“A curse upon the fiery devil, thundering along so smoothly, tracked through the distant valley by a glare of light and lurid smoke, and gone! He felt as if he had been plucked out of its path, and saved from being torn asunder. It made him shrink and shudder even now, when its faintest hum was hushed, and when the lines of iron road he could trace in the moonlight, running to a point, were as empty and as silent as a desert.”  from Dombey and Son by Charles Dickens

“As the belated traveller plodded up and down, a shadowy train went by him in the gloom which was no other than the train of a life. From whatsoever intangible deep cutting or dark tunnel it emerged, here it came, unsummoned and unannounced, stealing upon him and passing away into obscurity.“

“Guard!  What place is this? Mugby Junction, sir. A windy place! Yes, it mostly is, sir. And looks comfortless indeed!”

“Red hot embers showering out upon the ground, down this dark avenue, and down the other, as if torturing fires were being raked clear; concurrently, shrieks and groans and grinds invading the ear, as if the tortured were at the height of their suffering. Iron-barred cages full of cattle jangling by midway, the drooping beasts with horns entangled, eyes frozen with terror, and mouths too: at least they have long icicles (or what seem so) hanging from their lips. Unknown languages in the air, conspiring in red, green, and white characters. An earthquake accompanied with thunder and lightning, going up express to London.” Quotes from Mugby Junction Charles Dickens

“This was the 4.25 train for Dieppe. A stream of passengers hurried forward. One heard the roll of the trucks loaded with luggage, and the porters pushing the foot-warmers, one by one, into the compartments. The engine and tender had reached the first luggage van with a hollow clash, and the head-porter could then be seen tightening the screw of the spreader. The sky had become cloudy in the direction of Batignolles. An ashen crepuscule, effacing the façades, seemed to be already falling on the outspread fan of railway lines; and, in this dim light, one saw in the distance, the constant departure and arrival of trains on the Banlieue and Ceinture lines. Beyond the great sheet of span-roofing of the station, shreds of reddish smoke flew over darkened Paris.”  From Émile Zola’s La Bête Humaine (1890) 

“They were not railway children to begin with. I don’t suppose they had ever thought about railways except as a means of getting to Maskelyne and Cook’s, the Pantomime, Zoological Gardens, and Madame Tussaud’s….”

Joy, too, it was to peep into the porters’ room, where the lamps are, and the Railway almanac on the wall, and one porter half asleep behind a paper.” 

From Pushkin
to Tolstoy

The town of
Tsarskoye-Selo (meaning Tsar’s village) was renamed Pushkin in 1937, one

hundred years after John’s return to England, and it was in honour of the
Russian poet Alexander Pushkin, who studied at the Imperial Lyceum there 1811 to 1817.
There’s no evidence to suggest John Wesley Hackworth met or was aware of
Pushkin but it’s probable the Russian poet and his wife were at the launch. If
so, and had he lived, it’s tempting to think the event might have found its way
into his work. 

Pushkin was a poet,
playwright, and novelist, considered by many to be the founder of modern
Russian literature. Born into Russian nobility in Moscow, he published his
first poem at 15 and was widely recognized by the literary establishment by the
time of his graduation from

the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum. His controversial poem
“Ode to Liberty”, led to him being exiled under Tsar Alexander 1 and
under strict surveillance of the Tsar’s political police, unable to publish
freely. Pushkin married Natalia Pushkina and they became regulars of court society.
Among her admirers was Tsar Nicholas 1 for whom John delivered the engine. It’s
interesting to note that Pushkin was around the Summer Palace at that time but
moreover, just as in Pushkin’s famous novel in verse, Eugene Onegin, that ended
with a lovers duel, in November 1836, while John was there, Pushkin faced a
rumour that Georges d’Anthès (a French military officer and politician) was
having an affair with his wife. He received several copies of a “certificate” nominating him “Coadjutor of the International Order of Cuckolds.” Pushkin immediately challenged Georges d’Anthès to a duel
in November which was delayed until February 1837 and sadly then Pushkin was fatally
wounded at the age of 37. Strange to think that John Wesley Hackworth’s greatest moment was shared in close proximity in Tsarskoye-Selo with Alexander Pushkin – the greatest Russian Poet’s most tragic moment!

By 1860,
Dostoevsky had mentioned St. Petersburg station in his classic novel ‘Crime and

Punishment’, but it was down to Leo Tolstoy, an aristocrat, to produce the
first Russian novel evoking the railways. Most Russian aristocrats, were
opposed to the railways, thinking it would lead men to move about too freely
and might assist rebellion! That would come soon enough! Tolstoy’s novel Anna
Karenina, published 1878, was one of the earliest novels after Dickens to
incorporate the theme of trains and railroads as a central motif. Tolstoy was
not a fan of trains and went as far to say, “The railroad is to travel as a
whore is to love” Anna Karenina is full of important scenes on trains and
in stations, but they also serve as a means of progressing the storyline. 

“Tolstoy
felt that trains were destroying the old Russian way of life in favour of a new
industrial and capitalistic Russia, while moving away from traditions and
simplicity. Anna Karenina is a victim of her love affair, committing suicide by
throwing herself under a train, while the theme of trains and railroads pierces
the entire story. Tolstoy incorporates the symbols of railroads and trains as
motifs of tragedy

brought by the advancing progress of Western technology in
Russian society, the destructive nature of trains, and how characters such as
Levin serve as a reminder of how trains are destroying closeness to nature and
old true values.” 

“The engine had already whistled in the distance. A few instants later the platform was quivering, and with puffs of steam hanging low in the air from the frost, the engine rolled up, with the lever of the middle wheel rhythmically moving up and down, and the stooping figure of the engine-driver covered with frost. Behind the tender, setting the platform more and more slowly swaying, came the luggage van with a dog whining in it. At last the passenger carriages rolled in, oscillating before

coming to a standstill.

A smart guard jumped out, giving a whistle, and after him one by one the impatient passengers began to get down: an officer of the guards, holding himself erect, and looking severely about him; a nimble little merchant with a satchel, smiling gaily; a peasant with a sack over his shoulder.”

Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

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 Russias. To each and every person who it may concern, it is
hereby announced that the presenter of this document, a citizen of Great
Britain, John William Hackworth, mechanical engineer, is leaving this country
via Lierandia and Kurlendia. In witness whereof and for freedom of passage he is
given this passport, which remains valid for three weeks, to pass the bearer
through the frontier. This passport is allocated by The St. Petersburg District
Governor General with the affixed seal of His Imperial Majesty at St.
Petersburg 12th day of December in the year 1836. No 3179 1560, Distinctive
characteristics – Age 16, height medium, hair light brown, face oval, forehead
average, eyebrows bushy, eyes hazel, mouth average, chin rounded.”  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1862_International_Exhibition

WHO INVENTED THE STEAM BLAST?

To the Editor of the “Northern Echo”

By John Wesley Hackworth 1876

Sir – In answer to
the letters of Miss Gurney and Mr Smiles on the above subject, which appeared
in the Times 27^th ult. And 1^st inst., I beg to say that
16 years before Sir Goldsworthy Gurney professed to have discovered the “steam
jet” or “blast,” William Nicolson patented, illustrated, described
it in his specification No 2990, and dated 22^nd November 1806. This
invention he applied to most of the purposes enumerated by Miss Gurney; but it
now almost entirely superseded by more economical and modern inventions. While
Nicholson’s specifications and Gurney’s pamphlet of 1859 prove that they
represent one and the same thing, they are equally conclusive as to the
locomotive steam-blast being essentially different. For example, we are
informed – “The steam must be high pressure, the steam draught cannot be
produced by exhaust steam” Now, as the exhaust steam is the agency employed
to produce the locomotive blast – the intermittent sound of which (only emitted
when the engine is in motion) is familiar to the ear of everyone, where as the
steam jet or ‘blower’ has a continuous sound, caused by steam issuing direct
from a boiler when at rest, as well as when in motion – it follows that they
are unquestionably two distinct things. It is equally certain that Miss Gurney
is in error in her supposition that “Timothy Hackworth conveyed her father’s
plan to the north of England” as will be clearly seen in the following
facts, which will likewise correct Mr Smiles’s statements. George Stephenson,
in his first locomotive at Killingworth in 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 an hour on short lines
of four and five miles, when due attention was paid to having plentiful supply
of steam and water in the boiler with which to commence the journey ; but even
with strict observance of these conditions, the engines not infrequently came to
a halt and had so to remain till steam was generated to complete the distance.
Matters were in this state when the Stockton and Darlington Railway approached
completion, and as the distance intended to be worked by horses or 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’ trial of
the locomotives the directors determined to abandon them, as horses were found
to do the work at less cost. Letters which I hold from George and Robert
Stephenson to my father show their disappointment at this decision. At this
juncture Timothy Hackworth proposed to make an engine to answer the purpose.
This proposition was considered, and the directors resolved, as a last
experiment, that Hackworth should be allowed to carry out his plan. This
engine, the “Royal George,” was started in 1827.We can not stop here to
enumerate the novelties in its construction ; suffice to say it had his
invention “the blast pipe” for the first time, and as used at the present day,
only that the contraction is doubled. The result of the working of this engine
may be asserted from data adduced from an experiment witnessed by Robert
Stephenson, Joseph Lock, my father and myself, which Robert Stephenson had
inserted in Rastrick and Walker’s report, which was laid before the directors
of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in March, 1829, to show what a
locomotive could accomplish.  

Report p.17 (Ed’s note Robert Young quotes p21) “Hackworth’s
engine took 48 ¾ at 11 2 /10 miles an hour, on a level, and the steam was blowing
off when the experiment 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 that have been conveyed, compared with the
other engines, prove.”

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 the following to his friend, Timothy Hackworth –

“ Liverpool
July 25^th 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”

That night men
were sent to purloin Hackworth’s invention, and the Rocket was fitted
with a similar blast pipe for the race. I think it unfair on the part of
Nicholas Wood to have chronicled (p. 290 e., 1831) the fuel destroyed by a
disorganised engine working with an internally burst cylinder. However, after
the engine was fitted with a new cylinder, Wood, (in table V11., p. 387) shows
that, taking the difference of speed into account, she had the advantage of
fuel in the economy of fuel over her rival “Rocket” 14 miles per hour consumed
2,41lbs per ton per mile.

Moreover, the short
history sent by Mr John Hick, M.P., with the old engine, when he presented it
to the South Kensington Museum, shows the Sanspariel to have been a much
superior engine to the Rocket. William Gowland, an engine driver whom
George Stephenson brought from Killingworth to assist in opening the Stockton
and Darlington line in 1825, after having run the Royal George two
years, and been the driver of the Sanspariel at Rainhill, gives
testimony in a letter to The Engineer, 23^rd 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
Sanspariel 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 Sanspariel had.”

Respecting
Nicholas Wood (in treatise 1825), noting the slightly increased draught
obtained from his colleague, George Stephenson, turning the exhaust steam into
the chimney at Killingworth, this was merely recording an old face known at
Wylam years before, which Wood and Stephenson were familiar with, though they
differed in opinion as to the utility of adopting it, the effect being so
slight. The same phenomenon was observed in Trevithick’s engine, and, although
noted in Nicholson’s journal, in 1806, there is no mention made of using the
exhaust steam to produce a blast in Trevithick’s minutely drawn patent
specification (No. 2,599), the omission proving beyond question that he neither
knew its value nor apprehended its principal. In further proof, he patented (Fanners,
&c., for creating an artificial draft in the chimney,)

The error in the Encyclopedia Britannica has been corrected in subsequent editions. Referring to the
quotations given by Mr Smiles, first, that –

“During the
construction of the Rocket a series of experiments was made with blast pipes of
different diameters, and their efficiency was tested by the amount of vacuum
that was found in the smoke-box.”

Secondly –

“The
contraction of the orifice in many of our best locomotives is totally
unnecessary, and rather disadvantageous, than otherwise, for since the speed of
the engines have been increased the velocity of the steam is quite sufficient
to produce the needful rarefaction in the chimney without any contraction
whatever.”

In the first
place, the smokebox had not then been introduced. The Rocket had not
one, she merely had a chimney with a right-angle bend to fix to the boiler end,
into which the copper tubes were inserted. And secondly, the early engine
exhausts at the cylinder faces and blast orifices were in proportion of three
or three and half to one. The present practice is six or seven to one. Hence
the contraction is doubled. Imagine an engine constructed with the modern blast
orifice – say 16 square inches – carried down uniformly to the cylinder faces –
that is eight inches to each, we need no philosopher to tell us that such an
engine could not run ; yet this is just what the world is asked to believe. It
seems incredible that Robert Stephenson should d have so committed himself, but
if on the authority of Mr Smiles we receive these statements they are almost as
damaging to Stephenson’s reputation as the Suez canal affair. Instead of Robert
Stephenson making such detrimental assertions, would it not have been wiser to have
honourably accepted my challenge (in the Engineer, August 14^th,
1857) and settled this question on evidence before a properly constituted
tribunal?

I am, &c.,
John Wesley Hackworth

January 12^th
1876

…………………………………………………………………………………

This letter
is published separately, owing to having been excluded from the Times. A copy
can be had on application to John W. Hackworth, Darlington, enclosing postage
stamp.

Darlington: Bell, Priestgate.

John Wesley Hackworth, Engineer (1820 -1891) and his wife Anne and family- West Cemetery, Darlington

John Wesley Hackworth, Engineer (1820 -1891) and his wife Anne and other family .