{"id":20,"date":"2014-05-25T16:34:00","date_gmt":"2014-05-25T15:34:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-11-13T04:58:38","modified_gmt":"2023-11-13T04:58:38","slug":"advocating-his-fathers-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/2014\/05\/25\/advocating-his-fathers-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"Advocating his Father’s Claims."},"content":{"rendered":"

John Wesley Hackworth’s tract 1876. originally John’s letter to the Times but was ‘excluded’ so issued instead as a tract addressed to the editor of the Northern Echo.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

Transcript – <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

WHO INVENTED THE STEAM BLAST?<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

To the Editor of the \u201cNorthern Echo\u201d<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

By John Wesley Hackworth 1876<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Sir \u2013 In answer to
\nthe letters of Miss Gurney and Mr Smiles on the above subject, which appeared
\nin the Times 27th<\/sup> ult. And 1st<\/sup> inst., I beg to say that
\n16 years before Sir Goldsworthy Gurney professed to have discovered the \u201csteam
\njet<\/i>\u201d or \u201cblast,\u201d<\/i> William Nicolson patented, illustrated, described
\nit in his specification No 2990, and dated 22nd<\/sup> November 1806. This
\ninvention he applied to most of the purposes enumerated by Miss Gurney; but it
\nnow almost entirely superseded by more economical and modern inventions. While
\nNicholson\u2019s specifications and Gurney\u2019s pamphlet of 1859 prove that they
\nrepresent one and the same thing, they are equally conclusive as to the
\nlocomotive steam-blast being essentially different. For example, we are
\ninformed \u2013 \u201cThe steam must be high pressure, the steam draught cannot be
\nproduced by exhaust steam<\/i>\u201d Now, as the exhaust steam is the agency employed
\nto produce the locomotive blast – the intermittent sound of which (only emitted
\nwhen the engine is in motion) is familiar to the ear of everyone, where as the
\nsteam jet or \u2018blower\u2019 has a continuous sound, caused by steam issuing direct
\nfrom a boiler when at rest, as well as when in motion \u2013 it follows that they
\nare unquestionably two distinct things. It is equally certain that Miss Gurney
\nis in error in her supposition that \u201cTimothy Hackworth conveyed her father\u2019s
\nplan to the north of England<\/i>\u201d as will be clearly seen in the following
\nfacts, which will likewise correct Mr Smiles\u2019s statements. George Stephenson,
\nin his first locomotive at Killingworth in 1814, adopted Blenkinsop\u2019s exhaust,
\nejecting the steam vertically into the air from an inverted T pipe ; and in his
\nsubsequent engines, Stephenson resorted to the plan used by Timothy Hackworth
\nin the Wylam locomotives four or five years before, the method being to carry
\nthe exhaust pipes just within the circumference of the chimney, and allow the
\nsteam to escape upwards. This became the established mode and the engines did
\ntolerably well in conveying coals at three to five miles an hour on short lines
\nof four and five miles, when due attention was paid to having plentiful supply
\nof steam and water in the boiler with which to commence the journey ; but even
\nwith strict observance of these conditions, the engines not infrequently came to
\na halt and had so to remain till steam was generated to complete the distance.
\nMatters were in this state when the Stockton and Darlington Railway approached
\ncompletion, and as the distance intended to be worked by horses or locomotives
\nwas 20 miles, it was predicted by competent judges that it would be impractical
\nby the latter power, and such it proved to be, for after 18 months\u2019 trial of
\nthe locomotives the directors determined to abandon them, as horses were found
\nto do the work at less cost. Letters which I hold from George and Robert
\nStephenson to my father show their disappointment at this decision. At this
\njuncture Timothy Hackworth proposed to make an engine to answer the purpose.
\nThis proposition was considered, and the directors resolved, as a last
\nexperiment, that Hackworth should be allowed to carry out his plan. This
\nengine, the \u201cRoyal George<\/i>,\u201d was started in 1827.We can not stop here to
\nenumerate the novelties in its construction ; suffice to say it had his
\ninvention \u201cthe blast pipe\u201d for the first time, and as used at the present day,
\nonly that the contraction is doubled. The result of the working of this engine
\nmay be asserted from data adduced from an experiment witnessed by Robert
\nStephenson, Joseph Lock, my father and myself, which Robert Stephenson had
\ninserted in Rastrick and Walker\u2019s report, which was laid before the directors
\nof the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in March, 1829, to show what a
\nlocomotive could accomplish.   <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Report p.17 (Ed’s note Robert Young quotes p21) \u201c<\/span><\/span>Hackworth\u2019s
\nengine took 48 \u00be at 11 2 \/10 miles an hour, on a level, and the steam was blowing
\noff when the experiment concluded<\/i>\u201d \u2026 \u201c<\/span><\/span>I state the preceding as it has
\nbeen given to us. Hackworth\u2019s engine is <\/span>undoubtedly<\/span> the most powerful that has
\nyet been made, as the amount of tons that have been conveyed, compared with the
\nother engines, prove.<\/span><\/span><\/i>\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In 1828, George
\nStephenson being wishful to produce an equally powerful engine built the Lancashire
\nWitch, <\/i>which, besides having the Wylam mode of exhaust, was provided with
\ntwo bellows \u2013 an arrangement he was sanguine would effect the desired result.
\nAfter the trial \u2013 he wrote the following to his friend, Timothy Hackworth \u2013<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c Liverpool
\nJuly 25th<\/sup> 1828. We have tried the new locomotive engine at Bolton ;
\nwe have also tried the blast to it for burning coke, and I believe it will
\nanswer. There are two bellows worked by eccentrics underneath the tender.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

It did not answer,
\nand it is obvious at this date, Stephenson knew nothing of the blast pipe, nor
\ndid he acquire a knowledge of it October 1829.At a preliminary trial of the Sanspareil,
\n<\/i>Hackworth gave Stephenson a brisk run on his engine, when the latter made
\nhis observations, and at length put the question \u2013 \u201cTimothy, what makes the
\nsparks fly out of the chimney?\u201d <\/i>Mr Hackworth touched the exhaust pipe near
\nthe cylinders and said \u2013 \u201cIt is the end of this little fellow that does the
\nbusiness\u201d <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

That night men
\nwere sent to purloin Hackworth\u2019s invention, and the Rocket <\/i>was fitted
\nwith a similar blast pipe for the race. I think it unfair on the part of
\nNicholas Wood to have chronicled (p. 290 e., 1831) the fuel destroyed by a
\ndisorganised engine working with an internally burst cylinder. However, after
\nthe engine was fitted with a new cylinder, Wood, (in table V11., p. 387) shows
\nthat, taking the difference of speed into account, she had the advantage of
\nfuel in the economy of fuel over her rival \u201cRocket\u201d 14 miles per hour consumed
\n2,41lbs per ton per mile.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, the short
\nhistory sent by Mr John Hick, M.P., with the old engine, when he presented it
\nto the South Kensington Museum, shows the Sanspariel <\/i>to have been a much
\nsuperior engine to the Rocket. <\/i>William Gowland, an engine driver whom
\nGeorge Stephenson brought from Killingworth to assist in opening the Stockton
\nand Darlington line in 1825, after having run the Royal George <\/i>two
\nyears, and been the driver of the Sanspariel <\/i>at Rainhill, gives
\ntestimony in a letter to The Engineer, <\/i>23rd<\/sup> October, 1857, to
\nthe following effect :- <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c I was driver
\nof the Royal George on the Stockton and Darlington Railway for about two years,
\nit having come out of Shildon works in 1827 – the complete production of
\nTimothy Hackworth. It contained the blast pipe as perfect as any used at the
\npresent day\u2026I can solemnly assure you that when the
\nSanspariel <\/a>left Shildon it contained the blast pipe not only by accident
\nbut by clear design, with a full knowledge of its value, as proved in the case
\nof the Royal George. Of course everybody knew that the Rocket had not the blast
\npipe when it came to Rainhill. The Sanspariel had.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Respecting
\nNicholas Wood (in treatise 1825<\/i>), noting the slightly increased draught
\nobtained from his colleague, George Stephenson, turning the exhaust steam into
\nthe chimney at Killingworth, this was merely recording an old face known at
\nWylam years before, which Wood and Stephenson were familiar with, though they
\ndiffered in opinion as to the utility of adopting it, the effect being so
\nslight. The same phenomenon was observed in Trevithick\u2019s engine, and, although
\nnoted in Nicholson\u2019s journal, in 1806, there is no mention made of using the
\nexhaust steam to produce a blast in Trevithick\u2019s minutely drawn patent
\nspecification (No. 2,599), the omission proving beyond question that he neither
\nknew its value nor apprehended its principal. In further proof, he patented (Fanners,
\n&c., for creating an artificial draft in the chimney,<\/i>) <\/span><\/p>\n

The error in the <\/span><\/span>Encyclopedia<\/span> Britannica<\/span><\/span><\/i> has been corrected in subsequent editions. Referring to the
\nquotations given by Mr Smiles, first, that \u2013 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cDuring the
\nconstruction of the Rocket a series of experiments was made with blast pipes of
\ndifferent diameters, and their efficiency was tested by the amount of vacuum
\nthat was found in the smoke-box.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Secondly \u2013<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe
\ncontraction of the orifice in many of our best locomotives is totally
\nunnecessary, and rather disadvantageous, than otherwise, for since the speed of
\nthe engines have been increased the velocity of the steam is quite sufficient
\nto produce the needful rarefaction in the chimney without any contraction
\nwhatever.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

In the first
\nplace, the smokebox had not then been introduced. The Rocket<\/i> had not
\none, she merely had a chimney with a right-angle bend to fix to the boiler end,
\ninto which the copper tubes were inserted. And secondly, the early engine
\nexhausts at the cylinder faces and blast orifices were in proportion of three
\nor three and half to one. The present practice is six or seven to one. Hence
\nthe contraction is doubled. Imagine an engine constructed with the modern blast
\norifice – say 16 square inches \u2013 carried down uniformly to the cylinder faces –
\nthat is eight inches to each, we need no philosopher to tell us that such an
\nengine could not run ; yet this is just what the world is asked to believe. It
\nseems incredible that Robert Stephenson should d have so committed himself, but
\nif on the authority of Mr Smiles we receive these statements they are almost as
\ndamaging to Stephenson\u2019s reputation as the Suez canal affair. Instead of Robert
\nStephenson making such detrimental assertions, would it not have been wiser to have
\nhonourably accepted my challenge (in the Engineer, August 14th,<\/sup>
\n1857<\/i>) and settled this question on evidence before a properly constituted
\ntribunal? <\/span><\/p>\n

I am, &c.,
\nJohn Wesley Hackworth <\/span><\/p>\n

January 12th<\/sup>
\n1876<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n

This letter
\nis published separately, owing to having been excluded from the Times. A copy
\ncan be had on application to John W. Hackworth, Darlington, enclosing postage
\nstamp.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Darlington: Bell, Priestgate.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

John Wesley Hackworth’s tract 1876. originally John’s letter to the Times but was ‘excluded’ so issued instead as a tract addressed to the editor of the Northern Echo. Transcript –  WHO INVENTED THE STEAM BLAST? To the Editor of the \u201cNorthern Echo\u201d By John Wesley Hackworth 1876 Sir \u2013 In answer to the letters of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":133,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":134,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20\/revisions\/134"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/133"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}