Royal George

With new builds a plenty (or at least proposals) I've been wondering if a replica of Hackworth's Royal George would have potential? I've asked not because I'm proposing to build a replica, but for my A Level history I'm doing a personal study of the Rainhill Trials and Royal George is mentioned as the best loco before Rocket or in the sake of fairness Sans Pareil, and if you are not aware of what Royal George looks like, think of Sans Pareil on steriods. She worked on the original S&D (Stockon & Darlington for those who think S&D means Slow & Dirty) and so there would be a case for a replica at Locomotion. I'm not proposing a replica of Royal George before anyone jumps to their keyboards.
This is what she looked like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...7_(British_Railway_Locomotives_1803-1853).jpg

 

Hmm.. interesting piece of kit but where did the crew stand I wonder.

actually there's a press release from the NRM about Timothy Hackworths descendants donating some of his papers to the museum:-

http://www.nrm.org.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/2005/hackworth.asp

I know its old news but interesting to note the blast pipe idea being thought to be Stevensons, a bit like Richard Trevithick.

 

At Rainhill, the Sans Pareil was the favourite and was going well until it's cylinders cracked causing the loco to be withdrawn. Those cylinders were actually cast by..... Stephenson & Son. Industrial sabotage or mere coincidence.

 

Pretty obvious that they would stand on the right, behind the levers, on a footplate (not drawn) which would be attached to a tender (not drawn) which would be attached to the loco... otherwise there ain't no space for coal and water either, is there?!

 

I belive that Royal George used a return flue boiler, which meant that the fire and chimney are at the same end (think of a U on its side) so she would push her tender with the fireman on, and if Sans Pareil is anything to go by the driver would stand on a small platform behind the cylinders. Not for the H&S maniac!
With regards to Sans Pareil's cylinder flaws the quality of casting and the materials used was rather poor compared to modern standards altough it was Stephensons & Co that cast the cylinders so it could have been industrial espionage.

 

This is one of those myths which do no-one any favours. Firstly, Roberts Stephenson & Co did indeed cast the cylinders, in an era when complex castings such as these were the norm (ways around it were later found). Ths issue was the cores, which tended to move out of position as the iron was poured, giving very thin walls, and the problem reccurred when the reproduction Sans Pareil was built. RS&Co actually had several attempts to cast the cylinders, all the first attempts being rejected - by RS&Co; these were the ones which passed the tests. Nor was the engine withdrawn because of the cylinder defects, which weren't discovered until later. Sans Pareil's boiler was leaking badly, despite adding meal to the feed water in an attempt to stop it. The water level eventually dropped to the point where the fusible plug dropped, and although it was replaced, the boiler refilled and the fire relit, the leaks were even worse, hence the engine's withdrawal.

George Stephenson had many faults, but he was honourable in his business dealings, as was Robert. George was in a partnership to produce cast iron rails, and as George was also the Engineer of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, a very profitable deal was in the offing. But George found that another firm was producing much better wrought iron rails, and recommended that the directors purchased these rather than his own product. You could say that it put a bit of a strain on the partnership.

 

What you say above is true but it's also true that the specification for the weight of the locos was a little astray too. Basically the spec was for the total weight of the engine not the axle loads. 'Sans Pareil' (an 0-4-0) was overweight, but its axle weight was evenly spread over both axles, which wasn't the case with 'Rocket' (a 0-2-2)which had most of its weight on the leading axle. Because of this 'Rocket' placed a greater load on the track than 'Sans Pareil'. Also 'Rocket' had a multitube boiler, the use of which was suggested by the secretary of the L&M. It wasn't the first time a multitube boiler had been suggested, but the fact that Booth, the secretary of the L&M, had made the suggestion must have had an effect.

The judges, appointed by the L&M, had an engine - 'Rocket' - designed and built by the Stephensons and Booth, essentially L&M men, competing against a non L&M design - 'Sans Pareil'. To all intents and purposes it was a stitch-up. 'Rocket' was better on the day, but had limited development potential, while 'Sans Pareil' had the development potential but failed on the day.

The future lay with the marriage of the multitube boiler and many of the features of 'Sans Pareil'. The mechanical layout of 'Rocket' was an evolutionary dead end.

Regards

 

Pardon? Almost every steam locomotive built since Rainhill is a development of Rocket, right up to and including the 9Fs. They aren't referred to as 'Stephensonian' types for nothing.

Rocket's cylinder layout was flawed, as the angle to the track (38 degrees) imparted a vertical component to the thrusts, causing the engine to sway noticable as she ran with steam on. But the problem was cured (on Rocket herself) by lowering the cylinders to almost horizontal. Sans Pareil's cylinders, on the other hand, were vertical and drove directly on to the driving axle. One thing noted by many observers was that, contrary to the rules, Sans Pariel had no springs (with this drive arrangement, she couldn't have), and the lack of springing PLUS the vertical thrusts from the pistons must have had a far greater punishing effect on the track than Rocket's axle load on the leading wheels, which was within the rules anyway. Basically, it was Sans Pareil and vertical cylinders which had reached the developmental end of the road; Rocket was a stage on it.

Henry Booth did indeed suggest the water tube boiler, and so won a share in the £500 premium, but it was Robert Stephenson who overcame the problems to make it work.

What is often misunderstood about Rainhill is that it wasn't a race, but had two distinct aims for the directors. These directors were split into two camps: those who favoured stationary engines to pull the trains via cables; and those who preferred locomotive haulage. The trials were to establish if loco haulage was viable (it would be the first time that they would be required to haul trains regularly and to a timetable of sorts over such a distance, and their reliability was then questionable), and if the sort of performance available was adequate. The Sans Pareil type was common enough in the coal fields of the North East, but regular 30 mph running over 30 miles distance? Had it shown such ability, the L&M directors would no doubt have purchased the engine (they tried two developments of Novelty - without success - so it's a little unfair to claim bias in favour of Rocket). That they didn't was down to fundamental defects in the engine and its design.

Have a read of 'The Engineering and History of Rocket' by Michael R Bailey and John P Glithero, NRM 2000, ISBN 1 900747 18 9 and 'The Rainhill Trials' by Anthony Burton, BBC 1980, ISBN 0 563 17841 8.

 

I thought Rocket had a fire tube boiler, like almost all steam locos and not a water tube boiler. The only water tube one I can think of was the HP Gresley one, but I am no expert in this and there may have been more.

 

No, he said 'multitube', not 'water tube'. Up to then, boilers had a single flue from the firebox end of the boiler to other end where the chimney was, or a return flue boiler, so the flue went the length of the boiler then returned, placing the chimney alongside the firebox.

 

There are quite a few locos with water tube boilers around and working, even today. Perhaps non-conventional, but so was the Gresley one. They are Sentinel steam locos.

 

I thought I had mis-read the original post where it did say water tube!

 

Sorry; been reading up on marine engineering as well!

 

Excepting the multi-tube boiler, the feature that 'Sans Pareil' had in advance of 'Rocket' that is still in use today was the blast pipe, a Hackworth invention. Its cylinder design and its cross-head design were in advance of 'Rocket's too. It also had rod-coupled wheels, not a Hackworth invention, but one that was taken up reluctantly by the Stephensons (George prefered to couple wheels using chains).

I think that list justifies my parting comment that "The future lay with the marriage of the multitube boiler and many of the features of 'Sans Pareil'."

It is true that we refer to the 'Stephensonian Engine' not the 'Hackworth Engine' but George had the advantage of the backing of a good many very rich men who could introduce him into fashionable circles. He become well known, Hackworth didn't. Stephenson had the advantage of having Samuel Smiles as a biographer, Hackworth didn't.

George was a very good development engineer; Timothy Hackworth was a very inventive design engineer. Georges son, Robert, managed to combine the virtues of both and the future lay with him and his contemporaries

Regards

 

Hmm... Before going any further, Orion, could I just say how pleasant it is to take part in a good, rational debate for once! I'm in the process of preparing an article on the Rainhill trials for the 8F Society's magazine, Black Eight. A lot of research has been done, and this debate is certainly provoking further thought.

Rocket had a blast pipe. In fact, when first built, she had TWO blast pipes, but it was soon found advisable to combine them into a single exhaust. All contestants except Novelty used blast pipes, and the principle was by then well known.

Can't argue on that as I don't have sufficient detail of the arrangement on Sans Pareil.

The Stephenson engines were built be Robert Stephenson & Co, which company followed a policy of testing and analysing each product, to incorporate any lessons into the next design. Michael Bailey gives outline drawings of many RS&Co locos preceding Rocket. All all those shown had coupled wheels - coupled by rods. RS&Co used single drivers on Rocket to avoid frictional losses, as Robert realised that he could gain sufficient adhesion for the trials using this arrangement, see below.

It should be realised that Rocket was not in fact built to haul trains, although she did successfully do so when the L&M opened and afterwards, but specifically to meet the conditions of the trials: ten round trips of 1.5 miles each way, plus one eighth of a mile at each end for acceleration and deceleration. This was the equivalent distance between Liverpool and Manchester. There was then a 15 minutes break to take on coke and water, when the test was repeated, the equivalent of the return journey. Some things were sacrificed to achieve this, although she still proved a very useful machine.

I think the phrase, "made friends easily," wasn't one readily applied to George Stephenson! He was a gifted engineer, but lacked the education needed to back it up, which caused him much embarassment during his professional life. He was in competition with established engineers, often ex-military and from higher walks of life, and many of whom had the education, but little aptitude. George, in his broad Geordie dialect, had no hestitation in damning these people, which did little to offer the hand of friendship to the rich and famous. He earned his fame - and wealth - by talent and hard work. Toadyism certainly wasn't his style. And while he did achieve fame and fortune, these came later, AFTER the opening of the L&M.

George was also an inventor, and developed a miners' safety lamp. This appeared at the same time as Sir Humphrey Davey's version, and many considered old George's to be the better. But Davey was the one with the money and influence.

George had little input to the development of Rocket, which was largely left to Robert. Robert of course had his workshop facilities freely available, and the time to concentrate on the 'premium engine'. Timothy Hackworth did not have these luxuries. Although the Stockton & Darlington allowed him to use their workshops, it was entirely in his own time after he had finished his work for the S&D, and entirely at his own expense, and his achievement should not be understated. Sans Pareil was in many ways a success; she ran for many years after Rainhill doing the sort of work that Timothy's engines were used to: hauling slow coal trains over relatively short distances. There possibly were some details of her design which were superior to those on Rocket, and the same applies to Novelty. But taken as an overall package, Rocket deservedly went forward as the sign of the future.

 

As has already been said,this is a very interesting and worthwhile topic. Perhaps I might be allowed to widen it a bit further with some discussion on what were the fundamental inventions that brought about the steam loco that we know and love. I'd suggest that the Rocket did little, nor did any of the Rainhill locos. The 'Stephenson concept' didn't really come until the Northumbrian, which had all the fundamentals of the very last boilers with a wet back firebox and smoke tubes. Along with the blastpipe, already mentioned, Henri Giffards injector has got to rank high on the list, as has Schmidt's superheater. I also think that the piston valve is another fundamental in the development of the steam locomotive but I've no idea who invented it. I wondered about the Player/Belpaire boiler but discounted it as round topped boilers continued to be favoured by many until the very end.

Any other defining moments?

 

One defining moment not yet mentioned is the introduction of the brick arch enabling locomotives to burn coal rather than coke.

 

Another defining moment, must be the development of an effective and straighforward valve gear. "Stephenson Link" valve gear was a development by Robert Stephenson & Co, of the complex gab valve-gear previously used. Whose idea it first was was a subject of much controversy at the time, Robert Stephenson on being show it, asked for the idea to be fully invesigated and added "it will be worth a Jew's eye and the contriver of it should be rewarded".

I am not an expert on early valve gears, but I belive that "Stephenson Link" was the first to incorporate a reversing lever.

 

Robert Stephenson first used a gear with two eccentrics (forward and reverse) in 1841. I think before that reversal had to be by hand operation and using gabs to operate the valves once the loco started moving. However, Stephenson's motion was effectively still a gab gear, even if it didn't require to be started by hand The first link motion was perfected by William Howe, who worked for Robert Stephenson.
As an aside, does anybody remember Harry Lee's steam yachts (Shamrock & Columbus)? These were large swingboats each powered by a steam cylinder. To start them , the operator raised a lever, which operated the slide valve. When the piston had moved as far as it could, the handle was reversed, altering the slide valve and admitting steam to the opposite side of the piston. As the pendulum motion built up, the boats would swing higher until, at full movement the handles were dropped into the gabs and the boat would operate on its own. These were, in effect, operating exactly as the earliest locomotives would have been operated.