Sans Pareil: The Basics
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 เม.ย. 2022
- Sans Pareil was Timothy Hackworth's entry into the Rainhill Trials of October 1829. Built in his spare time alongside his day job on the Stockton & Darlington Railway, many myths - and indeed libelous statements - have grown up about the locomotive. So this week, Rail Story takes a look at the myths, rumours and libels surrounding Sans Pareil and hopes to shed a little light on the shadows of the past.
You can find out more about the Rainhill Trials in my book "The Rainhill Trials" available from Amberley Publishing:
www.amberley-books.com/the-ra...
If you're interested in the other locomotives of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, check out my book "Locomotives of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway" from Pen & Sword Transport:
www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Locom...
You can follow Rail Story on Twitter @Railstory
Find me on Facebook / onhistoricallines
Support Rail Story on Patreon to get early access to Channel content:
/ railstory
![ความรักของยักษ์เขียว (ทศกัณฐ์) - เดี่ยว ไออุ่น [OFFICIAL MUSICVIDEO 4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yCCy-QVHqK8/mqdefault.jpg)
Having ridden on both Rocket and Sans Pareil replicas I can vouch for the fact that the cylinders on both give them quite a rolling gait. It's no wonder that Rocket was rebuilt with the cylinders much nearer to the horizontal as can be seen in the remains of it in the Science Museum.
It's always easy to manufacture ridiculous conspiracy theories instead of facts. There also seemed to be malice from the Hackworth family, knowingly presenting these false claims. Stephenson's Rocket, was well engineered with sound, modern engineering principles of the day. It deserved to win the Rainhill Trials. Fascinating video as always, Anthony. Cheers.
Excellent setting of the record straight. People will still argue though 😄 With the driving platform so high up and that rocking motion, it must be a bit of a scary ride. To my eyes it looks ungainly and top heavy but I'm glad it existed and competed. Big credit to Timothy Hackworth for creating Sans Pareil. Sadly, close but no cigar. Your summing up statements say it all.
Excellent and very comprehensive mythbusting film. I particularly liked the legend ”Tap watta tha nars”on the end of the water barrel!
I believe you have answered every question I could be possibly formulate about this fascinating locomotive. As ever, I truly enjoyed this information rich documentary! The production value and narration are superb.
Glad it was helpful!
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I understand that Hackworth gave his engine a French name because his Mother taught him French at a early age. I have heard he spent what little money he had been left by a Family member on building her or he
At last, my local Rainhill competitor! The Wigan & Leigh ran within sight of the house where my mum was brought up, and Sans Pareil's boiler then spent nearly 20 years working only half a mile from where I am sitting now!
Timothy Hackworth: "Uses oatmeal to patch boiler" a true Quaker. Great episode! one that has been in demand for quite a long time i imagine. One thing i noticed in the images were the strangely colored coaches behind Sans Pareil? they resemble the LMS's L&MR "Replicas" from the 1930s.
Thanks but Hackworth wasn't a Quaker. He was a Wesleyan Methodist. The gree and yellow coach which ran behind the replica of Sans Pareil was built alongside the replica in the 1970s so it could give passenger rides.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory would Hackworth have been the one who actually made his engine run as in stoking the fire?
I would guess he would have had spent some time as a engine man? I understand some people believe George and Robert Stevenson sorry if I got their surname wrong drove and fired Rocket at Rainhill. I think it may be one of the tall tales you talk about in this episode
@@eliotreader8220 A chap called William Gowland drove Sans Pareil at Rainhill, not Timothy Hackworth. The crew of Rocket at Rainhill were Mark Wakefield (driver); Robert Hope (fireman) and Ralph Hutchinson as fitter 'resposible for the efficient working of the engine.' All three had been trained at, and employed by, Robert Stephenson & Co.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory so she was driven and fired by one person
I love the Liverpool and Manchester Railway locomotives! They are very adorable.
I must admit, Sans Pareil is my favourite locomotive of this era. Despite the awful amount of libel and falsified statements with her, I do find her both beautiful and a true underdog. As an aside, I've heard many questions regarding her tender, some saying it was the same as Rocket's but others saying it was more like that of a basic flatbed with a barrel and coal pit
Hello there, Crane.
There's really no debate about Sans Pareil's tender. It was, as per the stipulations of the Rainhill Trials made by the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, in Liverpool, in its own Carriage & Wagon Workshops. It was designed and built by Thomas Clarke Worsdell II and his son Nathanial Worsdell, both Quakers. It was identical to that which ran behind the Rocket. Contemporary depictions of Sans Pareil drawn by C B Vignoles for the Mechanics' Magazine in 1829 clearly show the form of both tenders. They were exactly alike.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory this is as an aside, but did Perseverance have a tender?
@@profcraneporter Going from the one and only contemporary depiction, no.
@@creamwobbly The great "unknown" is Bury & Kennedy's "Dreadnought" but I suspect from the return flu boiler, the angled cylinders and chain drive it would have been a slow plodder.
Great video! I found out a year ago who Timothy Hackworth was and that I am related to him, so it's good to see a video clearing things up. I live in the U.S. and some day I would love to see these engines in person.
Very cool!
It's in NRM Shildon. Nearest airport is Newcastle Upon Tyne. The original one is painted completely black, but the replica (possibly the same one that is in this video) is also there.
A wonderful exposition Anthony and easily the most thorough I've ever seen...entertaining and educational both...thank you so much
Dave
Looking at this, I'm starting to wonder how a competition that my friends and I did would've gone in real life. We all took designs from the rainhill trials and attempted to redesign them to 1835 specifications for a sort of "retake". @ProfCranePorter was one of the participants, and he, unsurprisingly, took Sans Pareil.
An 1835 version of Sans Pareil would essentially be a six wheel version. So pretty much the type of thing Hackworth was then building for teh S&D. Whereas the Stephenson entrant would've been a Patentee. As to Novelty, that was a dead-end technology. The only other serious contender would be a Bury loco. The wierd and wonderful South Wales plateway engines were also a dead-end: useful in their own niche but, like Hackworth's machines, of little use outside the niche in which they evolved.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory was engines with vertical boilers out of the question for use during the early years of steam railways.
they saw plenty of use In America
@@eliotreader8220 They were easy to build but really very inefficient as most of the heat from the fire goes straight up and out of the chimney! They're also really limited in how big you can build them, and also promote a high centre of gravity.
Brilliant and educational.
I always find these videos fascinating, entertaining, and well produced. Well done as usual Anthony
Thankyou so much!
Great video I think that should put the record right next time I have porridge oats I shall think of Sans Pareil's boiler.
Works well in car radiators too
Lovely Video!
I've been waiting for Sans Pareil for a while!
Hope you enjoyed it!
Masterfully done!
Thankyou
Great! A return to videos about one of to the early locomotives.
More to come!
Thank you. Very clearly stated points and well delivered.
Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it.
THANK YOU ANTHONY. REGARDS RICHARD.
Excellent research, as always.
Thankyou
I'm a desendent of Timothy Hackworth and would like to hear from any other descendents. Timothy was a greta and good man in a cut throat world
Your best "basiscs" yet.
Will be looking out for your book
Thanks!
Nice to hear someone who's thought's on this subject are similar to mine (although obviously you have done rather more research than I ever have) I was not aware of the Black country connection to Rocket! I like your comparison to a race horse and a cart horse, as like the horses, both locos were proven to have their uses and limitations.
Great video, makes one wonder how many other myths and falsehoods there are about the early locos and railways. I got a copy of your book, Before Rocket: The steam locomotive up to 1829. It's a good read and very informative
Thank you. Glad you like them both :)
It's not surprising these guys all knew each other. The same situation occurred in the early days of the personal computer.
Fantastic post thanks, I do like a good pronounced chuff.. 😊 ✨
Ooh, finally, a Hackworth loco. Excellent stuff to have the bit about the cylinders properly explained. However, I would quibble with Sans Pareil being the "last gasp" though, as Hackworth continued using return flues and vertical cylinders for a few years longer. Surely something like Samson in Canada would be closer to the final breath for the type? Wonderful vid as usual though!
I tend to avoid Hackworth as his "fan club" are very .... odd and very argumentative.
The return flue locos were cheap and simple to repair. The S&DR freight operations were short runs with frequent stops so the locos could rebuild pressure. Anthony I'm sure will correct me if I'm wrong but the S&DR wasn't restrained by the need to consume its own smoke and could run on cheaper coal.
@@jonathanratcliffe5714 Indeed. The S&D had a low line speed, and the return flue boiler locomotive worked well in its evolutionary niche. As the Rainhill Trials demosntrated, however, that type of locomotive was ill-suited outside of that Niche. Hackworth, rather like those built for the plateways in South Wales, produced a specialised locomotive, which was fine in its own niche, whereas Robert Stephenson was building a general locomotive, which could operate in a wide variety of conditions. So the Stephenson locomotive was far more flexible and adaptable.
You're right, the S&D didn't have a clause in its Act that locomotives must not make smoke which every mainline railway after the Liverpool & Manchester did.
It's unlikely that you'd know, but the local pronunciation of "Daubhill" is "DOBBLE".
0:27 Yes, we really want you to "sed shome light" on Sans Pareil...
This certainly is a fine loco for it’s time.
A great insight into San pareil I never heard of the overnight blastpipe drawing story before. It would be great to have some the replicas in running order to appear at MSoI or even Locomotion Shildon
There's no running line at S&IM, and the Sans Pareil replica is pretty much dead in the water, sadly as it needs a completely new boiler. The Planet replica is also non operational for similar, very expensive reasons, alas. The Novelty replica is also a non-runner these days.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory oh right didn't realise that the running line wasn't in use anymore. Never knew the boilers were shot bit unusual being fairly newish built engines to need so much doing.
@@kineticrail There's been no rail ops at S&IM since 2017. The Sans Pareil replica boiler has, as I understand it, no certification due to how the barrel was procured in 1979. Planet's boiler has many problems inherant in its design so that it is no longer insurable.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory right wow I didn't think my visit to the museum was so long ago. Oh I see it to do with the design of boiler as opposed to age. That is a shall I do like seeing the replicas of the pioneer locos running
I think a better translation of the name would be "Without Equal or "Unequalled". Which is a kind of IRONy - however you look at it. And yes - that was a bad pun there.....
It's frankly a wonder that the Bedlington Ironworks were allowed to get away with such shoddy workmanship for so long without retribution. Were there no attempts by the Stephensons or Hackworth to seek remuneration (or, come to it, revenge) for the supply of unsatisfactory material, especially in such vital forms as boilers and wheels? Why did the injured parties never haul Bedlington's management before the courts? Was there never a letter sent demanding that improved quality oversight be provided forthwith, or else that they cool their furnace promptly and forever before their irate customers and the barristers cooled it for them? Such appalling quality control has proven fatal to many businesses before and since, so how did Bedlington get away with it?
1. Stephenson G was a founder of BIW, 2. Legal action was much more expensive; technical law ill defined (so took forever) and their time more remunerative in making things 3. Primitive understanding of metallurgy at that time = BIW not unusual in their standards.
George Stephenson had a long standing acquiantance with Micheal Longridge of Bedlington Irown Works but wasn't a founder: Bedlington Iron Works began in 1757. The company was taken over by Gordon & Biddulph in 1809 and soon after Michael Longridge, the nephew of the previous co-owner of the ironworks was installed as manager. Stephenson at that time was working with William Losh of Newcatle who also owned the Walker Iron Works, jsut down the Tyne from Newcastle. Stephenson and Losh had taken out their patent for cast iron rails in 1816, but Stephenson was soon sold on the idea for rolled, wrought iron rails developed and patented by John Birkenshaw at Bedlington in 1820. Thereafter the relationship between Stephenson and Losh fell into acrimony and that between Stephenson and Longridge flowered witih Longridge being a co-partner in Robert Stephenson & Co. and even stepping in to manage the firm in the absence of Robert when he was in South America. Bedlington really came to prominence thanks to its ability to produce Birkenshaw's wrought iron rails with which some of the Stockton & Darlington was laid. Hope this helps :-)
Society was far less litigious than it is today. Taking someone to court was very expensive, pretty much out of reach of ordinary people. There was no means of recompense and certainly no means for "revenge". There was a fatalistic belief that accidents just happened, and there was no real means of avoiding them: and if you were hurt then it was perhaps your fault. The Liverpool & Manchester and George Stephenson himself wrote to Longridge at Bedlington complaining about their workmanship in the strong terms possible to them. The L&M even demanded a guarantee from Bedlington for its wheels and axles - but then again the understanding metallurgy and metal fatigue was very poor. People like Robert Stephenson were working literally at the cutting edge of technology, doing something no one had done before. It's amazing there weren't more accidents. The fact that the Liverpool & Manchester Railway only ever had one boiler explosion in 14 years is testimony really to the workmanship at Bedlington. The boiler which did explode was due to poor boiler design and on the other due to cracking which could simply not be detected at the time. And indeed, when Patentee blew up in 1838, it's the only recorded explosion of an early Stephenson locomotive. Which tells you something about Bedlington's boiler making and boiler plate. They may have had QC issues, but only one boiler burst. So their boilers can't have been that bad. As so their wrought iron axles and cast iron wheels however.... that's a different matter. Robert Stephenson's patent "Gas Pipe " wheels were very failure prone but there's no hint at anyone trying or wanting to sue Stephenson. Same with Edward Bury's wheels. What the Liverpool & Manchester did do was stop using Stephenson's wheels and found alternative suppliers. But Stephenson did eventually get it right, by trial and error.
So Bedlington "got away with it" because people didn't go to the courts. Legal action was expensive. There was no desire for retribution, let alone "revenge". And the best way to demonstrate lack of confidence was to stop using a particular company and "vote with your feet".
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I suspect the boilers getting away with it was over spec of the platework in the first place. The two boiler explosions at Middleton Railway were caused 1) Driver overloading the pressure (reason unknown) against Blenkinsop's written instructions and official valve settings, 2) lack of maintenance as the colliery became impoverished in later years. So enough wiggle room in the first instance compensating for defects in any standard of iron making. So much one could argue that the failure in the Tay Bridge caused by a mix of not quite specifying to the storm force wind encountered and a significantly worse casting and assembly was potentially missed as iron generally stood up well, but reasons for it, and its failure were not wholly recognised until further investigated.
@@highpath4776 The Rainhill Trials, and the Liverpool & Manchester thereafter specified their boilers to be hydraulically tested (air over water) at three times their working pressure. That's really quite excessive but produces a considerable safety margin even if someone tampered with the safety valve - which is why one of the valves was locked up in a brass case to prevent tampering. The scarier part is, in the UK there was no compulsory boiler inspection or insurance until 1901! If you look at newspaper reports for the C19th boilers are blowing up all over the place, in factories or small busineses or on farms.
Sounds like this guy should have used Flex Tape to patch up that boiler 🤣
Planet a year later looked a far better loco, almost an 1850 design. Stephenson had no long term use for the Rocket, a greyhound rather than workhorse.
That fact that Robert Stephenson could take the locomotive from Rocket and produce Planet in twelve months is incredible. An incredible intense, dynamic period of innovation and R&R. Hackworth, at the same date, was producing more of the same.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Why could Hackworth not improve, had Stephenson tied up the main important patents ?
@@highpath4776 Not, in terms of patent. In terms of having a vision fo r the future of the Locomotive. In twelve months Robert Stephenson went from Rocket to building Planet. Multi tubular boiler; inside, horizontal cylinders with a crank axle. Fully sprung with proper frames and mass produced in the UK and Internationally. Yet, for whatever reason, Hackworth stubbornly clung on to using vertical cylinders and return flue boilers. His engines were slow and powerful - ideally suited for the niche in which they had evolved in the North East but that was it. They were specialised whereas Stephenson's locomotives were generalists. Capable of being used in a wide variety of roles and locations - their global spread attests to that. I dont know why Hackworth kept on building more of the same -essentially versions of his Royal George of 1827 - but there we are. They worked well enough for what they did. But he was no Robert Stephenson, either as a locomotive engineer; civil engineer; or bridge builder.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Is that so about the NE area engines. One thing I noted was that, generally, Loaded Coal trucks tended to go downhill to their destination, and the locomotive was only under its main use hauling empties back uphill, or did the use and geographical area used in change a bit, or the locomotive needed for hauling full loads on the flat (eg minerals around Middlesborough?)
@@highpath4776 The operations of the Stockton & Darlington were chaotic. The railway was single track and used three forms of motive power: stationary winding engines; locomotives and horses. You can't really call it a modern railway in any sense. The locomotives were owned by the company, and individual colliery owners paid for the locomotive to 'lead' their coals. The engine driver was more or less self employed: he was paid according to the number of wagons pulled the numbers of trips made and days worked. Out of his pay he paid his fireman and also paid for his consumables. Horses were also used to pull coal wagons, ont he same terms but invidiaul colliery owners could run their own horse drawn coal trains. Finally passenger services were also horse drawn, the service being tendered out via sub contracting to numerous individual operators. Loaded trains headed toward Darlington had priority over empties coming back up, and it was managed by a series of complicated Bye Laws. The passenger service was horse worked until 1833 and horses were still in use as late as the 1850s!
It is sometimes amazing to me that so much of the inventive spirit was energized by races and contests. Even when these were unofficial. Take Edison and Westinghouse (Tesla) as a good example. Granted some of these contests went on for years and still some go on today. Edison would be laughing that Cell phones, a modern must have, is Battery powered.
4:02 Team Rocket, I see what you did there.
7:52 - 8:08, 12:27 - 12:58 Now all is needed is a woman with long magenta-coloured hair, a crossdressing man, a talking cat and a cheap motto and you would have the set.
Sans Pareil means "unequalled", but I might rather cruelly point out that one can level down as well as levelling up.
The wheels of Sans Pareil at Shildon have deep grooves in them as I recall. I can't see them working on rails. Were these wheels part of the restoration, taken from some sort of winding engine?
Can you make a video about the types of coal suitable for locomotives as there was a story on the news that heritage railways may run out of coal before the year is out?
The appearance of Sans Pareil at Shildon today is the result of a Victorian "Restoration", and a rebuild during its working life by the Bolton & Leigh Railway which replaced the wood wheels with iron and also fitted new, larger, cylinders. When Sans Pareil was used as a mine pump, the trailing wheels were replaced by a gear wheel: so the leading wheels are a set of 1840s iron wheels which are heavily worn whilst the trailing wheels are replicas cast from them. All sorts of small fittings etc are also replicas, including one of the connecting rods. Hope that helps :)
With regards to coal, the UK Govt. won't allow any more coal mining to take place, so has not renewed licences for the few coal mines that were left. The best supplier for steam coal, Ffos y Fran in South Wales has stopped all lump coal production due to the washery - which produces lump coal - being broken and all their remaining stock is being ground into fines for the concrete and steel industry. This means no more UK coal which makes us reliant upon imported coal, usually from Russia. Given Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the Economic Sanctions, no more coal from there. Add on to that the massive increase in global energy prices - China is the biggest user of coal - we've seen lump coal going from £120 per tonn to £400 per tonne. So it's not very expensive and no longer cost effective to import. Plus the stuff which is imported from Kazakstan or Colombia is poor quality, very smokey and polluting. It's also not as hot, quite ashy and prone to clinkering. This all means that running heritage steam trains is very expensive and coal needs to be used sparingly. Which is why many railways are looking at using Ecoal, a combination of coal fines and biomass combined with molasses or similar. It's hot, but makes a lost of ash and you need far more of it than you would e.g. Ffos y Fran Welsh steam coal. Ecoal is also as expensive as imported coal, but crucially it's made in the UK so not reliant upon imports and the fluctuations in the market.
Quite what the future for steam is I don't know. But it will mean for this year fewer steam services; higher ticket prices (but with the massive hike in the cost of living that will also mean fewer people visiting as they don't have the disposable income for day out) ; and to be honest if I were reponsible for a new build locomotive - especially one on the mainline - I'd be very concerned.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I understand its no so good when the stuff gets wet. as a footplate crew found on recently on the Ffestiniog railway on a rainy day. I head that they just managed to get back to the yard before running out of steam.
I understand that what remained of their fire looked like Cooling Lava
I would love to have ridden behind Planet.
Wonderful experience - even better on the footplate!
👍👍
1. Build competitor
2. Come second
3. Get paid more than the prize money for your competitor
4. Refuse to elaborate
Weeeellll since you put it that way........
Can you make your content accessible by formatting the auto captioning into closed captioning? It is extremely hard to enjoy your content having to keep concentration on the auto captioning and not be able to see your content properly sadly
out of curiosity, when did they cut open a Rocket replica? I know there are a few around, but I didn't know any of them had been cut open to show the insides and how it works
It was built that way by Robert Stephenson & Co. in 1934 for the London Science Museum. It went on show in April 1935. It moved to the National Railway Museum in York in 2000, where the original Rocket is also on display.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Oh, ok! It's neat that Robert Stephenson and Co. got to re-build the same loco so many years after the original.
@@EpsilonR_ In fact Robert Stephenson & Co. built four replicas:
1. Working replicafor Henry Ford (1929) as he had wanted to buy the original. Ford was then currently buying up as much industrial heritage in Britain, by fair means or foul as he could. Quite a lot of unique heritage was lost to Ford....
2. A static, sectioned, replica for the New York City Museum of Science & Industry (1930). Now in a private collection.
3. Working replica for the Museum of Science & Industry, Chicago (1931). Now in a private collection.
4. A static, sectioned replica for the Science Museum, London (1934).
In addition is the working replica at the National Railway Museum, York, built in 1979, using some parts from a replica built in 1881 by the LNWR, and heavily rebuilt in 2009.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory very cool! It's surprising that Henry Ford of all people wanted Rocket! Maybe one day, we'll get a replica of Northumbrian, representing both the original Northumbrian and Rocket in her rebuilt state!
@@EpsilonR_ We've got Rocket in its rebuilt state. Northumbrian is several generations of locomotive removed from Rocket.
Poor Hackworth.
Why did they call it Rocket when it was about a century before rockets started being developed? Why did they then name rockets after a century old steam engine?
"Rocket" the locomotive was named after one of the top stagecoaches which ran between London & Brighton. Its colour scheme was also copied from the fastest stage coaches. War Rockets were developed in China and later in India. The British Army encountered Indian Army war rockets in the 1780s and 1790s which caused terror and panic in the Redcoats who had never seen or experienced such a weapon before. In Britain a General Sir William Congreve developed his own form of war rocket in 1804 and there was a 'Rocket Troop, Royal Horse Artillery' as part of the regular British Army. So when "Rocket" the locomotive was named the name Rocket was familiar as something which was fast and furious. The name would have been familiar, and perhaps given the reputation of the Congreve Rocket, tinged with danger. It's unlikely "Rocket" was named after the Congreve Rocket as public perception of steam locomotives was that they were dangerous, and war rockets are, well, dangerous and often unreliable weapons. Hope that helps.
Sans Pareil was originally fitted with a high pressure boiler which would have easily allowed it to beat Stephenson's Rocket originally if the parts had been made to the proper specs and although the foundry wasn't founded until 1841, the founder was working with metal in the same way as the foundry did in 1829. Stephenson's Rocket however was the favorite and Sans Pareil's "restoration" was fitted with a low pressure boiler to keep Stephenson's Rocket looking like it was the better locomotive originally, and is also the reason that it was shipped by road instead of by water like the other competitors designs were
The boiler of Sans Pareil operated at 50psi. So too that of Rocket, and all other contenders at the Rainhill Trials. In 1829 50psi was considered to be 'high pressure' - it was the pressure at which Trevithick's locomoties and stationary engines had worked and going any higher was unthinkable. Even in 1840 75 psi was thought to be dangerously high. The two replica locomotives also work at 50psi. If you have any primary archival evidence to suggest that Sans Pareil was to be fitted with a boiler which would have contravened the Rainhill Trial Stipulations or that someone was willing to make one, I'd be interested to see it. Everything thus far points to the fact that Sans Pareil like all other Rainhill contenders operated at 50psi. Through examination of the notebooks of two of the judges, and results of the 2002 reenactment, the boiler was unable to meet demand of steam from the cylinders for fast running. This was because of the poor flow of gases through the boiler and that it lacked a proper firebox. The use of a firegrate in one end of a lagre diameter single boiler flue meant there was insufficient space for a deep fire on which to build a good fire bed; there was insufficient space for flame development; and by lacking a proper ash pan etc the falling cinders and ashes would impede good air flow through the fire and thus the boiler. Rocket, by having a proper firebox meant that there was space for a good depth of fire; sufficient space for flame development and thus heat generation and there was also excellent air flow through the base of the fire. The multi tube boiler with a proper firebox meant that Rocket's boiler could generate far more steam, and more steam consisently than the return flue type boiler. Even if you double'd the pressure of a return flue - not that it would be able to reach that pressure due to all the above mentioned problems - that would make it even more short of steam as the fire wasn't hot enough. So any primary archival source about Sans Pareil having a "high pressure "boiler would be gratefully received.
The maximum operating pressure was set by the rules of trials. The locomotives needed to operate at 50lbs per square inch, the mercurial pressure gauge had to "blow out" at 60PSI, and boilers were tested to a maximum pressure of 150PSI. Even if Sans Pareil could have been operated at a higher pressure, it would have operated at 50PSI just like every other entrant did.
@@furripupau Well quite. I'm not entirely sure Sans Pareil's boiler could have reached 150psi! I'm also sure that the air over water test probably didn't help the boiler in terms of leaks. We know Rocket's boiler leaked and needed staying to get it to 150psi and Sans Pareil's boiler had no stays.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I wonder how much time George Stephenson put into the thought of the design, was it an overnight idea , trial and error or just noticing, maybe from static boilers, ways of improving output from the amount of water and fuel ?
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory the original boiler for Sans Pareil was rated at 250-275psi which was well within the rules, "the entrant must have a boiler pressure that is no higher than 2000 kgsi" at least according to the actual paperwork involving the test at Rainhill which was in 1829 rather than 1840 though. It's what the guy who built the Sans Pareil wrote in his journal and was oked by the judges of the contest at Rainhill according to the paperwork for the contest, the third entrant had a 600 psi boiler.
The Nintendo switch is riding on my pain train
How in the hell did blokes of the 1830's know what a Rocket was?
The Chinese and Indian armies had been using war rockets for centuries. When the Hon East India Company started its campaigns in India in the 1790s and early 1800s in Mysore the British came up against the troops of the Sultan of Mysore (Hyder Ali and his more famous sun Tipu Sultan) who were armed with very effective war rockets. They were so succesful that the British troops were routed! Well done India!
Thereafter the British took a strong interest in war rockets, with Colonel William Congreve, the son of General William Congreve the famous artillery officer, developing his own brand of war rocket called the Congreve Rocket. In 1813 the 'Rocket Troop, Royal Horse Artillery' was formed armed with congreve rockets. The Royal Navy also used Congreve Rockets. And famously they were used in the War of 1812 and are recalled in the US National Anthem. The French and Russian armies also used War Rockets. They were succeeded by a design of William Hale in the 1850s.
So in 1829 the Rocket was not unknown. Either as a feu d'artifice for displays or as a weapon. Unlike the Indian originals, however, Congreve's Rockets were not very reliable and could end up doing more damage to your own troops than the enemy but they were excellent in sieges and for naval usage. Hope this helps 🙂
poor odd little locomotive
I imagine Planet was much like Lion as seen as the Titfield Thunderbolt?
There's a full size operable replica of Planet. It's very different to drive than Lion. Lion has all the 'mod cons' of a single reversing lever, albeit you pull it back to go forward. Planet doesn't. th-cam.com/video/MqZuwr4YhOA/w-d-xo.html
so team Rocket never got their 500 pounds
That is correct.