Welcome to Artsrainbow. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!
Hello world!
1 Reply
John Wesley Hackworth 1820 – 1891 – An Introduction
“I am just a poor boy
Though my story’s seldom told”
Paul Simon – The Boxer.
JOHN WESLEY HACKWORTH 1820 – 1891
Engineer, Inventor and a Son of Timothy Hackworth.
Engineer, Inventor and a Son of Timothy Hackworth.
John Wesley Hackworth was born at Walbottle, County Durham, on May 8th, 6.30pm, 1820 to Locomotive pioneer Timothy Hackworth and Jane (Golightly) Hackworth.
John Wesley Hackworth says of himself
“I saw the Stockton and Darlington railway opened, was brought up upon it, knew every horse, and driver, every locomotive driver, and fireman, every director, nearly all the shareholders, and every noteworthy incident that occurred thereon for the first 20 years; and if any living man knows anything of its history, and working, I am the man!”
“I saw the Stockton and Darlington railway opened, was brought up upon it, knew every horse, and driver, every locomotive driver, and fireman, every director, nearly all the shareholders, and every noteworthy incident that occurred thereon for the first 20 years; and if any living man knows anything of its history, and working, I am the man!”
|
| A rare photograph of John Wesley Hackworth 1820 – 1891 from the Joan Hackworth Weir Collection.
NEW – click HERE to view a 3 part article on John Wesley Hackworth for the GLOBE – Journal of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. |
Samuel Holmes – a grandson of Timothy Hackworth wrote, in the 1920’s,
“It is hoped that Mr Albert Hackworth (the son of John Wesley Hackworth and grandson of Timothy Hackworth), who established the Worth Engineering works of Toronto, Canada, will write the interesting life and history of John Wesley Hackworth, which ought to be given to the world, as he has a great mass of papers, letters, and much detailed information bearing up on the subject.“
Albert Hackworth never got time to produce such a work on his father but Robert Young added a chapter on John Wesley Hackworth to his book, and this website has used that as a basis from which to build his story. John’s papers, that Samuel referred to, are now in the Hackworth Family archives housed at NRM in York HERE. It’s not possible for me to go through them all at the present time, maybe, at some stage, someone will produce a book using the archives and one that will give a balanced view of John Wesley Hackworth. Until then this smaller work will have to suffice.
- John Wesley Hackworth and his team, delivered the first Locomotive to Russia, built by his father Timothy Hackworth to Tsar Nicholas 1 via Middlesbrough docks.
- John Wesley Hackworth grew up watching and helping his father who was The Superintendent of the Stockton and Darlington Railway and went on to set up his own engineering firm in Priestgate, Darlington with a long list of patents to his name.
- But for a chapter in Robert Young‘s book on Timothy Hackworth and The Locomotive, his story is most certainly ‘seldom told’
Introduction
John Wesley Hackworth was an engineer and inventor and the son of Railway pioneer Timothy Hackworth, who, at the age of 16, on behalf of his father, led a team of engineers on a dangerous journey through the ice-clogged Baltic to deliver the first railway locomotive, built by Timothy, to the Tsar of Russia and came back with a long Russian beard and a Russian passport!
You won’t find much about John Wesley Hackworth on the internet and not much more in books. To those who do know his name, he cuts a controversial figure for his detailed defence of his father’s reputation after the publication of The Life of George Stephenson by Samuel Smiles 1857. Few know his whole story, just a few choice-cut-phrases that are far from flattering.
The purpose of this site is to address this situation to the best of my ability with the resources available. Along the way, I will tackle some of the difficult areas of his life, in particular the issue of ‘Who Invented the Steam Blast‘ or ‘Locomotive Blast Pipe‘. It’s a controversial area that will probably never be solved to the satisfaction of everyone but it’s impossible to write about John’s life without some deliberation on the issue. Hopefully this site will be a resource and an interesting read not only for those interested in Locomotive history but to people in general.
The best description of John Wesley Hackworth‘s life is from a chapter in Robert Young‘s Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive first published in 1923 and revised in 2000 by Ulick Loring and Jane Hackworth Young (to whom I am thankful to for advice and additional material). I’ve taken this basic outline of his life and broken it up into posts and illustrated it with added material where possible. As it’s a website rather than a book, I will be able to add into it or revise it as needs be.
Why am I doing this? Although I’m not a descendent of Timothy Hackworth, my sons and ex-partner are. Joan Hackworth Weir, the grandma and a cousin of Jane Hackworth Young, left a case of Hackworth archives and a painting of John Wesley Hackworth. The archives are now on line here and the painting is in the care of NRM Locomotion at Shildon. My sons saw the painting and asked me who he was! I set about finding out and this is the result….!
Joan Hackworth Weir as a 5 year old (bottom /centre) with the Hackworth family at the 1925 centenary of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. Photo from the Northern Echo.
Above, Joan Hackworth Weir (nee Parsons) in her 80’s (right with hat and glasses),with Jane Hackworth Young (right), myself, Trev Teasdel and some of the Hackworth Grandsons, Kyle and Kristian Teasdel, from the Northern Echo 2005 when Joan presented to NRM the ‘Blast Pipe letters’ to Timothy Hackworth from George and Robert Stephenson, long held by the Hackworth family.
Trev Teasdel – site admin.
This site will cover the main aspects of John Wesley Hackworth’s life to the extent that i have material available.
Joan Hackworth Weir (in pink) with Margaret Weir (in white) and Ulick Loring at the opening of the Timothy Hackworth Museum Shildon in 1975.
Father Ulick Loring, Reginald Young and Jane Hackworth Young at the Timothy Hackworth Museum Shildon.
Trev Teasdel – site admin.
John Wesley Hackworth – Part 2 Article from The Globe
John Wesley Hackworth Part 2 Engineer / inventor – by Trevor Teasdel as published in the Globe –
Read the full magazine here on pdf https://www.sdr1825.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/The-Globe-April-2021-v2-post-circ-edits-high-res.pdf
“John Wesley Hackworth was a considerable engineer in his own right.” Ulick Loring.
“He was a man rich in inventive faculty” Robert Young
In part one, last issue, we saw how Timothy Hackworth’s son – John Wesley Hackworth and his team, successfully delivered his father’s locomotive to the Tsar of Russia at the age of 17, under perilous conditions. In part two we look at how John developed his own successful career as an engineer and inventor, building on his father’s reputation and skill and taking his work in new directions.
Painting of John Wesley Hackworth from the Joan Hackworth Weir Collection
Back in New Shildon
Returning to Shildon in 1837 John continued to work for the family firm at the Soho works, alongside his younger brother, also called Timothy Hackworth. Timothy Hackworth’s brother Thomas had hitherto managed the Soho works but Thomas left in 1839 to set up in business with George Fossick. Thomas had fallen into dispute with the directors of the S & D Railway and the pair set up Fossick & Hackworth, based in Stockton on Tees, where they built locomotives and carriages. (George Turner Smith’s book Thomas Hackworth is the best source on this).1
John continued to take care of routine operations at the Soho works but, things were not
always cosy! – “between 1840 to 1850, with Timothy Hackworth at the helm, the Soho Works struggled to survive. Timothy operated on the margins of profitability and the situation at the Soho Works deteriorated further when Timothy died in 1850…After Timothy’s death, there was a bitter dispute between John and the younger Timothy over whether to close the loss-making Soho works, or battle on and try and bring the company back into profit.” 2
Ulick Loring (great-great grandson of Timothy Hackworth) expands on this “The death of
Timothy Hackworth was followed by the sale of the Soho works though attempts were made to keep them going. It turned out to be a sad and unsatisfactory process for the family. It was not helped by the death of Hackworth’s widow, Jane, two years after him, and then followed by the death in 1856, of his second son, also Timothy, who was keen to keep the works in the family.” 3
On a more personal level, love was certainly on John Wesley Hackworth’s mind when he
returned to England in 1837 – Ulick continues –
“John proposed to a young woman by the name of Jane Dunton from Newburn, near
Newcastle who turned him down. Her letter of rejection of 1st July 1838 still exists (in the
Hackworth family Archives NRM York). It was said in the family that after this experience he vowed to marry the first girl he met. When he did marry it was to a girl called Annie Turner.” 4
By 1851, the Census shows –
“John Wesley Hackworth was living at Shildon, aged 30 (born at Walbottle), an Engineer,
with his wife Ann and their three daughters, and Joseph Salkeld (age 20) an apprentice. Plus a servant” 5
All in all, John had 8 children, four boys and four girls. The last 3 three of which sadly passed away in childhood. With Timothy Hackworth’s death, and the sale of the Soho works, John moved to Darlington in 1851 setting up his new company – John W. Hackworth of Darlington Engine Works, Priestgate, Darlington, Co Durham, making stationary engines and machinery.
Note to Darlington Local Historians and Researchers
The exact location of John’s Engine works in Priestgate is unknown and of course the area
has been redeveloped, but it would be interesting to learn more about John Wesley
Hackworth’s presence in Darlington. Jane Hackworth -Young has a photograph of the works, but so far, has not managed to find it!
It is worth noting that John held the Priestgate works until 1871 (according to Robert Young) although he signed off a tract as from Priestgate in 1875 (perhaps he also lived in Priestgate – not sure!) Around 1862 he set up another works at Bank Top to produce Cotton machinery for Egypt. Again, the exact location is unknown. So, lots of things to explore! 6 & 7
The Life and History of J.W. Hackworth
It is interesting to note that a more substantial volume on John Wesley Hackworth had once been proposed. Samuel Holmes (grandson of Timothy Hackworth) wrote in his unpublished introduction to Robert Young’s book, that “It is hoped Mr. Albert Earnest Hackworth (grandson of John Wesley Hackworth and great grandson of Timothy Hackworth), and who established the Worth Engineering Works of Toronto, Canada, will write the interesting life and history of J.W. Hackworth, which ought to be given to the world, as he has a great mass of papers, letters and much detailed information, bearing up on the subject.” 8
Sadly, Albert passed away in 1921, and his work on John Wesley Hackworth never came to fruition.
Enter the Inventor – A String of Patents
A fresh start in Darlington enabled John Wesley Hackworth to unlock his full engineering and inventive faculties, build a successful business and widen the application of his skills. His first venture was the ‘Patent High Pressure Horizontal Steam Engine’ which had many unique features. In 1854, he obtained a patent for a Hoisting Machine, with self-activating
contrivances for stopping the winding as desired. By 1857 he had turned his hand to the Iron and Steel industry, producing an apparatus for working blast furnaces by forcing in air in a continuous current and regulating the compression of the air”. 9
John took out another patent for a ‘Tubular Heating Cistern’ with the object of heating the
feed water of steam engines with the exhaust steam of the engine. “This was of rectangular form with top and bottom cast in, and projecting over the sides. The top and bottom of the cistern were perforated with holes corresponding with each other, into which were inserted a series of copper or other metal tubes, the exhaust steam being discharged over the tubes, while the feed water was pumped through them to the boiler. By this means the feed water reached boiling point before entering the boiler.” 10
A lot more of the technical detail can be found in Robert Young’s book – I’ve drawn a balance here to make it more accessible to the general reader.
From Robert Young’s Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive.
|
Dynamic Valve Gear
A more important discovery was to come. “John Hackworth had long occupied himself with
an improvement of the ordinary link motion, by obtaining a constant ‘lead’ and by easy
reversing.” 11
In October 1859 he took out a patent for a variable expansion valve gear applicable to locomotive, marine, and other engines, which he named “Dynamic Valve Gear”
“The chief original feature of this was an arrangement and combination whereby two motions were obtained from one ‘excentric’, crank or radial pin. One motion for working the lead of the slide valve, and the other at right angles to the first, to obtain variable expansion and reverse motion.” 12
It became known as the ‘Hackworth Radial Valve Gear’ and as Professor Perry says, “It is the parent of all the radial gears.” 13 It had a host of imitators, but those that followed were mere variations of the original. Some 20 of them were in existence and were
applied to every description of steam engine!
From Robert Young’s Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive.
The Great Exhibition London 1862 – Another Turning Point.
The International Exhibition of 1862, or Great London Exposition, was a world’s fair, held
from 1 May to 1 November 1862, sponsored by the Royal Society of Arts, Manufactures and Trade, and featured over 28,000 exhibitors from 36 countries, representing a wide range of industry, technology, and the arts.
| The Great Exhibition |
John Wesley Hackworth exhibited his Horizontal High Pressure Steam Engine, which
combined the ‘pass over’ slide valve originally patented in 1849 and applied in the Sans
Pareil No2, the patent Tubular Heating Cistern, the ‘Dynamic’ Valve Gear, and some original features in construction which included an improved wrought iron crosshead in one piece.
Robert Young notes “The piston rod was carried through the cylinder into a box to prevent
elliptical wear and undue friction. All the journals, joints and motions had double the usual
amount of rubbing surface and special regard was paid to strength and simplicity in details,
oil syphons were provided, and the cylinder was lagged with mahogany. The foundation plate was of the ‘box girder’ type and the whole appearance was neat and every working part easily accessible.” 14
Economy in fuel was the primary object aimed at, and a number of these engines were sent to places where the cost of coal was a serious factor.
In Egypt, at this period, there was a great trade opening. The civil war in the United States
had ruined the cotton industry, and in looking for other suitable countries for cotton growing
the prospects of Egypt were specially promising. The Khedive had visited the exhibition of
1862 and John Hackworth’s engine was brought to his notice. With an economy in fuel of 25 to 30% over other engines, simplicity in construction, and economy of space, the engine achieved a high reputation, and many were manufactured and sent both to Egypt and elsewhere. One of them was sent to the exhibition at Dublin in 1865 and received a prize for its excellence.
“Following up this opening, John Wesley Hackworth began manufacturing cotton machinery for Egypt, which was carried out with great success for some time. He also designed a steam winch, which was largely used on steamers. Out of the proceeds he built himself a new works at Bank Top, Darlington. These he specially designed and they were commodious and complete in every respect.” 15
From the Joan Hackworth Weir Collection.
The Fall of the Khedive
When the Khedive fell, John had orders in hand for huge quantities of machinery of various
kinds, and the fall came just at a time of completing. Not only was a great amount of it left on his hands, but for much that he had already dispatched he never received any payment. He was thus placed in a position of financial difficulty and it was feared he would have to go into the workhouse but through the efforts of his family, and particularly his sister Prudence, he escaped that fate. He carried on his works, though with small success for some years. Like his father, he also built winding engines for collieries, one of which at Shildon Colliery, was erected in 1870 and was still there in the 1920’s. The engineering works in Darlington were given up about 1871.
Canada and the United States 1872
In 1872 John Wesley Hackworth visited Canada and the United States, partly to recuperate his health and partly with a view to introducing his Variable Expansion Valve Motion. He brought it before the United States naval authority but without success. However, when he left England some 50 steamers had been fitted with the gear in addition to a number of stationary engines. In America, a locomotive on the Hudson River Railway was provided with it experimentally in 1873.
In 1872 John Wesley Hackworth visited Canada and the United States, partly to recuperate his health and partly with a view to introducing his Variable Expansion Valve Motion. He brought it before the United States naval authority but without success. However, when he left England some 50 steamers had been fitted with the gear in addition to a number of stationary engines. In America, a locomotive on the Hudson River Railway was provided with it experimentally in 1873.
However, he was a man rich in inventive faculty, and obtained a patent in 1874 while in the
United States, for Metallic Packing, which he described as an invention to secure internal and external tightness, that is freedom of leakage in the moving parts of machinery under vacuum or pressure, in dealing with fluids such as steam, gas, air, oil or water.
Consultant Engineer 1875
In 1875 he returned to England as a consultant engineer in Darlington, later moving to
Sunderland, and eventually to London. Robert Young says “He devised an arrangement for a better ventilation of mines and spent a considerable sum in preliminary experiments, but the cost of installing it prevented its adoption. Mine ventilation was no new hobby with him. It had been the subject of deep interest and concern to Timothy Hackworth, and the son had given much time and study to a question which affected the lives of the mining population among whom he had been brought up.” 16
John’s scheme was “to sweep the mine clear of explosive fluid by pumping in compressed
air, considerably above atmospheric pressure, through pipes into the extremities of the
working and conducted back to the ‘up-cast’ to be done by one powerful engine duplicated to meet contingencies. Having collected and expelled the poisonous gases, the second part of the problem was the introduction and uniform distribution of pure air.” 17
He amended his patent for the Radial Valve gear four times up until his 67th year and called it various names. It was patented in many countries and taken up by many manufacturers and used to a large extent in marine engines but in a letter written in 1873 he declared he’d spent more on it than he ever received and in addition there was money spent on procedures against his imitators in long and costly lawsuits. His fate was that of many an inventor, where others reaped the benefits which should have been his.
In 1884 he took out another patent for Improvement in Steam Engines, he called this
Hackworth’s Steam and Vacuum Repeating Engines and the improvements consisted in
obtaining a succession of distinct forces from one charge of steam.
Robert Young says, “With all his engineering skills, John was no businessman and never
made that position for himself which his genius merited.”
According to the 1881 census John W. Hackworth was living as a Lodger at 31 Hurworth
Terrace, Darlington, (age 60), a Widower and Civil and Mechanical Consulting Engineer.
He died in Sunderland on July 13th, 1891 aged 71 and was buried in West Cemetery,
Darlington. His descendants, starting with his son Albert Hackworth, settled in Thornaby on
Tees where the Hackworth family (or rather John’s descendants) had a presence for most of the 20th century. Engineering remained a tradition in the family for many decades.
John Wesley Hackworth’s gravestone, West Cemetery
Darlington (Joan Hackworth Weir Collection)
In part 3, next issue, we will look at the more controversial issues surrounding John Wesley Hackworth and his responses / objections to aspects of Samuel Smiles book The Life of George Stephenson, Railway Engineer 1857.
Trevor Teasdel
References
1. George Turner Smith – Thomas Hackworth – Locomotive Engineer 2015.
2. Ibid p99
3. A Railway Family (The quest for Timothy Hackworth) published by the author 2015.
4. Ibid
5. Grace’s Guide https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/John_Wesley_Hackworth
6. The Hackworth Family Archive at NRM York provide a good source of information letters plans addresses.
7. Robert Young remains the main written source of information on John Wesley Hackworth, see chapter X1X of Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive 1923, with additional material on page 276 / 7 regarding the Russian engine and The Joan Hackworth Weir Website.
8. You can view a pdf version of the Samuel Holmes proposed forward here
9. Robert Young – Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive – Robert Young 1923 Chapter XIX
10 to 17. Robert Young Ibid
John Wesley Hackworth – Part 1 (Inventor, Engineer, Advocate) Article by Trev Teasdel
I wrote a three part article on John Wesley Hackworth for the Globe – Journal of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. This is Part 1.
About the Globe – See here https://www.sdr1825.org.uk/about-us/
Read the whole of this issue on pdf Here https://www.sdr1825.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/13-The-Globe-Dec-2020.pdf
|
John Wesley Hackworth –
(Inventor, Engineer, Advocate) Part 1
By Trev Teasdel
|
John Wesley Hackworth 1820–1891cut a controversial figure in locomotive history and yet those who know of him, probably only know that he was Timothy Hackworth’s son, that he delivered to Russia its first successful steam locomotive and was caught up in controversy over the defence of his father’s reputation. What follows is a portrayal of his life and work and along the way I hope to highlight some areas that need further research. My lads are descendants of John Wesley Hackworth on their mother’s side. Their maternal grandmother was Joan Hackworth Weir (nee Parsons). Joan left a case of Hackworth material in her loft – letters, cuttings and much more, all of which I have put online. 1
1 Because there was nothing much on him on the internet,
2 I am currently working on a website for John Wesley Hackworth. 2
A Priceless Education!
John was born in Walbottle in 1820 and lived there with his parents Timothy Hackworth and Jane Hackworth, nee Golightly, until he was five. Timothy was Foreman of the Smith as he had been at Christopher Blackett’s Wylam Colliery. In 1824 he was prevailed upon by George Stephenson to go to the Forth Street Works at Newcastle as ‘a borrowed man’ to oversee, amongst other things the building of Active as originally named but later became known as Locomotion No 1. By the time John was five, Timothy had finally accepted a position as ‘Superintendent Engineer’ of the Stockton & Darlington Railway and the family moved first to Darlington and then in 1826 to a house in the first terrace built in New Shildon.
It was here that John’s education began. Robert Young says “He was a clever boy but no
student of books. While other children were spinning tops, he was spragging the wheels of
coal waggons as they reach the bottom of the incline or riding on the locomotives. He went
with the Royal George on its trip and knew as much about it as most of the men and a good deal more than some of them. He thus began his early training as an engineer and never dreamt of any other career. It was part and parcel of his existence and he was a born mechanic.” 3
John occupied a unique place in history, growing up and working/learning with his father,
Timothy Hackworth, the first Superintendent of the S & D Railway and creator of the Royal
George. John would later say of those days “I saw the Stockton and Darlington Railway
opened, was brought up upon it, knew every horse, every locomotive driver, and fireman,
every director, nearly all the shareholders, and every noteworthy incident that occurred
thereon for the first 20 years; and if any living man knows anything of its history, and working, I am the man!” 4
The First Russian Locomotive
In a paper from 1956, David Burke wrote that in 1836 “A 16-year old English boy (John
Wesley Hackworth) gave Russia her first railway locomotive. He (and his team) faced
blizzards, wolves, and misfortune, and at the end of his journey, crowds cheered him, priests blessed him, and he received the Tsar’s congratulations” 5
Ulick Loring (the great-great grandson of Timothy Hackworth) comments “for a young man
reared in the austerity of nonconformist north-east England, to be exposed to Imperial
Russian life must have been a heady experience. It is difficult nowadays to imagine the
contrast between English and Slavic religion and culture and how it could affect visitors from Western Europe. His locomotive was the first among several ordered from Western Europe, to arrive at St. Petersburg. This was on 3rd October 1836 (Russian Calendar).” 6
The need for a more efficient transport system in Russia had become urgent and
Czechoslovakian engineer, Franz von Gerstner, was appointed to oversee the project.
George Turner Smith tells us
“The first 15 miles of single track was laid down between St Petersburg and Tsarskoe-Selo
where the Tsar had his Summer Palaces. Seven locomotives would need to be purchased
from abroad, six from England and one from Belgium. The English contingent comprised four from Robert Stephenson’s works in Newcastle and two from the Vulcan Foundry at Newton-Le-Willows. However, because of outstanding commitments, Stephenson found that he could only supply two from Forth Street and Soho works was contracted to provide the rest.” 7
The duty of introducing the locomotive to Russia devolved upon Timothy Hackworth’s eldest son, John. Such a journey at that time was a perilous proposition and Timothy’s decision to send his son couldn’t have been taken lightly! It may have been because both Timothy and Thomas were under considerable pressure and Thomas had just got married to a French woman, Adele Celestine Hennon, but as Robert Young says John Wesley Hackworth was ‘a well set up youth, nearly as tall as his father, and a keen and clever engineer, absorbed in his profession and in appearance, much older than his years.’
Two engines were outsourced to the Hackworth’s Soho works, New Shildon but only one was built, and this was the first to be delivered to Tsar Nicholas 1. George Turner Smith says, “In effect, the engine was a typical Stephenson 2-2-2 ‘Patentee…The engine was crated up and transported on a modified flat-bed wagon, along the S&D rails to Port Darlington in Middlesbrough…The locomotive was loaded on to the brig – Barbara.” 8
On the 17th September 1836, The Durham Advertiser reported –
“On Thursday, 15th September, a large and powerful locomotive engine, built by Timothy
Hackworth of New Shildon for the Emperor of Russia was shipped on board the ‘Barbara’ at Middlesbro’. This engine is constructed on an improved principle and finished in the best
manner. She has been tried on the premises and propelled at the rate of 72 miles per hour.
It is said that this machine and the similar one built at Newcastle, will on their arrival at St.
Petersburg, have cost the Emperor upwards of £2,000 each. Who, a few years ago, would
have dreamed of the exportation of machinery from the River Tees? This engine is for
travelling on the railroad from St. Petersburg to Pavlovsky where stands one of the country
palaces of his Imperial Majesty.” 9
Petersburg, have cost the Emperor upwards of £2,000 each. Who, a few years ago, would
have dreamed of the exportation of machinery from the River Tees? This engine is for
travelling on the railroad from St. Petersburg to Pavlovsky where stands one of the country
palaces of his Imperial Majesty.” 9
The locomotive arrived at Port Darlington, Middlesbrough along with Hackworth’s team of
engineers. It is assumed the Barbara would be a brig but nothing much is known about it. For any Middlesbrough historians wanting to do some research on the ship, the records from Customs House, Middlesbrough, are now in Teesside archives.
Hackworth’s locomotive for Russia 1836. Image from the Joan Hackworth Weir Collection
It was previously surmised that John Wesley Hackworth travelled with the team from Shildon to Middlesbrough but in searching the Hackworth archive we discover that John Wesley Hackworth was travelling to London with his father, on business and intended to board a ship in London to catch up with the team in Hamburg. He missed his initial connection but managed to board a later ship and reunite with the team.
A description of the Letter from Timothy Hackworth (Guild Hall Coffee House) to Jane
Hackworth 22nd September 1836 reads “we were to [sic] late in reaching London the vessel had been gone 15 minutes. One Mr Kitching from Lancashire has to go to St Petersburg to fix two weighing machines, he together with his niece and son John all go on board on Friday night and sail for Hamburg on Saturday morning and I think of coming home by Majestic…….’ 10
At that time, the Baltic was frozen over so the team had to travel from Hamburg through 500 miles of frozen desolate country with wooden sledges, before the spires of St. Petersburg came into view. David Burke, who had sight of the lost John Wesley Hackworth diary of the trip, quoted it saying “Blizzards nearly blinded them, wolves attacked them and only by whipping the horse teams into a frenzy did young Hackworth and his team escape the snapping jaws.” And Robert Young adds that “the weather was so severe that the spirit bottles broke with the frost.”
Clearly in 1836, delivering a locomotive was no easy task but it was by no means the end of their troubles. While assembling the locomotive in St. Petersburg, a cylinder cracked and with no workshops in the city capable of fixing it, Hackworth’s foreman George Thompson heroically took the cylinder from St. Petersburg to Moscow, a distance of some 600 miles, to the armoury where they made a pattern for the cylinder, got it cast, bored out and fitted, returned to St. Petersburg, and fixed it in the engine.
The Launch of the Russian Locomotive
David Burke12 tells us “In November 1836 bells pealed in St. Petersburg, guns boomed, and the line was opened with great crowds cheering, gaping Russians who had never seen an ‘Iron horse’ before’. John Wesley Hackworth drove his puffing, hissing charge into Tsarskoye-selo where the Tsar Nicholas 1 and his family and generals waited to see him arrive. Not that the opening of the first railway in once Holy Russia was as simple as that – a score of orthodox priests descended on the engine with crosses, candles, censers, and holy water to perform the blessing ceremony”. “They splashed me in the process” Hackworth wrote in his diary.“13
Robert Young elaborates “This was the baptismal ceremony of consecration according to the rites of the Greek Church done in the presence of an assembled crowd. Water was obtained from a neighbouring bog or “stele” in a golden censer and sanctified by immersions of a golden cross amid chanting of choristers and intonations of priests, while a hundred lighted tapers were held round it. This was followed by the invocation of special blessings upon the Tsar and Imperial Family, and fervent supplications that on all occasions of travel by the new mode, just being inaugurated, they might be well and safely conveyed. Then came the due Administration of the Ordinance by one priest bearing the holy censer; while a second, operating with a huge brush and dipping in the censer, dashed each wheel with the sign of the cross, with final copious showers all over the engine, of which John Hackworth was an involuntary partaker.” 14
Hackworth related in his diary how he was introduced to the Tsar who told him of a visit to
England in 1816, when he had witnessed the running of Blenkinsop’s engine on the colliery line from Middleton to Leeds. The Tsar added some complimentary remarks regarding the new locomotive, saying he ‘could not have conceived it possible so radical a change could have been effected within the last 20 years. The Tsar also told him that “It was an occasion of great progress and other ‘Iron horses’ would surely spread across the nation.”
John Wesley Hackworth’s Passport
On the 12th December 1836, John was granted a Russian passport for the homeward
journey, by the Tsar himself. The name on the passport read John William Hackworth,
because, as George Turner Smith remarks “his name was considered unsuitable for a visitor to Mother Russia.” Timothy Hackworth was a Methodist and named his son after
| John Wesley but for the passport they changed Wesley to William so as not offend the Russian Orthodox church. The passport was kept by John Wesley Hackworth’s descendants until 2005 when Joan Hackworth Weir donated it to the Hackworth Archives at NRM, York. The passport reads: “By Edict of his Majesty, the Sovereign Emperor. Nikolai Pavlovitch, Autocrat of all the Timothy and the family were surprised and alarmed when John returned with a full Russian In part two, next time, we will look at his life as an inventor, manufacturer, consultant |
Notes |
(3) Robert Young – Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive. 1923 Chapter XIX
(4) Robert Young – Ibid
(5) John Hackworth’s Russian Train – David Burke ((South Kensington Museum of Science and Innovation) Autumn paper from 1956. https://www.artsrainbow.com/johnwesleyhackworth/2015/04/john-wesley-hackworths-russian-train-by.html Note – he has the date of the Russian engine launch as 1837 – should be November 1836.
(6) Ulick Loring – A Railway Family – 2015
(7) George Turner Smith – Thomas Hackworth (Locomotive Engineer) 2015 p10
(8) Ibid P51
(11) David Burke 1956 ((South Kensington Museum of Science and Innovation) Autumn paper from 1956. https://www.artsrainbow.com/johnwesleyhackworth/2015/04/john-wesley-hackworths-russian-train-by.html)
(12) Ibid
(13) Note – John Wesley Hackworth kept a diary of his Russian trip but its current whereabouts is not known. There are similar diaries by the other teams but not in the public domain.
(14) Robert Young 1923 Chapter XIX
(15) John Wesley Hackworth’s Russian passport was kept by the family and Joan Hackworth Weir donated it to the Hackworth Family Archives NRM York c. 2005 but a facsimile can be seen here https://www.artsrainbow.com/johnwesleyhackworth/2014/05/john-wesley-hackworths-return-passport.html
THE BATTLE OF THE BLAST PIPE from the Globe Part 3
JOHN WESLEY HACKWORTH PART 3 From The Globe
THE BATTLE OF THE BLAST PIPE
By Trev Teasdel
In 1876 S.T. Richardson published a pen and ink sketch entitled The Battle of the Blast Pipe in a book of sketches called “The World’s First Railway Jubilee” which ‘burlesques the voluminous and heated correspondence’ that appeared in the press at that time on the subject of the invention of the ‘blast pipe’ with John Wesley Hackworth lampooned in the centre dealing ‘substantial blows impartially to everyone with his umbrella, the reference being to his vigorous advocacy of his father, Timothy Hackworth’s claim to the invention’. The sketch depicts other fighting advocates including George Stephenson, Samuel Smiles and J.S. Jeans, author of The Jubilee Memorial of the Railway System.
In parts 1 and 2 1 we told the story of John’s delivery of the first locomotive to go to Russia in 1837 and saw the development of his career as an inventor and engineer in his own right. In this part I hope to outline the story and issues that led John Wesley Hackworth into the controversy that became known as ‘The Battle of the Blast Pipe’.
John mounted a vigorous defence of the reputation of his father (Timothy Hackworth) in the press and following the publication of The Life of George Stephenson in 1857, and in doing so –
‘Brought his father’s name into prominence, and without him, and the clear knowledge which he had of the railway beginnings, it is likely the achievements of Timothy Hackworth would not have merely been obscured but lost altogether.’ says Robert Young. 2
Young also tells us that ‘John rebelled against the calm assumption by others of the credit due to Timothy Hackworth and spent an enormous amount of time and energy in combating this in writing and lecturing on early locomotive history.’ 3
It wasn’t an easy task, although John clearly enjoyed the fray, but he was vilified in the process cited as being ‘angry’, delivering a ‘diatribe’ ‘battering his opponents’ and more. This vilification continues in some circles, whenever his name is mentioned, and despite all the fine achievements we have mentioned in earlier parts, it is for this he’s best remembered.
The question is, did this finger pointing define the man at heart? – Robert Young, while having his own criticisms, clarifies to us that John ‘…was a kind and gentle heart, free of all malice, a tender husband and father during a long lifetime of troubles which would have broken many a man.’ 4
His qualifications in the matter were that he occupied a unique position in early railway history and in his own words says ‘I saw the Stockton and Darlington Railway opened, was brought up upon it, knew every horse, every locomotive driver, and fireman, every director, nearly all the shareholders, and every noteworthy incident that occurred thereon for the first 20 years; and if any living man knows anything of its history, and working, I am the man!’ 5
It’s not even that Timothy Hackworth was the antithesis of George and Robert Stephenson. The constructive relationship between Timothy and the Stephensons is documented in letters held in the ‘Hackworth Family Archives’ at NRM York. George ‘head hunted’ Hackworth for the Forth Street works and later as Superintendent of the S & D Railway. The letters show the Stephensons valued Hackworth’s skills and knowledge as a blacksmith and engineer, and often sought his opinion on technical issues.
By way of example here’s a quote from a letter from Robert Stephenson in Liverpool to Timothy Hackworth March 29th 1829 – the issue was stationary engines v locomotives ‘…Let me have your general opinion as to the locomotive engine system. Is it as convenient as any other? Would you consider 13 ½ tons in summer and 10 tons in winter, a fair performance for a good locomotive engine? You will oblige me by answering promptly as possible, as the discussion of the merits of the two systems is yet going on amongst the directors here.’ 6
What Was The Main Issue?
The main controversy centred on who invented the ‘Blast Pipe’, but first let’s consider how inventions arise. People think of them as the brainchild of one person, but inventor Jacque Fresco, founder of The Venus project, said ‘We all stand on the shoulders of one another’. 7 Invention is a long process of accumulation, combination, trial, and error, asking questions and refinement. Hackworth didn’t start from scratch, he had long experience of working with locomotives by the time he built the Royal George. Like all inventors, he was a problem solver, concerned to make things more efficient. His task with the Royal George was to produce a locomotive that would change the fortunes of the S&DR. Elements of Hackworth’s blast pipe were there already but crucially, the design was not, and the power of the steam blast was not yet recognised, utilised or mentioned in any patents.
What Was the Blast Pipe and What Did it Achieve?
‘The mere throwing of this steam into the chimney, either by one or two eduction pipes, did not constitute a blast pipe’ 8
In John Wesley Hackworth’s so called ‘diatribes’ and in Robert Young’s book, they were concerned to distinguish between what George Smith 9 called a ‘Real blast pipe’ and systems that preceded it. Timothy Hackworth’s description of it was sometimes used retrospectively by descendants and commentators to describe earlier systems where the exhaust was merely dispatched through the chimney without the steam blast effect, and much of John’s effort was to clarify it. These sketches appeared in The Engineer in 1857, illustrating the difference.
Robert Young explained ‘The blast pipe enabled full boiler pressure to be maintained under all conditions when the locomotive was running, by the action of draught produced by exhaust steam. The mere throwing of this steam into the chimney, either by one or two eduction pipes, did not constitute a blast pipe. To direct the waste steam of a locomotive into a chimney is the natural and obvious way of getting rid of it. The object of a chimney is to convey dust, smoke and vapour and smell high into the air out of the way.’ 10
He continued ‘It was common knowledge that the fire brightened when intermittent steam escaped from the pipe into the chimney, just as resulted from the use of bellows but what was not known was that the pipe could be so designed and adjusted that the exhaust steam sufficed to provide all the draught necessary for efficient haulage.’ 11
The Battle of the Blast Pipe
The battle began with the publication of The Life of George Stephenson in 1857 by Samuel Smiles. The book started a wordy warfare carried on in the Engineer newspaper (and other papers) for three months and revived during the Railway Jubilee in 1875 and indeed, thereon since! Robert Young says that before this book –
‘All the railway world knew of Hackworth’s use of the blast pipe at Rainhill, in the Sanspareil, through the burst cylinder, though not of its previous application in the Royal George which was not so generally known. When the ‘Chapter in the history of Railway Locomotion’ was published in the Practical Mechanics‘ Journal in 1850, the facts were given in some detail but in 1857 a surprising number of assertions were made by Smiles, when he stated that George Stephenson had invented the blast pipe – Smiles called it the ‘life breath of the locomotive‘. 12
The problem was that the authority of Smiles, a popular writer of the day, carried a lot of weight with the public, and so it was natural that the son of Timothy Hackworth, would have felt indignant at the neglect accorded to his father’s work.
Samuel Smiles sources were lacking and in the Preface of the 2nd edition 1864 he admits ‘Most of the facts relating to the early period of George Stephenson’s career were collected from colliers, brakesmen, engine-men, who had known him intimately… The information obtained from these old men—most of them illiterate…though valuable in many respects, was confused, and sometimes contradictory; but, to insure as much accuracy as possible, the author submitted the MS. to Robert Stephenson, prior to the publication of the 2nd edition.’ 13
Despite this, Smiles still claimed that ‘The invention of the Steam-blast by George Stephenson occurred in 1815, and was fraught with the most important consequences to railway locomotion… Without the steam-blast, the high rates of speed could not have been kept up; …and locomotives might still have been dragging themselves along at little more than five or six miles an hour.’ 14
Smiles was obviously aware of this controversy when he wrote – ‘As this invention has been the subject of considerable controversy, it becomes necessary to add a few words..’. 15
He debunked all claims to the invention, except that of George Stephenson, on much the same grounds as John Wesley Hackworth, but Smiles included Timothy Hackworth in his assessment –
‘It has been claimed as the invention of Trevithick in 1804, of Hedley in 1814, of Goldsworthy Gurney in 1820, and of Timothy Hackworth in 1829. With respect to Trevithick, it appears that he discharged the waste steam into the chimney of his engine, but without any intention of thereby producing a blast; and that he attached no value to the expedient is sufficiently obvious from the fact that in 1815 he took out a patent for urging the fire by means of fanners, like a winnowing machine.’ 16
In 1875 the controversy returned during the 1st Railway Jubilee. John responded in 1876 with a lengthy letter to the Times entitled ‘Who Invented the Steam Blast?’ 17 The letter was ‘excluded from the Times’ but John published it himself as a tract, from his base in Priestgate, Darlington, as an open letter to the editor of the Northern Echo. (This tract can be found online – see notes).
If John was ‘angry’, it’s sublimated. His responses were informative and coherent. He responded to Miss Gurney (descendant of Sir Goldsworthy Gurney) and Samuel Smiles along the lines we have already discussed.
John answered Samuel Smiles in his tract ‘Who Invented the Steam Blast?’ 1876 –
‘George Stephenson, in his first locomotive at Killingworth, 1814, adopted Blenkinsop’s exhaust, ejecting the steam vertically into the air from an inverted T pipe; and in his subsequent engines, Stephenson resorted to the plan used by Timothy Hackworth in the Wylam locomotives four or five years before, the method being to carry the exhaust pipes just within the circumference of the chimney, and allow the steam to escape upwards. This became the established mode and the engines did tolerably well in conveying coals at three to five miles per hour on short lines….but even with strict observance of these conditions, the engines not infrequently came to a halt….matters were in this state when the Stockton and Darlington Railway approached completion, and as the distance intended to be worked by horses and locomotives was 20 miles, it was predicted by competent judges that it would be impractical by the latter power and such it proved to be, for after 18 months of the locomotives the directors determined to abandon them, as horses were found to do the work at less cost.
At this juncture Timothy Hackworth proposed to make an engine to answer the purpose..and the directors resolved, as a last experiment, that Hackworth be allowed to carry out his plan. This engine , The Royal George, was started in 1827..suffice to say it had his invention, the blast pipe for the first time.’ 18
John quoted from page 17 of the Rastrick and Walker report March 1829 that went before the directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and which was witnessed by John Wesley Hackworth, Robert Stephenson and Joseph Lock, to show what the Royal George could do.
I quote Robert Young here as he gives more detail than John, and tells us that before they laid out their report to the directors, Robert Stephenson asked two engineers to try an experiment with the Royal George as a practical proof of the efficiency which the locomotive attained.
The report read “It appears by this experiment the engine took forty-eight and three quarters tons of goods, 2,500 yards up a rise of ten feet a mile, and returned down (being equal to 5,000 yards upon a level) at a rate of eleven and two-tenths of a mile an hour, and that the steam was blowing off when the experiment was concluded.
I state the preceding as it has been given to us – Hackworth’s engine is undoubtedly the most powerful that has yet been made, as the amount of tons conveyed by it compared with other engines proves.” 19
John went on to say ‘In 1828, George Stephenson being wishful to produce an equally powerful engine, built the Lancashire Witch, which besides having the Wylam mode of exhaust, was provided with two bellows – an arrangement he was sanguine would effect the desired result. After the trial – he wrote to his friend, Timothy Hackworth – ‘Liverpool, July 25th 1828. We have tried the new locomotive engine at Bolton ; we have also tried the blast to it for burning coke, and I believe it will answer. There are two bellows worked by eccentrics underneath the tender.’
‘It did not answer, and it is obvious at this date, Stephenson knew nothing of the blast pipe, nor did he acquire a knowledge of it October 1829. At a preliminary trial of the Sanspareil, Hackworth gave Stephenson a brisk run on his engine, when the latter made his observations, and at length put the question – ‘Timothy, what makes the sparks fly out of the chimney?’ Mr Hackworth touched the exhaust pipe near the cylinders and said – ‘It is the end of this little fellow that does the business’. 20
William Gowland, an engine driver whom George Stephenson brought from Killingworth to assist in opening the Stockton & Darlington line in 1825, after having run the Royal George two years, and been the driver of the Sanspareil at Rainhill, gave testimony in a letter to The Engineer, 23rd October, 1857, to the following effect:
‘I was driver of the Royal George on the Stockton and Darlington Railway for about two years, it having come out of Shildon works in 1827 – the complete production of Timothy Hackworth. It contained the blast pipe as perfect as any used at the present day…I can solemnly assure you that when the Sanspareil left Shildon it contained the blast pipe not only by accident but by clear design, with a full knowledge of its value, as proved in the case of the Royal George. Of course everybody knew that the Rocket had not the blast pipe when it came to Rainhill. The Sanspareil had.’ 21
By 1882, aged 61, John was tired of the fray and wrote to his brother-in-law George Edward Young –
‘Having fought the battle – almost single handed – under some very vexatious circumstances, I begin rather to flag!’ 22
Blast Pipe Letter
John died in 1891 but the ‘battle’ continued in a less vigorous way by the Hackworth family. An important element was the ‘blast pipe letter’ which had a history of its own. The letter from George Stephenson to Timothy Hackworth, dated Liverpool 28th July 1828 was handed down to John Wesley Hackworth and then to his descendants.
The Blast Pipe Letter above
The letter, ‘which can be interpreted as evidence that Hackworth invented the blast pipe’ prompted Young to write ‘The ‘two bellows worked by eccentrics’ did not answer, and the letter is very sufficient witness that Stephenson had not yet become acquainted with the principles of the exhaust steam blast.’ 23
According to Alison Kay and Jane Hackworth-Young, 24 the letter travelled to the World Columbian Exposition or Chicago World Fair, where other Hackworth items were displayed and then sent to Albert Hackworth, John Wesley Hackworth’s son, who had emigrated to Canada to establish the Worth Engineering Works of Toronto, and to his cousin, Samuel Holmes, also in Canada. When Robert Young needed original sources for his book Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive (1923), Samuel tried to send the documents to him, however transport of the ‘blast pipe’ letter to the UK was delayed by WW1. Finally, Samuel’s widow sent the letter from New York to Albert’s daughter Esther Alderslade, in Thornaby on Tees, in 1921 where most of John’s descendants lived. The family periodically showed the letter to journalists, whenever there was a relevant event or jubilee. In 2005 the letter was presented to NRM at Locomotion, with the press in attendance, by Jane Hackworth-Young, and John’s campaign once again was discussed in the press. The letter now resides in the Hackworth Family archive NRM York.
Albert Hackworth – John Wesley Hackworth’s (From the Joan Hackworth Weir Collection)
This concludes our story of John Wesley Hackworth. It is hoped that those wishing to critique John Wesley Hackworth will now, at least, take the trouble to look at what John was actually saying, rather than writing him off with the all too often meaningless descriptors such ‘angry tirade’!
Notes
1 See the Globe issue 13 December 2020 entitled John Wesley Hackworth Part 1 and issue 14 April 21 John Wesley Hackworth Part 2.
2 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive – Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p365
3 Ibid
4 Ibid
5 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive – Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p356
6 Letter from Robert Stephenson to Timothy Hackworth Liverpool March 17th 1829. To be found on the Joan Hackworth Weir website https://joanhackworthweircollection.blogspot.com/2015/02/letter-from-robert-stephenson-to.html
7 Jacque Fresco YouTube video Think https://youtu.be/Ot1wztaqREw
8 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive – Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p210
9 Thomas Hackworth – Locomotive Engineer. George Turner Smith 2015 p39
10 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive – Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p210
11 Ibid p210 / 2011
12 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive – Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p211
13 The Life of George Stephenson and his son Robert Stephenson – Samuel Smiles 1868 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/46229/pg46229-images.html#Page_152
14 Ibid p170
15 Ibid
16 Ibid
17 “Who Invented the Steam Blast?”. Tract by John Wesley Hackworth 1876. Can be read here https://joanhackworthweircollection.blogspot.com/2021/11/who-invented-steam-blast-tract-by-john.html
18 Ibid
19 Robert Young Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive p174 quoting p21 of Rastrick and Walker report March 1829
20 “Who Invented the Steam Blast?”. Tract by John Wesley Hackworth 1876. Can be read here https://joanhackworthweircollection.blogspot.com/2021/11/who-invented-steam-blast-tract-by-john.html
21 Ibid
22 Letter from John Wesley Hackworth to George Edward Young 1882 – find it here https://johnwesleyhackworth.blogspot.com/2020/11/john-wesley-hackworth-letters.html
23 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive – Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p220
24 The Story of the Hackworth Papers by Alison Kay and Jane Hackworth-Young from the National Railway Museum Review Spring 2013 can be found here https://joanhackworthweircollection.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-blast-pipe-letter-july-25th-1928.html
Further resources to be found at NRM York https://www.railwaymuseum.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-04/Hackworth%20Family%20Introduction%20%26%20Archive%20List.pdf
By Trev Teasdel 2021 with acknowledgement to Joan Hackworth Weir, Margaret Weir, Kyle Teasdel, Jane Hackworth-Young, Ulick Loring, Caroline Hardie, Alison Kay and all the Hackworth forebears quote in this work.
John Wesley Hackworth – Meet the Parents!
|
| John Wesley Hackworth (from a painting in the Joan Hackworth-Weir Collection.) |
John Wesley Hackworth was born at Walbottle, (a village on the western outskirts of Newcastle) on May 8th, 1820, the son of the celebrated S & D railway engineer – Timothy Hackworth and his wife Jane Hackworth (née Golightly).
He was destined to become an engineer and prolific inventor in his own right and grew up in an environment where some of the most important, world-changing industrial history was being made, some of it by his father, but his story is seldom told!
MEET THE PARENTS
Jane Hackworth (née Golightly) (His mother)
 |
| Jane Hackworth (née Golightly), Timothy Hackworth’s wife (from the Joan Hackworth-Weir Collection.) |
Timothy Hackworth married Jane Golightly in 1813 at the age of 27 at Ovingham Parish Church where he had been baptised. Robert young tells us Jane “was a tall, handsome and well educated woman of roughly the same age.” She entered into her husband’s work, social, religious and professional life with great heartiness and sympathy. “Numerous family letters have been preserved which bear evidence of the knowledge and interest mutually held in Hackworth’s business and doings, and of the affection and complete understanding between the two..“ Robert Young Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive p75
Later in the book Robert tells us ” She was a women of great individuality, competent, energetic and an admirable housewife and…. had, in her younger days been a fine horsewoman. Like her husband, she had been attracted to Methodism, and on this account had been compelled to leave her home and live with a relative, her parents being rigorous members of the established church.”
Note – the two photos below are of Ovingham Church where Timothy and Jane were married)
On her death, a friend of the family – John Cleminson wrote ” I have always looked up to her as one of the most Holy and devoted mothers of Israel. Her zeal for God was always manifested in her regular attendance on all the means of grace. At a time when the prayer meeting was kept up at 5 O’clock every morning in the week, she was generally there with the first and when she exercised in prayer, the power of God was always manifest. the whole of her life was that of the Holy devoted Christian. When the Wesleyan Chapel in New Shildon was built, she went of her own accord and laid the foundation stone, and then gave an address in which she expressed the gladness that God was providing a house for his people to worship in…when the chapel was open she rode 40 miles at her own expense to seek an able minister to open it. And when a dispute arose respecting the settling of the deeds, she went to the owner of the land, and like the noble Queen Esther, pleaded the cause of God and His people.
Her benevolence to the power and cause of God was only bounded by her means, she loved all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. She fed the hungry and clothed the naked, and, like her Divine Master, she did good to the bodies and souls of men.”
Jane’s religious zeal might not impress so many now in our largely secular society, but this the early 1800’s and Timothy Hackworth was a personal friend of John Wesley (obviously reflected in the naming of his son!). Yet here is a portrait of John Wesley Hackworth‘s mother, showing her to be a women of strength, compassion, wisdom and initiative and reveals her relationship with Timothy Hackworth as impressively egalitarian for the times!
“Jane Golightly came from a rough farmhouse up in Weardale which Jane, I and my great-nephew visited since the ruins are a still there. A lot of work has been done on the disappearing farms of Weardale. Jane’s father was a weaver and probably a sheep farmer.” Ulick Loring.
Timothy Hackworth (His father)
 |
| Timothy Hackworth |
Timothy Hackworth’s story is well covered on line and in Robert Young’s book Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive. “Born in Wylam 1786, Timothy Hackworth was the eldest son of John Hackworth who was foreman blacksmith at Wylam Colliery until his death in 1804; the father had already acquired a considerable reputation as a mechanical worker and boiler maker. At the end of his apprenticeship in 1807 Timothy took over his father’s position.
In 1824, Hackworth was prevailed upon by George Stephenson to go to the Forth Street works at Newcastle as a ‘borrowed man’ to oversee, amoungst other things, the building of Active (as originally named) but which later became known as Locomotion No 1. By this time John Wesley Hackworth was five years old. Timothy’s brother Thomas had taken over his duties at Walbottle meanwhile. Hackworth only stayed until the end of that year, following which, he returned to Walbottle occupying his time with contract work so as not to deprive his brother of the position. While Timothy was in Newcastle, he had other offers and the idea of starting on his own account had occurred to him and in fact undertook to build some boilers for the Tyne Iron Company. When this was completed Stephenson reopened negotiations, this time to secure him as the resident engineer for the S & D Railway in march 1925 and had the effect of bringing Hackworth to Darlington to meet Edward and Joseph Pease at the Kings Head Inn. None the less Hackworth started up his own Engine manufacture in Newcastle but Stephenson urge the Peases to make him another offer. In 1825 Timothy finally accepted George Stephenson’s proposition to become ‘Superintendent Engineer’ of the Stockton and Darlington Railway, to which he was appointed on 13 May 1825. A post he was to occupy until May 1840.
“Hackworth is believed, therefore, to have been influential in the development of the first Stephenson locomotive intended for the Stockton and Darlington Railway during his time at the Forth Street factory. That locomotive, then named Active, now known as Locomotion No 1, was delivered to the railway just before the opening ceremony on 27 September 1825. Three more of the same type were delivered in the following months and difficulties in getting them into operating order were such as to risk compromising the use of steam locomotives for years to come, had it not been for Hackworth’s persistence. This persistence resulted in his developing the first adequate locomotive adapted to the rigours of everyday road service. The outcome was the Royal George of 1827, an early 0-6-0 Locomotive, that among many new key features notably incorporated a correctly aligned steam blastpipe. Hackworth is usually acknowledged as the inventor of this concept. From 1830 onwards the blastpipe was employed by the Stephensons for their updated Rocket and all subsequent new types. Recent letters acquired by the National Railway Museum would appear to confirm Hackworth as the inventor of the device.” read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Hackworth
This letter referred to, from Robert Stephenson to Timothy Hackworth, was until recently in the Joan Hackworth-Weir collection a direct descendant of John Wesley Hackworth and handed down and Joan donated it the museum at Shildon in 2005.). This is a link showing Jane Hackworth Young with the letter- http://www.culture24.org.uk/places+to+go/north+west/manchester/art29660
Timothy Hackworth Marries Jane Golightly
In 1814, aged 27, Timothy Hackworth married Jane Golightly at Ovingham parish Church at which he’d
 |
| Ovingham Church |
been baptized. Robert Young tells us that Jane was a tall, handsome, well educated woman, and the two were almost the same age. She entered into her husband’s work, social, religious and professional with great heartiness and sympathy. Numerous family letters have been preserved and they bear full evidence of the knowledge and interest mutually held in Hackworth’s business and of the affection and complete understanding between the two. In their life together, which extended to 37 years, their children have borne testimony that though they had their full share of anxieties and troubles, yet in their home they were supremely happy and shared all the joys and sorrows pertaining to it.
Wesleyan Chapel
Some two years before his marriage, Timothy had begun attending services in the little Wesleyan Chapel in the Wylam and was so far attracted that he threw his lot in entirely with the methodists and became an ardent worker for them. This was in the days when Methodism had not reached the position which it later attained and to be labelled Methodist carried with it a certain amount of ridicule and opprobrium. Anything of this nature would not have the least effect on a man of Hackworth’s temperament, nor was he the sort of man with whom anyone would venture to take liberties. Jane, like her husband, had been brought up in the Church of England, and when she joined the methodist Society she suffered considerably and , indeed, had to leave her home. It was when living with a relative that she became engaged and soon after married to Timothy Hackworth.
(For more background on Wylam, I suggest Wylam (200 years of Railway History) by George Smith published 2012 available from Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wylam-200-Years-Railway-History/dp/1445610779
Born in Walbottle 1820
|
| Walbottle 1952 |
John Wesley Hackworth was born at Walbottle, Durham, on May 8th 1820 at 6.30 pm and lived there with his parents until he was 5 years old, when his father, Timothy, joined the Stockton and Darlington Railway. It’s not clear in Robert Young’s book which part of Walbottle Timothy lived Walbottle or North Walbottle. The colliery seems to have been in north walbottle and so one assumes that Timothy lived in North Walbottle, possible in Coronation Road where there were cottages for the mine managers and top people. The back to back terraces for the mine workers are now gone I believe. However I can’t be sure of the location of his residence at this stage, if anyone knows, do get in touch.
Walbottle – a Potted History
“Walbottle is a village in Tyne and Wear. It is a western suburb of Newcastle upon Tyne. The village name, recorded in 1176 as “Walbotl”, is derived from the Old English botl (building) on Hadrian’s Wall. There are a number of Northumbrian villages which are suffixed “-bottle”.(it has been pointed out that suffix Bottle was originally ‘Pottle’ (Latin Potus) meaning small fortified building on the Roman Wall. Source http://newcastlephotos.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/walbottle.html (comments).
Bede, in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, refers to a royal estate called Ad Murum near the Roman Wall where, in 653 AD, the King of the Middle Angles, Peada, and the King of the East Saxons, Sigeberht, were both baptised into the Christian faith by Bishop Finan, having been persuaded to do so by King Oswy of Northumbria. Historians have identified Ad Murum with Walbottle.
Ann Potter, the mother of Lord Armstrong, the famous industrialist, was born at Walbottle Hall in 1780 and lived there until 1801. George Stephenson had also worked at Walbottle Colliery. Other notable people born in Walbottle were Thomas Tommy Browell (1892–1955), professional footballer
Richard Armstrong (author) (1903–1986), who wrote for both adults and children. He was the winner of the Carnegie Medal in 1948 for his book Sea Change. He is also known for a biography of Grace Darling in which he challenges the conventional story: Grace Darling: Maid and Myth. He is often described on the cover of his books as “author and mariner”. William Wilson (18 May 1809 died on 17 April 1862 in Nuremberg, Germany). Mechanical Engineer who pioneered railways in Germany in the nineteenth century after working alongside George Stephenson in England. The German Wikipedia article de:William Wilson (Ingenieur) mentions Wilson as being the driver supplied by the Stephenson Loco Works to operate the Bavarian Ludwig Railway.” Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walbottle
Walbottle Colliery
“This colliery is situated in the parish of Newburn, about 4½ miles west by north from Newcastle. It is of
 |
| This was the North Walbottle Colliery |
considerable antiquity, the Duke Pit having been a working shaft upwards of 100 years.
Two basalt or whin dykes run through the colliery; and slip dykes and troubles are very prevalent here. The colliery has been remarkably fortunate in its exemption from explosions. There are three working pits, at which the coals are drawn by an aggregate of 83 horse power. There are also three pumping engines, combining 262 horse power. The waggon-way from the Coronation Pit to the staith at Lemington is about 2 miles long; and the waggons are conveyed thither by horses and inclined planes. The coals are forwarded to the ships by keels. Messrs. Lamb and Co. are the proprietors of the colliery. The coals are known in the market by the names of “Holywell Main,” “Newburn Main,” “Holywell Reins,” and “Holywell Reins Splint.”
Views of the Collieries (1844)” Source http://www.dmm.org.uk/colliery/w025.htm
TIMOTHY HACKWORTH MOVES FROM WYLAM TO WALBOTTLE
Timothy Hackworth was born 1786, in Wylam, to John Hackworth who was foreman blacksmith at Wylam Colliery and a celebrated boiler builder and general worker in metals as well for Christopher Blackett. Timothy had started a 7 year apprenticeship under his father and after his father’s death and on finishing his apprenticeship, Christopher Blackett enabled him to take on his father’s position. Thus Timothy stepped into a position of responsibility at an early age. Timothy’s story is told here. In Wylam Timothy gained his formative experience that would set the standard of his future work as an engineer. At 22 he began work on the new steam locomotives that were being introduced at Wylam. He held this position for 8 years.
Writing of those early days when John Hackworth oversaw Timothy’s apprenticeship, John Wesley Hackworth said the youth “gave early indication of a natural bent and aptitude of mind for mechanical construction and research, and it formed a pleasurable theme of contemplation for the father to mark the studious application of his son to obtain the mastery of mechanical principles, and observe the energy and passionate ardour with which he grasped at a through knowledge of his art.“
In 1815 circumstances occurred which led to Timothy Hackworth‘s departure from Wylam.
Timothy had no wish to leave, his employment was congenial. he was in a modest way, comfortably off, it was his native place, and here was born his first child.
John Wesley Hackworth was the 4th of 9 children by Timothy and Jane – Ann, Mary, Elizabeth, John Wesley, Prudence, Timothy, Thomas, Hannah and Jane.
In Wylam, there had been the ‘Dillies‘ which had been deeply interested in and to which he desired to bring to them such a state of efficiency as should show beyond all doubt the their superiority to horse traction..but there were influences at work that affected the comfort of his his permanent residence at Wylam. Blackett had other interests besides the colliery from which he was frequently absent and the reins of authority passed to his viewer, William Hedley. Hackworth, whose views on the sanctity of the Sabbath were well known and had always been respected previously, was requested to do a piece of work at the colliery on the Sunday, to which he firmly declined to be a party. Passing the colliery one Sunday on his way to a preaching appointment, the following conversation took place between a workman and himself.
“Where’s thee gannen?” the man asked. Hackworth replied “I am going to preach” “Is thee not gannen toe to du thee work?” asked the man. “I have other work to do today” Said Hackworth. “Well, if thou’lt not, somebody else will and thou will lose thee job” to which Hackworth rejoined “Lose or not lose, I shall not break the Sabbath.“
The result was that Hackworth had to give up his position, a matter about which he felt very keenly but as to which he never hesitated.
New Position in Walbottle
Robert Young provides a good portrait of Timothy’s time at Walbottle
“Timothy Hackworth’s reputation had extended beyond the narrow confines of Wylam village, and he was honoured and respected as a good man and a clever craftsman. When it was known that he was leaving Wylam he received an offer from William Patter, viewer and part owner of Walbottle Colliery, to go there as foreman smith and accordingly he took up residence at Walbottle early 1816. here he remained for 8 years. William Patter, the manager was a man of high character, and a close friendship existed between the head of the colliery and his foreman smith, which remained unbroken during the whole of Hackworth’s service there.
“Timothy Hackworth’s reputation had extended beyond the narrow confines of Wylam village, and he was honoured and respected as a good man and a clever craftsman. When it was known that he was leaving Wylam he received an offer from William Patter, viewer and part owner of Walbottle Colliery, to go there as foreman smith and accordingly he took up residence at Walbottle early 1816. here he remained for 8 years. William Patter, the manager was a man of high character, and a close friendship existed between the head of the colliery and his foreman smith, which remained unbroken during the whole of Hackworth’s service there.
The Walbottle period may be considered the most peaceful and possibly the happiest of Hackworth’s life.
There is little to record of public interest. he followed the even tenor of his way, punctually and efficiently fulfilling his duties secular, social, family and religious. his leisure was spent in study, visiting the sick and similar good works, and he was keenly interested in the people among whom he worked and in whose moral and social advancement he was ever concerned. At Walbottle he made many intimate and lasting friendships, was held in high esteem and won golden opinions throughout the district for his integrity and the many many virtues he possessed. His industrial pursuits were numerous. He was a keen gardener, made a study of horticulture but his chief affections were in the direction of mechanics and he built many steam engines for grinding salt and similar objects, manufactured safety lamps and had always before him the problems connected with the improvement of the locomotive. He did not therefore anticipate a further change of employment, just as he would have been content to remain at Wylam, so at Walbottle the simple life satisfied him. When the time came for his entrance into more absorbing field of locomotion development it was only after much careful thought that he agreed to make the great change.
Those quiet years spent at Walbottle cover a period of considerable activity in the construction of railroads with which Timothy had had no concern. many men were considering the problems of cheap haulage, without which no material advance was possible, many novel proposals were made public but despite that, during Hackworth’s 8 years at Walbottle, no progress had been made in the improvement of the locomotive.”
John Wesley Hackworth was 5 years old when Timothy moved from Walbottle and the story continues in the post below.
Walbottle
Walbottle methodist Church.
The Move to Shildon – The Stockton and Darlington Railway.
“If any man knows anything of the history and working operations of the Stockton and Darlington Railway, I am the man” John Wesley Hackworth
There is little or no documentary information about John Wesley Hackworth in his formative years, except that which can be gleaned for letters in the Hackworth archives at the York NRM, but given what Robert Young tells us below, his story is very much Timothy Hackworth’s story…
Robert Young tells us in Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive. “from the age of 5, when his
father joined the Stockton and Darlington Railway, John Wesley Hackworth lived and moved and had his being among the early railway surroundings. In one of his numerous articles, trying to overcome the maze of error and fiction which had enveloped the period, he wrote regarding the Stockton and Darlington Railway,
“I saw it opened, was brought up upon it, knew every horse and driver, every director, most of the shareholders, and every noteworthy incident that occurred thereon for the first 20 years. If any man knows anything of its history and working operations, I am the man- to the minutiae.”
Spragging Wheels!
Robert Young continues “He was a clever boy but no student of books. While other children were spinning tops, he was spragging the wheels of coal waggons as they reach the bottom of the incline or riding on the locomotives. He went with the Royal George on its final trip and knew as much about it as most of the men and a good deal more than some of them. He thus began his early training as an engineer and never dreamt of any other career. It was part and parcel of his existence and he was a born mechanic. As we shall see, he went off with the first locomotive ever sent to Russia when he was only 16 years of age and on his return completed his apprenticeship with his father, married at the age of 20 and settled down at Shildon.“
SOME OF THE WORK HIS FATHER TIMOTHY HACKWORK WAS INVOLVED WITH.
Timothy’s first great event was the delivery of Engine No 1. The Stockton and Darlington Railway was launched on Tuesday September 27th 1825. Hackworth was not only the Superintendent of the locomotives but the manager of the line. It was the working of the inclined planes at Etherley and Brusselton that gave him the greatest trouble. The machinery was complicated and cumbersome. Eventually Pease and Stephenson agreed that a change was needed. It was left to Hackworth to deal with this. In 1831 Hackworth designed a compact 80 horse power engine. Robert Young’s book gives more details on this. Locomotion No 1 which launched the S & D line was rebuilt and remodelled at least 3 times by Timothy”
The S & D Railway, in its origin, was a plain proposition to open up the rich coalfields of the Auckland district of Durham by communication with the port of of the Tees and estimates showed that it might reasonably return a steady dividend of 5% to shareholders. It was not clear at the outset whether this would be by rail or canal. Little progress had been made on the locomotive during the years Timothy was resident in Walbottle and the 1st Railway Act authorising the construction of the S & D railway never even mentioned a locomotive. Railways were progressing but the locomotive stood still. A system of conveying waggons by fixed steam engines and ropes, patented by Benjamin Thompson 1821 and called the reciprocating system was in favour.
The credit of initiating the S & D Railway goes largely to Edward Pease, a Darlington Quaker and George Stephenson was appointed surveyor in 1822 and his son Robert Stephenson assistant surveyor. The demand for coal was growing and ‘necessity became the mother of invention‘. New schemes were being explored.
The Royal George
The building of The Royal George was no small part of Timothy’s work and Robert Young tells us on page 155 of his book Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive “..the Royal George was the first locomotive constructed with six wheels coupled and the arrangement, not only of two cylinders, but of every important detail,was entirely novel.” It had a double flue of malleable iron shaped like the letter U and traversing the whole length of the boiler.
The Birth of the Russian Railway System
The Birth of the Russian Railway System
Robert Young tells us that –
“The duty of introducing (and delivering) the Locomotive to Russia devolved upon Timothy Hackworth’s eldest son – John Wesley Hackworth, then, 16 years (as from his birthday in May 1836).“
David Burke wrote in 1956 “Exactly 120 years ago a 16 year old English boy gave Russia her first railway engine. His name John Wesley Hackworth (the middle name Wesley was changed to William for the journey out of respect for the Orthodox Russian Church). He faced blizzards,wolvesand misfortune -and at the end of his journey,crowds cheered him,priests blessed him and he received the Tsar’s congratulations.Yet today the Soviets have rubbed his name, the name of this remarkable lad from the history books,and hardly anything is known of him,even in the west.“
Before we get to the story of the delivery of the first locomotive to Russia in 1836 by John Wesley Hackworth and his team, here is some of the background going back as far as 1816, when the Grand Duke (later Tsar) Nicholas 1 visited England.
Nicholas 1 of Russia visits England in 1816
“The Grand Duke Nicholas 1 of Russia had, while on a visit to England in 1816, had seen the
Blenkinsop steam engine working on the Leeds Middleton Colliery line. This type of engine, of which the first was tried in 1812, derived its motion from a central cog or toothed wheel which engaged with a rack forming part of the rail. This friction was not relied upon and the carrying wheels merely rolled and took no drive..Heavy loads were hauled and the system excited the future Tsar’s interest.”
Blenkinsop steam engine working on the Leeds Middleton Colliery line. This type of engine, of which the first was tried in 1812, derived its motion from a central cog or toothed wheel which engaged with a rack forming part of the rail. This friction was not relied upon and the carrying wheels merely rolled and took no drive..Heavy loads were hauled and the system excited the future Tsar’s interest.”
The Times On this day August 19 1937.
It seems, from what Robert Young says, that Middleton Colliery wasn’t the only visit made –
Robert Young Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive p276 / 7
“Years before, Russian archdukes had visited Wylam and had seen the Puffing Billy and Wylam Dilly, which Timothy Hackworth had built to Hedley’s design and this is probably why the order was given to Timothy Hackworth.”
As we shall see, Timothy Hackworth wasn’t the only Locomotive engineer to be invited to supply an engine for Russia. Hackworth’s team was the first to arrive, deliver, set up and launch an engine in Russia.
George Turner Smith in his recent book Thomas Hackworth (Locomotive Engineer)(Fonthill Media 2015) Chapter 4 The Russian Engine p47 says that –
“Russia was a late starter regarding railways. Although there was an obvious need for good communication between urban centres in such a vast country, in 1836 transport had advanced little since the Middle Ages…As a twenty year old, the Grand Duke Nicholas 1 had the privilege of seeing the future at first hand….John Blenkinsop employed and favoured the ‘rack and pinion’ system…which if reliable were not intended for speed. Nevertheless the railway must have impressed the future Tsar because on his return to Russia he persuaded his father, Alexander 1 to commision a report on the cost and feasibility of a national railway network – a report so complicated it was still unfinished at the time of Alexander’s death eight years later in 1824…………By the mid 1830’s, Russia was now 30 years behind Britain in terms of railway technology, and Nicholas reluctantly acknowledged that every element,from track construction to locomotive manufacture, would have to be imported. There were already one or two small private railways operating throughout the empire,but they nearly all used horses for traction.”
Kevin Fink in The Beginnings of Railways in Russia adds “A few mines and factories in the Urals used tramways to move ore or products but they used horses or men to pull the carts over short distances.“
Tsar Nicholas 1 had other reservations, how would British engines fare under the demands of severe Russian winters and on health and safety grounds thought that British engines “were dangerous and ran over people” but Franz Anton von Gestner gave the examples of American railways and the Linz-Budweis Railway to show that they could operate under severe winter weather conditions.
George Turner Smith says (p50 of Thomas Hackworth)
“The need for a more efficient transport system in Russia became more urgent after a series of border skirmishes with Russia’s neighbours and Nicholas was forced into giving his railway project greater priority. The first stage was the construction of a railway from the Baltic port of St.Petersburg to Moscow. Designed to be constructed in short sections, each section was independently financed from private investment and a Czechoslovakian engineer called Franz von Gerstner was invited to oversee the project.”
“The need for a more efficient transport system in Russia became more urgent after a series of border skirmishes with Russia’s neighbours and Nicholas was forced into giving his railway project greater priority. The first stage was the construction of a railway from the Baltic port of St.Petersburg to Moscow. Designed to be constructed in short sections, each section was independently financed from private investment and a Czechoslovakian engineer called Franz von Gerstner was invited to oversee the project.”
Fear of Political Upheavals
Kevin Fink tells us – “The main problem in deciding whether to allow the building of railways was “
always financial, not political. The fear of political and social upheavals was raised by the press and occasionally by some officials, but the Tsar and most of his high officials did not consider that a problem. Nicholas I thought that the introduction of technological innovations from abroad would strengthen the existing order, not weaken it. Because of the scarcity of capital and the large amount required for railway construction, the success or failure of these ventures would have a large effect on the Russian state. Thus the tsar and his paternalistic government were much more cautious about economic effects of railways than other countries.
The first 15 miles of single track were laid down between St. Petersburg and Tsarskoye Selo,where the Tsar had his Summer Palaces.
“On January 6, 1835, an Austrian engineer by the name of Franz Anton von Gerstner sent a letter to Nicholas I proposing to provide Russia with an extensive railway system. “This was the first concrete proposal ever made to provide Russia with such a system” (Haywood, 1969, p. 74). Von Gestner gave his qualifications as the engineer of the first public railway on the European continent (the Danube-Moldavia line) and cited the advantages which railway construction had brought to other countries, including England, France, Germany, and America. He cited the Liverpool-Manchester Railway, which had helped British trade as well as providing a fast and inexpensive transport system for travelers. He also mentioned the help which it had provided in troop movements to quell disorders in Ireland, a point well-taken by Nicholas I…..
However Gerstner, he was unable to raise sufficient capital for the St. Petersburg to Moscow line, and had to abandon that in favor of the shorter line to Tsarskoe Selo. Von Gerstner was able to raise sufficient capital for this line, mostly through a few large investors including Count A. A. Bobrinskii (an enlightened landowner interested in science and technology), Benedict Kramer (director of the Russian American Company), and Johann Plitt (consul of the Free City of Frankfurt am Main).
The proposed route for the railway started in a large square near the center of St. Petersburg near the junction of the Fontanka and Vedenskii canals. It traveled along the Vedenskii Canal at street level to the Obvodnyi Canal, which would be crossed by a substantial bridge. Then a short curve (the only one on the entire route) would lead to a straight, fairly flat line to the Apollon Church in Pavlovsk Park.” Kevin Fink (Read more on the development of the Russian Railways HERE)
………………………..
………………………..
And from Russian Locomotives Volume 1 1836-1904 AD Pater and FM Page
Russian Locomotives Volume 1 1836 – 1904 A D de Pater FM Page
Tsarskoe – Selo Railway (St. Petersburg – Pavlovsk)
“The first passenger carrying railway in Russia, this line was built to the 6’0” (1830 mm) gauge, and remained unique and separate until it was taken over by the Moscow-Vindava-Rybinsk Railway in 1897 following which in was altered to 1524 mm gauge in 1902, giving that line access to St Petersburg.
Chevalier vo Gerstner, in his third report, gives a lot of background information on the early history of the line. The Tsar Nicholas 1 had expressed a wish to connect St. Petersburg with Moscow by a railway in September 1834, and during von Gerstner’s travels in Russia, he was presented to the Tsar and as a result was granted, on 21st December 1835, the personal privilege of forming companies to build both the Tsarskoe-Selo, and the the Peterhof lines, though he died before the latter was effected.
The Imperial Ukase for the construction of the Tsarskoe- Selo line was sealed on 21st March 1836.Eight days later, von Gerstner set off on a 7500 km journey to purchase the materials for his new line. In Belgium he ordered a locomotive from John Cockerill of seraing for 40,000 francs, delivered, in Dublin, twenty wagon underframes; in Liverpool, two locomotives from Charles Tayleur (Vulcan Foundry) and ten carriage trucks from Jones and Creigh (Jones and Potts); in Manchester, a crane but no locomotives from Sharp Roberts, while in newcastle he ordered two locomotives from Timothy Hackworth. Of the latter four engines, one from each maker was to be shipped before the 10th September, under penalty of £500.
Hackworth’s Engine the first to arrive.
The locomotive from Hackworth was the first to arrive in St. Petersburg on 3rd October (Russian Calendar) on board the Barbara from Stockton * followed by the first Stephenson engine nine days later,on the Caspian from Newcastle, while a further nine days elapsed before the Sirus from Antwerp brought the Cockerill engine.The diaries kept by Hackworth’s son. and by Thomas Wardropper, in charge of the team of fitters which accompanied Stephenson’s engine have both survived, and give a picture of friendly rivalry and competition to have the engine ready first,won by the Hackworth team, though it was to Stephenson that the railway later turned for spares for all the engines.”
The rest of this article can be seen at the end of this page as a PDF file.
This is an interesting video on the St.Petersburg to Tsarskoye Selo line and its history. Although it’s in Russian, there is a visual narrative in English for none Russian speakers. There is however no mention of Timothy or John wesley Hackworth – although George Stephenson gets a mention towards the end.
Links to check out
Russian Locomotives Volume 1 1836 – 1904 extracts
AD Pater – FM Page –
John Wesley Hackworth and the Delivery and Launch of the First Locomotive for Russia – 1836.
John Wesley Hackworth and the Delivery and Launch of the First Successful Locomotive for Russia – 1836.
Nearly 200 years ago, John Wesley Hackworth, delivered and launched the first successful railway locomotive for Russia. It was built by his father – locomotive pioneer Timothy Hackworth. You may not find it in Russian history books, but the Hackworth engine was the first to arrive (on October 1st 1836) and to be launched in Tsarskoye-Selo.
The First
Russian Locomotive
Russian Locomotive
In a paper from
1956, David Burke wrote that in 1836 “A 16-year old English boy (John Wesley
Hackworth) gave Russia her first railway locomotive. He (and his team) faced
blizzards, wolves, and misfortune, and at the end of his journey, crowds
cheered him, priests blessed him, and he received the Tsar’s congratulations”
1956, David Burke wrote that in 1836 “A 16-year old English boy (John Wesley
Hackworth) gave Russia her first railway locomotive. He (and his team) faced
blizzards, wolves, and misfortune, and at the end of his journey, crowds
cheered him, priests blessed him, and he received the Tsar’s congratulations”
(John Hackworth’s Russian Train – David Burke ((South Kensington Museum of Science and Innovation) Autumn paper from 1956. – Published on this site further down)
Ulick Loring
(the great-great grandson of Timothy Hackworth) comments that “for a young
man reared in the austerity of nonconformist north-east England, to be exposed
to Imperial Russian life must have been a heady experience. It is difficult
nowadays to imagine the contrast between English and Slavic religion and
culture and how it could affect visitors from Western Europe. His locomotive
was the first among several ordered from Western Europe, to arrive at St.
Petersburg. This was on 3rd October 1836 (Russian Calendar).”
The duty of
introducing the locomotive to Russia devolved upon Timothy Hackworth’s eldest
son, John. Such a journey at that time was a perilous proposition and Timothy’s
decision to send his son couldn’t have been taken lightly! It may have been
because both Timothy and Thomas were under considerable pressure and Thomas had just got married to a French
woman, Adele Celestine Hennon, but
as Robert Young says John Wesley Hackworth was ‘a well set up youth, nearly
as tall as his father, and a keen and clever engineer, absorbed in his
profession and in appearance, much older than his years.’
Hackworth’s Locomotive for Russia
Two engines
were outsourced to the Hackworth’s Soho works, New Shildon but only one
was built,
but was the first to be delivered to Tsar Nicholas 1. George Turner Smith says,
“In effect, the engine was a typical Stephenson 2-2-2 ‘Patentee…The engine
was crated up and transported on a modified flatbed wagon, along the S&D
rails to Port Darlington in Middlesbrough…The locomotive was loaded on to the
brig – Barbara”
(George Turner Smith – Thomas Hackworth (Locomotive Engineer) 2015 p10)
On the 17th
September 1836, The Durham Advertiser reported –
“On
Thursday, 15th September, a large and powerful locomotive engine, built by
Timothy Hackworth of New Shildon for the Emperor of Russia was shipped on board
the ‘Barbara’ at Middlesbro’. This engine is constructed on an improved
principle and finished in the best manner. She
has been tried on the premises and propelled at the rate of 72 miles per hour.
It is said that this machine and the similar one built at Newcastle, will on
their arrival at St. Petersburg, have cost the Emperor upwards of £2,000 each.
Who, a few years ago, would have dreamed of the exportation of machinery from
the River Tees? This engine is for travelling on the railroad from St.
Petersburg to Pavlovsky where stands one of the country palaces of his Imperial
Majesty.”
(Railcentre website http://www.railcentre.co.uk/RailHistory/Hackworth/Pages/HackworthPage5.html#ImageLeft03_ID )
The locomotive
arrived at Port Darlington, Middlesbrough along with Hackworth’s team of
engineers. It is assumed the Barbara would be a brig but nothing much is known
about it. For any Middlesbrough historians wanting to do some research on the
ship, the records from Customs House, Middlesbrough are now in Teesside
archives.
Six years
earlier, Timothy Hackworth designed the coal staithes in Middlesbrough, in 1830, and there is a
plaque at Middlesbrough docks placed there by Jane Hackworth-Young , great great
grand-daughter of Timothy Hackworth,
in 1981.
Local
historian, George Markham Tweddell gave a description of the coal staithes in
1890.
“The railway
to Middlesbrough was opened December 20th, 1830, with a train of
passengers and
coal, one immense block of “black diamonds” from the Old Boy Colliery
figuring conspicuously, which, when broken, was calculated to make two London
chaldrons. Staithes had already been erected to load six ships at one time, and
the visitors witnessed the loading of the Sunnyside, under the management of
Mr. William Fallows, then in his thirty-third year, who the year previous had
been appointed agent to the Stockton and Darlington Railway at Stockton. The mode of loading the vessels laying along
the low-banked river was very ingenious. Each waggon of coal was run on to a
cradle, then raised by steam power to the staithes, and lowered by
“drops” to the decks, a labourer descending with each waggon, undoing
the fastening of the bottom, and thus allowing the coals to fall at once into
the ship’s hold, when he ascended with the empty waggon, which was returned to
the railway with the same machinery, in the principal gallery of the staithes,
covered in and adorned for the festive occasion, and lighted by portable gas –
the first ever burnt in Middlesbrough – a table, 134 yards long, loaded with
provisions, supplied the needed bodily refreshment to nearly six hundred hungry
spectators, all of whom entertained glowing hopes of the prosperity of the new
venture.”
(George Markham Tweddell in his History of Middlesbrough in Bulmer’s North Yorkshire Directory 1890 – http://georgemarkhamtweddell.blogspot.com/2012/12/tweddells-history-of-middlesbrough-1890.html
It was
previously surmised that John Wesley Hackworth travelled with
the team from Shildon to Middlesbrough but in searching the Hackworth archive we discover that John
Wesley Hackworth was traveling to
London with his father, on business and intended to board a ship in London to
catch up with the team in Hamburg. He missed the initial connection, but managed
to board a later ship and reunite with the team.
A description
of the Letter from Timothy Hackworth (Guild Hall Coffee House) to Jane Hackworth
22nd September 1836 reads “we were
to (sic) late in reaching London the vessel had been gone 15 minutes. One Mr Kitching from Lancashire has to go to
St Petersburg to fix two weighing machines, he together with his niece and son
John all go on board on Friday night and sail for Hamburg on Saturday morning
and I think of coming home by Majestic…….’
(Hackworth Family Archives NRM York letter dated 22nd September 1836 (TH9385) https://www.railwaymuseum.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-04/Hackworth%20Family%20Introduction%20%26%20Archive%20List.pdf
At that time,
the Baltic was frozen over so the team had to travel from Hamburg through 500
miles of frozen desolate country with wooden sledges, before the spires of St.
Petersburg came into view. David Burke, who had sight of the lost John
Wesley Hackworth diary of the trip, says “Blizzards nearly blinded them,
wolves attacked them and only by whipping the horse teams into a frenzy did
young Hackworth and his team escape the snapping jaws.” And Robert Young
adds that “the weather was so severe that the spirit bottles broke with the
frost”
Clearly in
1836, delivering a locomotive was no easy task but it was by no means the end
of their troubles. While assembling the locomotive in St. Petersburg, a
cylinder cracked and with no workshops in the city capable of fixing it,
Hackworth’s foreman George Thompson heroically took the cylinder from St.
Petersburg to Moscow, a distance of some 600 miles, to the armoury where they made a pattern for
the cylinder, got it cast, bored out and fitted, returned to St. Petersburg,
and fixed it in the engine.
The Launch
of the Russian Locomotive
David Burke tells us “In November 1836 bells pealed in St. Petersburg, guns boomed,
and
the line was opened with great crowds cheering, gaping Russians who had never
seen an ‘Iron horse’ before’. John Wesley Hackworth drove his puffing, hissing
charge into Tsarskoye-selo where the Tsar Nicholas 1 and his family and
generals waited to see him arrive. Not that the opening of the first railway in
once Holy Russia was as simple as that – a score of orthodox priests descended on the engine with crosses, candles,
censers, and holy water to perform the blessing ceremony”. “They
splashed me in the process” Hackworth wrote in his diary.
Robert Young elaborates “This was the baptismal ceremony of consecration according to the
rites of the Greek Church done in the presence of an assembled crowd. Water was
obtained from a neighbouring bog or “stele” in a golden censer and sanctified
by immersions of a golden cross amid chanting of choristers and intonations of
priests, while a hundred lighted tapers were held round it. This was followed
by the invocation of special blessings upon the Tsar and Imperial Family, and
fervent supplications that on all occasions of travel by the new mode, just
being inaugurated, they might be well and safely conveyed. Then came the due
Administration of the Ordinance by one priest bearing the holy censer; while a
second, operating with a huge brush and dipping in the censer, dashed each wheel
with the sign of the cross, with final copious showers all over the engine, of
which John Hackworth was an involuntary partaker.”
Hackworth
related in his diary how he was introduced to the Tsar who told him of a visit
to England in 1816, when he had witnessed the running of Blenkinsop’s engine on
the colliery line from Middleton to Leeds. The Tsar added some complimentary
remarks regarding the new locomotive, saying he ‘could not have conceived it
possible so radical a change could have been effected within the last 20 years.
The Tsar also told him that “It was an occasion of great progress and other
‘Iron horses’ would surely spread across the nation.”
The Hackworth
team, despite the delays and difficulties in getting there and in travelling to Moscow for the repair, were the first to launch. The launch,original scheduled for September was delayed until November 1836 to
enable the other teams to set up.