(mainly prior to London & Birmingham Railway)
Cover from Early Railways 3 (Hatton Gallery, Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
There is no problem in deciding when early locomotives begin, that is with Trevithick, although it is essential to note that locomotion was achieved on roads, both by Trevithick, and by others earlier. There is a further problem in that steam propulsion on water developed rather more rapidly than on land. The real problem is when to stop: the opening of the Stockton & Darlington Railway and the Rainhill trials were two key events. Dendy Marshall selected 1831 for his seminal work and this marks the main cut-off point. The real problem is that development on both the Stockton & Darlington Railway and the Liverpool & Manchester Railway continued for some time and it is more convenient to consider them herein. Niall Ferguson (Early Railways 3) extends the "early period" still further.
The first locomotive engineers; their work in the North East of England. Newcastle: Frank Graham. 1974.
Wylam Colliery records. Early source of information about the Steam Elephant
Dendy Marshall, C.F. History of the railway locomotive down to the end of the Year 1831. London: Locomotive Publishing Co., 1953. 271pp.
The chapters are as follows: Steam Power and its application to locomotion; Richard Trevithick; Blenkinsop and Murray; Taylor Swainson; William Chapman; William Hedley; William Brunton; William Stewart; George Stephenson; Robert Stephenson and Co.; John M'Curdy; Robert Wilson; Timothy Hackworth; Braithwaite and Ericsson; Timothy Burstall; John Urpeth Rastrick; Bury and Kennedy; Neath Abbey; Rothwell and Hick; Goldsworthy Gurney; George Dodds; Miscellaneous British Builders; Early attempts on the Continent; Marc Seguin; The United States of America. The initial period is still (2007) one of controversy as to who did what and when (Trevithick and Blenkinsop/Murray fall outwith the controversy): it is "what happened next near the banks of the Tyne". Dendy Marshall (page 83):
What seems to have happened, so far as we can tell, is as follows:
October, 1812. Hedley's attention first called to the subject.
Adhesion trials with the test carriage.
13 March, 1813: Patent. Hedley at loggerheads with Chapman.
'early' 1813. (ODH). The first engine, built by Waters.
Sept., 1813. George Stephenson started to build an engine. 2 ,
March, 1814? Puffing Billy' on four wheels; produced by the combined efforts of Hedley, Foster and Hackworth, possibly assisted by Chapman.
25 July, 1814. (Wood). Stephenson's first engine was finished.
21 Dec., 1814 Chapman's second engine; on eight wheels.
early in 1815? Wylam engines put on eight wheels.
If the above chronology is approximately correct, two facts appear
1. Chapman copied the Hedley design in his Lambton engine, except the wheel arrangement; the quarrel having been made up.
2. The Wylam people used Chapman's design of the bogies.
Where ODH=Hedley, Oswald D. Who invented the locomotive
engine (Ottley 2812) and
Wood=Wood, Nicholas Practical treatise on rail-roads. (Ottley 294)
Dendy Marshall, C.F. Two essays in early locomotive history. London: Locomotive Publishing Co., 1928.
Part I the first hundred railway engines; Part II. British locomotives in North America. Cites Warren's Century of locomotive building and Young's Timothy Hackworth which receive the accolade of being "excellent books". This work clearly formed the foundation for the later, much larger study of locomotive history (ibid). The Introduction notes "even official publications cannot be trusted implicitly".
Early railways: a selection of papers from the First International
Railway Conferennce: edited by Andy Guy and Jim Rees. London: Newcomen
Society. 2001. 360 pp.
Keynote address, Sir Neil Cossons
Lewis, Dr M J T: Railways in the Greek and Roman world
Karlsson, Lars Olov: A rediscovered early rail waggon
van Laun, Dr John. Pre-1840 trackways in south Wales
Gwyn, Dr David: Transitional technology; the Nantlle railway
Hills, Rev Dr R L: The railways of James Watt .
Paxton, Roland. An engineering assessment of the Kilmarnock & Troon railway (1807 - 46). 82-102
Wilmott, Mike: Early railways in Dorset; the industrial railway of Purbeck, 103-13.
Guy, Andy. North eastern locomotive pioneers 1805 to 1827; a reassessment. 117-44.
A major review of locomotive engineers in Northumberland and Durham. Contains many significant statements. Mentions Trevithick's Gateshead locomotive constructed by John Whinfield under the control of John Steele: Steele returned to London with Trevitick and was later killed in a boiler explosion on a steam boat in France (p. 119). Considers that Christopher Blackett deserves more credit than hhe is usually given (p. 120): he was one of the few to show any inteest between Trevithick and Blenkinsopp. Notes that there appears to be very little evidence for Blackett's adhesion trials at Wylam: what little is in account book records. Similarly the 1813 locomotive constructed by Waters of Gateshead (p. 120) is only traceable in the account books. The second Wylam locomotive type (Puffing Billy) is much more visible and was mentioned in a letter from Blackett to Hedley. (page 121). In 1814 there was an important wayleave dispute which established that locomotives were not a nuisance. Notes the doubling in the number of wheels to ease the stain on the rails, but also notes the "thick fog of Hedley and Hackworth claims". Matthias Dunn (121) "was a rising Tyneside colliery viewer.... His recently redisccovered diary gives a professional and rerlatively unbiased summary of the locomotive trials going on aroound him in 1815/16. He shows that three locomotives were at work at Wylam by January 1816.
Remarkably, two of these engines survive, as Puffing Billy and Wylam Dilly. Charlton suggested that they were totally new in 1828-30, and not just rebuilt. The account entries are not at all clear, but there is at least as much evidence within them that the .two engines were rearranged and converted to four-wheelers, rather than replaced. A third engine, Lady Mary, apparently survived to be photographed in the late 1850s or early 1860s, but the colliery valuations do clearly show that it had gone by the early 1830s36. This anomaly has yet to be resolved.
It is recognised that the actual Wylam design was something of a dead end, nor was there substantial development from its original form. It is noticeable for example how little attention it received when locomotives were being examined in the planning of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway. Its major claim to fame was (and is) its remarkable longevity. All the more surprising then to see, during wayleave renegotiations in 1829, the Colliery promising 'that the locomotive engines are to be discontinued' and that 'stationary engines...will be substituted for the locomotive ones. A certain lack of commitment is clear, although ultimately they were not removed for another 30 years. As at this same time it had converted half of the line to edge rail, while the other half remained as plate - a situation that went on for more than two years - a degree of indecision would seem to be nearer the mark. The working arrangements must have been rather interesting.
It is generally considered that the first practical, everyday locomotive was that built in 1812 for the Middleton Colliery near Leeds under John Blenkinsop's Patent. Articles in the Tyneside press were followed that August, just weeks after the opening, by a talk on the engine given by the Rev William Turner to the influential Literary & Philosophical Society of Newcastle. The subsequent introduction of the locomotives at the Kenton & Coxlodge (K&C) Colliery (page 123) just north of Newcastle is well recorded, but the spread of information was more personal than just through the publicity. The owner of Middleton Colliery, Charles Brandling, lived in Newcastle. The engine builder, Matthew Murray was a Tynesider as was Blenkinsop, who took care to keep tabs on developments in his home area.
He wrote to his friend, the K&C viewer John Watson, 'Chapman's Plan is only a mechanical larceny - I will thank you for a description of it, if you know his scheme', some six months before its first use at Heaton. When it was about to start testing he commented, 'I don't think by the by that either Chapman or Hedley will succeed in their mode of conveying goods'. A year later, he was rather more concerned:
'I have been told that the Coxlodge Managers are going to adopt the Killingworth Plan of conveying their Coals; shall I beg the favour of you informing me whether their is any Truth in this information or not - I shall also be obliged if you will inform me whether the Fawdon Owners intend to adopt the Killingworth Plan or mine - Do you think the Killingworth Engine will travel up hill or on a Level during Wet or Frost'.
That final question points to the advantages he considered his rack drive held over the adhesion system, but particularly all these comments demonstrate that Blenkinsop was clearly both aware of and concerned by the spate of trials in the region.
As for the supposed loan of the first engine from Middleton to the K&C, the accounts show that it was paid for in full, not lent, and state its name Lord Wellington. The engine dimensions have been found, suggesting the later K&C locomotives were altered from the Leeds design adapted for longer distances with harder work.
The first of the Tyneside engines was damaged very quickly, with Watson having to request a new piston and set of gears. It was to be some time before they were settled at work. As for the engines going out of use, there is an amount of misunderstanding in the texts. In short, Watson claimed compensation from his partner in the Colliery for their absence from 1815 to 1817, not because they then returned to use, but because he was selling his share in the colliery, and hence that was the extent of his alleged loss. And they were not just put aside. Watson's Chancery case claimed that they had worked well, but interference from another viewer had 'placed improper and ignorant men to work the said engines, so that by their mismanagement the Engines have been rendered unserviceable and laid entirely aside.' This seems to stem from their work being concentrated on a bank that was at times 1 in 24. Even though the design did not rely on wheel adhesion, that must have been a stern test indeed.
The Colliery was sold to Brandling in 1817. He considered fully reinstating the engines, but apparently decided to use them no more than from the pit to the start of the bank, if at a1l. Blenkinsop's system had had a rather inglorious outing in his home area, victim in part of an uncompleted line, over ambitious loading and allegedly systematic abuse.
William Chapman of Tyneside was an unlikely candidate for Blenkinsop's accusation of 'mechanical larceny'. As two major papers for the Newcomen Society (see Forward's Chapman's locomotives vol. 28 page 1 and Skempton' s William Chapman vol. 46 p. 45) have shown, he had a full and distinguished career as a leading civil engineer, specialising in canal, harbour and drainage schemes. He is regarded as the first to explain if not invent the masonry skew bridge. Less well known was his deep involvement in mechanical engineering, which led to the patenting of a successful rope-making machine, the advocacy of the Boulton & Watt engine designand recognition as an authority on the earliest steam boat engines.
Even more relevant were his colliery interests, ranging from the patent coal drop to the preservation of mining records. No mere theorist, he sunk Wallsend Colliery and had leases on Tyneside collieries, including the Kenton & Coxlodge, for which he had built a major new iron waggonway in 1808. As early as 1813, he proposed a Sheffield railway where 'long carriages, properly constructed, and placed on two separate sets of wheels, 8 in all, may take 30 or 40 people with their articles to market' - a remarkably advanced concept with a similar design proposed in 1825 for restaurant cars.
He had then a deeper mechanical, engine, colliery and railway experience than has been credited. As already mentioned, he may have had an early Trevithick locomotive, and probably inspired conversion of the Wylam engines to eight- wheelers.
His patent of December 1812 covered bogies and a chain-haulage locomotive system. The Butterley Company drawings for February 1813 give designs and description for building such an engine. Known only as copies, doubts have been cast on the document but the text has now been found in Chapman's own hand for the same date.Completed that August for Heaton Colliery, the short time scale suggests that the drawings must be similar to the engine as built, hence a six-wheel, bogie, chain locomotive. The engine arrived in September, was assembled by Butterley's fitter, Thomas Grice, and ready in October 1813.(page 124)
A supposed 'eye witness account' exists of the first trial, published by R N Appleby-Miller. However, this has so many fundamental flaws that it must be considered highly suspect. It is known that the engine was tested right through 1814 and into 1815 until disastrous flooding closed the colliery in that May. It finished life pumping and winding at the shaft, a particularly easy conversion for a chain haulage locomotive.
There is some evidence that it was demonstrated on the Lambton waggonway south of the Wear early in 1814. Approved by the Colliery Board that May, they agreed to order an engine and to adapt for it the whole Lambton waggonway system. In fact, the engine had already been designed. Built by Phineas Crowther, it was ready and tested by the end of the year as an eight-wheel joint chain and adhesion locomotive. However, the trials had to be extended as the new iron waggonway was slow to complete, and were still continuing at the start of 1816. It seems never to have done useful work, with the railway later redesigned for self-acting inclines and stationary engines.
If Chapman's engines (page 125) are now considered rather eccentric, William Brunton's 'iron horse', propelled by steam-powered legs, is seen as famously mad. It was realised some time ago that the design shown in the patent and subsequent prints could not have worked. But work it certainly did clearly it is not known what the locomotive was like as built. Brunton himself described it later as resembling a man pushing a weight forward, although the Patent drawings suggest that it more nearly relates to a man with his back to the boiler pushing with his legs.
The Butterley Company of Derbyshire where Brunton was engineer made the first engine, for use in their Crich limeworks. The quarry was served by a plateway some 1¼ miles long down to the Cromford Canal at Amber Wharf, a gradient of up to 1 in 50 generally in favour of the loaded waggons, and with a gauge of 3 feet 6 inches. Although Butterley owned the limeworks, both it and its waggonway had been leased to operators, including Edward Banks, the contractor for the Surrey Iron Railway.
The Butterley account book entry for the locomotive, often mentioned in the texts, answers many of the questions on the engine when seen in the full original. It states that it was built for Brunton personally, not, as has been assumed, for the Company. The completion date is shown as March 1814, although he had published details of it supposedly at work at Crich some four months before, when he described it as having a single six-inch cylinder, supplied by a wrought iron boiler of unusual construction, capable of a pressure of 4-500 lbs/ sq inch, but normally working at 40-45 lbs (a comment that will seem sadly relevant later) and it 'performs very well'.
Crucially, this engine was not then sent on to the Newbottle Colliery on Wearside as state many of the texts. That was a second 'horse engine', purpose built, constructed some six months later. Again debited personally to Brunton, not to the Colliery, it cost £540 to Crich's £240. Brunton had described his first machine as just two and a quarter tons, but later implied Newbottle was nearer five, and it was probably twin-cylindered. It would seem then to have been twice the price, twice the weight and twice the cylinders, compared to Crich. It was finished in September and assembled at the Colliery by Thomas Grice in October 1814.
The Newbottle waggonway was a major iron railway, built by the viewer Edward Steel for colliery owner John Douthwaite Nesham and opened in 1812. For 10 years it would be the only line direct to the collier staithes at Sunderland, so avoiding the expensive use of keels and the transhipment they involved. However, at over 6 miles in length, with a difficult incline and costly wayleaves, it was itself considered something of an extravagance.
The Butterley Company had already supplied machinery to the Colliery, but it is likely that Brunton's approach was more direct. In a letter to his brother in late April 1813, just before the patent, he spoke of 'going in about a fortnight into the north'. Less than a month later, the Count de Scepeaux wrote that 'the gentleman who hath taken out a Third patent to convey coal waggons with a steam engine, hath been in this country. His engine instead of drawing, push before it the waggons & I am told is not upon wheels. Scepeaux was writing from Lambton, the neighbouring estate to Newbottle. It seems quite possible then that Brunton may have personally interested Nesham in his invention and persuaded him to either order or to test a machine.
For Newbottle Colliery and John Douthwaite Nesham, 1815 was to be a year of remarkable misfortune. The Wear keelmen, rightly judging the railway a threat to their livelihood, rioted and burned down the Sunderland staithes. A two months seamen's strike stopped all shipments of coal, the Colliery's bank collapsed, and in June one of the pits was devastated in an explosion that killed 57 miners. Finally, on July 31st, surrounded by a great crowd, Brunton's engine blew up.
Contemporary accounts disagreed about whether the spectators had come to see the first ever outing of the locomotive or that following a new boiler. The Butterley entry confirms the boiler version, as did Brunton himself later. This was the first major railway disaster, killing a dozen or more people, and, with a humility unusual in engineers, the source of profound regret to him for the rest of his life.
The joke design had a tragic punchline then. However, the explosion was due not to an inherent flaw, but to the enthusiasm of the driver overloading the boiler. And the assumption that the engine must have been quite useless is not as clear cut as may be thought. As said, the detailed arrangement remains unknown. The Crich machine was built and tested when Brunton was the principal engineer of a leading firm. It was promising enough to build another, much larger version some months later for Newbottle. It was later described as working there with a load, up a gradient of 1 in 36, throughout the winter of 1814 :(page 127). "It would seem that amongst contemporaries Bruton's enging was given due attention" (p. 128).
Killingworth (page 128)
A note considers the veracity of the name My Lord for George Stephenson's first locomotive. Guy considers that this locomotive was "quite successful". and the cost of moving coal was halved. Notes the importance of the patent taken out with the colliery viewer Ralph Dodds. The Killingworth owners were pleased and paid the patent expences and paid Stephenson a bonus. Notes how Stephenson was "a very well regarded man in a field of experts". Matthias Dunn singled him out as the only unqualified success of the many locomotive pioneers of 1815: " George Stephenson has completely succeeded in gatting two travelling enginnes into complete work which save about 8 horses each. Eighteen fifteen was a seminal year. It saw engines at Wylam, Killingworth, Kenton & Coxlodge, Heaton, Lambton, Newbottle and later at Wallsend. By the end of that year, of these seven sites, only at Wylam and Killingworth had it become established. This was due as much to misfortune as to failure. The Blenkinsops had been abused and broken, Heaton colliery laid off due to flooding, Newbottle had suffered an overloaded boiler, the track at Wallsend proved unsuitable. So ended, with very mixed fortunes, the first experimental period in the North East.
George Stephenson (page 129)
Traditionally, the era of Stephenson followed. The main texts agree that there was no other figure continuing locomotive development in the north east, if not the country, for the next decade (cites Dendy Marshall).
From 1815 his reputation grew apace, bolstered by his 1816 patent and the general working success of the Killingworth engines. Repeatedly developed, improved and quantified by Stephenson and Nicholas Wood, they became the Tyneside engines that informed and influential visitors wished to see. By 1820, he is considered as a consulting authority on railways in the region and beyond, surveying a number of lines. At this stage he was not locomotive fixated they are recommended for straight and level lines with heavy traffic otherwise he suggests inclined planes, stationary engines and/or horses
In 1813, when manager of the Vane Tempest group of collieries, Arthur Mowbray had unsuccessfully promoted plans for a railway from the Rainton pits to Sunderland. As seen, he tried again in 1815, suggesting a line on the Newbottle/Brunton scheme. Edward Steel's proposals included estimates that strongly imply the use of locomotives. They were rejected. In 1819 he employed George Stephenson, 'a Man of great reputation and much experience in the making of Rail Roads, and particularly in the use of Machinery', to survey a line. The plans, which did not include locomotives, were again turned down. Stephenson then made a remarkably bold offer. He would supply the machinery, run the railway for a year at the old rates and then hand the line back for no payment, on the basis that the savings would exceed his entire costs in that time. However, the new controller of the colliery, Lord Stewart (later Marquess of Londonderry) had taken violently against Mowbray. Within weeks he had been replaced by John BuddIe and all his proposals put aside. (page 130)
The irrepressible Mowbray quickly renewed his interest in the proposed Hetton Colliery nearby. With his previous connection with Stephenson, the scene is now set for this famous railway over the hills to Sunderland. Again however the story is considerably less straightforward than the texts suggest. As early as September 1819 Stephenson submitted estimates for the railway they do not include locomotives. Other estimates were made that year for joining the new Colliery to the Newbottle line but using horses and inclined planes. In July 1820 Edward Steel was noticed surveying the line to Sunderland and three months later Benjamin Thompson was claiming that he had been approached to build and run the railway on contract, presumably on his reciprocating system.
Mowbray finally returned to George Stephenson, who worked with his brother Robert on all the colliery and waggonway engines. But it has been seen that this, supposedly the first railway built for purely mechanical haulage, could well have taken a quite different route, could well have been constructed instead by Steel or Thompson. Even Stephenson had initially considered using horses rather than locomotives on the two short sections for which they were suited. And Robert, the resident engineer, was sacked by the owners after little more than a year, in acrimonious circumstances. On one of the locomotive-hauled sections they were never very satisfactory, being replaced by stationary engines in mid-1827 and only barely surviving on the remaining section.
Hetton's initial success considerably enhanced George's reputation. Killingworth led on to the national platform that was the Stockton & Darlington Railway. Exactly how locomotives were decided upon there has always been anecdotal. But that, and an account of the deliberate marketing of George Stephenson, is contained in an important archive at Durham the Hodgkin letters. All are from Edward Pease in Darlington to his cousin Thomas Richardson, the London banker. The following extract comes from a letter dated 10 October 1821.(page 131)
......... the more we see of Stephenson, the more we are pleased with him, he commences the setting out of the line in a few days he is altogether a self taught genius, a man thee would be remarkably pleased with, there is such a scale of sound ability without anything assuming, Cousin Jonathan [Backhouse], Joseph & myself went to see his works about 5 miles from N Castle, & were exceedingly pleased with the correctness of every thing he had designed and executed don't be surprised if I should tell thee, there seems to us after careful examination no difficulty of laying a rail road from London & to Edinburgh on which waggons would travel & take the mail at the rate of 20 miles per hour, when this is accomplished Steam vessels may be laid aside! we went along a road upon one these Engines conveying about 50 tons at the rate of 7 or 8 miles per hour, & if the same power had been applied to speed which was applied to drag the waggons we should have gone 50 mile per hour previous to seeing this Loco motive Engine I was at a loss to conceive how the Engine could draw such a weight, without either having a rack with teeth laid in the Ground & wheels with teeth to work into the same, or something like legs but in this Engine there is no such thing, the way and wheels are exactly same as a common Rail way & by the Cranks of the Engine first propelling the fore wheels of the waggon & then the hind wheels the loaded waggons are impelled forward from all this judicious man says & all we can yet see, no doubt has yet entered my mind but we shall make a good thing of this concern.'
This must surely be one of the most important railway letters. If ever a clear explanation was wanted why locomotives were adopted for the S&DR, it is here. The extraordinary, almost boyish, enthusiasm of this supposedly dour and practical Quaker businessman, the grasp of the possibilities, the complete faith given to Stephenson are all here. And it is addressed to Richardson, the money man who will partner Pease in the railway through its troubles, who will back both Robert Stephenson & Co and George Stephenson & Son.
The letters of 1824 and 1825 that follow give a major insight in the making of George Stephenson. Pease and Richardson determine to market the man in the most modern way they were his spin doctors then as much as Smiles would be later. They cover everything from his scale of fees to the essential need for fresh patents, from the advantages of a new address to his actual dress:
'he is a clever man, but he must have leading straight120'; 'he should always be a gentleman in his dress, his clothes real and new, and of the best quality, all his personal linen clean every day his hat and upper coat conspicuously good, without dandyism'.
Increasingly, inevitably, they also reflect the frustrations of his
absence from the engine works and from their railway. The control they hoped
for slips away as the success they promoted takes him on elsewhere - to his
great railway incontinence of the later 1820s and beyond.
John Buddle (page 132)
The conventional story of this pioneering work in the north east to 1815 and it was happening virtually nowhere else — is capable then of some modification, as are elements of the early career of Stephenson. However, to approach that initial problem of the rogue engines entails the reappearance of a forgotten character.
The driving force of the colliery was the viewer — part manager part mechanical engineer, mining engineer, surveyor responsible both for the pit and the waggonway arrangements. In the north east in our period, there was a viewer so dominant that in his own lifetime he was known as the 'King of the Coal Trade'. Renowned as one of the first so-called' scientific viewers' he was the major instigator of new techniques in the industry, including segmental iron tubbing, district working and pillar robbing. He promoted the experiments of Davy into the safety lamp and was the first viewer to order it. In addition, he was a great believer in mechanisation in general, introducing underground engines, the first Tyne steam boat, and tub transport a form of containerisation new to the region. His name was John Buddle. If that name is not familiar, then it is hardly surprising. The locomotive texts give him no more than a passing mention at best. So, by the early years of the 19th Century this inventive colliery viewer, this promoter of mechanisation, an authority on waggonways, has apparently no significant role in the remarkable flush of experiments taking place on his patch. This appears inconsistent and unlikely.
According to Ottley (who does not make a claim KPJ and it be entry 242), the first publication dedicated to steam locomotives was an 1813 pamphlet by the Chapman brothers describing their patent chain engine. Enquiries were directed to themselves and to John BuddIe. In fact, his account books show that BuddIe paid for that patent. When the engine was tried at Heaton, it was BuddIe who designed the necessary railside kettle. He prepared the chains for the track, he paid for fitting up the engine, he paid a share of its purchase price, he conducted its trials and oversaw its modifications.
He was a partner in and the viewer of Heaton. He was also the viewer for the Lambton Colliery Board' and within days of discussing a new engine design with Chapman, he has their agreement to ordering a locomotive and to the waggonway rebuilding necessary. The Board pays for the engine, but via BuddIe personally and again he conducts its trials
So, he is very intimately concerned with these two Chapman engines in the patent, in the waggonways they need, in the collieries they serve, in their trials and in their cost. It may be more realistic to see these as Chapman-BuddIe locomotives. But this remains within the known engines.
One of the potential rogue locomotives mentioned in the Introduction comes from an account book held at Beamish. This gives a kit of mechanical parts made by Hawks of Gateshead for an unnamed colliery from late 1814 to early 1815 a six-wheeler, and so does not fit any of the available early engines. The internal evidence in this book shows clearly that this locomotive was built for Wallsend Colliery. The manager and viewer was John BuddIe. The existence of this important new locomotive is confirmed by the invaluable Matthias Dunn, who stated that 'Wallsend have also started a Travelling Engine, but the wood ways obstruct it much'. In May 1816, he noted that it had been removed to the sister colliery at Washington - another BuddIe pit and another previously unrecorded location but that it 'cannot be made to answer any good purpose, and is for the present set by'. (page 133)
It would seem that it was subsequently not only reinstated, but may have been joined by another. The well known complaint in 1821 from Losh to Pease about Stephenson's choice of malleable rails stated, 'At Wallsend they have long employed the Travellers...', but, with no known engine there, that clear statement has been understood to mean the neighbouring slaithes at Willington for the Killingworth line. There is now however sufficient evidence from the colliery accounts, the Dunn diary and the Losh letter to establish this new locomotive, introduce Hawks & Co as a builder, and to locate it at Wallsend and Washington.
Another has long been suspected as working at Whitehaven. Dendy Marshall suggested that it may have been built by Taylor Swainson, but in 1978, Peter Mulholland clearly showed (The first railway locomotive in Whitehaven, J. Cumberland Rlys Ass, 1978) that the locomotive had been ordered by the resident viewer, John Peile, under the supervision of BuddIe as consultant for the colliery. It was constructed by Phineas Crowther of Newcastle, to the designs of William Chapman. A somewhat confused mention of it at work has also recently been found,
'Several carts being loaded and linked together in a long line, a machine of iron, called, from the office it performs, and also from its shape, a horse, is fastened before the first. This horse contains a steam engine inside, which causes the wheels on which it is raised to run in a toothed groove below, and thus to drag along the rest of the waggons to the place where they are to lay down their burden. This is one of the wonders of modern invention..
Most importantly, the drawings survive, both for the construction
in 1816 and its conversion to a stationary engine two years later, so that,
for the first time, a clear view can be given of a Chapman engine as built.
See Jim Rees below
L.G. Charlton The Steam Elephant J. Stephenson Loco. Soc., 1980, p. 330 noted a further Chapman-BuddIe engine. In 1820, BuddIe bought back the Lambton locomotive to use on a new line he was constructing at Heaton. After some trials on the old route, he found the major fault to be lack of steam capability, and so completely rebuilt the engine. The boiler was lengthened fully three feet and fitted with a single tube, the eight-wheel double chassis reduced to a single frame four-wheeler, and he connected the wheels with an endless chain. This 'Heaton II' is nearer a new engine than just minor adaptations, and the redesign was John BuddIe's. It must be the long-queried 'large travelling Engine' at Heaton mentioned by Losh in 1821, who says that they have now put springs to it and so suggests that it is BuddIe who first fitted a locomotive with solid springing. John Birkenshaw confirmed the existence of the engine in an open letter to Chapman in 1824 .
In 1819 BuddIe gave up many of his other colliery interests to become viewer, and later manager, of the important Londonderry collieries based at Rainton and Penshaw in Durham. Their account books show that' a travelling Engine for leading Coals' was built for them by Joseph Smith, payments on account being made in early and late 1822. Smith, a previously umecorded maker, was engine wright at Heaton, and so had already rebuilt that engine for BuddIe. He would shortly go on to succeed the sacked Robert Stephenson as engineer at Hetton.
This engine would have mixed fortunes. It was included in the estimates for the planned Seaham railway in 1823, but construction was postponed. Thomas Wood of Hetton, in the L&MR Parliamentary hearings of 1825, said that it had been laid aside and BuddIe would appear to have made a similar comment that same year. In 1826 it underwent trials near Rainton, but broke the rails and suffered Slip - it was apparently purely an adhesion engine. The following year, it must have been this locomotive that was shown to the Duke of Wellington by Lord Londonderry and BuddIe on the Rainton line. The Smith engine would seem then to tie up a number of long standing questions.(page 134)
Even less detail is known of what may have been the first locomotive crane. In 1822, Londonderry was committed to the building of an extravagant country house at Wynyard, north of Stockton. BuddIe made the arrangements for getting the very large amounts of stone to the site, by ship and then cart. Once there, he used a temporary railway and some form of locomotive fitted with a crane. It seems that neither was used much, if at all, and the railway was sent back to Rainton early in 1825.
This use matches the machinery specified for the building of Londonderry's new harbour at Seaham, of which Chapman was engineer and BuddIe the manager. For the construction work itself, Chapman proposed both a travelling crane and a locomotive engine with a winding apparatus. It might be imagined that this was perhaps an adaptation of his Lambton design, which used both adhesion and chain haulage. When harbour construction started in 1828, that engine was in use, lifting rock from the shore and transferring it along the site. BuddIe wrote proudly to Londonderry, that it had taken its station and how it 'gives an appearance of civilisation to the place. Nothing I think gives such a finish to a Scene of this sort as to see an engine smoking upon it'. Shortly after, there is a reference to using 'one of our locomotive engines to keep the basin workably dry'
Now it may well be that the Wynyard and Seaham engines are the same there is certainly the same purpose to them. Clearly however, the belief that it was Stephenson alone who continued the development of the locomotive is misplaced. BuddIe and Chapman continued it in 1815 with the Wallsend/Washington engine, in 1816 with Whitehaven, 1820 with the rebuilt Heaton II, 1822 with Rainton, followed by the dual-purpose Wynyard/Seaham locomotive cranes.
Buddle, Chapman & Stephenson (page 136)
Despite this, it remains hard to deny the dominant role of George Stephenson. It is his promising first engine that founds a dynasty of locomotives, it is his design of 1815 that will be the most successful arrangement of locomotives for the next decade, that will be lead on to Hetton, the Stockton & Darlington, will allow him the platform to press for locomotives on the Liverpool & Manchester. A formidable pedigree.
Even here, however, there is some evidence for reconsidering the story. No one has pretended that the first Stephenson engine in 1814, the geared My Lord, was hugely original. Rather, it was a synthesis of locomotives he had had the chance to examine, especially the Blenkinsop of the Kenton & Coxlodge. Such a pragmatic approach was sensible and effective, but this practical solution may not have been his alone.
There is an unpublished collection of letters at Durham that may be significant, in which Doctor Joseph Hamel writes to John Buddle. Hamel is the agent, the information gatherer, for Emperor Alexander of Russia. In the first letter, he refers to a visit he made to Newcastle which is known from another source to be in early November 1814 the time of My Lord and some months before the 1815 patent engine. He asks for a model of Stephenson's locomotive and some exact drawings. Does Mr BuddIe object to this request? Will Mr Chapman assist or give his consent?
This seems a remarkable situation. Why should BuddIe or Chapman have such control over the design of Stephenson's first engine, and in particular why is their permission necessary? Stephenson works for neither of them, nor are they associated with him. One interpretation is that they have given some direct assistance to the inexperienced Stephenson in his first design, the drawings for which BuddIe is later able to send on to Hamel. They may be in the Russian archives yet.
That leaves the seminal 1815 patent that followed, the essential Killingworth and Hetton design that made his reputation, and which everyone came to see. Charlton's Locomotive engineers noted a remarkable entry in Nicholas Wood's private view diary which stated that a locomotive of the' same construction' as the patent engine had been tried before that patent was dated, and so had made it null and void. It had been run by Nowell & Co of Sunderland and by Grimshaw of Fatfield Colliery, and tried on Nesham's Newbottle railway. Such a statement made by Stephenson's closest collaborator, must carry weight.
Charlton got little further than this. In fact, John Grimshaw was an experienced engineer who would later play a significant part in persuading the businessmen of Stockton and Darlington to opt for a railway rather than canal. 'Nowell' is a misreading for William Norvell a millwright, later to adapt a famous rope-making patent of Grimshaw's. The real question is, what engine or design could have been of the' same construction' as Stephenson's?
In essence, if the similarity was based on the patent claim to an endless chain connecting the wheels, then there is certainly a design that predates it. Chapman's pamphlet was the first publication dedicated to steam locomotives. The second was an anonymous proposal for a train of locomotive and waggons with all the wheels driven. The coupling was by endless chain :
'rotatory motion to be communicated to the wheels by means of an endless chain which passes over toothed and grooved pulleys fixed on some convenient part of the axles of the wheels.. . Respecting the chain...it is composed of circular and oval links, placed alternately, and may easily be repaired or lengthened by means of shackles with screw-bolts, etc. We conceive it to be of new and advantageous construction, and calculated for general use in mechanism [sic].'
The pamphlet was a reprint of a letter to the Royal Society of Arts written by two Scarborough men, William Tindall and John Bottomley, and dated 4 June 1814. That is to say, not only eight months before Stephenson's Patent, but even before his first, the geared engine, had drawn breath. Stephenson's preference in his improved design had been for a crank to couple the wheels, and only when that had proved impractical had an endless chain been substituted. It would seem that he might have borrowed the idea.
The Scarborough connection initially appears unpromising. The area had no waggonways, and so the inspiration for the design and its translation to the Wear seems unlikely. But there is a common link, and that is William Chapman.
As suggested before, Chapman may well have worked with Stephenson in 1814. During that year, he was also down at Scarborough, where he was the engineer for the new harbour works177. It was the area that his wife came from, and he had encouraged his contacts there to invest with him in the Kenton & Coxlodge colliery some years before. A major partner with him and its banker was James Tindall of Scarborough17S - uncle to both William Tindall and John Bottomley179.
In short, it is suggested that the Newbottle engine may have stemmed from the Scarborough proposal, hence its chain connection nullified the Stephenson patent. The original idea probably came from Chapmanlso, the great chain man1S1 and the link between them all. When reporting in 1824 on what would become the Newcastle & Carlisle Railway, Chapman suggested a design of train in which adhesion could be increased without additional weight if one or more of the carriages were to be coupled to the locomotive drivelS2.
This evidence is essentially circumstantial, but there is a case to
be made, for there can be no doubt that Nicholas Wood knew of a built design
that had ruined a patent seen as the embodiment of Stephenson's Killingworth
and Hetton engines.
Conclusion (page 138)
It is quite possible then to review this period with the aid of significant new sources. Most have been found in the County Record Offices, principally of Durham and Northumberland, but document extracts familiar from the texts have yielded a surprising amount of fresh information when seen in the full original. There can be little doubt that further valuable material remains to be unearthed183, and will reconfigure this apparently well-known history.
In general terms, a significant but seldom stated facet of the domination of the region in the development of the locomotive is its remarkably small area. Before 1825, all the north eastern waggonways discussed were within a diameter of just 15 miles. Even on foot, any interested party in 1815 could have seen the engines at Coxlodge, Heaton, Wallsend and Killingworth in less than an hour. These trials then were on local, familiar ground and in the open air, not distant, remote or secret. The choices that Arthur Mowbray had at his fingertips for Rainton and Hetton are a case in point.
It has been seen how intertwined were some of the relationships between the pioneers, and how aware they were of each other's progress. For the viewers this was emphasised by the nature of their profession - as resident, group, consultant or check viewers they were constantly involved with the affairs of collieries other than their own and regularly came together at the meetings of the Coal Trade. Rather than happening in isolation, the progress of the various tests must have been common knowledge and the subject of detailed discussion between them.
More specifically, it has been possible to add information to the well known trials at Gateshead, Wylam, Kenton & Coxlodge, Heaton, Lambton, Newbottle and Killingworth. As for the 'mystery' engines, new evidence can be offered for the identification of the locomotive seen by the Duke of Wellington, the Stephenson patent breaker, the Wallsend and Rainton engines.
The early career of George Stephenson can be reconsidered - the first engine, the first patent, the enchantment of Edward Pease, the conscious marketing of the man. Nicholas Wood played his part in selling the Stephenson story as well. His 'Treatise' conceals his own knowledge of the nullification of the Patent, fails to mention the experiments by others after 1815 or the dreadful Newbottle explosion that year. Prior to publication, Longridge warned Pease that 'Wood's Book must undergo a strict censorship before it is published and I fear this will be a work of considerable delicacy, but it must be done185.' A fortnight later, Wood wrote placatingly to Edward Pease that the book would be worthwhile and necessary 'if it only be done judiciously and without injuring my friends186', in particular George Stephenson. When so many later histories of these experimental years were understandably based on his expert, contemporary account, it is unfortunate that it is at best incomplete and at worse quite knowingly misleading.
Finally, it can be suggested that John BuddIe be given due recognition. He is intimately concerned with Heaton and Lambton. He is responsible for the locomotives used at Wallsend and Washington, Whitehaven, Heaton II, Rainton, Wynyard and Seaham; he places Hawks and Joseph Smith in the list of engine builders. And it is not just the totals of BuddIe and Chapman which are impressive, it is the sheer variety. They are built with four wheels, or six, or eight; connected by gears, connected by chain; bogie frames, single frames; adhesion, chain, and both together; first use of solid springs, first locomotive crane. Such a richness of thought, such open-minded pragmatism is hard to match in the contemporary pioneers. Buddle's contribution has long been unknown and Chapman's underestimated. Both richly deserve reassessment.
Rees, Jim: The strange story of the Steam Elephant. 145-70.
Mountford, Colin E: Rope haulage; the forgotten element of railway history. 171-91.
Boyes, Grahame: An alternative railway technology; early monorail systems. 192-207.
Gibbon, Richard: Rings, springs, strings and things; the national collection pre 1840. 208-16.
Clarke, Mike: The first steam locomotives on the European mainland
Cowburn, Ian: The origins of the St Etienne rail roads, 1816-38; French ndustrial espionage and British technology transfer
Gamst, Prof Frederick C: The transfer of pioneering British railroad technology to North America
MacDonald, Herb: The Albion mines railway of 1839 - 1840; some British roots of Canada's first industrial railway.
Bailey, Michael R. and Glithero, John P: Learning through restoration; the Samson locomotive project. 278-93.
Banham, John Thematic studies: Coal, banks and railways
Stokes, Winifred: Early railways and regional identity
Baldwin, J H: The Stanhope and Tyne railway; a study in business failure
Hopkin, Dieter W: Reflections on the iconography of early railways
Early Railways 2: papers from the Second International Railway Conference; ed. M.J.T. Lewis. London: Newcomen Society, 2003.
Keynote address Divall, Colin : Beyond the history of early railways. 1-9
Trinder, Barrie Recent research on early Shropshire railways. 10-25
Roper, Robert Stephenson. Robert Stephenson, senior, 1788 - 1837 . 26-36
That is one of George Stephenson's brothers and his involvement in railway work at Stratford on the Stratford & Moreton Railway, the Nantlle Railway and on the Bolton & Leigh Railway. Includes a letter from Robert junior to "Dear Uncle"
Gwyn, David Artists, Chartists, railways and riots. 37-51
Reproduction of oil painting (on cover and endpapers) which hangs on the east staircase of the National Museum of Wales in Cardiff and shows two long coal trains each drawn by four horses on Samuiel Homfray's tramroad near Court y Bella. The tramroad was involved in Chartist riots in 1839, and the paper ends with Frith's The railway station to show that "social harmony was eventually restored.".
Hodgkins, David Success and failure in making the transition to a modern railway:the Liverpool & Manchester and the Cromford & High Peak 52-63.
Guy, Andy Early railways: some curiosities and conundrums 64-78
This puts up many "hares": comment on the William Hedley adhesion test carriage as illustrated in British Geological Survey Archives; and on the similarity of this to William Chapman's rope-making machine of about 1800. One of the difficulties with very early locomotives is that they sometimes had a protracted lives as stationary engines: The Trevithick Gateshead locomotive may have been used as a stationary engine until 1870. George Hardy's The Londonderry Railway was published by Goose in Norwich in 1973 (Ottley 12406 not in Norwich branch library), but further manuscript material is housed in the Beamish Museum which records the following: two locomotives were used in the construction of the Stanhope & Tyne Railway and that locomotives were constructed at the Stanhope & Tyne workshops in South Shields from 1852. A condensing locomotive was built at the Elswick works of W. Armstrong in 1848 (earlier than some otrher sources, but not Lowe quote for any locomotive manufacture by Armstrong). Thomas Dunn Marshall constructed a mechanical excavator to assist with the construction of the Brandling Junction Railway between 1836 and 1839. Thomas Wardropper greatly assisted with the relative success of the Stephenson locomotive supplied to Russia for the St Petersburg & Pavlosk railway in 1836: Wardropper's diary also notes that the other locomotives supplied by Hackworth, accompanied by his 16 year old son John Wesley Hackworth, and another by Cockerill experienced serious problems. Finally, Guy notes that William Strickland's Reports on canals, railways, roads... is well known, but a later report of 1838 reported on a loaomotive which purported to be for the Great Western (but does not appear to be one of the initial oddities!): illustration of locomotive with lion on smokebox p. 73...
Stokes, Winifred Who ran the early railways? The case of the Clarence. 79-92
Influence of the Loan Commissioners and London interests in the management, also the importance of the local Secretary and the relative insignificance of the engineer.
van Laun, John In search of the first all-iron edge rail . 93-101.
Lewis, M.J.T. Bar to fish-belly: the evolution of the cast-iron edge rail. 102-17.
Mountford, Colin E. Researching rope haulage - a case study: the Lambton Railway, 1800 - 1835. 118-33.
Bye, Sheila John Blenkinsop and the patent steam carriages. 134-48.
At the time, the fame and influence of John Blenkinsop's Machines was immense. Within three months of them being in regular use, the Rev William Turner was lecturing the Newcastle Literary and Philosophical Society on 'the moveable Steam Engine lately introduced in the colliery at Middleton, near Leeds. By 1814, Sir Richard Philips was suggesting that if a network of railways was built, the mail coaches could be 'impelled 15 miles an hour by Blenkinsop's steam-engine'; and a Leeds Mercury reader was suggesting the building of a full-scale railway from Leeds to Selby using the Blenkinsop system. By the early 1820s, Thomas Gray was portraying just how versatile a Blenkinsop steam railway might become, with passenger coaches, goods waggons and mail coaches. Travellers from abroad came to see the Machines, and their written accounts are an important source of firsthand information. Many of the visitors subsequently tried to persuade their own countrymen to build railways. Some of them advocated use of the Blenkinsop system though, by the early 1820s, the introduction of malleable iron rails was making adhesion locomotives commercially viable. George Stephenson saw the Kenton & Coxlodge Machine in September 1813, and was inspired to copy it extensively. His biographer, Samuel Smiles, claimed a haulage power of thirty tons for Stephenson's earliest locomotive:. Blenkinsop's Patent Steam Carriages, dismissed by Smiles as 'clumsier and less successful', regularly hauled one hundred tons, well over twenty times their own weight. When Walker and Rastrick arrived to observe them in January 1829, on behalf of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway Company, they saw one of the Machines haul thirty eight loaded waggons: a total load of around 140 tons including the Machine's own weight.Clumsy they might have been but, even after at least a decade and a half of unremitting hard work, John Blenkinsop's Patent Steam Carriages could still give a spectacular demonstration.
Crompton, John The Hedley mysteries. 149-64.
Author from National Museums of Scotland where Hedley's Wylam Dilly is a prime exhibit in the Royal Museum, Edinburgh. Sifts through existing information about William Hedley and his locomotives Lady Mary, Puffing Billy and Wylam Dilly. Includes a detailed examination of the boilers of the last two mentioned lcomotives, and the routes by which they were preserved..
Reynolds, Paul George Stephenson's 1819 Llansamlet locomotive. 165-76.
William and Sampson Sandys reported the sight of a steam locomotive working on Scott's Railway near Swansea in October 1819: the author attempts fairly successfully to show that George Stephenson was involved and supplied the locomotive with Robert Mills and Philip Maddison, both of whom originated in Killingworth.
Rees, Jim The Stephenson standard locomotive (1814--1825): a fresh appraisal. 177-201
draw attention to the inadequacy of our understanding of George Stephenson's locomotive engineering, despite the enormity of his standing in received history and as a cultural legend.
bring the existence of the Strickland model to wider awareness and hopefully to a closer examination.
establishment of a sound historiography of the Hetton Colliery locomotive it is a fine, rare and interesting survivor from an underrepresented period, but it is just not what it has been thought to be.
focus attention on Killingworth Billy, whatever it truly is, in the hope that it may be given the attention which it warrants and hopefully at some point a full archaeological examination.
Liffen, John The Patent Office Museum and the beginnings of railway locomotive preservation. 202-20.
Author employed by Science Museum. Patent Office Museum acquired its first two locomotives in 1862. Brompton Boilers. Involvement of the LNWR in transport of more than one exhibit. Specific locomotives: Puffing Billy, Rocket, Sans Pareil and John Hick's involvement in its preservation), and the Agenoria
Hills, Richard L. Richard Roberts' experiments on the friction of railway waggons. 221-31.
Gibbon, Richard and Richard Lamb: 'Running wi'. your breeks down': an investigation of coupling rod resistance in a four-coupled locomotive 232-40.
An attempt to establish moderately scientifically Patrick Stirling's claims for the reduced friction of single locomotives.
Maggi, Stefano An early railway in Tuscany: Follonica - Montebamboli 241-52.
MacDonald, Herb Reconsidering the origins of Canada's first locomotive-powered railway: the Champlain & St Lawrence, 1825 - 34. 253-76.
Early Railways 3: papers from the Third International Railway Conference; ed. Michael R. Bailey. Sudbury: Six Martlets, 2006.
Several of the papers relate to very early railways, that is long before Trevithick, and even long before iron rails.
Scott, Andrew. 'First' impressions ; some reflections on 2004, early railways' year of anniversaries: Keynote address. 3-7.
Lewis, M.J.T. Reflections on 1604. 8-22.
Early wooden waggonways, notably that organized by Huntingdon Beaumont to connect his coal pit at Wollaton, near Nottingham, to the River Trent, and those at Broseley in the Severn Gorge in Shropshire, and the subsequent spread of these technologies, especially to the North East. Also includes waggons (hund) on earlier systems in use in parts of Austria and Germany and imported into the Lake District, and later more advanced systems in Transylvania and Lower Hungary.
van Laun, John. New light on the wooden waggonways at Whitehaven harbour. 23-39.
Influence of Sir James Lowther (1674-1755) who encouraged Hennry Winship or Winshopp of Newcastle to develop a waggonway to replace packhorse transport from coal mines at HowGill, Saltom and Whingill to the improved harbour.
Goodchild, John. The Lake Lock Rail Road. 40-50.
In spite of the name it connected collieries near Flockton with the Aire near Stanley in what was the West Riding of Yorkshire, north of Wakefield.
Liffen, John. The iconography of the Wylam waggonway. 51-75.
Very important for images of the Puffing Billy and Wylam Dilly.
Mountford, Colin E. The Hetton Railway Stephenson's original design and its evolution. 76-95.
Worked by a mixture of inclines, with stationary engines (notably at Warden Law) and locomotives.
MacDonald, Herb. The Cape Breton waggonways of the General Mining Association, 1830-1855. 96-117.
Coulls, Anthony. The Corris, Machynlleth & River Dovey tramroad. 118-25.
Levitt, Alan M. How America discovered the railway. 126-52.
A paper in which it is difficult to follow the text for the weight of the footnotes: several methods are proposed, but William Strickland emeges as the major figure.
Withuhn, William L. Abandoning the Stourbridge Lion business decision-making, 1829: a new interpretation. 153-64.
Stokes, Winifred. The importance of the northeast viewers in the development of early railways and locomotives. 165-75.
Nicholas Wood, William Hedley and John Buddle are the key figures in locomotive development.
Ferguson, Niall. Anglo-Scottish transfer of railway technology in the 1830s. 176-90.
Rees, Jim and Guy, Andy. Richard Trevithick and pioneer locomotives. 191-220.
Darsley, Roger. Some considerations on the origins of the chaldron waggon in the northeast of England. 221-41.
Hills, Richard L. The development of machine tools in the early railway era. 242-59..
Stresses that stationary engines and the development of iron rails, as well as the development of steam
Gomersall, Helen. The Round Foundry of Leeds. 260-9.
Mainly interested in the buildings, including those which have survived.
Bailey, Michael R.. Restaging the Rainhill Trials, learning from replicas. 270-1.
Lamb, Richard. Something of a Novelty. 272-83.
Davidson, Peter and Glithero, John. Analysis of locomotive performance. 284-99.
2002 trials staged at Llangollen: The replica Rocket out-performed its rivals: the replicas of Sans Pareil and Novvelty.
Rutherford, Micheal. Heroes, villains and ordinary men.
(Provocations/Railway reflections No. 10).
Backtrack, 1995, 9,
Approaches to history, one of which that is very popular (biography) concentrates upon individuals. Inevitably some important contributors fail to receive adequate atention others ensure that they get too much. Considers sources: Dendy Marshall (which is neither congratulated nor condemned by Rutherford: only its age is noted which in such a topic may be an asset), E.A. Forward (Trans. Newcomen Soc), Samuel Smiles, Patents (those of Chapman, Trevithick and Hedley); the contenders (William Hedley, Trevithick, Blenkinsop, Chapman, Brunton, Timothy Hackworth and Jonathan Foster, most of whom pre-date George Stephenson. Notes call by George Stephenson on son to assist in locomotive-building enterprise. Considers locomotive remains: Puffing Billy and Wylam Billy. Emphasizes that Hetton Colliery locomotive is an early replica built by Sir Lindsay Wood, son of Nicholas Wood (collaborator with Stephenson) in 1851/2. There is no adequate biography of Charles Beyer, nor of Stanier, but Gresley and Bulleid are better served. There is a tendency to over-play the significance of the CME (much development took place on the LMS whilst Stanier was in India) Illus. (b&w): A pastiche of early locomotives; Puffing Billy from nearside and offside; early view of Hetton Colliery with Stephenson locomotives at work; Hetton Colliery shunter; Beyer 0-6-0 made for the Shrewsbury and Hereford railway but sold to the GWR before delivery; The Hetton Colliery shunter
Snell, J.B. Early railways. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1964. 128pp.
Quite a nice book, but it does not really belong here.
Snell, J.B. Mechanical engineering: railways. London: Longman. 1971. 177pp.
Like the following book by Stead, Snell appears to fail to mention Dendy Marshall yet lists his main work in his rather limited bibliography.
Stead, Christopher. The birth of the
steam locomotive a new history. Haddenham: Fern House,
Main problem is that although the author is an expert in his own field of ancient philosophy and early Christian doctrine, and should therefore be able to know the prior literature he fails to note the existence of Dendy Marshall (above) whilst he cheerfully cites Clement Stretton without noting his reputation. He also cites Snell's Early railways without any real justification. Nevertheless, he does place locomotion within the overall development of steam technology: furthermore, it might stimulate someone to write a new overall history of steam locomotion prior to 1840.
Tumbull, Les. Railways before George Stephenson: a study of the waggonways in the Northern coalfield 1605-1830. ;Oxford: Chapman Research Publishing, 2012. 172pp, Reviewed by Michael Lewis in J. Rly Canal Hist. Soc., 2013 (217), 52.
McGowan, Christopher The Rainhill
Trials: the greatest contest of industrial Britain and the birth of commercial
rail. London: Little, Brown, 2004. 380pp.
Reed, Brian. 150 years of British steam locomotives. p. 21.
By good fortune the competition was won by the only locomotive whose principles were straight away capable of the necessary further development. If by some chance Sans Pareil had put up a better performance than Rocket the judges would have been in a dilemma, for not only did Hackworth fail to comply with the testing rules but his engine was heavier than the prescribed maximum for four wheels. Moreover it did not have springs, and to the springless condition were added vertical cylinders. Any development of these principles was unthinkable, and Sans Pareil ideas already were seen to be approaching obsolescence.
Novelty was a different proposition altogether. In it the new spirit of speed was given full play, and in its first pre-official run it maintained 28mph for a full mile; but lightness also was a keynote, and that lack of adhesion, plus the boiler type necessary to get it, were not suited for development to the haulage of heavy trains. So easily was this recognised that one admirer in 1830 asked if rack-and-adhesion mechanism could not be put in, a remarkable suggestion for that time. The logical development of Novelty would have been 'every vehicle with its own motive power' admirable if technology in carriage construction had been more advanced, and one that would have brought a railway system different in almost every respect from what did arise. For Rocket see below.
Rainhill in 1929. Loco. Rly Carr. Wagon Rev., 1929, 35, 244-5.
The illustrations showed the skew bridge which carried the Liverpool to London road over the L&MR which was completed in June 1929. This bridge had a stone tablet which noted George Stephenson as Engineer (illustrated); retort house of Rainhill Gas Co. (formerly John Melling's engineering works where Rocket was erected) and cylinders of Novelty preserved at Rainhill.
Restaged trials on Llangollen Railway in October 2002
The trials were restaged with replica locomotives on the Llangollen Railway as part of a BBC Timewatch programme for televsion. See papers by Bailey, Lamb and Davidson and Glitheroe in Early Railways 3.
Barnes, Robin. Coalbrookdale & Penydarren revisited: a Bi-Centennial
note. Part 1. Bactrack,
2003, 17, 492-6.
Richard Reynolds (1735-1816) acquired through marriage (to Abraham Darby's daughter Hannah) a share of the Ketley iron and coal works. In 1767 the waggonways were relaid with broader wooden rails to accommodate iron plates, but the edge rail was replaced by the cheaper L section in the 1790s. In 1778 Boulton & Watt supplied the Ketley works with a rotative engine. Richard's son, William Reynolds (1756-1803) had wide scientific interests, especially in chemistry and electricity, and was assisted in these efforts by Prof. Joseph Black of Edinburgh.
Barnes, Robin. Coalbrookdale & Penydarren revisited: a bicentennial note Part 2. Bactrack, 2003, 17, 554-7.
Part 1 see page 492. Considers the John Llewellyn drawing and E.A. Forward's assessment of it, and the Author's own inspection of the drawing in the Science Museum. Also considers how Trevithick may have been involved in devising traction for the Tar Tunnel. Letter by Author in Volume 18 (page 188) brings greater clarity to the Llewellyn drawing and incorporates information from John Liffen of the Science Museum.
Barnes, Robin. Coalbrookdale and Penydarren revisited. Part three. Robin Barnes. Bactrack, 2003, 17, 622-6.
The first part began on page 492 and Part 2 on page 554. In this concluding part the author summarizes, " if somewhat hesitantly" that (1) in the period 1790 to 1797, in model form, the American John Fitch made the first operable steam locomotive designed to run on rails; (2) William Reynolds in Shropshire planned a full-scale steam railway locomotive at a slightly earlier date, but there is no evidence it was made; (3) Reynolds, with Trevithick as consultant, at Coalbrookdale in 1802 made the first known full-scale steam railway locomotive, but probably it was not tried and may never have been completed; (4) it cannot be certain what is depicted in the 'Llewellyn' drawing, other than it is a sketch of a locomotive incorporating Trevithick features; and (5) the general arrangement of the Penydarren locomotive is not known and it may have differed substantially from that of the later Gateshead example. The feature is concluded with a very extensive list of references and acknowledgements and the address of a website dedicated to John Fitch: http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/Westcott Illus.: working model steam locomotive made in USA by John Fitch; impression created by Robin Barnes of portable engine designed by Boulton & Watt for William Reynolds (see also Volume 11 page 543 for another diagram of this machine; diagram illustrating difficulty of fitting 1804 Penydarren locomotive into Plymouth Ironworks Tunnel (flywheel especially problematic); portrait of Major General Arthur St Clair whom (the extended caption states) may have been the intended beneficiary of Fitch's locomotive to relieve him in his fight against Indian forces on the Wabash using a wooden railway: the Scottish General was also briefly President of the USA..
Pendred, Loughnan. St. L. The mystery of Trevithick's London locomotives. Trans Newcomen Soc., 1920/1, 1, 34-49.
The two locomotives concerned were the road locomotive of 1803 and Catch-me-who-Can of 1808. Harvey Trevithick, great grandson of Richard, believed that there were more of Richard's letters at Hayle. E.A. Forward considered that both models are genuine. The drawing of the Pen-y-darren engine was "manifestly wrong" as the "fireman would have to lie on his stomach to get at the fire". Note the significance of Francis Trevithick's Life. (1872). Pendred stated that this book is "made tedious by repetition", but only Chapters 7 to 9 needed to be considered. Forward (pp 46-9) stated that there can be no doubt that the enclosure was built and Trevithick did run an engine on rails within it. The Forward contribution is very important: he notes the significance of the record made by Isaac Hawkins in 1847 which is included in the Life on page 193. Acording to Forward Hawkins was an engineer of some eminence and is a "fairly reliable witness."..Note: it would not have been possible to have written this abstract on the basis of inspecting the first page.
Rees, Jim and Guy, Andy. Richard Trevithick and pioneer locomotives. Early railways 3. 191-220.
The identification of "Trevithick" locomotives is extremely difficult. The authors give two separate lists. The first is where Trevithick appeared to have some direct input: Penydarren (1804); Gateshead (1805); Catch Me Who Can (1808); West India Docks (1804); and Plymouth breakwater (1812-14). The second is where there is less evidence for Trevithick's direct involvement, but there is an indication that they were derived from his ideas: Coalbrookdale (1802-3); Chapman's Newcastle (1805-6 or 1811-12); Black Billy (1812-13); Whitehaven (1812); Fatfield (1815).
Site of the first passenger steam railway in the world. Loco. Rly Carr. Wagon Rev., 1930, 36, 200-2. illus., map
Proposed location for the demonstration circuit for Trevithick's Catch-me-who-can south of what was to become Euston Road in Bloomsbury.
Wright, Michael. Trevithick's high pressure engine. in Neil Cossons Making of the modern world. pp. 56-7
Curator of Mechanical Engineering. Demonstrates the "problem" with Trevithick in that Trevithick's engine was applicable to diverse applications.
Sheila Bye (Early Rlys 2) made a very strong case for the significance of Blenkinsop's system
Forward, E.A. Chapman's locomotives, 1812-1815, some facts and some
speculations. Trans. Newcomen
Soc., 1951/2, 28, 1-18. Disc. 18-19.
Patents noted but not cited in full. Most information added to Chapman entry. Also makes reference to Whinfield's Trevithick locomotive.
Rees, Jim and Guy, Andy. Richard Trevithick and pioneer locomotives. Early railways 3. 191-220.
Chapman's Newcastle (1805-6 or 1811-12) "locomotive": also queries whether the Chapman "locomotives" might have been part of the Chapmans' rope-making machinery.
Coiley, John. 'Puffing Billy'. in Neil
Cossons Making of the modern world. pp. 60-1.
Former Head, NRM
Stephenson's initial locomotives (pre-1825)
Rees (Early rlys 2) examines the "sixteen" locomotives constructed by George and Robert Stephenson mainly prior to the opening of the Stockton & Darlington Railway.
Paley, W.B. Centenary of the Hetton Railway.
Locomotive Mag., 1922, 28,
One illustration is taken from William Strickland's Reports on canals, railways roads and other subjects, architectv and engineer for the Pennsylvania Society for the Promotion of Internal Improvement, 1826. The two others show the left and right hand sides of one of these running in the twentieth century. Diagrams show the arrangement of the valve gear.
Old Hetton Colliery locomotive.
Locomotive Mag., 1900, 5, 26
Photograph of Puffing Billy type locomotive still at work "a few months back"
Bailey, Michael R. and John P. Glithero
The engineering and history of Rocket: a survey report. York: National Railway Museum, 2000. 186pp.
Although Rocket is one of the world's best-known locomotives, rightly perceived as being the progenitor of main-line railway motive power, its interpretation has been limited to its success at the 1829 Rainhill Trials and to its being the first locomotive fitted with a multi-tubularboiler. Rocket's importance as an artefact is much wider, however, as it was:
Bailey, Michael R. Loco motion.
Obviously much briefer than the above forensic study, but places the locomotive within a much broader context by considering its competitors and evolution from it.
Fowler, Sir Henry. Address by the President.
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs.,
1927, 113, 723-47.
Two themes were intertwined: the significance of George Stephenson and the significance of metallurgy on mechanical engineering. "I have always been impressed by the fact that George Stephenson seemed to be not only conversant with, but an expert on all that was known and of interest concerning mechanical engineering in his day."
At the time when the Rocket was being built, not only was there no large commercial production of metals and alloys of the quality and type which we look upon as commonplace to-day, but the actual production was, to our present-day ideas, infinitesimally small. Of the basic material, cast iron, the whole amount produced in the world in 1850 was only 4½ million tons; in 1926 this had grown to over 77 million tons. The amount of steel did not reach half a million tons per annum until 1870, whilst in 1926 it had reached over 90 million tons.
The Rocket was produced from ordinary cast and wrought iron, and a small amount of brass, Compare this small number of metals with the varied and complex quantities used in the construction of such a simple machine as a locomotive to-day We must, remember that the constituents of the three metals mentioned were not then properly understood nor were they subdivided as they are now.
Hopkin, Dieter. Stephenson's 'Rocket'. in
Neil Cossons Making of the modern
world. pp. 68-9.
Curator Information & Support Services NRM
Reed, Brian. 150 years of British steam
locomotives. p. 21.
Rocket and the ideas it embodied had greater immediate potentialities than had the other two competitors, and the basic design was capable of substantial development with the resources available at that time. These factors permitted the inauguration of railway projects to the full extent of civil engineering technique as it then stood. This matching of civil and mechanical engineering led to the big railway schemes of the mid-1830s, in particular the Grand Junction, London & Birmingham, and Great Western railways. Without Rainhill and Rocket all such schemes would inevitably have been deferred. Rocket's success was due almost entirely to the combination of the multitubular boiler with separate firebox and the blast-pipe exhaust, that is to the steam-generating equipment. The boiler was suggested by Henry Booth, first treasurer and, in effect, first manager, of the LMR, and Rocket itself was entered by him and George Stephenson and its cost charged to the pair in the Forth Street books; but the whole of the design was the direct task of Robert Stephenson. This boiler was particularly suited to the stringent weight conditions imposed; nevertheless, without the blast pipe its evaporative powers would have been only fractionally greater than established return-flue types.
Blast pipe and multitubular boiler with separate firebox were an individisible quantity which gave automatic regulation of the whole plant. Blast-pipe exhaust in single-flue and return-flue boilers could more easily tear the fire to bits, as it did at the Rainhill trials in Sans Pareil. Among the three actual competing engines Rocket and Sans Pareil had induced draught promoted by blast exhaust and Novelty had forced draught from mechanicallydriven bellows.
In its mechanical arrangement Rocket was disappointing, particularly after the experience with Lancashire Witch and Robert's 1828 thoughts as to cylinder position; the angle of the cylinders was surprising, and the result was a bouncing movement on the springs. This was rectified in the Rocket-type locomotives ordered for the opening of the LMR, in which cylinder inclination was reduced to 8° from Rocket's 35°. But Rocket at 35° and on springs was superior in riding to the vertical-cylinder springless Sans Pareil, though perhaps inferior to Novelty which, though it had small vertical cylinders, had very good springs, and a bell-crank drive to long connecting rods which drove a double-throw crank axle - the first ever, though it was not in combination with inside cylinders. Novelty was also the first full tank engine, for it contained the small amount of fuel needed, and the water was in a tank below the platform.
In the contest each engine had to make 10 return trips over a 1¾-mile length of which an eighth of a mile at each end was allowed for acceleration and retardation, thus giving the equivalent of a 30-mile journey at speed and 35 miles total, with a trailing load three times the locomotive weight. After a stop for refuelling and rewatering the engine had straightway to make another 35 miles. This was the equivalent of a return journey between Liverpool and Manchester. The 4¼-ton Rocket hauled 13 tons and averaged 12.4mph for the 70 miles including the 38 end stops but not the 16min refuelling stop. The day after, when the 2¾-ton Novelty had broken down after one trip, Rocket gave the spectators a 'consolation display' when without any load at all it made two double trips at 30mph. On being tried again Novelty once more broke down, this time after about seven miles, and retired from the contest.
Wheeler, Geoffrey. Fired by steam. London: John Murray, 1987.
Second plate is an attractive side elevation coloured painting of Rocket
Lamb, Richard. Something of a Novelty.
Early Railways 3, pp. 272-83.
Difficulties encountered with operating a replica, notably the generation of carbon monoxide through the inefficient combustion of coke.
Bailey, Michael R. Loco motion.
Mainly concerned with the replica.
An industry has grown up which has attempted to show that Timothy Hackworth was cheated in some way during the Rainhill trials. Reed's comments are reproduced below. Some of the other material is considered with Hackworth.
Reed, Brian. 150 years of British steam locomotives. p. 21.
Sans Pareil completed 27½ miles of the 70 at an average approaching 15mph; then a defect in a feed pump lowered the water level and the fusible plug in the flue melted, so ending the test. Subsequently Hackworth and his family worked hard to create a belief that a cylinder cast by Stephenson had cracked and led to the bad results, but neither the judges nor other contemporary records made mention of that. Over the 27½ miles the coke consumption of Sans Pareil was 12691b or 461b/mile contrasted with Rocket's 15½lb/mile; most of this went out the chimney as unburned fuel for Hackworth had contracted his blast pipe far too much by tapering, and the firing rate was the almost inconceivable figure, for a return-flue boiler, of 691b/sfg/hr (pounds of coal per square foot of grate per hour), whereas that of Rocket, with a firebox that could more easily have taken a high firing rate, was only 30lb/sfg/hr.
Possibly Sans Pareil was the first engine to have a tapered blast pipe, for the evidence that Royal George had one previously is anything but sure; but it was not the first to have a contracted blast pipe. As that term was then understood it meant an area less than that of the exhaust port in the cylinder, and this was found in the double blast pipes of the SDR four-wheelers and in the twin up-turned final exhausts of Rocket, in which the end pipes were parallel. This was sufficient to make enough steam for Rocket to run its 70 miles, and had also been enough for the earlier Killingworth engines.
That the new era in public transport made possible by Rocket was appreciated at once by a few forward-thinking minds is shown by the words of Henry Booth early in 1830 before the formal opening of the LMR 'the sudden and marvellous change which has been effected in our ideas of time and space. . . it will pervade society at large. . . will influence more or less the whole tenor and business of life.' First practical result of Rainhill was the immediate purchase of Rocket by the LMR and an order for four similar engines placed in October with Robert Stephenson & Co to be delivered in 1830 in time for opening day. Two more were ordered in February 1830, and another two later,
Bailey, Michael R. Loco motion.
p. 58 et seq
Both the surviving remains and operating and non-operational replicas are examined
Usually known as the Penydaren Tramroad
Barnes, Robin. A Royal Progress. Part 2.
Backtack, 2002, 16,
Part 1 began on page 346. Tour of England and Scotland by King of Saxony with his physician Dr Carl Gustav Carus in 1844. This part covers Wales (Merthyr and Dowlais (Dante's blazing city of Dis), Liverpool, to York via Liverpool and Manchester and Manchester & Leeds Railway, to Leeds, the Lake District, by road to Hamilton to stay with the Duke, but no railway journeys were made in Scotland, and departure for Germany was made from Granton. Letter by Martin Oliver on page 594. Illus.:Possibly the first photograph of a railway scene Linlithgow station c1845, Sketch; 0-4-2 Black Diamond of 1857, Coatbridge works no 11 now Alfred Paget on the Chasewater Light Railway, Paintings by Robin Barnes: Dowlais Iron company's Perserverance as it would be between 1832 and 1840 (it had twin chimneys), Painting; GWR Spit Fire (Spitfire in some accounts - Back Track?)of the Fire Fly class with Aeolus at Paddington. Extensive list of sources.
Hilton, H.F. Gurney's locomotive on the Hirwaun Railway. Loco. Rly Carr. Wagon Rev., 1944, 50, 192-4.
Sirhowy Tramroad/ Tredegar Iron Works
Robert Stephenson & Co. supplied three engines to the Tredegar Iron Works at the behest of Samuel Homfray between 1829 and 1832. The first was named Britannia and was six-coupled (WN 16); the second was Hercules and the third was the four-coupled Speedwell. In 1832 the Tredegar Iron Company began to build their own locomotives
Stockton & Darlington Railway
Pearce, Thomas R. The
Locomotives of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. Historical Model
Railway Society. 250pp.
This book is exactly what it says that it is and is of inestimable importance as it enables the reader to know as far as it can now be known which locomotives operated on the railway. It needs to be noted that originally the locomotives lacked either numbers or names: this makes research extremely difficult.. Furthermore, as in later years names were exchanged and bits of locomotives were exchanged. The book was the subject of a remarkably generous review from David Jenkinson in Backtrack Volume 12 page 61, and by Alan Cliff in Archive No. 14 p. 32. but ridiculously few copies of this work are held in public libraries. A copy was obtained from North Yorkshire County Library where it had been seen at such tiny libraries as Kirbymoorside, but is not available in what it considered itself to be candidate "City of Culture" Norwich. . In his Foreword the Author notes that he "wrote this book because it didn't exist". One wishes that more books were written on this admirable basis. The book is still in-print and is obtainable from the Historical Model Railway Society (HMRS), and is remarkably cheap for Members. It suffers from one major, and one minor defect. The major one is a lack of an index (this is extremely serious) and the bibliographical citations are not as good as they should be..
The general division of the work is:
Background:(The People; General Note; History & Development; Locomotives at the 1875 Jubilee; Track Development; Liveries);
Principles and Valve Gear:(Basic Mechanics; Gab Gear);
The Early Engines: 1825-6.(Design; The Locomotives; "Chittapratt"; Nos. 3, 4 & 5);
"Royal George" and Successors: 1827-31. ("Royal George": "Experiment"; Comparisons.);
The Double Tender Classes: 1831-46. (The "Majestic" and "Director" Classes; "Magnet" and The "Enterprise" Class; The "Tory" and "Miner" Classes.);
Pages 60-1 describe and illustrate (Theodore West and drawing in Science Museum) the "first" R. & W. Hawthorn locomotive, No. 13 CoronationNo. 15 Tory suffered a boiler exxplosion in 1839, No. 7 Prince had a boiler explosion at Crook in 1859 aned No. 12 Trader blew up in 1868 (all page 75)
Passenger Traffic: 1837-60. (General; The Bury Engines; Mainly 0-4-2's & 2-4-0's);
2-2-2 Arrow page 87 (including John Graham's views about. Hawthorn WN 199/1836 an 0-4-0 with vertical cylinders driving an intermediate crankshaft named Swift pp. 88-90. Fig. 71 shows locomotive with revolving cowl at top of chimney to inhibit fire throwing. May have been owned by William Lister. Sold to GNER with Nos. 18 Shildon and 10 Planet.
Mineral Locomotives: 1845-75. (The 0-6-0 Long Boiler Engines; E. Craven's Notes on "Gazelle" Trials);
The 4-4-0's: 1860-74, and The "Gamecocks": 1873-6. (The 4-4-0's; The "Gamecocks".);
The Tank Engines and The Final Mineral Engines.(The Tank Engines; The Final 0-6-0s).
Appendixes list Locomotive Names; Drivers' Names. Renumbering out of Class; Theodore West Sketch Sheets and Clement E. Stretton's Drawings: Numerical and Alphabetical Lists of Locomotives: List of engines in numerical order, with page and figure index; Alphabetical list of named engines.List of Lines and Opening Dates: Map of System.
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton
& Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1925, 31,
Introduction includes map of railway and general history. Locomotion No. 1 including drawing (side elevation). Notes boiler explosion at Aycliffe Lane on 1 July 1828 (NB this is recorded by Hewison).
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1925, 31, 85-7.
Six-coupled locomotives: No. 5 Royal George, No. 7 Rocket and No. 8 Victory.
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1925, 31, 121-3.
No. 9 Globe and 2-2-0 No. 10 Planet. Photographs of Wilberforce, and No. 20 Adelaide driving a mortar mill at Saltburn in 1860.
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1925, 31, 154-7.
0-6-0 Magnet, valve gear for Magnet, 0-4-0 No. 29 Queen, 2-2-2 No. 30 Raby Castle and photograph of No. 43 Sunbeam
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1925, 31, 182-5.
Table of the Tory or Collier class.Photographs of 0-6-0s Nos. 9 Middlesbrough, 10? Auckland, 25 Derwent and 8 Leader, and passenger 0-4-0 No. 27 Swift.
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1925, 31, 300-1.
0-4-0 NER No. 1041 (ex- No. 41 Dart and drawings of 2-2-2 No. 54 Tyneside and No. 50 Meteor (and latter as rebuilt).
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1925, 31, 322-3.
Bury 0-4-0s No. 44 Sura, 45 Ganymede, 46 Antelope and 47 Unicorn. Also Bouch 0-6-02 Nos. 29-33 built at Swindon
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1925, 31, 346-7.
Hartlepool Iron Co. 0-6-0 No. 28 Conside (s. & f. els); (see also Pearce p. 121) photograph of NER No. 1035 ex-35 Commerce and notes of No. 55 Wolsingham.
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1926, 32, 93-4.
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1926, 32, 256-7.
Rokeby and Bouch feedwater heater
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1926, 32, 362-3.
2-4-0 No. 66 ex Priam and NER No. 1068 Woodlands
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1926, 32, 403-4.
No. 63 Birkbeck: drawing (s. el.), Bouch 0-6-0; diagram of Hackworth plug wheel
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1927, 33, 122-4.
Fig. 39 0-6-0 Peel and Fig. 40 as rebuilt as NER No. 1072.
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1927, 33, 252-3.
Secondhand locomotives acquired: inside cylinder 0-6-0s: Nos. 81 Miller and 82 Hawthorn (Hawthorn WN 532-3 of 1846) acquired from Edinburgh & Glasgow Railway where they had been Cowlairs Incline locomotives. No. 82 illustrated at Shildon. Three Bury 0-4-0s were also acquired: 87 Fryerage; 88 Deanery and 89 Huddersfield: last illustrated as NER No. 1089 (this last was supplied to Manchester & Leeds Railway in 1846
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1927, 33, 292-3.
Secondhand locomotives: NER 0-6-0 No. 2259; 2-2-2 No. 93 Uranus. Also tabluates new G. Wilson 0-6-0s.
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1927, 33, 330-1.
2-4-0 No. 98 Pierrmont of 1855; NER No. 1101 and NER No. 1099 at Hopetown Foundary
Inness, R.H. (unattributed): Locomotive history of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, 1825-1876. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1929, 35, 27-8.
0-6-0s Nos. 19 and 20 (latter fitted outside cylinders): Designed James Irving Carson for West Hartlepool Railway: became NER Nos. 1194 and 1192.
Early S. & D. R locomotives.
Loco. Mag., 1899, 4, 86-7.
Stockton & Darlington Railway No. 25 Derwent joined Locomotion No. 1 on Darlington station on 23 April 1899. Derwent was built by W. & A. Kitching at the Hopetown Foundry in 1837. It was a six-coupled locomitive. Another Kitching engine was at that time still at work on the North Eastern Railway: this was No. 71 Hackworth which had become No. 1071 on takeover and was later No. 1717: it had been built in March 1851 and was a four-coupled design.
Lowe, James W. British steam locomotive
Lowe is cited by Pearce: as usual Lowe is very concise and his text has an excellent degree of connectivity.
Tomlinson, Joseph. Address by the President.
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs., 1890,
Some recollections of early locomotives.
Wheeler, Geoffrey. Fired by steam.
London: John Murray, 1987.
First plate is an attractive side elevation coloured painting of Locomotion
4-4-0 No. 161 Lowther
Stockton & Darlington Railway photographs. Br. Rly J., 1988, (24), 188-9.
Photographs of 4-4-0 No. 161 Lowther with 5 ton capacity crane built by Cowans Sheldon probably in Darlington North Road works yard. Notes by Ken Hoole.
The reminiscences of George Graham, an early driver of No.1 engine and son of John Graham, the first Traffic Manager of the line, recorded by a Mr. Harold Oxtoby in about 1896, gives much useful information and detail about the day to day operation of the line in the early years. These memories are based in the main on his father's notebooks, referred to above, a set of four held at the Science Museum (together with a later resum~) which, having been written at the time are rather more reliable. Nevertheless, George Graham adds much from his own experiences in the way of later adventures and behavior.
John Graham: Notebooks (4 vols.) 1831-1845; M.S., Science Museum.
George Graham: Reminiscences (recorded by H. Oxtoby c.1896-7); M.S., P.R.O. Kew & typed version, Stockton-on-Tees Reference Library.
Earl of Dudley's Railway including Agenoria
Perkins, T.R. and Perkins, G.M. The Earl of Dudley's Ry. Loco.
Rly Carr. Wagon Rev., 1910, 16, 100-3.
Includes description of Agenoria.
The "Agenoria" locomotive. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1925, 31, 320-1.
An early mechanical lubricated axlebox. Loco. Rly Carr. Rev., 1936, 42, 8-9.
Fitted to Agenoria: discovered when lomotive was moved within the Science Museum
Bailey, Michael R. Loco motion. p. 39 et seq
Liverpool & Manchester Railway
The Liverpool & Manchester Railway forms the vital link between locomotive development over its first, sometimes shaky twenty-five years to the Rainhill Trials onto its rapid development in parallel with the spread of railways in the late 1830s/1840s. Nevertheless, it needs to be remembered that the Liverpool & Manchester Railway formed a remarkable nursery for the development of the locomotive, initially from the works from Robert Stephenson, but once the L&MR had become dissatisfied with the Stephensons from elsewhere. The demand for fast and frequent travel between the two cities was a key influence, and it is absurd that no attempt has ever been made in modern times to provide a state-of-art railway system between the two cities: most of the current train service is only worthy of a very minor banana republic.
Bailey, Michael R. Loco motion.
From Rocket and its competitors considered above Bailey carries the story forward via the replica Planet (page 67 et seq) and the extant Lion (pp. 120-2)
Dendy Marshall, C.F. A centenary history of the Liverpool &
Manchester Railway. London: 1930. 192pp.
Ottley 6361: suggested addition by Guillermo Bas. Simmons was very rude about this book in his carping biography of Dendy Marshall..
Garfield, Simon. The last journey of William Huskisson. London:
An elegantly written and produced book which does rather more than describe the brief fatal moments, but places Huskisson's involvement in the Liverpool & Manchester Railway as central to its successs.
Thomas, R.H.G. The Liverpool & Manchester
Railway. London: Batsford, 1960. 264pp.
Ottley 12199. Foreword by Jack Simmons. Chapter 9: Locomotives & rolling stock. Other chapters describe the working conditions of the early railway workers, including the very high rate of fatalities and serious injuries, and the experience of the new form of travel. Sources are quoted moderately fully.
At the end of the Rainhill Trials the following locomotives were available: Twin Sisters, Rocket and Sans Pareil. The Lancashire Witch was still working, but the B&LR was requesting its return.
The Board ordered four Rocket-type locomotives from Robert Stephenson & Co.: Wildfire (renamed Meteor), Comet, Dart and Arrow. These were followed by Phoenix and North Star with smokeboxes and larger cylinders.
In 1833 Novelty was rebuilt by Robert Daglish and supplied to St Helens & Runcorn Gap Railway on 3 August 1833.
Northumbrian was supplied with a firebox integral with the boiler. It had stronger frames, 132 tubes and achieved 40 mile/h on trial.
In June 1830 the locomotive stock was numbered.
No. 9 Planet had cylinders inside the frames and on 23 November 1830 ran from Liverpool to Manchester in one hour. Six furher of the type were ordered from Robert Stephenson & Co.
These were followed by two powerful locomotives to help freight up the inclines. These were 0-4-0 with 14in x 20in cylinders: Nos 13 Samson and 15 Goliah [sic].
Braithwaite & Ericcson supplied William IV and Queen Adelaide but these were unsuccessful. Gurney also offered one of his coach engines.
Murray & Wood which became Fenton & Murray of Leeds supplied Nos. 19 Vulcan, 21 Fury and 30 Leeds: these were of the Planet-type and Robert Stephenson & Co. had sent the drawings to Leeds for their manufacture.
In May 1831 the L&MR invited tenders for locomotives.
Bury supplied Bee to the Bolton & Leigh Railway and Bury No. 26 Liver ran trials against Planet in June 1832 when it was found that Liver was more economical yet there were no further orders.
Sharp, Roberts supplied No. 32 Experiment.
Galloway, Bowman & Glasgow of the Caledonian Foundry was established in 1831 in Manchester. The L&MR purchased an 0-4-0 with vertical cylinders. No. 28 Caledonian: this was involved in a fatal collision with Star on 28 February 1835. (Jack page 74 notes the use of Caledonian as a ballast engine on the London & Birmingham Railway).
Star was one of three locomotives supplied by the Horsley Iron Co. of Tipton, Staffs to the St Helens Railway in 1833. The collision happened whilst Star was still the property of Horsley and the lcomotive was sold to the Dublin & Kingstown Railway for £700.
In August 1832 Robert Stephenson & Co. supplied No. 27 Pluto and this was folowed by 29 Ajax and 31 Firefly. 2-2-2 No. 33 Patentee was constructed for Robert Stephenson & Co. and this was the final Robert Stephenson locomotive to be supplied to the L&MR.
From 1835 there was a growing reaction against both the Stephensons: the early locomotives were not very durable and this was not helphed by the reckless behaviour of their drivers. Repairs were performed by outside firms.
In November 1835 Tayleur supplied 0-4-2 with 12in x 18in cylinders: 40 Eclipse and 42 York.
Haigh Foundry supplied 2-2-2 Nos. 43 Vesuvius, 45 Lightning and 46 Cyclops.
Four were supplied by Tayleur including 47 Milo and 49 Phoenix; four from Mathew Dixon including 48 Dart and two from R.&W. Hawthorn: 53 Sun and 56 Vesta. (Jack page 74 notes the use of Sun as a ballast engine on the London & Birmingham Railway).
Todd Kitson & Laird supplied No. 57 Lion and 58 Tiger. The former is still extant and was descibed in Reed, C.W. The iron 'Lion' locomotives, pump engine, film star. JSLS, 33, 312. See also Bailey Loco motion page 121
In 1839 coke consumption of the L&MR (57lb/mile) was compared with that of the London & Birmingham Railway (39lb/mile).
Edge Hill works became fully operational in 1841.
John Dewrance was responsibe for new locomotives of the Bird class: 2-2-2 with 12in x 18in cylinders with a freight version (2-4-0) with 13in x 20in cylinders: No. 69 Swallow (2-2-2) entered service on 8 September 1841.
In July 1842 trials took place between Stork and GJR Hornet between Liverpool and Birmingham.
An apprentice sheme was introduced at Edge Hill works.
The above account based on Thomas is the main chronology: he also
cited the following developments in rather skeletal form:
Lord Dundonald's rotary engine was evaluated on the Rocket.
There was vague interest in the Gurney steam carriage type of engine.
Perkins tubular boiler
Hall's patent system for burning coal
Melling patent (1837?) link valve gear
Gray valve gear (horse-leg motion of 1838): Cyclops fitted in 1839 and this led to a 12% fuel saving. (David Joy: The introduction of expansive working by John Gray's expansive motion. Engineer, 1890, 69, 14 Feb.)
John Melling improved feed pump evaluated in 1834.
steam jets used to clean rails
Firefly was fitted with friction wheels to increase adheion (patented July 1837)
John Gray: double grated firebox of 1835 designed to burn coal with coke.
John Dewrance experimented with coal buring on Condor.(Sekon)
Hot water was used to replenish locomotives: boilers were provided at Liverpool, Manchester and Parkside.
Lowe mentions that locomotive constructed by Peel, Williams & Peel called Soho, which replaced eccentrics by gear wheels was evaluated in 1839.
Sekon (pp 38-9) mentions Winan's Cycloped horse-powered locomotive and his manumotive, both of which were exhibited at Rainhill.
Bolton & Leigh Railway: Sanspareil
Sekon's Evolution of the steam locomotive.(pp. 34-5) notes that the locomotive was preserved at the Science Museum in 1864 with the involvement of the MP for Bolton, John Hick, and with John Hargreaves.
Canterbury & Whitstable Railway
Invicta Canterbury & Whitstable Railway
Sekon's Evolution of the steam locomotive.(pp. 44-5) notes that the contractors operating the railway offered the locomotive for sale in October 1839 but could not find a buyer, that it had been preserved at Ashford by the South Eastern Railway and was exhibited at the Jubilee of the Stockton and Darlington Railway in 1875 and at the Newcastle Stephenson Centenary in 1881 (Locomotive Mag., 1925, 31, 41)
Presentation ro Canterbury by David Salomons. Locomotive Mag., 1908, 14, 116..
It could be argued that Scotland should not be treated separately as many parts of England (notably Norfolk) remained separate from railway development in the rest of Britain for a significant period. Indeed Niall Ferguson argues in Early Railways 3 that information and technology flowed in both directions between England (notably the North East) and Scotland. Ferguson includes a table of 25 "early locomotives" which were mainly manufactured in Scotland between 1831 and 1844 for Scottish railways:Monkland & Kirkintilloch, Dundee & Newtyle, Arbroath & Forfar, Dundee & Arbroath and Garnkirk & Glasgow Railways..
Robertson, C.J.A. The origins of the Scottish
Does not dispute the very early (1816 or 1817), but brief, use of a locomotive on the Kilmarnock & Troon Railway
Table 14. Dates of lntroduction of Locomotives on Scottish Railways
|Monkland & Kirkintilloch||1831|
|Garnkirk & Glasgow||1831|
|Dundee & Newtyle||1833|
|Paisley & Renfrew||1837|
|Newtyle & Coupar Angus||1837, abandoned by 1842: reintroduced 1846|
|Edinburgh & Dalkeith||1846|
Steel's Dundee's iron horses gives an imperfect account of (1) the Dundee & Newtyle Railway; (2) J & C Carmichael builders of (3) the Earl of Airlie (probably the first locomotive to be built in Scotland, certainly one of the few to be built in Dundee).
Garnkirk & Glasgow Railway
Lowe lists the four locomotives built by the St Rollox Foundry for the Garnkirk & Glasgow Railway: Frew (an 0-4-0 of 1835) and three vertical-cylinder 0-6-0 in 1840: Victoria (fig. 476), St. Rollox and Carfin.
Monkland & Kirkintilloch Railway
The railway was incorporated in 1824 and opened in 1828. The gauge was 4ft 6in. As stated in the Ballochney Railway section. their first Greenside shops were used until new shops were completed at Moss-side, Kipps; and all M&KR work was concentrated here. These shops survived until the mid 1960s and were known latterly as 'Kipps Wagon-shop'.
George Lish took charge of the new works leaving William Dodds to concentrate on Ballochney Railway work at Greenside. The first locomotive built at Moss-side was probably a 0-4-0 named Atlas with 13in x 20in inside cylinders and 4ft. diameter wheels, completed in 1840. Two similar 0-4-0s named Zephyr and. Sirocco were completed in 1841 or 1842, the latter having 14in x 20in cylinders and 4' 6" diameter wheels. Sirocco is described in A Monkland and Kirkintilloch Rly locomotive. Loco. Mag., 1937, 43, 194.
The names Thetis and Bedlay have been mentioned as new locomotives but these were probably old locomotives which may have been rebuilt or even renamed by 1852. Bedlay may not even have been a name but merely 'the engine at Bedlay'.
It is likely that locomotives may have been built for local industry or coal owners adjacent to the railway and this equally applies to the Greenside works of the Ballochney Railway. Alter 1842, new locomotives required were built by private builders especially Neilson & Mitchell.
On amalgamation with the Ballochney and Slamannan Railways in 1848 the title became the Monkland Railways Co. and the gauge converted to 4ft 8½in.
Unfortutately the early Minute books, before 1848, no longer exist and the above notes, and those for the Ballochney Railway have been made possible due to information received from Messrs A.G. Dunbar. Jas. F. McEwan. E. Craven and D. Martin. Lowe.
J.P.G. Ransom's Iron road is highly critical of some earlier work about the locomotives used on this railway, especially that by S. Snell. and a Newcomen Society paper about Ralph Dodd. Ransom asserts that George Dodds introduced metallic piston rings to Monkland & Kirkintilloch locomotives.
Specific locomotive building companies
A Century of Locomotive Building by Robert Stephenson & Co., 1823-1923. Newcastle: Andrew Reid, 1923. (reprinted David & Charles with introduction by W.A. Tuplin in 1970). 461pp. extensive index. Fuller information
Timothy Hackworth and the locomotive. London 1923. 406pp.
Ottley 378: "very detailed work containing much information on early railways and locomotives". Rutherford notes several errors in Backtrack: (vol. 9 p. 534) see 9-528. Notes especially an error on page 51 where locomotive illustrated is not Wylam "Grasshopper" locomotive, but is Puffing Billy. Reissued as part of the150th Anniversary celebrations by Shildon Town Council in 1975.
Bogie steam locomotives - Part 1. [Railway Reflections
No. 42]. Michael Rutherford.12, 333-40.
This article covered a lot of ground: Chapman obtained a patent for a bogie locomotive on 30 December 1912, and in 1814 a double bogie locomotive was built by Phineas Crowther at the Ouseburn Foundry on Tyneside to work on the Lambton Colliery Waggonway.
Sanders, T.H. The evolution of railway vehicle suspension. J. Instn Loco. Engrs., 1935, 25, 183-211. Disc.: 211-17. (Paper No. 334)
This remains a far from satisfactory page due to the poverty of book provision in Norfolk where the library service is limited to feminine demands for novels and money is wasted on bilge (appropriate for a county withn a long coastline)