Royal George

Still the Finest Ride at the funfair, I relived some old memories of them the at GDSF this year

 

LMS2968,

'Rocket' didn't have a blast pipe, it had an exhaust pipe. There is a critical difference between the two. 'Sans Pareil' was the second engine to have a blast pipe, the first being 'Royal George'.

The were other differences between the two engines which mark 'Rocket' as being, excepting the multitube boiler, of the previous generation. 'Rocket' had a simple stop cock as a regulator and weights for a safety valve - rather like a pressure cooker. 'Sans Pareil' had a spring safety valve, I believe the first application of the type but I'm not sure, and a lever regulator.

Essentially 'Rocket' was built specifically to win the prize, not as a practical locomotive. There were a few derivatives built but the type wasn't too successful in daily service. 'Sans Pareil' went on to have a successful career particularly on the Bolton and Leigh Rly, but as far as the LMR was concerned the future lay with Robert Stevenson's 'Patent' and 'Patentee' designs of 1830and 1831. The 'Patentee' concept has proved to be particularly long lived, both 'City of Truro' and 'Earl of Berkeley' are very much of the type, while others of the 1830s period, the 'Crewe', 'Crampton' and 'Jenny Lind' can only be seen in museums, if at all.

Lastly, I do wish people would drop the term 'Stephensonian Boiler'. The multitube boiler wasn't invented by the Stephensons or Booth. The boiler on 'Rocket' wasn't even the first application of the idea. George and Robert Stephenson were very good engineers, Robert especially, but George's reputation has been inflated by Samuel Smiles hagiography to a point which is simply not supportable. It's time for a re-appraisal.

Regards

 

My reference to the 'Stephenson boiler' referred to the Northumbrian and not to the Rocket, which. as you say, was nothing special. I think that the Northumbrian was the first loco to have a multi-tubular boiler allied to a wet-back firebox and a smokebox but am happy to be told otherwise. These three key components to me form the classic locomotive boiler.

 

Rocket was subject to a complete strip down and survey by Michael R Bailey and John P Glithero in the late 1990s in the main hall of the NRM, and so was available for viewing by the public. It must be said that Rocket as she currently exists is considerably altered from her condition at the trials, but the survey went to great pains to identify all modifications. The book already cited was one of the results of the survey, and it also examined the history of Rocket.

The following is taken from Page 19:

When Rocket was returned to Newcastle, Stephenson undertook a series of tests of different-size blast pipes to test their vacuum effect in its lower chimney area. It is likely that the tests were prompted by the Killingworth test runs. Following a lengthy and largely uninformed correspondence in The Engineer during 1857, which misguidedly became known as the 'blast pipe controversy',39 Stephenson chose to write his recollections of the testing of the blast pipe, in the form of a narrative to Samuel Smiles for inclusion in his forthcoming Lives of the Engineers. He wrote:

“...During the construction of the 'Rocket' a series of experiments was made with blast-pipes of different diameters, and their efficiency was tested by the amount of vacuum that was formed in the smoke-box. The degree of rarefaction was determined by a glass tube fixed to the bottom of the smoke-box and descending into a bucket of water, - the tube being open at both ends. As the rarefaction took place the water would of course rise in the tube, and the height to which it rose above the surface of the water in the bucket was made the measure of the amount of rarefaction.
These experiments certainly showed that a considerable increase of draught was obtained by contracting the orifice, and accordingly the two blast-pipes in the 'Rocket' were contracted slightly below the area of the steam ports, - and before she left the factory the water rose in the glass tube three inches above the water in the bucket... The 'Rocket' worked perfectly well with the double blast-pipe, and to the best of my recollection, the prize was won without any alteration having been made in that part of the engine.”

To be fair, the book continues:

These tests and the locomotive's subsequent movement and delivery to Liverpool described over 28 years later, in 1858, in a memorandum written by the newly appointed Chief Draughtsman of Robert Stephenson & Co., J D Wardale. Wardale] wrote the memorandum to coincide with two drawings of Rocket that he prepare! 1858, purporting to be a representation of it when it left the Newcastle factory in 1829 (Section 3.10). In writing it, he was reliant upon the memories of those employees who had been with the firm 29 years earlier, and such other notes as \ survived in the factory. The accuracy of the recollections is thus uncertain. Warda wrote that Rocket was:

“...then brought back to the Works and such alterations made as the experiments at Killingworth showed were necessary.”

Rocket's regulator is shown in this drawing scanned from the book:




What it shows is that the regulator was closed when moved fully to either side, and fully open in the mid position. The segmental ports clearly show that the opening was progressive rather than on-off. In practice, it had to be, as Rocket had no means of shortening the cut-off, so some means of regulation of the power output had to be incorporated somewhere.

Rocket at Rainhill had two safety valves, one of which was certainly a simple weight, but again quoting from the survey report:

'Lock-up' safety valve

Rocket was fitted with a 'lock-up' safety valve, apparently in the inspection-hole door. According to Wardale, it was 'covered by a tin dome fastened down to the boiler by two small padlocks', but this cannot be confirmed from contemporary descriptions. The valve was almost certainly spring-loaded.
Prior to Rocket's completion, the Stephenson Company built the Twin Sisters, which was fitted with two safety valves apparently to try out the arrangement in anticipation of the Rainhill Trial requirements. It was reported as being a safety improvement, which was:

effected by means of two safety-valves, one of them of the ordinary "kind, but the other acting by a spring, and not liable to be effected by any thing that is done by the engine-man; it is not all under his control, but will immediately remedy any carelessness of which he may be guilty.
Lancashire Witch was also fitted with a spring-loaded safety valve in September 1829, which was probably of the same design as that fitted to Rocket. The Stephenson Company supplied: '1 Cross Head, 2 Side Rods for Spring Safety Valve' weighing 8 lb., "12 Steel Springs for Valve" weighing 4 lb. and charged out at 4/-, and '1 Brass Safety Valve' weighing 9 1/4 lb. and charged out at 10/9d.

True, but she still managed to be one!

Locomotive development made big strides following Rainhill, such that by the time the L&M opened, Rocket was obsolescent. She was used on passenger work only in an emergency, but was used on goods and as a pilot engine, as well as being hired out to the Wigan Branch Railway.

Although correct, The Bolton & Leigh was essentially a short haul, mineral line, with severe gradients worked by rope haulage, and very similar to the colliery lines to which Timothy Hackworth was well accustomed. It was entirely different work to that required for the L&M.

Others have also written about GS since Samuel Smiles, and not always in glowing terms. But certain facts are indisputable: Rocket completed her trials on the first attempt without any hitches, had been used on a trial at Killingworth Colliery before dispatch to Liverpool, was used at least once at Liverpool prior to the trials, performed (with Sans Pareil and Novelty) for the entertainment of the crowds on the opening day of the trials, entertained the crowds on Day 2 after Novelty's first failure and at least once more following a loco failure, was used after the trials to give rides though the earthworks prior to the Railway's opening, was moved to the Chat Moss section which was still under construction, and did much work there, was used on the opening day (Running over Huskison in the process), and went on to do further work for the L&M and WBR, before being sold to Naworth Collieries and starting a fresh working life there, her eventual withdrawal probably caused by collision damage. Interestingly, she was the only contestant to complete the trials course, only Novelty getting anywhere near the half way point.

It doesn't sound too bad a record to me.

 

Don't forget Trevithick's Penydarren locomotive had the exhaust steam turned into the chimney and it was noted to make the fire burn brighter when the locomotive was working. I think that this is the definition of a blastpipe.

So the argument over whether it was a Stephenson or Hackworth idea is a bit pointless as it had appeared on a locomotive quite a few years earlier.

Anyone who had any connection with metalworking would have know that if you passed air over/through a fire it burned brighter, so I think the early locomotive engineers would have known this. The reason it may not have been used on some early locomotives with their short boilers containing straight or return flues, was that the fierce blast was likely to pull the fire to pieces.

 

Observers at Rainhill noticed that Rocket did not have a blast pipe, it had an exhaust pipe. It is true that even with an exhaust pipe the fire will brighten, but this is the effect the cylinders have on the fire. The purpose of the blast pipe, and the reason it is shaped the way it is, is to sharpen this effect. Observers at Rainhill noticed how much sharper the exhaust was on Sans Pareil than the other competitors. It is the shaping of the blast pipe that distinguishes it from an exhaust pipe.

Both Trevithick and Stephenson later claimed to have invented the blast pipe. Both claims have long since been totally discredited. Trevithick even claimed to have invented it in 1801 but observers at the time said he was using a mechanically operated bellows to sharpen the fire. Stephenson also used the same device on his earlier engines but he didn't use the blast pipe until after Rainhill.

Rocket was modified after Rainhill with a changed design of regulator, safety valve and a blast pipe in order to improve the engine. All subsequent Robert Stephenson designs had these features. When Rocket was donated to the Science Museum it was in a modified form. Later some bright spark decided to try to get it back as near as possible to its Rainhill configuration, but couldn't change the re-arranged cylinder configuration. At this point all bets are off!

There is little point in quoting from publications that were published many years after the event and were intended to amplify GS' reputation rather than open it up to historical analysis. Smiles book is not a biography but a hagiography and GS' role in it publication was to bury the reputations of those he competed with in his earlier life and to bury the mistakes he made. This book and GS' role in it don't in my view do GS' reputation for honesty any good at all.

Regards

 

Narrowing the end of the exhaust/blast pipe (whatever you like to call it) to increase the blast and hence the vacuum is often used to overcome bad boiler design, but this causes back pressure and inefficient working.

The much better design of the boiler on Rocket meant that the blast wouldn't have had to been as sharp to raise the steam required – so not as noisy! Sans Pareil would have needed a bigger blast to make the steam needed with the older design of boiler.

It is known the Trevithick, Hackworth and Stephenson directed the exhaust steam from the cylinders up the chimney, but it wasn't until the advent of the multi-tubular boiler that it could be used properly without lifting the fire.

 

Please, please tell me what is the shape of a blast pipe so that I can ensure I don't fit my locos with a simple exhaust pipe?!

 

The early blast pipes were ended with a cone, but the top of the cone was cut off leaving a hole for the gas and steam.
http://www.steamindex.com/jile/jile23.htm

Follow this link down to 'Paper No.300'

http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ex_dwgs.html gives some nice drawings

Regards

 

I'm fully aware of the various 'modern' blastpipe arrangements. What I do not understand is your reference to the shaping of the blast pipe distinguishing it from an exhaust pipe when we are referring to early locomotives. It was well known that, for a given discharge of steam, a smaller orifice gave a stronger blast on the fire due to the increased discharge velocity but this was achievable with a small exhaust pipe or a reduced size cap on the blast pipe. It made no real difference.
Modern blast pipe design is essentially a twentieth century thing.

 

This thread, as they do, has moved well away from its title of Royal George and into a debate on the relative merits of Sans Pareil and Rocket. It does not directly concern George Stephenson, who had little input to either the design or building of Rocket, which was all carried out at Forge Street, Newcastle, While GS was in Liverpool supervising the building of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, which was ongoing through the trials. Despite this, his name was and still is strongly associated with the engine, which muddies the waters somewhat.

"There is little point in quoting from publications that were published many years after the event and were intended to amplify GS' reputation rather than open it up to historical analysis."

At no point have I done this; I have in fact read Samuel Smiles’ work and share your viewpoint: it borders on the sycophantic. But the only person I can recall to even mention this work within this thread, Orion, is yourself. I tend to agree that primary sources are the way forward, but in this case have not done so, for three reasons:

1 had I been preparing a book, then I would have had, and would have taken, the time to refer to articles and books from the time, but this is a debate, and several months’ delay while looking up these works wouldn’t work.
2 work published at the time is less than reliable: I share your view of GS, who certainly wasn’t a ‘nice’ man as far as his professional contemporaries are concerned. There was mutual hatred. The publication which should have been most accurate was the ‘Mechanics Magazine’, but its editor and GS loathed each other, so the former wrote about Rocket with a bias which would shame even a modern day newspaper (he was forever trying to find fault with Rocket, real or imaginary. At one point, and contrary to the rules, she was seen to emit smoke. This was due to a little coal, reserved for lighting up, becoming mixed in with the main fuel of coke, and it disappeared once the coal had burned off. And the MM constantly referred to this. Alternatively, Novelty, known as ‘The London Engine’, could do no wrong. Its first failure was dismissed as bad luck and Rocket’s being steamed to entertain the crowd was not mentioned. But its second failure required no such cover: the skies opened, the trial abandoned and the crowd dispersed. The Mechanics Magazine reported the trial’s abandonment due to the weather, with no mention of Novelty’s second failure).
3 I have quoted from a modern work, ‘The History and Engineering of Rocket’ by Michael R Bailey and John P Glithero, and while such secondary sources are frowned upon, I would suggest this book is the report of extensive research into Rocket’s history and building conducted for and by the National Railway Museum, and that this body has sufficient credentials to dismiss any bias for any reason. The work separates into two parts, the history of the engine, in which primary sources are not merely quoted but examined, and very fully referenced, and a survey of the mortal remains of the locomotive itself. And while rocket was much modified during its working (and, strangely, preserved) life and many other parts removed, substantial original parts remain, including the frames, boiler barrel, cylinders, crossheads and slidebars, although all these latter were inverted when the cylinders were lowered and exchanged from side to side. While many original fittings are no longer present, witness marks of one form or another remain, and part of the survey’s remit was to identify what and where these fittings were. And while absolute accuracy cannot be guaranteed, the report does state where any elements of doubt exist, in the history as well as engineering sections. It is probably the most comprehensive review of a locomotive of that era ever undertaken, and its findings deserve respect.

Although I might be guilty of using a secondary source, however credible, I am wondering what your sources are. For instance,

"Observers at Rainhill noticed that Rocket did not have a blast pipe, it had an exhaust pipe."

Who exactly were these observers? What was their engineering expertise; did they know what a blast pipe was? What opportunities did they have to check? And how did they make their findings known? ‘Rocket was modified after Rainhill with a changed design of regulator, safety valve and a blast pipe in order to improve the engine. All subsequent Robert Stephenson designs had these features.’ This is a very major statement, at least part of which is totally at odds with the findings of the survey. What is your evidence, please? And is it reliable?

As to who invented what device, what it was called, and whether or not it was fitted to a particular locomotive at the trials, is rather a red herring. It doesn’t matter who invented the blast pipe – or exhaust pipe – and it was probably more then one person. All engineers were facing the same problems, and parallel evolutions suggests that several of them might have found the same solution quite independently and entirely unknowingly to each other. Each therefore claimed to have invented it. And is there any major difference between an ‘exhaust pipe’ and a ‘blast pipe’? Both direct the exhaust steam up through the chimney, so creating a depression at the smokebox end of the tubes and an artificial draught through the fire. Call it what you will, this was the device fitted to Rocket specifically to improve the draught and so raise steam production; she was certainly fitted with no other method. The ‘blast pipe’ would, at least, be a development of the ‘exhaust pipe’, and while the general theory was known in 1829, the practical application lagged somewhat. 105 years after Rainhill, no less an engineer than William Stanier had steaming problems with his new Class 5XP Jubilees, at least partially caused through incorrect draughting and blast pipe diameters. The survey suggest strongly that Rocket had a spring loaded safety valve at Rainhill, but if not, it made little difference at the time, and was certainly fitted later. Minor defects or deficiencies take nothing away from Rocket’s achievement.

Cont'd.

 

Cont'd

The point, and Rocket’s achievement, is less her advancement of the science of locomotives, although she did indeed do this. Her achievement is much more far reaching. As previously explained, the trials were not a race but a very serious attempt by the directors of the L&M to establish the viability of locomotive haulage, and the most suitable type for the job. Although locomotives were by then established, they were established in the colliery and mineral lines in north eastern England, hauling a string of coal tubs relatively short distances at low speeds. The L&M was the world’s first trunk railway, so its trains would run much greater distances at higher speeds, to a recognisable schedule. Although GS was adamant that locomotives could do this, and had the support of a few directors, many others were unsure, while a hard core did not believe they could and wanted the line to be worked by stationary engines and cables, and the trials were held to prove the point.

There were four serious entrants: Rocket, Sans Pareil, Novelty and Perseverance. Of these four, three failed to reach even the half way point, 35 miles representing a run from Liverpool to Manchester (if the total mileage of Novelty’s three attempts were to be added together, she could be said to have passed the half-way point). Rocket alone did the 35 miles without any problems, had the 15 minutes break allowed to take on coke and water, then completed the second half of 35 miles representing the return journey, also without problems. Following this, she was detached from her train and did a lap of honour, during which she achieved 29 mph.

Consider the consequences had Rocket, like the others, failed at Rainhill. The directors’ case for stationary engines would have been proven; locomotives would again have been relegated to the coalfields and further development stifled. No doubt they would have been re-established when the shortcomings of stationary engines with regard to average and maximum speeds were realised, but many years would have been lost. And while the L&M was the first trunk line, others were waiting to come along – and used the L&M as the model. Had the L&M gone for stationary engines, in all probability, so too would they. Rocket’s achievement was to allow locomotive development to proceed and accelerate, to the extent that a year later she had been rendered obsolete by her successors. She was still able to work the traffic on the line, and did so, but these others could do it better, hence her demotion to goods, ballast and pilot duties. But she was still capable of speeds over 35 mph, and possibly 40.

It is true that she was much modified later, but a point is that the modifications were possible. The lowering of the cylinders from 38 degrees to almost horizontal removed her tendency to roll on her springs with steam applied, the firebox was given a water back, a recognisable smokebox replaced the original smoke collector. In later designs, the cylinders were further moved to the front of the locomotive and the firebox incorporated into the boiler shell, but these are merely further developments of the original design. Now consider Sans Pareil. She didn’t roll on her springs, despite her cylinders being vertical, since she didn’t have any. And this combination of a solid ride and strong vertical thrusts would have played havoc with the track as speed rose. Was a sustained 30 mph viable for this engine? I doubt it. Could the cylinders be lowered to remove the vertical thrusts? It’s difficult to see how. Could it have been fitted with springs? Almost certainly not. So was she suitable for use on the L&M? No. The Bolton and Leigh, yes, with its mineral traffic and short runs. But not the L&M.

Rocket pointed the way forward, but she was evolutionary, not revolutionary. She was neither the start nor end point of that evolution, but was a major link in the chain. She showed that locomotive could work efficiently and reliably, and although these attributes would be built upon and improved, they were built into her through good design and good workmanship.

Here is a description of the essentials of a steam locomotive: a boiler containing a number of smoke tubes is mounted on a frame supported by wheels. At the rear is a firebox in which the fuel, fed by a fireman with a shovel from a separate vehicle called the tender, burns to produce steam. A driver standing alongside the fireman controls by means of a regulator the flow of steam to a steam chest wherein valves manipulated by the driver but actuated by eccentrics on a cranked axle admit steam to either end of the cylinders as needed. Inside the cylinders, the steam acts on pistons to force them the length of the cylinders, thereby turning the driving wheels via connecting rods. Excess weight is taken by idle axles. At the of the stroke, the expanded steam is released to atmosphere via the chimney, extra work being obtained from it by directing it upwards through a blast pipe, and thereby drawing the fire and heat through the tubes to aid steam generation. Is that a description of Rocket? Or is it a description of a 9F? In fact, it’s both, although the 9F has been considerably enlarged and developed since Rocket: the boiler is much more efficient, the pressure is higher and the steam superheated. The cylinders are more efficient and the valve gear much more sophisticated, but it was the same basic layout. Did Sans Pareil conform to this description? No.

Rocket pointed the way ahead; Sans Pareil, however successful she was on the B&L, was towards the end of her type. All credit to Timothy Hackworth for producing a good machine for that railway, under difficult circumstances, but it wasn’t the one for the Liverpool & Manchester, or the future.

 

May I say this been one of the more intelligent threads I seen for ages, and it not been about locomotives after 1948...

 

Well this is far more interesting than a debate on Royal George! Just to add my 2p worth re the Rainhill locos, Perseverace was the dead end, Novelty was the radical, Sans Pareil was the best of the older order you could say and Rocket was the mould which, with some modification set the pattern to the present day.