Improvements in coal-burning locomotives—Beattie’s
system—Trials of the “Canute”—Yorston’s plan—Cudworth’s
successful efforts—Yarrow’s apparatus—D. K. Clark’s system
tried on the North London and other railways—Wilson’s plan
fitted to engines working the O.W. & W.R.—Lee and Jacques’
experiments—Frodsham’s device tried on the E.C.R.—Douglas’
system—The various plans reviewed—“Nunthorpe,” a S.
& D.R. engine—Double engine on the Turin and Genoa
Railway—Crampton’s engines on the E.K.R.—French locomotives
on the E.C.R.—Gifford’s invention of the injector—First
fitted to the “Problem” —Ramsbottom’s water “pick-up”
apparatus—Brunel’s powerful B.G. tanks for the Vale
of Neath Railway— Incorporation of the Metropolitan
Railway—Trial of Fowler’s “hot-brick” engine—Its
end—Fletcher’s saddle tanks—“75,” T.V.R.—Second-hand
locomotives on the L. & S.W.R.—The “Meteor”—Early L.C. &
D.R. engines.
We have now reached an era in the “evolution of the steam locomotive”
which, in its after development, amounted to a complete revolution in
the character of the fuel used for locomotive purposes. The year 1855
found the locomotive, or rather those responsible for its working, on
the threshold of successful experiments, which resulted in the complete
substitution of the “black diamonds” in their natural state for
locomotive fuel in preference to the use of coal after it had undergone
the process of carbonification necessary to form coke.
It must not be forgotten that steam-users never had a preference for
coke, but they were compelled to use it, because the more volatile coal
produced so much smoke in the process of combustion that legislative
action (which compels locomotive engines to be so constructed as “to
consume their own smoke”) practically prevented the use of coal until
science discovered a method of consuming the smoke.
There had been various attempts to reach this desirable state, and we
have from time to time in this series of articles described certain
of these efforts; but none of them up to the date under review had
been sufficiently successful to warrant the adoption of any one of the
methods proposed as a complete smoke-consumer.
The successful efforts made by Beattie, of the London and South Western
Railway, to solve the problem of smoke consumption in the locomotive
so as to admit of coal being used as fuel stand out prominently. The
salient points of his smoke-consuming locomotive comprised an enlarged
fire-box, a combustion chamber, the transverse division of the fire-box
by means of an inclined water bridge, and the fire-box arched with
fire-bricks. A perforated fire-door for the admission of air to the
fire-box was another of the features of Beattie’s system, as were
also the use of the ashpan dampers and the employment of an auxiliary
steam jet in the chimney for use when the engine was at rest and the
ordinary exhaust blast consequently not available. With the addition of
a feed-water heating apparatus Beattie reduced the fuel consumption to
.12 from .17lb. per ton mile.
The dimensions of the London and South Western Railway locomotive
“Canute” (an engine filled with Beattie’s coal-burning apparatus)
were:—Cylinders (outside), 15in. diameter, 21in. stroke; driving
wheels, 6ft. 6in. diameter. The fire-box was 4ft. 11in. long, 3ft.
6in. wide, 5ft. 1in. deep at the back, and 4ft. 1in. in front. The
combustion chamber had a flat roof, was 4ft. 2in. long, and 3ft. 6in.
diameter. The tubes were 6ft. long, 1¼in. diameter, and 373 in number.
Total area of fire-grate, 16 sq. ft.
The heating surface of the “Canute” was as follows:—Box, 107 sq. ft.;
combustion chamber, 37 sq. ft.; tubes, 625 sq. ft.; total, 769 sq.
ft. in addition to which red-hot bricks presented a surface of 80
sq. ft., not, however, for heating the water, but for the purpose of
burning the smoke. Four series of trials were made with the “Canute”
engine No. 135, and these are detailed in “Locomotive Engineering.”
The experiments are described as “1st, the engine in its usual order,
with coal, bricks, and hot feed-water; 2nd, with coal, bricks, and cold
water; 3rd, with coke, bricks, and hot feed-water; 4th, with coal and
hot feed-water, but without the bricks.” Three different kinds of coals
were used for the experiments. The following is a brief summary of the
experiments:—1st, a regular express train, of 10½ coaches, weighing 66
tons, or with the engine and tender, 99 tons. Average speed, exclusive
of stoppages, 34 miles an hour; consumption of coal, 15lb. per train
mile; water evaporated, 9.35lb. per lb. of coal consumed; average
temperature of heated feed-water, 187 degrees. 2nd trial, a weighted
train of 28 coaches, weighing with engine and tender 236 tons. Average
speed, exclusive of stoppages, 30¾ miles an hour; coal consumed,
28¾lb. per mile, 8.87lb. of water evaporated by each pound of coal;
temperature of feed-water, 212 degrees. 3rd experiment, with an express
train, but without the fire-bricks in the fire-box, showed that a
saving of 12 per cent. was due to the use of the fire-bricks, and with
coke instead of coal as fuel, the saving was 24 per cent. in favour
of coal; whilst the use of the feed-water heating apparatus showed a
saving of 30 per cent. of fuel. Beattle’s apparatus is illustrated by
Fig. 76, the “Dane,” being a similar locomotive to “Canute.”
[Illustration: FIG. 76.—THE “DANE,” L. & S.W.R., FITTED WITH BEATTIE’S
PATENT APPARATUS FOR BURNING COAL]
As the feed-water heating apparatus was an important innovation in
locomotive practice, it will be of interest if we append a description
of the same. In outward appearance, the most noticeable portion of
the apparatus was the condenser, a cylindrical appendage placed in
a vertical position on the top of the smoke-box and in front of the
chimney. From a casual glance, the condenser much resembled the
steam-pipe of a steamship which is usually to be observed outside the
smoke-stack. From the bottom of the condenser, outside the engine, a
pipe conveyed the heated water and steam back to the tender. The method
of working was for the exhaust steam to be discharged from the blast
pipe into the condenser, which, as previously explained, was on the top
of the smoke-box, and consequently right over the blast orifice. Here
the exhaust steam was mixed with a jet of cold water, which was pumped
into a condenser. The result of such meeting was the condensing of the
steam and heating of the water, which flowed by gravitation through the
pipe previously described. The supply pump for the boiler was worked
off this pipe, and both the heated water and that from the tender
were together pumped into the boiler. If the boiler were not being
fed, the heated water from the condenser, instead of passing into the
boiler, flowed through the pipe into the tender, and thus raised the
temperature of the whole of the water in that vessel.
It should be mentioned that before entering the boiler the temperature
of the feed-water was further increased by passing through a special
heating apparatus, fixed in the smoke-box. This smoke-box chamber was
heated by the exhaust steam, which passed through it after leaving the
blast pipe, and before entering the external condenser placed above it.
By these methods the temperature of the feed-water was raised above the
boiling point before entering the boiler.
The engines of this design gave satisfaction, both as regards
smoke-consuming and feed-water heating, and to Beattie, therefore, is
due much of the honour of successfully overcoming the defects that
previously existed in so-called “smoke-consuming” locomotives. The
“Canute” can, therefore, be considered amongst the earliest of the
locomotives burning coal in such a manner as to consume the smoke. It
should be mentioned that in later engines built under Beattie’s patent
the external condenser fixed on the top of the smoke-box in front of
the funnel was not used, a modified form of interior apparatus being
substituted.
It must not be supposed that at this period Beattie was alone in the
field of experiment relating to “smoke-consuming” locomotives. Several
other engineers were engaged in the same useful research, amongst whom
we mention Yorston, Cudworth, Yarrow, D. K. Clark, Wilson, Lee and
Jacques (jointly), Sinclair, and Douglas. Yorston’s plan was patented
by Sharp, Stewart, and Co. in 1855. The fire-box was divided into two
parts by a transverse mid-feather, which was perforated by a series of
tubes, to allow the coal gases to escape and air to enter. The coal was
fed into the portion of the fire-box next the tubes, the front part
being reserved for coke; separate fire-doors were used for introducing
the coke and coal into the fire-box. The air entering through the
perforations in the fire-box, at the tube-plate end, was expected to
force the smoke, etc., from the coal fire over the incandescent coke,
where the combustion of the coal would be completed. The system,
however, appears to have been better in theory than practice, as no
particular steps were taken to push the invention in question.
With Cudworth’s system the opposite course was adopted, and resulted in
his engines taking a foremost position among those burning coal as fuel.
Mr. Cudworth, the locomotive superintendent of the South Eastern
Railway appears to have made his first experiments with engine No. 142,
which during July, 1857, was tried as a coke-burning locomotive; but
during October and November of the same year experiments were made with
this engine, fitted with Cudworth’s patent grate, etc.
[Illustration: FIG. 77.—CUDWORTH’S SLOPING FIRE-GRATE, FOR BURNING
COAL, AS FITTED TO SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVES]
The principal dimensions of Cudworth’s standard passenger engines were
as follows:—Cylinders, 16in. by 24in. stroke; driving wheels, 6ft.
diameter; wheel base, 15ft.; heating surface, 965ft.; grate area, 21
sq. ft. Total weight in working order 30½ tons, of which the leading
axle supported 9 tons 9 cwt., driving 10¾ cwt., and trailing 10 tons
6 cwt. The tender was carried on six wheels, and weighed in working
order 20½ tons. These engines had inside cylinders and “back-coupled”
driving wheels, and for many years comprised the principal type of
South Eastern passenger locomotives. Several of them are still running,
but rebuilt, their former distinguishing features—viz., the large brass
dome on the centre of the boiler barrel, the raised fire-box, with a
brass encased Salter safety valve, the sloping fire-grate, and the
peculiar chimney—all having been removed during the present locomotive
_régime_.
The chief feature in Cudworth’s system was the long, sloping fire-box,
which was 7ft. 6in. in length, the grate being 7ft. long, illustrated
by Fig. 77. The fire-box was divided into two parts by a longitudinal
mid-feather, thus forming two furnaces, with separate doors; the two
furnaces united at the lower end—in front of the tube-plate. The coal
was introduced alternately into each furnace, being placed just within
the doors; the sloping grate and the motion of the engine caused the
fuel to gradually slide down the grate towards the tube-plate, and by
the time the fuel had reached the lower end of the grate, the smoke had
become separated from the carbon of the coal, and was consumed by the
incandescent mass of fire at the lower end of the grate, as it passed
over the same on its way to the tubes.
Cudworth employed neither combustion chambers nor air-bricks in his
system; but air was admitted to the fire-box by means of a damper fixed
in the front of the lower end of the grate. A steam-jet was fixed in
the chimney to create a sufficient draught when the engine was still.
Cudworth’s “smoke-consuming” locomotives were as economical in coal as
Beattie’s, whilst the former’s system was much more simple.
On March 18th, 1857, Thomas Yarrow, of Arbroath, was granted a patent
for his smoke-consuming apparatus for locomotives, which was used on
the Scottish North Eastern Railway. The leading characteristic of the
design was a flat arch of fire-bricks constructed inside an ordinary
fire-box. The lower end of the arch commenced below the bottom row of
tubes, and the arch was continued upwards in a slanting direction till
within 8 or 10 inches of the roof of the fire-box. Upon the top of this
arch were fixed a number of tubes, through which the vapours passed
before reaching the ordinary boiler tubes. Hot air was supplied to
the fire by means of pipes with trumpet-shaped mouths placed in front
of the ashpan. The fire-bars were fixed on a transverse rocking-shaft
fitted with several short arms, upon which the ends of the fire-bars
rested. To prevent the formation of clinkers, an occasional rock was
given to the fire-bars by the fireman, a sector being provided for the
purpose. Yarrow’s system required the coal to be placed at the extreme
front of the fire-box, so that the smoke was forced by the brick arch
to return towards the fire-door before it could get over the arch and
enter the tubes, and in the passage the denser portion of the smoke
was burnt. The patent also included the use of a steam-jet in the
chimney for use when the engine was not working, and the heating of the
feed-water by means of the exhaust steam.
Late in 1857 D. K. Clark devised his system of smoke-consuming
furnaces: the air was forced through tubes into the fire-box by the
action of minute jets of steam, which acted much in the same way as the
blast pipe in the smoke-box. The air-tubes were 1½in. diameter, with
the steam-jet orifice contracted to one-sixteenth inch diameter.
The first locomotive fitted with D. E. Clark’s system was one of the
North London Railway’s tanks. This was in January, 1858, but only one
side of the fire-box was fitted; four air-tubes were employed, and with
a small fire the prevention of smoke was complete. In April of the same
year one of the passenger engines on the Eastern Counties Railway was
fitted with Clark’s apparatus. Four air-tubes were fitted to one side
of the fire-box, and three to the other side. In the following January
a South Eastern Railway passenger locomotive was fitted with two rows
of seven tubes each, through the front and back of the fire-box. In
March, 1859, a Great North of Scotland Railway engine was fitted with
tubes on Clark’s system, with such satisfactory results that the
whole locomotive stock of that railway was speedily fitted with the
apparatus. No complete investigation appears to have been made as to
the work performed by the jets of steam as employed by Clark. It is
generally supposed that the steam had a merely mechanical effect—viz.,
that of drawing the air into the fire-box. It has also been suggested
that the steam produced a chemical combination which facilitated the
combustion of the volatile gases, besides precipitating the unconsumed
carbonaceous matter on the fire. The result of the adoption of the
system on the Great North of Scotland Railway’s locomotives was such
that the coal consumption fell to under .2lb. of coal per ton mile.
A trial was also made of Clark’s system on the London, Brighton, and
South Coast Railway, one of the old passenger engines being fitted
with air-tubes and steam-jets to the front of the fire-box, with good
results.
In 1858 Mr. Edward Wilson, who supplied the Oxford, Worcester, and
Wolverhampton Railway with locomotive power by contract, fitted his
system to several of the engines on that line. Mr. David Joy, the
inventor of the celebrated Joy valve gear, was at that time locomotive
superintendent of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway,
and he possesses records of many runs of the engines so fitted, and
the comparisons between the fitted and unfitted engines show an
immense saving of fuel by the former; indeed, the coal consumption
was remarkably low considering the severe nature of the line between
Oxford and Worcester. Some short time ago Mr. Joy showed the writer the
tabulated results of these trials, and, if memory serves correctly, the
coal consumption averaged about 21lb. per train mile. Wilson’s system
consisted in fixing several tubes from the bottom of the fire-box
underneath the whole length of the boiler and smoke-box, so that the
mouths of the air-tubes projected in front of the engine, and the
resistance of the train when travelling forced the air through the
tubes into the fire-box. By his method Wilson obtained a forced draught
without the expenditure of the steam, which was necessary in Clark’s
system.
Lee and Jacques’ system was introduced on the East Lancashire Railway
in July, 1858. It consisted of a narrow fire-brick arch, and a
deflector fixed at the top of the underhung fire-door. The deflector
projected in a downward sloping direction into the fire-box. A valve
for controlling the supply of air to the fire-box was fitted to the
fire-door, and this valve was worked by means of a sector. The air
entered the fire-box through the valve, and the deflector caused the
air to be projected downwards on to the fuel, whilst the brick arch
prevented the immediate escape of the gases, and kept them within the
fire-box sufficiently long for the smoke to be consumed.
In December, 1858, Mr. Sinclair, the locomotive superintendent of the
Eastern Counties Railway, commenced to fit some locomotives with the
deflecting plate, etc., on a plan introduced by a Mr. Frodsham. The
fire-door was underhung, and the baffle-plate was fixed above it, to
direct the air down on to the fuel; whilst instead of a brick arch, two
steam-jets were used, one on each side of the door. These also helped
to force the air on to the burning fuel and to drive the liberated, but
unconsumed, smoke back into the fire, when it was consumed.
Mr. Douglas’s plan was adopted by the Birkenhead Railway. He combined
the use of an inclined fire-grate of large area, and a baffle-plate. In
January, 1858, when first introduced, the deflector was fixed to the
inner side of the fire-door, but in June of the same year an underhung
fire-door and movable baffle-plate were employed. These afterwards gave
place to a plain inverted scoop, to project the air right on to the
fire.
[Illustration: FIG. 78.—“NUNTHORPE,” A STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON RAILWAY
PASSENGER ENGINE, BUILT IN 1856]
After reading the description of the various plans adopted for the
consumption of the smoke, readers will at once observe that each and
every designer had the same object in view—viz., to supply a sufficient
volume of air to the fire, and mix the air with the unconsumed gases
given off by the burning coal, and then to prevent the immediate escape
of this gaseous mixture from the fire-box. Being retained within the
heated fire-box, the temperature of the vapour was raised sufficiently,
so that the vapour readily burnt when forced by the steam deflector,
or brick arch (according to the system adopted), back on to the
incandescent fuel. As stated, the object of all the inventors was the
same, but the methods adopted were different, and these latter (though
some systems had advantages that others lacked) were successful in each
case; but from the whole could be chosen some that certainly were more
noteworthy, both as regards simplicity of application and design, and
others that were more successful in attaining the object in view—viz.,
a consumption of the smoke given off by the coal. In these four
years—1855-59—however, the problem of consuming the coal smoke, was
successfully accomplished, and the era of the coal-burning locomotive
definitely inaugurated.
Fig. 78 is an illustration of the “Nunthorpe,” No. 117 of the Stockton
and Darlington Railway. This engine shows a distinct advance in
locomotive construction; indeed, it is possible at the present time to
see on some lines engines somewhat similar in appearance still at work.
She was built by Gilkes, Wilson and Co., in 1856, and was intended for
passenger traffic. Four of the six wheels were coupled, these being
5ft. in diameter. The cylinders were inside, 16in. in diameter, and
with 19in. stroke. The tender was on six wheels, and the tank capacity
was 1,200 gallons. The cost of the engine was £2,550. It will be
observed that the weather-board of the “Nunthorpe” afforded very little
protection to the driver and fireman, but its inclusion in the design
of the engine was a step in the right direction.
[Illustration: FIG. 79.—BEATTIE’S 4-COUPLED TANK ENGINE, L. & S.W.R.,
1857]
In 1857 Beattie designed a handy class of passenger tank engines for
the L. and S.W.R. Three were built at first, and named “Nelson,”
“Howe,” and “Hood.” They had four coupled wheels, 5ft. diameter, and a
small pair of leading wheels. The cylinders, which were outside, were
15in. diameter, the stroke being 20in. These engines are illustrated by
Fig. 79. They were good locomotives, and “Hood” and “Howe” continued in
work till 1885.
Fairlie is usually given the credit of introducing double locomotives
with a centre foot-plate. By reference to Chapter IX., it will be seen
that the design was patented by Pearson, of the Bristol and Exeter
Railway, as long ago as 1847, and in 1855 a double engine, built by
R. Stephenson and Co., was at work on the Giovi incline of the Turin
and Genoa Railway. The incline in question commences 7¾ miles after
leaving Genoa, and is six miles long, the average gradient being 1 in
36. The double locomotive was of the tank type. The wheels were 3ft.
6in. diameter, the cylinders 14in. diameter, and the stroke 22in.
The machine actually appears to have been two engines placed fire-box
to fire-box, and connected by means of a foot-plate between the two
fire-boxes. The combination, with fuel and water, weighed 50 tons. In
fine weather a load of 100 tons was hauled up the Giovi bank at 15
miles an hour; in bad weather the load was reduced to 70 tons.
The first portion of the East Kent Railway from Chatham to Faversham
was opened in January, 1858, the original locomotives being designed by
Crampton, who was one of the contractors for the construction of the
line. The engines in question were “tanks,” and weighed 32 tons each—at
that period considered an excessive weight for an engine. They were
also unsteady and generally unsatisfactory, frequently running off the
metals.
Mr. Robert Sinclair was appointed locomotive superintendent of the
Eastern Counties Railway in 1858, and his first design of engines
was a class for working the goods traffic, of which only six were
constructed, Rothwell and Co. being the builders. The engines had a
pair of leading wheels, 3ft. 7in. diameter, and two pairs of coupled
wheels, 5ft. diameter; the cylinders were 18in. diameter, the stroke
being 22in.
During the following years another class of goods engines (Fig. 80)
were built by various firms from Mr. Sinclair’s improved design.
Indeed, as will be seen later on, some were even constructed by the
French firm of Schneider and Co. These had outside cylinders, and
inside frames to all wheels. The coupled wheels (D. and T.) were 6ft.
3in. diameter, and the leading 3ft. 9in. diameter. The boiler was 10ft.
9in. long by 4ft. 2in. diameter, and contained 203 tubes, of 1¾in.
diameter; heating space, 1,122 sq. ft.; weight, 35½ tons. Twenty-one of
these engines, built by Neilson and Co., had Beattie’s patent fire-box,
which was surmounted by a large dome. These were numbered 307 to 327.
When Mr. W. Adams was appointed locomotive superintendent of the Great
Eastern Railway, he rebuilt several of these engines with a leading
bogie in place of the pair of wheels.
In November, 1858, a design of locomotive engine was patented, four
pairs of coupled wheels being employed, all of which were located
under the boiler barrel. The two leading pairs of wheels had outside
axle-boxes, and the two trailing pairs inside axle-boxes, the latter
having a lateral motion. The cylinders were inside, under the
smoke-box, but the method proposed for working the locomotive was of
a curious type, being somewhat after the fashion employed in ancient
steamboats, the pistons working out towards the front buffer beams,
but connected to the leading wheels by outside cranks working off the
cross-heads.
[Illustration: FIG 80.—SINCLAIR’S OUTSIDE CYLINDER, 4-COUPLED GOODS
ENGINE, EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY. (REBUILT)]
A design for four-wheel tank engines was patented by S. D. Davison, in
February, 1859, the leading feature being plate-iron frames formed into
tanks for holding a supply of water.
Attention must now be given to an invention that has proved of enormous
value to the locomotive engineer, but which from its simplicity of
action, yet apparent impossibility, was not at first deemed worthy
of practical use. On July 23rd, 1858, a patent was granted to H. J.
Giffard, a Frenchman, for his injector, or boiler feeder, which in
a short period almost completely superseded feed pumps, with their
attendant friction, uncertainty of action, and excessive outlay for
maintenance and repair. But above these minor disadvantages of the feed
pumps, the injector removed from the minds of locomotive engineers that
great source of danger, a short supply of water in the boilers, as
well as the additional expense and inconvenience of “exercising” the
locomotives solely for the purpose of filling the boiler, or, where
such a method was inconvenient, of working the engine over a “race” for
the same purpose. The theory of the injector did not originate with
Giffard, for as long ago as 1806 Nicholson mentioned it as applicable
for forcing water, whilst other philosophers have suggested its
utility; indeed, the principle was used in connection with vacuum sugar
boiling pans 20 years before Giffard’s patent. The story of Giffard’s
accidental discovery of the action of steam and water in supplying a
steam boiler with additional water reads almost like an extravagant
romance, but many other great inventions and scientific discoveries
had beginnings that appeared quite as improbable. The action of the
injector, although curious, is well known, and therefore needs no
description here. It is stated that Ramsbottom’s “Problem,” built at
Crewe in November, 1859, was the first locomotive fitted with Giffard’s
“injector.” This engine was the prototype of the world-famous “Lady
of the Lake” class. Her dimensions were, outside cylinders, 16in. by
24in.; single driving wheels, 7ft. 7½in. diameter; weight in working
order, 27 tons. These engines have inside frames and bearings to all
the six wheels.
An invention of Mr. Ramsbottom in connection with the improvement of
the working of the locomotive deserves attention at this point. We
refer to his self-filling tender apparatus, as introduced in 1860 on
the London and North Western Railway system, and afterwards partially
on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, but which until the last
year or so has not been used on other lines. The speed competition of
recent years, and the expiration of the patent, has now caused the
Great Western, Great Eastern, and North Eastern to adopt the water
pick-up apparatus. One advantage of the system is, of course, the
considerable reduction in the dead weight—a not unimportant factor
in express train running. The superiority of Ramsbottom’s system is
easily seen by comparing the small light tenders in use on the London
and North Western Railway with the gigantic ones adopted by the Great
Northern, Midland, and other lines running long distances without
stopping, but which systems are unsupplied with the water trough and
the necessary pick-up apparatus. The first pair of water troughs appear
to have been put down near Conway, on the North Wales section of the
London and North Western Railway. They were of cast-iron, 441 yards
long, 18in. wide, and 7in. deep, the water being 5in. deep. At each
end of the main trough was an additional length of 16 yards, rising
1 in 100. It was towards the end of 1860 that the first trial of the
trough system was made. Here, again, as in the case of the “injector,”
the arrangement requisite to produce the effect is so simple that at
first blush the effect appears to be the result of some marvellous
secret power rather than the operation of a simple natural law, the
effect of the travelling scoop upon the water being exactly the same
as if the water were forced against a stationary scoop at a velocity
equal to that at which the train is travelling. The lowest speed at
which the apparatus works properly is something about 22 miles an hour.
This speed, however, brings it within the scope of fast goods trains,
whilst express trains can scoop up the water when travelling at 50
miles an hour, and can pick up about 1,500 gallons in the length of
the trough—quarter of a mile. The speed of the train would not appear
to have much effect upon the water picked up in passing over a trough,
as although with a slower train less water would be raised per second,
yet the extra length of time spent in travelling over the trough would
compensate for the smaller amount of water raised per second. The
water supply-pipe is fixed inside the tender; it is slightly curved
throughout its entire length, and is expanded towards its upper end to
about ten times the area of the bottom, in order to reduce the speed
or force of the incoming stream, which is directed downwards by the
bent end or delivering mouth at the top of the pipe. To the lower end
of this pipe is fitted a movable dip-pipe, which is curved forward in
the direction of the motion of the tender, so as to act as a species
of scoop. This dip-pipe is rendered movable and adjustable in various
ways, with a view to its being drawn up clear of any impediments, such
as ballast heaps lying on the way, and also to regulate the depth of
immersion in the water of the feed-water trough, the dip-pipe being
capable of sliding up inside the feed-pipe by a convenient arrangement
of rods and levers.
In order that the dip-pipe may enter and leave the feed-trough freely
at each end, the rail surface at that part of the line is lowered a few
inches, a descending gradient at one end of the trough serving to allow
the dip-pipe to descend gradually into the trough, whilst a rising
gradient at the opposite end enables it to rise out of the trough
again, the intervening length of line between the two gradients being
level. To meet emergencies, Mr. Ramsbottom provided a small ice-plough,
to be used occasionally during severe frost for the purpose of breaking
up and removing any ice which might form in the trough. This plough
consisted of a small carriage mounted on four wheels, and provided with
an angular-inclined perforated top, which worked its way under the ice
on being pushed along the bottom of the trough, and effectually broke
it up and discharged it over each side.
A very powerful class of broad-gauge saddle tank locomotives was
designed by Brunel for working the heavy coal traffic over the severe
gradients of the Vale of Neath Railway. These engines were supported
by six-coupled wheels of 4ft. 9in. diameter, the cylinders being 18in.
diameter, and the stroke 24in. The heating surface was 1,417.6 sq.
ft.; the water capacity of tanks was 1,500 gallons. The engines, which
were fitted with Dubs’ wedge motion, were built by the Vulcan Foundry
Company, and weighed 50 tons in working order. A noteworthy performance
of one of these locomotives consisted in hauling a train of 25 loaded
broad-gauge trucks, each weighing 15 tons, the gross weight, including
the engine, amounting to 425 tons. This train travelled up a bank of 1
in 90 for a distance of 4½ miles. Such a load on the gradient mentioned
is equal to one of 1,275 tons on the level, and in a general way we
do not find engines hauling trains of the latter weight upon our most
level lines. The Vale of Neath performance must, therefore, be regarded
as an exceptional locomotive feat. These engines were numbered 13,
14, and 15, and not being provided with compensating beams between
the wheels, it is stated that one axle frequently carried 20 tons of
the total weight. During 1860 these three locomotives were, under the
advice of Mr. Harrison, rebuilt as tender engines, to reduce the weight
on the wheels, the excessive amount of which had been very destructive
to the permanent-way. The cost of the alterations to the engines and
the addition of the tenders was £700 each engine. About the same
time some of the other Vale of Neath six-wheels-coupled engines were
converted into four-wheels-coupled bogie locomotives.
The locomotive now to be described had but a very shadowy existence; it
was rather a tentative essay to produce a steam locomotive without the
aid of a fire. The idea when proposed by Sir John Fowler was not new,
for more or less successful essays had already been made on a small
scale, with engines, the steam for propelling which was generated in
the same manner as in Fowler’s locomotive.
In 1853 a railway was incorporated as the North Metropolitan; the
next year a new Act was obtained, and the title changed to the
Metropolitan. This authorised the construction of a railway from
the Great Western Railway at Paddington to the General Post Office;
powers were afterwards obtained to allow the City terminus to be in
Farringdon Street instead of at the Post Office. The Great Western
Railway subscribed £175,000 of the capital, and for the convenience
of that Company’s through traffic the Metropolitan was laid out
on the mixed-gauge, and when it was first opened it was worked on
the broad-gauge only, by the Great Western Railway—a most sensible
arrangement, and one which ought never to have been relinquished,
seeing how well adapted the wider vehicles were for conveying the
immense crowds that travel by every train on this line.
The Act of Incorporation specially provided that the line was to be
worked without annoyance from steam or fire. At first it was proposed
to convert the water into steam by means of red-hot bricks placed
around the boiler, and Mr. (afterwards Sir) John Fowler designed such
a locomotive, which was built by a Newcastle firm, and tried on the
Metropolitan Railway between Bishop’s Road and Edgware Road Stations
before the line was opened. The first trial took place on Thursday,
November 28th, 1861. The following is an account of the trip:—“The
engine was of considerable size, and it was stated that it could run on
the railway from the Great Western at Paddington to Finsbury Pavement
without allowing the escape of steam from the engine or smoke from
the fire. A few open trucks were provided with seats, and when the
gentlemen were seated, the new engine propelled them under the covered
way of the Metropolitan Railway to the first station at the eastern
side of the Edgware Road, and back again to the Great Western Station,
the steam and smoke being shut off. The tunnel, or covered way, was
perfectly fresh and free from vapour or smoke. On the signal being
given to work the engine in the ordinary way, a cloud of smoke, dust,
and steam soon covered the train, and continued until it emerged from
the tunnel into the open air. The experiment was perfectly successful,
but it was understood that engines so constructed would be rather more
expensive to work than those running in the ordinary way.” To work the
Metropolitan Railway on this system would have required the erection
of immense boilers at both ends of the line to heat the water for the
locomotive, and also furnaces for making the bricks red-hot, whilst the
charging of the locomotive boilers with hot water and the fire-boxes
with hot bricks would have occupied some considerable time at the end
of each trip.
It is, of course, well known that the experiment was very far from
being “perfectly successful.” Indeed, “failure” would be a much
better definition of the hot-brick engine, since the proposed method
of working was not carried out. We understand the engine was sold
to Mr. Isaac Watt Boulton, the well-known purchaser of second-hand
locomotives, and for some time remained in his “railway museum” before
being finally scrapped. The Metropolitan Railway had, consequently,
upon the failure of the hot-brick engine, to fall back upon the Great
Western Railway for working the underground line, until Sir John
Fowler’s later design of engines, constructed by Beyer, Peacock, and
Co., were ready to work the traffic.
In 1862 Fletcher, Jennings, and Co., of Whitehaven, designed a handy
type of saddle tank engine for shunting purposes, etc. The engine ran
on four wheels, 3ft. 4in. diameter, the wheel base being 6ft. The
cylinders were 10in. diameter, with 20in. stroke. Allan’s straight
link motion was employed, and was worked off the leading axle (it
will be understood that the four wheels were coupled). This method
of actuating the valves was not conducive to good working, as, of
course, if the coupling-rods worked slack the valve gear motion became
disorganised.
Fig. 81 is a photograph of engine No. 75, of the Taff Vale Railway,
built at the Company’s Cardiff Works in 1860. The six-coupled wheels
were 4ft. 8in. diameter, the cylinders were 16in. diameter, and the
stroke was 24in. No. 75 weighed 32 tons in working order; the steam
pressure was 130 lbs. per sq. in. She was employed in the heavy mineral
traffic of the Taff Vale Railway, and from her design well calculated
to work over the heavy gradient of that system.
[Illustration: FIG. 81.—SIX-COUPLED MINERAL ENGINE, TAFF VALE RWY.,
BUILT 1860]
In 1862 the L. and S.W. Railway purchased some second-hand engines from
a contractor. They were built by Manning, Wardle, and Co., Leeds, and
comprised six-wheels-coupled saddle tank engines. The wheels were 3ft.
diameter; cylinders, 12in. by 18in. stroke; wheel base, 10ft. 3in.;
length over buffers, 21ft. 6in.; weight, empty, 14 tons 8 cwt., loaded,
16 tons 4 cwt. The fire-box was surmounted by a safety valve enclosed
within a high fluted pillar. The steam pressure was 120lb. One of these
engines is leased to the Lee-on-the-Solent (Light) Railway, and may be
seen working the traffic on this little line, which, by the way, spends
over twopence to earn each penny of its gross income.
Before leaving the London and South Western Railway and its goods
locomotives, it is as well to record the dimensions of the “Meteor,”
No. 57, constructed at Nine Elms in 1863 from the designs of Mr.
Beattie. The cylinders were 16½in. diameter, 22in. stroke; the leading
wheels were 3ft. 3in., and the coupled (D. and T.) wheels 5ft.
diameter; the wheel base was 14ft., of which 8ft. 2½in. was between
the coupled wheels. The leading wheels were under the boiler, and the
front buffer beam was about 6ft. in advance of the centre of this
axle. An immense dome was fixed on the raised fire-box; the safety
valve was within an inverted urn-shaped case on the boiler barrel. The
weather-board had slight side-wings, and was curved upwards at the top,
and so formed an incipient cab. The fire-box sloped from the tube-plate
towards the foot-plate. The total weight, in working order, was 32
tons 18 cwt., of which 11 tons 9 cwt. was on the leading, 11½ tons on
the driving, and 9 tons 18 cwt. on the trailing axle. The tender was
supported on six wheels, 3ft. 9¾in. diameter, and had a tank capacity
of 1,950 gallons.
By a marvellous addition of a big head and a bigger tail (to say
nothing of various legs), the diminutive body of the East Kent Railway
had, in August, 1859, blossomed into the London, Chatham and Dover
Railway; and for this railway 24 locomotives were supplied by various
firms from Crampton’s designs. They were numbered 3 to 26. The design
was peculiar—a leading bogie having wheels 3ft. 6in. diameter, and
a base of 4ft., and four-coupled wheels 5ft. 6in. diameter. The
cylinders were outside, and had a stroke of 22in., the diameter being
16in. As in the “London” and other Crampton engines, the cylinders
were placed about midway between the smoke and fire-boxes, whilst the
connecting-rods actuated the rear pair of coupled wheels, so that in
describing the position of the wheels of these engines we should have
to enumerate them as “leading bogie,” “centre,” and “ driving.” A
compensation lever connected the centre and driving wheels. Gooch’s
valve gear was used. Like other engines of Crampton’s design, this
class was a failure, and within three or four years they were rebuilt
as six-wheel engines, with inside cylinders and outside frames; some of
them, as reconstructed without a bogie, are still in active service on
the London, Chatham and Dover Railway.
Before the grave faults inherent in the previously described class of
engines had been, fully appreciated, the London, Chatham, and Dover
Railway had arranged for a second batch of engines from another of
Crampton’s designs. These consisted of five engines constructed by R.
Stephenson and Co. in 1862. The locomotives in question were worked on
the principle patented by W. Bridges Adams, and previously described
in an earlier chapter—viz., an intermediate driving shaft, coupled by
outside rods to the driving wheels, situated behind the fire-box. The
cylinders were 16in. diameter by 22in. stroke, and within the frames.
The driving wheels were 6ft. 6½in. diameter, and bogie wheels 4ft.
0½in. diameter. Cudworth’s sloping fire-box, fitted with a longitudinal
mid-feather, was employed. The heating surface amounted to 1,200 sq.
ft., made up of 130 sq. ft. fire-box and 1,070 sq. ft. tubes, which
were 2in. diameter, 10ft. 10in. long, and 189 in number. The grate area
was 26 sq. ft.
The engines in question were named, etc., as follows:—
Company’s No. Name. Builder’s No.
27 “Echo” 1381
28 “Coquette” 1382
29 “Flirt” 1383
30 “Flora” 1384
31 “Sylph” 1385
As remarked in describing the previous class, Crampton’s engines were
in this case also found to be unsuitable, so that the London, Chatham
and Dover Railway rebuilt the five engines, when the intermediate
driving shaft was provided with a pair of wheels, and the engines
became “four-coupled bogies.” The diameter of the cylinders was
increased to 17in.; the Cudworth fire-box was dispensed with, and the
heating surface reduced, the present dimensions being—fire-box, 100 sq.
ft.; tubes, 987 sq. ft.; grate area, 16¼ sq. ft.; weight in working
order: on bogie, 14 tons 12 cwt.; driving wheels, 14 tons 12 cwt.; and
on trailing wheels, 10 tons; total, 38 tons 16 cwt.