wheels by means of cranks fixed on
the outsides of the driving axle, and connected to similar cranks on
the driving wheels by means of connecting-rods.
This method has erroneously been called “Crampton’s system,” but it
should be noticed that Adams used it for several years previous to
Crampton adopting the plan in question. These combined engines and
carriages were, in fact, built under a patent obtained by Mr. Adams
in 1846, and, therefore, some time before Crampton adopted the inside
cylinder and intermediate driving shaft.
It was found in practice that the vertical boiler of the “Fairfield”
was not a success, so after some nine months’ trial it was replaced by
a horizontal tubular boiler. Then, after further experience, several
drawbacks to the efficient working of branch line traffic by means
of the combined engine and carriage were evident. So the engine was
disconnected from the carriage and given an extra pair of wheels, and
became, in fact, a miniature four-wheeled tank locomotive, a style of
engine Adams afterwards became noted for building.
Mr. Samuel having obtained the sanction of the directors of the Eastern
Counties Railway, Mr. Adams constructed a locomotive carriage for
the Enfield branch traffic. The “Enfield” (Fig. 50), in appearance
resembled a four-wheel tank engine and a four-wheel carriage, built
together on a continuous frame, instead of being connected by couplings
and buffers.
The whole framing, with the exception of the two buffer bars, was
of wrought-iron, and was 8ft. 6in. in width, bound together by deep
cross-bars.
The engine was of the outside cylinder class. The cylinders were 7in.
in diameter, with a 12in. stroke. They were simply bolted down to the
surface of a stout wrought-iron plate, in the middle of which the
boiler was placed.
The driving wheels were 5ft. in diameter, and, as well as the front
pair of wheels of the carriage, were without flanges, those of
the leading engine wheels and the hind pair of the carriage being
sufficient to retain the engine on the rails, whilst greater freedom
was thus obtained for passing around curves. The boiler was constructed
in the usual manner, and was 5ft. in length by 2ft. 6in. in diameter,
and had 115 1½in. tubes 5ft. 3in. long, giving 230ft. of tube-heating
surface. The dimensions of the fire-box were 2ft. 10½in. by 2ft.
6in., being an area of 25 sq. ft., making the total heating surface
255 sq. ft. The water was carried below the floor of the carriage in
wrought-iron tubes 12in. in diameter and 12ft. long.
The coke was carried in a chest placed behind the foot-plate of the
engine and immediately in front of the carriage head. The side frames
were ingeniously trussed by diagonal bars of iron, and were thus
rendered of great strength without adding much weight to the machine.
[Illustration: FIG. 50.—THE “ENFIELD,” COMBINED ENGINE AND TRAIN FOR
THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY]
The leading engine wheels, together with the running wheels of the
carriage, were 3ft. in diameter. The carriage was divided into four
compartments, the two middle ones being for first-class and the two
external ones for second-class passengers. The guard’s seat was on the
top of the carriage head. A vertical shaft with a hand-wheel on its
upper end passed down the side of the head, and was connected beneath
the framing with two transverse rocking shafts, carrying the brake
blocks, placed one on each side of the driving wheels, thus giving the
guard a ready means of control over the speed of the engine.
To bring up the buffers to the line of those of ordinary carriages,
separate timber beams were passed across each end of the carriage,
the front one being supported by neat wrought-iron brackets, rising
from the framing. The total weight of the whole was not more than 10
tons, including its supply of coke and water, and accommodation was
afforded for 42 passengers, to convey which, at 40 miles per hour, the
calculated consumption of coke was 7lb. per mile.
Mr. Samuel stated that the accommodation provided by the combined
engine and carriage was not sufficient for the traffic, so two
additional carriages (one with a guard’s compartment) were added, the
train thus having accommodation for 150 passengers. The “Enfield”
worked this train regularly at 37 miles an hour speed.
From January 29th to September 9th, 1849, the train travelled 14,021
miles, and was in steam 15 hours daily, but only five of which were
spent in running. The total time in steam during the above period was
2,162 hours, the total coke consumed being 1,437 cwt., of which 743
cwt. was consumed in running, 408 in standing, and 286 in raising
the steam. The average coke consumption per mile was 11.48lb., but
a considerable portion of this was spent in standing, the actual
consumption for running being only about 6lb. per mile.
In addition to the passenger traffic, the “Enfield” hauled all the
goods and coal traffic on the branch, which, during the period under
review, amounted to 169 tons of goods and 1,241 tons of coal. On June
14th, 1849, the “Enfield” took the 10 a.m. train from Shoreditch to
Ely, 72 miles, the train consisting of three passenger carriages and
two horse-boxes; but the “Enfield” arrived eight minutes before time,
and the coke consumed only amounted to 8¾lb. per mile for the trip,
including that used in raising steam.
When tried between Norwich and London, the “Enfield” performed the
journey of 126 miles in 3 hours 35 minutes, including stoppages. An
ordinary train had, at that time, never made the journey so quickly.
Although the “Enfield” appeared to use so little fuel, the broad-gauge
“Fairfield” does not seem to have been an economical machine. A special
trial was made between Gooch’s famous 8ft. single “Great Britain” and
“Fairfield,” between Exeter and Bristol. A loaded wagon weighing 10
tons was drawn by the “Fairfield,” making a total weight of 26½ tons,
of which the engine portion can be reckoned at 9½ tons and 17 tons for
the weight of the train. The distance is 76 miles, and the time allowed
for the 8 a.m. train, including ten stops, was 2 hours 35 minutes; but
the “Fairfield” took 3 hours 17 minutes to cover the distance, and
consumed 13lb. of coke per mile, only 6.3lb. of water being evaporated
for each pound of coke.
The duty performed by the two locomotives is thus tabulated:—
Consumption
Load in Coke per of Coke per
tons. mile. ton per mile.
“Great Britain” 100 26 lb. 0.26 lb.
“Fairfield” 17 13 lb. 0.76 lb.
But, in comparison with the old “Venus,” the “Fairfield” comes out no
better.
The “Venus,” it will be remembered, was one of the original broad-gauge
engines built for the Great Western Railway by the Vulcan Foundry
Company, with 8ft. driving wheels. This engine had her driving wheels
reduced to 6ft. diameter, and a small water-tank fitted on the
foot-plate in place of a tender, thus being converted into a six-wheel
“single” tank engine. The “Venus” only used 14lb. of coke per mile in
working the Tiverton branch; while the “Fairfield” consumed 19lb. of
coke per mile on the same work. The evaporating powers of the “Venus”
had been greatly improved since N. Wood’s experiments in 1838, as at
that time she consumed 52.7lb. of coke per mile run.
[Illustration: FIG. 51.—“RED STAR,” A 7FT. SINGLE BROAD-GAUGE SADDLE
TANK ENGINE. CYLINDERS, 16in. BY 18in.]
In addition to “Venus,” several other of the early broad-gauge
locomotives were reconstructed as tank engines. Fig. 51 (“Red Star”) is
a good example of the peculiar tank locomotives on the G.W.R. 60 years
ago.
In addition to the “Fairfield” and “Enfield,” combined engines and
carriages were constructed by Mr. Adams for several other railways.
One for the Cork and Bandon Railway had cylinders 9in. diameter, and
accommodation for 131 passengers. This engine was constructed in such
a manner as to enable it to run independently of the carriage. Another
engine and carriage was built for a Scotch railway, and was guaranteed
to work at 40 miles an hour. But the advantage of having the engine
separate from the carriage was so great that Mr. Adams soon ceased to
build the combination vehicles, and instead constructed his celebrated
“light” locomotives; these, and the somewhat similar “Little England”
engines, built by England and Co., were at one time very popular.
Fig. 52, representing “No. 148,” one of the first batch of outside
cylinder engines on the Southern Division of the L. and N. W. R., shows
also a good example of Stephenson’s “long boiler” locomotive. “148” was
built by Jones and Potts, of Newton-le-Willows in 1847. The cylinders
were 15in. diameter, the stroke being 24in. The driving wheels were
without flanges, and were 6ft. 6in. in diameter. The leading wheels
were 4ft. diameter. This engine was destroyed in a collision at Oxford
on January 3rd, 1855, in which accident seven people lost their lives.
[Illustration: FIG. 52.—“No. 148,” LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY; AN
EXAMPLE OF STEPHENSON’S “LONG BOILER” ENGINES]
At this period a fashion for “tank” engines had become prevalent,
and most of the locomotive builders produced designs, each having
characteristic features. Thus Sharp Brothers and Company’s “tank”
engines had outside cylinders, with the tank between the frames and
below the boiler, whilst the coal was carried in a bunker affixed to
an extension of the foot-plate. Somewhat similar “single tank” engines
were made by the same firm for the Manchester and Birmingham Railway
(London and North Western Railway). The two engines in question were
Nos. 33 and 34, and were used in working the traffic between Manchester
and Macclesfield, the daily duty of each averaging 114½ miles. These
engines commenced work in May, 1847. They weighed 21 tons in working
order; the driving wheels were 5ft. 6in. diameter, and the leading
and trailing 3ft. 6in. Two water-tanks were provided, one between the
leading and driving wheels, the other under the coal bunker, at the
rear of the trailing wheels. The two tanks contained 480 gallons of
water. A wooden float attached to a vertical rod was fitted to show
the amount of water in the tanks! The bunker contained half a ton of
coals. These engines were fitted with sand-boxes; but these were placed
in front of the leading wheels only, although the locomotives were
specially constructed for running either bunker or chimney in front.
However, the introduction of the sand-box was a step in the right
direction; yet Tredgold only mentions the innovation in an apologetic
manner. He says (after describing the working of the apparatus) that
“it is very seldom required on the Macclesfield line, owing to the
ballast between the rails being mostly sand; but when the rails are
moist it is necessary in starting a heavy train to open the sand-cock.”
Tredgold then proceeds to give a detailed explanation of “how it is
done.”
In September, 1849, Walter Neilson, of Glasgow, obtained a patent for
his design of tank engine.
The tank was of the now well-known “saddle” kind, and covered the
whole boiler, barrel, and smoke-box; the bottom of the saddle tank
rested on the frames on either side of the boiler, so that the tank
was semi-circular in shape, instead of being but an arc, as is the
practice with modern “saddle tanks.” Neilson was, however, sufficiently
ingenious not to limit the design of his saddle tank, for we find that
“the tank may be supported from the boiler, instead of the framing, if
necessary, and its length may be made shorter than that of the boiler,
if required.” The boiler was fed with water drawn from the smoke-box
end of the tank, to obtain the advantage of the escaping heat. The coal
bunkers were placed at the sides of the fire-box, and extended some
distance towards the back buffer beam, but a bunker was not provided at
the end, so as to allow “of ready access to the couplings of the wagons
behind.” The engine in question had inside frames, underhung springs,
outside cylinders, single driving wheels, unprovided with flanges, and
small leading and trailing wheels. A short cylindrical dome was placed
over the fire-box, and on this were fixed two “Salter” pattern safety
valves, covered by a brass casing.
“Light locomotives” was the popular name of tank engines when the
general use of such engines was being urged as a method of reducing the
working expenses of unremunerative railways. We have previously alluded
to Mr. W. Bridges Adams and his combined engines and carriages. This
gentleman and Mr. England were the principal advocates of the “light”
locomotive, and both attained some success in connection therewith.
The engines in question would now be considered absurdly light, but
nearly fifty years ago far different ideas of “light” and “heavy,” as
applied to locomotive engines, obtained.
[Illustration: FIG. 53.—ADAMS’S “LIGHT” LOCOMOTIVE FOR THE LONDONDERRY
AND ENNISKILLEN RAILWAY]
The practice of Adams and England regarding “light” locomotives
differed considerably. The former was a firm advocate of four wheels
and a long wheel base. England, on the other hand, preferred his light
locomotives to be supported by six wheels. In 1847, Adams built a
light locomotive (Fig. 53) for the Londonderry and Enniskillen Railway
(Ireland), with outside cylinders 9in. in diameter, the stroke being
15in. The driving wheels were 5ft. in diameter, and located in front
of the fire-box; the other pair of wheels were 3ft. diameter, and were
placed beneath the smoke-box. The fire-box was 2ft. 9in. long, the
boiler 2ft. 3in. diameter and 10ft. 3in. long; height of top of boiler
from rails, 5ft. 8in. The connecting-rods were 5ft. 3in. long; the
steam pressure was 120lb. The water-tank was placed beneath the boiler,
and reached to within a few inches of the surface of the rails. Mr.
Adams built a similar engine for the St. Helen’s Railway. In November,
1849, a broad-gauge light locomotive was built at Mr. Adams’ Fairfield
Works, for service on the Holyhead breakwater. The engine in question
was from designs prepared by Mr. Thos. Gray, resident engineer of C.
and J. Rigby, the contractors for the breakwater. This engine had
cylinders 8in. diameter, the stroke being 18in.
In July, 1849, Adams supplied two of his light engines to the Cork and
Bandon Railway. These differed from those already described, as the
driving wheels were the leading ones, the smaller pair of wheels being
at the rear. The Irish names of the engines signified “Running Fire”
and “Whirlwind.”
In August, 1853, the engineer of the Cork and Bandon Railway
reported that “the cost of repairs to the engines was very small,
more particularly on the light engines, which have worked all the
fast passenger trains in a satisfactory manner, and with the same
consumption of coke as heretofore—viz., about 10lb. per mile. These
engines were put upon the line in July, 1849, since which period they
have been daily working the passenger traffic. The principal item of
cost in their repairs during the four years has been a new crank axle
to each of the two light engines, as also a new set of tyres on the
driving wheels. The light special trains conveyed by these engines
generally occupy about 26 minutes between the two termini of Cork and
Bandon.” These two light locomotives continued to work traffic over the
Cork and Bandon Railway for several years.
On May 1st, 1851, Mr. Peto, the chairman of the Norfolk Railway,
provided four light engines with 12in. cylinders, and weighing 10 tons
each, to work the branch traffic of that railway under the following
circumstances.
The Norfolk Railway was worked by the Eastern Counties, and the branch
or local trains of the former were supposed to meet the main line
trains of the latter line at the junctions.
But the Eastern Counties trains had a habit of being behindhand,
putting in an appearance at the junctions any time between thirty
minutes and an hour after the times given in the time-tables. As
a result, the traffic on the Norfolk branch lines was thoroughly
disorganised; indeed, so little could it be depended upon that local
passengers almost completely neglected the line. Then the Eastern
Counties Railway worked the Norfolk branches with the main line
engines, and charged the Norfolk Railway the average expense per mile
incurred in working with these engines.
Such a method did not meet with the approval of the chairman of the
Norfolk Railway, so Mr. Peto obtained the sanction of the Eastern
Counties Railway to allow the Norfolk Company to work the local
branch traffic itself, and independent of the arrival and departure
of the main line trains. Mr. Peto’s new system met with instantaneous
and complete success, a great saving being effected. Thus the coke
consumption of Adams’ light engines, introduced by Mr. Peto, only
averaged 10lb. per train mile; but the Norfolk Railway had been paying
the Eastern Counties Railway at the rate of 27lb. per mile, that being
the average coke consumption of the Eastern Counties Railway main line
engines. A large and remunerative local passenger traffic was built up
by reason of the improved local services.
The advantages claimed by Mr. Adams for his light engines were as
follows:—Less dead weight, less friction, and less crushing and
deflecting of the rails.
We will now proceed to give some account of England’s light
locomotives, popularly called “Little Englanders”; but this cognomen
then had a very different meaning, as applied to locomotives, than
the words have at the present time in their application to certain
individuals. England constructed his premier light engine in 1849,
and the “Little England” (Fig. 54) was exhibited at the Exhibition of
1851. The chief dimensions were:—Driving wheels, 4ft. 6in. diameter,
located in front of the fire-box; leading and trailing wheels, 3ft.
diameter; inside cylinders, placed between the leading and driving
wheels, and not under the smoke-box; the frames were outside. The
fire-box was of the Bury type, with safety valves, similar to those
previously described as on the Bury engine still at work on the Furness
Railway. A dome was placed on the boiler barrel over the cylinders, so
that the steam pipes proceeded in a curved vertical line from the dome
to the cylinders. The dome was on a square seating. An auxiliary pipe
for the escape of the steam was provided at the back of the chimney,
but was only about one-half as high as the chimney. At the rear of the
foot-plate was a well-tank, holding water sufficient for a 50-mile
trip. A prize medal was awarded to this engine at the Exhibition.
England and Co. in August, 1850, sent one of their light engines to the
Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway on the following conditions: A guarantee
that the engine should work the express trains between Edinburgh
and Glasgow, consisting of seven carriages, and keep good time as
per time-bill, while the fuel consumption was not to exceed 10lb. of
coke per mile. If the light engine performed these conditions to the
satisfaction of the railway company’s engineer, the Edinburgh and
Glasgow Railway was to purchase the locomotive for £1,200. But if the
work done and the quantity of fuel consumed were not as guaranteed,
England and Co. were to remove the engine and pay all expenses of the
trial.
[Illustration: FIG. 54.—ENGLAND & CO.’S “LITTLE ENGLAND” LOCOMOTIVE,
EXHIBITED AT THE PREMIER INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION, LONDON, 1851]
This “Little England” was tried in competition with the “Sirius,”
the coke consumption of the former being 8lb. 3oz. per mile against
29lb. 1oz. of the “Sirius,” both performing exactly the same work. The
“Little England” so frequently ran in before her time that the driver
had to be ordered to take longer time on the trips for fear of an
accident happening in consequence of the train arriving before it was
expected. The speed of this light engine frequently exceeded 60 miles
an hour, and during the heavy winds and gales of January, 1851, the
“Little England” was the only locomotive on the line that kept time.
With a train of five carriages the coke consumption only amounted to
6½lb. per mile. On the Campsie Junction line, the “Little England”
hauled a train of seven carriages and a brake-van, all of which were
overloaded with passengers, over the several gradients of Nebrand,
at 30 miles an hour. Although the train stopped at a station on the
incline, the light engine successfully started from the station and
continued the ascent. An ordinary engine was sent to assist the train
at the rear, in case the “Little England” proved unequal to the task,
but it is said that the bank engine was unable to keep up with the
train!
The following table shows the result of the trial of the “Little
England” on the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway:—
(A) = Including lighting up and standing 4 hours between each trip.
----------+-------------+-------------+-------+--------------------
| | | | Coke Consumed.
Number of | Daily | No. of | |
Carriages |Mileage (47½)| Stoppages |Time on+----------+---------
per Train.| each way. |(3 each way).| each | While |
| | | trip. | running. | (A)
| | | | Per Mile.|
-----------+-------------+-------------+-------+----------+---------
| | | | lbs. oz.| lbs. oz.
| | | | |
7 |} | | {| 8 3 | 9 7
7 |} 95 | 6 | 90 {| 8 3 | 9 7
5 |} miles. | | min.{| 7 4 | 9 7
4 |} | | {| 6 5 | 8 5
----------+-------------+-------------+-------+----------+---------
On September 7th, 1850, another “Little Englander” commenced service on
the Liverpool and Stockport Railway, under guarantee to haul a train
of seven carriages up an incline of 1 in 100, stopping and starting
upon it, at a speed of 25 miles an hour, and consuming not more than
10lb. of coke per mile; on the level the speed was to be 45 miles an
hour. This engine frequently drew ten carriages under the conditions
laid down for only seven. In June, 1849, a “Little Englander” had been
supplied to the Dundee and Perth Railway for working the mail train of
four carriages. This the engine did successfully for a considerable
time.
After the abolition of rope traction on the Blackwall Railway “Little
Englanders” were used for the passenger trains.
England and Co. guaranteed these light engines to haul trains of six
carriages at a speed of 40 miles an hour on gradients of 1 in 100, at
a coke consumption of only 10lb. per mile. These engines cost £1,200
each, and the builders were willing to back them for 1,000 guineas a
side, with a load in proportion to the weight of any other engine,
or the amount of fuel consumed. We do not think anyone ever cared to
accept this challenge.
In March, 1848, a patent was granted to McConochie and Claude, of
Liverpool, for various improvements in the locomotive. The cylinders
were inside, behind the leading wheels, the valve gearing being
outside the frame and worked by eccentrics on the naves of the driving
wheels. It will be remembered that the valve gearing of Stephenson’s
“No. 185” was on this plan. The pumps were worked off the driving
wheels, as in the “Jenny Linds.” A double-beat safety valve was
provided.
To enable a low-pitched boiler to be employed, the axle was cranked at
the extreme ends, so that at each extremity of the axle only one return
crank-arm was provided, the wheel itself forming the second one, and a
pin connecting the wheel and axle-crank formed the shaft upon which the
connecting-rod worked.
To increase the weight upon the driving axle, a toggle joint was
placed between the bearing of the trailing axle and the springs; a rod
connected the knuckle of the toggle joint with the piston of a small
steam cylinder.
When the driver wished to obtain additional adhesion for the driving
wheels, he admitted steam to this auxiliary cylinder, which drove the
toggle joint into an upright position, thereby removing the weight from
the trailing wheels and placing it upon the driving wheels. Several
other novel proposals were included in the specification in question.
In 1848, Hawthorne, of Newcastle, built an engine named “Plews,” No.
180, of the York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway (makers’ number of
engine, 711). The locomotive had a copper fire-box. The boiler was
10ft. 8in. long, of oval shape, and consequently had to be stayed with
four plates; 229 brass tubes of 1¾in. external diameter were provided;
two lever safety valves were fixed on a raised fire-box and enclosed in
a brass casing; the steam pressure was 120lb. A very large cast-iron
dome placed on the centre ring of the boiler was a characteristic of
the “Plews.”
The cylinders were placed between the outside and inside frames,
diameter 16in. and stroke 20in.; whilst the slide-valves were outside
the cylinders, being worked by four eccentrics, on the outside of the
wheels, but within the outside frames. The driving wheels were 7ft.
diameter, the leading and trailing being 4ft. diameter; the whole of
the bearings were outside.
When at rest, the steam was turned into the tender for the purpose of
heating the feed-water. The tender was carried on six wheels of 3ft.
6in. diameter, and was capable of holding 1,400 gallons of water.
Brake blocks were provided for both sides of the six wheels, and an
ingenious arrangement of tooth wheels and rack applied the whole of the
blocks by means of a few turns of the brake handle.
Crampton’s engine, “Liverpool” (Fig. 55), has been described as the
“ultimatum for the narrow-gauge.” Why, we are at a loss to understand;
many other narrow-gauge engines have been constructed of greater power,
and certainly of more compact and pleasing design. The “ultimatum
of locomotive ugliness” would have been a correct title for the
“Liverpool.”
[Illustration: FIG. 55.—CRAMPTON’S “LIVERPOOL,” L. AND N.W.R.]
The engine in question was built by Bury, Curtis, and Kennedy, for the
London and North Western Railway, in 1848. The one good point about the
engine was the immense heating surface, which amounted to 2,290 sq. ft.
When our locomotive superintendents make up their minds to construct
express locomotives with such an amount of heating surface, we shall
hear no more of “double engine running,” and our express trains may
be expected to average a speed of over 50 miles an hour from start to
finish (including stops) on all trips.
The general arrangement of the “Liverpool” was similar to the engines
on Crampton’s system already described—viz., the driving wheels at
the back of the fire-box and outside cylinders fixed about the centre
of the frames. This engine had three pairs of carrying wheels under
the boiler, in addition to the driving wheels. The cylinders were
outside, fixed upon transverse bearers, formed of iron plates 1¼in.
thick, curved to the shape of the boiler and passing below it. The
cylinders were 18in. diameter, the stroke being 24in. Metallic packing,
consisting of two concentric rings of cast-iron, each with a wedge and
circular steel spring, was used for the purpose of making the pistons
steam-tight. The valves were above the cylinders, and were inclined,
the eccentrics being of large size and outside the driving wheels. The
regulator was located in a steam-box on the top of the boiler barrel;
the steam reached the valves by means of curved vertical copper pipes
outside the boiler, whilst the exhaust was conveyed to the smoke-box by
similar horizontal “outside” pipes. The two exhaust pipes united within
the smoke-box beneath the bottom of the chimney, the blast orifice
being 5½in. diameter.
The leading wheels were 4ft. 3in. diameter, the two intermediate
pairs 4ft., and the driving wheels 8ft. in diameter. The area of the
fire-grate was 21.58ft. The tubes were of brass, 12ft. 6in. long; 292
were 2³/₁₆th in diameter, the remaining eight being 1¾in. diameter. The
heating surface was:—Tubes, 2,136.117 sq. ft.; fire-box, 154.434 sq.
ft. The pumps were horizontal, fixed on the frames over the leading
wheels; they were worked by extension piston-rods, worked through the
covers of the cylinders.
The engine weighed (loaded) 35 tons, of which weight 12 tons were on
the driving axle. The tender weighed 21 tons. With a light load the
“Liverpool” attained a speed of nearly 80 miles an hour, whilst on one
occasion she hauled the train conveying Franconi’s troupe and horses,
consisting of 40 vehicles, from Rugby to Euston under the schedule
time. Three engines had been engaged to haul the same train from
Liverpool to Rugby, when time was lost. The power of the “Liverpool”
would, therefore, appear to have exceeded that of three of the usual
London and North Western Railway locomotives of that date.
Adams’ idea of a straight driving shaft connected by means of
outside rods with the driving wheels soon attracted attention, and
in 1849 Crampton incorporated the principle in his patent locomotive
specification of that year. But it was some two years later before any
engines were built under this particular patent of Crampton’s. These
locomotives will be described in due sequence.
We will now give a few details of some engines that would have been
most interesting had we knowledge that they were ever built. We possess
drawings of the engines in question, but lack authentic details of
their performances, so we will mention the principal features of the
designs, as given in the patent specifications. George Taylor, of
Holbeck, Leeds, obtained his patent on June 3rd, 1847. The drawing
shows the boiler to be hung below the wheels, of which there are only
four; these were to be 15ft. diameter, and in addition the wheels
were geared up 2 to 1, so that one revolution of the cogged driving
wheel would have propelled the engine six times the distance of a
driving wheel of 5ft. diameter. The cylinders were inside the frames,
over the boiler, and, of course, at the rear of the smoke-box; the
connecting-rods were attached to cranks on either side of a central
cog-wheel, which engaged with a cog-wheel of half its diameter,
fixed on the centre of the rear axle. The motion being conveyed to
the centre of the axle, instead of alternately on each side, as is
usual, practically abolished the oscillating motion so apparent in
two-cylinder engines. An examination of the drawing of this locomotive
design of George Taylor shows with what ease and slight alteration it
was possible for the two geared engines supplied to the Great Western
Railway by the Haigh Foundry to have been altered to ordinary direct
action engines.
Large wheels were also to be used for the tender, the axles passing
through the water-tank, so that the centre of gravity was lowered.
James Pearson, the locomotive superintendent of the Bristol and
Exeter Railway, obtained a patent on October 7th, 1847, for a double
locomotive. Fairlie’s “Little Wonder” narrow-gauge engines were
probably suggested by Pearson’s design of 1847; whilst the latter’s
famous broad-gauge double-bogie tanks were decidedly evolved from his
earlier form of locomotive.
The boiler was to have the fire-box in the centre, the latter being
divided into two parts, connected below the furnace doors; the driving
axle was across this central foot-plate, to allow of very large wheels
and a low centre of gravity. Each boiler (there being practically
two, one each side of the central double fire-box) was carried on a
four-wheel bogie, so that the locomotive was carried on ten wheels, as
in the later design. The bogie frames were connected by tension-rods,
passing outside the fire-box. India-rubber springs were employed, their
use being to allow each bogie to adjust itself to any inequality of the
road, and to bring the bogies back to the straight position on an even
road. The coke was to be stowed in bunkers over the boilers, and the
water could be either in tanks between the tops of the boilers and the
coke bunkers, or a separate tender could be provided. The steam domes
were on the fire-box, and were to be of abnormal height, and connected
over the head of the foot-plate, thus forming the roof of the cab. An
exhaust fan was fixed in the smoke-box to draw the heated air through
the tubes and discharge it up the chimney, or it could be used again
as a hot blast for the furnace, and a chimney and a smoke-box were
provided for each boiler. The fans were to be driven by pulleys off one
of the axles, and it was claimed that, as the exhaust steam was not
required for the purpose of creating a blast, extra large exhaust pipes
could be used, and the cylinders thereby relieved of “back pressure.”
The cylinders were outside, and the valves were beyond the cylinders.
These were fixed between the wheels of one of the bogies. The general
design of this engine, as shown in the drawings, was very ingenious,
and is certainly the most symmetrical “double-ended” type of engine
we have seen illustrated. Pearson for some reason did not construct
an engine after this style, but produced the well-known 9ft. “single”
(double-bogie) tanks instead.
The third patent now to be described had also for its leading feature
extra large driving wheels. The specification is that of Charles
Ritchie, of Aberdeen, the patent being granted to him on March 2nd,
1848. The principal feature was the providing of two piston-rods to
each piston, one on each side. Four driving wheels were proposed, one
pair placed in front of the smoke-box and one pair behind the fire-box.
The cylinders were outside, and were, of course, fixed at an equal
distance between the two pairs of driving wheels. One pair of carrying
wheels was to be used, placed below the cylinders. It was claimed
that this arrangement of pistons and connecting-rods exactly balanced
the reciprocating parts of the machinery, and therefore abolished
oscillation. Another improvement related to the slide-valves, the
starting, stopping, and reversing of the engine, together with the
expansive working of the steam, the whole to be controlled by a wheel
on the foot-plate, connected by cogs with the link of the valve gear.
Other improvements were compensating safety valves, an “anti-primer,”
and an improved feed-water apparatus. The last is described as
follows:—“Upon steam being admitted from the boiler into the cylinder,
through the steam-port, the piston will be acted upon, and the ram be
withdrawn; the water will then raise the valve and enter the barrel,
to occupy the space previously occupied by the ram. By this time the
piston will have acted upon a lever, so as to cause the slide-valve to
uncover one port and cover the other, thereby allowing the steam on the
other side of the piston to escape through the exhaust pipe.
“The piston will now be impelled in a contrary direction, and the ram
entering the barrel will cause the one valve to be closed and the
other to be opened by pressure of the water therein, which, as the ram
advances, will be forced into the boiler.”
Another part of the specification related to an “anti-fluctuator.”
A partition-plate was to be fixed between the tube-plate and the
fire-box, and the water was to be let into the boiler at the fire-box
end, and would only reach that portion of the boiler beyond the
fire-box by flowing over the top of the partition-plate. By this means
the fire-box would always be covered with water. It will be seen
that the specification contained several useful propositions, which,
however, do not appear to have been put into practice.
[Illustration: FIG. 56.—TIMOTHY HACKWORTH’S “SANSPAREIL NO. 2”]
We have previously, upon more occasions than one, shown the important
position occupied in the evolution of the steam locomotive by the
engines built or designed by Timothy Hackworth. We now have to give an
account of his last locomotive, the “Sanspareil No. 2.”
A comparison of the drawings of this engine (copies of which are in
our possession) with Hackworth’s earlier efforts of 20 years before,
clearly discloses the remarkable strides made in the improvement of the
locomotive during that period, and also most clearly shows that in 1849
Hackworth was still in the very van of locomotive construction, even as
he had been in the days of his “Royal George.”
The “Sanspareil No. 2” (Fig. 56) was constructed by Timothy Hackworth
at his Soho Engine Works at Shildon. The patent was obtained in the
name of his son, the late John Wesley Hackworth. We are indebted to the
executor of the will of Timothy Hackworth for many of the following
details concerning the engine now under review.
The locomotive was of the six-wheel “single” type, with outside
bearings to the L. and T. wheels, and inside bearings of the driving
wheels. The cylinders were inside. A cylindrical steam dome was
placed on the boiler barrel close to the smoke-box. The fire-box was
of the raised pattern, and on it was an encased Salter safety valve.
Cylindrical sand-boxes were fixed on the frame-plates in front of the
driving wheels. The principal dimensions of the engine were:—Driving
wheels, 6ft. 6in. diameter; leading and trailing, 4ft. diameter;
cylinders, 15in. diameter, 22in. stroke. Weight in working order:—L.,
8 tons 6 cwt.; D., 11 tons 4 cwt.; T., 4 tons 5 cwt. Total, 23 tons 15
cwt.
It would be well if we mentioned the principal novelties in
construction—viz.: Welded longitudinal seams in boiler barrel; the
boiler was connected to the smoke-box and fire-box by means of welded
angle-irons, instead of the usual riveted angle-irons; the lagging of
the boiler was also covered with sheet-iron, as is now general, instead
of the wood being left to view, as was at that time the usual practice.
A baffle-plate was fitted at the smoke-box end of tubes, as well as at
the fire-box end.
The pistons and rods were made of wrought-iron in one forging.
The valves were constructed under Hackworth’s patent, and were designed
to allow a portion of the steam required to perform the return stroke
to be in the cylinder before the forward stroke was completed, and thus
to form a steam cushion between the piston and cylinder covers. Such
working was said to economise 25 to 30 per cent. of fuel.
The engine conveyed 200 tons 45 miles in 95 minutes, consuming 21 cwt.
of coke, and evaporating 1,806 gallons of water. She also drew a train
of six carriages over the same distance without a stop, in 63 minutes,
with an expenditure of 13 cwt. of coke and 1,155 gallons of water.
Upon the completion of this engine, J. W. Hackworth sent the following
challenge to Robert Stephenson:—
“Sir,—It is now about 20 years since the competition for the
premium of locomotive superiority was played off at Rainhill,
on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. Your father and mine
were the principal competitors. Since that period you have
generally been looked to by the public as standing first in
the construction of locomotive engines. Understanding that you
are now running on the York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway a
locomotive engine which is said to be the best production that
ever issued from Forth Street Works, I come forward to tell you
publicly that I am prepared to contest with you, and prove to
whom the superiority in the construction of locomotive engines
now belongs.
“At the present crisis, when any reduction in the expense of
working the locomotive engine would justly be hailed as a boon
to railway companies, this experiment will no doubt be regarded
with deep interest as tending to their mutual advantage. I
fully believe that the York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway
Company will willingly afford every facility towards the
carrying out of this experiment.
“Relying upon your honour as a gentleman, I hold this open for
a fortnight after the date of publication.
“I am, Sir, yours, etc., JOHN W. HACKWORTH.”
We do not think Robert Stephenson accepted the challenge; at all
events, no records of such a competition have ever been made public,
and had it taken place the victor would have doubtless well published
the result.
The “Sanspareil” frequently attained a speed of 75 miles an hour on
favourable portions of the line. She was sold to the North Eastern
Railway by the executors shortly after the death of Timothy Hackworth,
something like £3,000 being obtained for the engine, which continued
to work upon the North Eastern Railway until recent years, having, of
course, been rebuilt during the long time it was in active service.
We have now to describe another specimen of the locomotives constructed
by the celebrated firm of Bury, Curtis and Kennedy. This locomotive was
one of the last engines built by the firm before its final dissolution.
The “Wrekin” was a six-wheel engine with inside bar frames and inside
cylinders, and was constructed for the Birmingham and Shrewsbury
Railway in 1849.
The special points noticeable in the construction of the engine in
question are the width of the framing, which was arranged horizontally
instead of vertically, and only two bearings to each axle. The
axle-boxes of the leading wheels were bolted to the frames, those of
the other wheels being welded to the frames, and the cylinders were
also directly affixed to the framing. An advantage claimed by the
builders, as resulting from the method of construction employed, was
that the weight being placed entirely within the wheels, such weight
had a tendency to press down the axle between the bearings, and so
counteract the constant tendency arising from the flanges of the
wheels, when pressing against the edge of the rails, especially in
passing round curves.
The cylinders were 15in. diameter, the stroke being 20in. The driving
wheels were 5ft. 7in. diameter, the leading 4ft. 1in. and the trailing
3ft. 7in.
The boiler contained 172 brass tubes, 11ft. 6in. long and 2⅛in.
external diameter. The heating surface was: Tubes, 1,059 sq. ft.;
fire-box, 80 sq. ft.; total, 1,139 sq. ft. Grate area, 15 sq. ft.
No steam dome was provided, the main steam-pipe being of iron, with
a longitudinal opening ³/₁₆th inches wide along the top; this pipe
extended to the smoke-box, at which end of it the regulator valve was
placed; the actuating-rod passing through the main steam-pipe from end
to end. Two encased Salter safety valves were fixed on the fire-box.
The wheel base of the “Wrekin” was: leading to driving, 8ft. 1in.;
driving to trailing, 6ft. 11in.
In 1849 the Vulcan Foundry Company supplied the Caledonian Railway with
an engine known as “No. 15.” In general appearance the locomotive was
very similar to Allan’s “Velocipede” engine on the London and North
Western Railway.
“No. 15” (Fig. 57) was a six-wheel engine, with inclined outside
cylinders, 15in. diameter and 20in. stroke. The driving wheels were
6ft. diameter, leading and trailing wheels 3ft. 6in. diameter. The
boiler barrel was 9ft. 9in. long and 3ft. 6¾4in. diameter, containing
158 brass tubes of 1¾in. external diameter. Wheel base, L. to D., 6ft.;
D. to T., 6ft. 6½in. The chimney was 6ft. 6in. high; on the centre
of the boiler was a man-hole, surmounted by a column safety valve
of Salter’s pattern, the blowing-off steam pressure being 90lb. The
steam dome was of brass, placed on the raised fire-box, and surmounted
with a second Salter’s safety valve. The driving and leading wheels
were provided with underhung springs, but the trailing wheels had the
springs over the axle-boxes. These latter springs were of elliptic
shape, and were provided with a screw device fixed on the foot-plate,
by means of which the weight was taken off the trailing wheels and
thrown upon the driving wheels.
In addition to the semi-circular brass name-plates (_i.e._, Caledonian
Railway) affixed to the splashers of the driving wheels, brass
number-plates of diamond shape (12in. long by 6in. diameter) were fixed
on the buffer beams of “No. 15.” The tender was supported on four
wheels, 3ft. 6in. diameter, and held 800 gallons of water.
[Illustration: FIG. 57.—CALEDONIAN RAILWAY ENGINE, “No. 15”]
During June, 1849, “No. 15” made a number of trial trips between
Glasgow and Carlisle, with seven, eight, and nine coaches of an average
weight of five tons each, the weight of the engine and tender being 28
tons. On the trips to Glasgow the Beattock Summit had, of course to be
climbed. This consists of 10 miles of stiff gradients, varying between
1 in 75, 80, and 88. The run of 13½ miles from Beattock to Elvanfoot,
consisting of the 10 miles just described and of 3½ down at 1 in 100,
was negotiated by “No. 15” in 33 minutes, with a train of six coaches;
with seven coaches the time was 41 minutes, and with a pilot and eleven
coaches, 30 minutes, or at the rate of 27 miles an hour. These were
considered exceptionally good specimens of hill-climbing performances
48 years back, but are, of course, entirely out of comparison with
modern Caledonian records over the same line with much heavier trains.
[Illustration: FIG. 58.—“MAC’S MANGLE,” No. 227, L. & N.W.R.]
McConnell, the locomotive superintendent of Wolverton, turned out
several remarkable locomotives for the London and North Western
Railway, and No. 227, or, as she was generally called, “Mac’s Mangle,”
(Fig. 58), was one of these peculiar specimens of McConnell’s design.
The cylinders were of large size, being 18in. diameter, with a 24in.
stroke; they were outside, as were also the axle bearings—a very
uncommon combination. No. 227 was a six-wheel “single” engine, the
driving wheels being 6ft. 6in. diameter, and the leading and trailing
wheels 4ft. diameter. The fire-box was of the raised pattern, and a
Salter safety valve (encased) was fixed on it. A huge steam dome was
provided, located, originally, close to the smoke-box end of the boiler
barrel, but afterwards (in 1850) placed near the fire-box end, over
the driving wheels. The boiler-heating surface of “Mac’s Mangle” was
1,383 sq. ft. No. 227 enjoyed but a short locomotive career, being
built in April, 1849, and “scrapped” in May, 1863. It is stated that
in consequence of the extreme width of this engine, caused by outside
cylinders being employed in conjunction with outside axle-boxes, it
became necessary to set back the platforms at some of the stations, so
that the engine could clear these erections without coming to grief.
[Illustration: FIG. 59.—“PRESIDENT,” ONE OF McCONNELL’S “BLOOMERS,” L.
& N.W.R AS ORIGINALLY BUILT]
In 1850 McConnell designed a very powerful class of passenger engines
for the L. and N. W. R. These are generally called the “Bloomers.”
“President” (Fig. 59) illustrates this favourite class of L. and N. W.
R. locomotive, when built. The cylinders were inside, 16in. diameter,
with a stroke of 22in. The driving wheels were 7ft. in diameter. The
heating surface was 1,152 sq. ft. These engines weighed 28¾ tons. (Fig.
60) is from a photo of a “Bloomer” as rebuilt by Ramsbottom.
[Illustration: FIG. 60.—ONE OF McCONNELL’S “BLOOMERS” AS REBUILT BY
RAMSBOTTOM]