{"id":8,"date":"2021-12-28T17:41:00","date_gmt":"2021-12-28T17:41:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-11-13T04:57:21","modified_gmt":"2023-11-13T04:57:21","slug":"the-battle-of-the-blast-pipe-from-the-globe-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/2021\/12\/28\/the-battle-of-the-blast-pipe-from-the-globe-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"THE BATTLE OF THE BLAST PIPE from the Globe Part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"
JOHN WESLEY HACKWORTH PART 3 From The Globe<\/b><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n


<\/span><\/div>\n
THE BATTLE OF THE BLAST PIPE<\/b><\/div>\n
By Trev Teasdel<\/b><\/div>\n

<\/b><\/div>\n

<\/span>In 1876 S.T. Richardson published a pen and ink sketch entitled The Battle of the Blast Pipe in a book of sketches called \u201cThe World\u2019s First Railway Jubilee\u201d which \u2018burlesques the voluminous and heated correspondence\u2019 that appeared in the press at that time on the subject of the invention of the \u2018blast pipe\u2019 with John Wesley Hackworth lampooned in the centre dealing \u2018substantial blows impartially to everyone with his umbrella, the reference being to his vigorous advocacy of his father, Timothy Hackworth\u2019s claim to the invention\u2019. The sketch depicts other fighting advocates including George Stephenson, Samuel Smiles and J.S. Jeans, author of The Jubilee Memorial of the Railway System.<\/span><\/p>\n


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

<\/p>\n

In parts 1 and 2 1 we told the story of John\u2019s 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 \u2018The Battle of the Blast Pipe\u2019.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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 \u2013<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u2018Brought his father\u2019s 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.<\/i>\u2019 says Robert Young. 2<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
Young also tells us that \u2018John 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.<\/i>\u2019 3<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It wasn\u2019t an easy task, although John clearly enjoyed the fray, but he was vilified in the process cited as being \u2018angry\u2019, delivering a \u2018diatribe\u2019 \u2018battering his opponents\u2019 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\u2019s best remembered.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The question is, did this finger pointing define the man at heart? \u2013 Robert Young, while having his own criticisms, clarifies to us that John \u2018\u2026was 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.\u2019 4<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
His qualifications in the matter were that he occupied a unique position in early railway history and in his own words says \u2018I 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!\u2019 5<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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 \u2018Hackworth Family Archives\u2019 at NRM York. George \u2018head hunted\u2019 Hackworth for the Forth Street works and later as Superintendent of the S & D Railway. The letters show the Stephensons valued Hackworth\u2019s skills and knowledge as a blacksmith and engineer, and often sought his opinion on technical issues.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
By way of example here\u2019s a quote from a letter from Robert Stephenson in Liverpool to Timothy Hackworth March 29th 1829 – the issue was stationary engines v locomotives \u2018\u2026Let me have your general opinion as to the locomotive engine system. Is it as convenient as any other? Would you consider 13 \u00bd 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.\u2019 6<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
What Was The Main Issue?<\/b><\/div>\n
The main controversy centred on who invented the \u2018Blast Pipe\u2019, but first let\u2019s consider how inventions arise. People think of them as the brainchild of one person, but inventor Jacque Fresco, founder of The Venus project, said \u2018We all stand on the shoulders of one another\u2019. 7 Invention is a long process of accumulation, combination, trial, and error, asking questions and refinement. Hackworth didn\u2019t 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\u2019s 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.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
What Was the Blast Pipe and What Did it Achieve?<\/b><\/div>\n
\u2018The mere throwing of this steam into the chimney, either by one or two eduction pipes, did not constitute a blast pipe<\/i>\u2019 8<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In John Wesley Hackworth\u2019s so called \u2018diatribes\u2019 and in Robert Young\u2019s book, they were concerned to distinguish between what George Smith 9 called a \u2018Real blast pipe\u2019 and systems that preceded it. Timothy Hackworth\u2019s 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\u2019s effort was to clarify it. These sketches appeared in The Engineer in 1857, illustrating the difference.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
Robert Young explained \u2018The 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.<\/i>\u2019 10<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He continued \u2018It 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.<\/i>\u2019 11<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Battle of the Blast Pipe<\/b><\/div>\n
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 \u2013<\/div>\n
\u2018All 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 \u2018Chapter in the history of Railway Locomotion’ was published in the Practical Mechanics<\/i>‘ 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<\/i>‘. 12<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Samuel Smiles sources were lacking and in the Preface of the 2nd edition 1864 he admits \u2018Most 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\u2026 The information obtained from these old men\u2014most of them illiterate\u2026though 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.<\/i>\u2019 13<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Despite this, Smiles still claimed that \u2018The invention of the Steam-blast by George Stephenson occurred in 1815, and was fraught with the most important consequences to railway locomotion\u2026 Without the steam-blast, the high rates of speed could not have been kept up; \u2026and locomotives might still have been dragging themselves along at little more than five or six miles an hour.<\/i>\u2019 14<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Smiles was obviously aware of this controversy when he wrote – \u2018As this invention has been the subject of considerable controversy, it becomes necessary to add a few words<\/i>..\u2019. 15<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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 \u2013<\/div>\n
\u2018It 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<\/i>.\u2019 16<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In 1875 the controversy returned during the 1st Railway Jubilee. John responded in 1876 with a lengthy letter to the Times entitled \u2018Who Invented the Steam Blast?\u2019 17 The letter was \u2018excluded from the Times\u2019 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 \u2013 see notes).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
If John was \u2018angry\u2019, it\u2019s 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.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
John answered Samuel Smiles in his tract \u2018Who Invented the Steam Blast?\u2019 1876 \u2013<\/div>\n
\u2018George Stephenson, in his first locomotive at Killingworth, 1814, adopted Blenkinsop\u2019s 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\u2026.but even with strict observance of these conditions, the engines not infrequently came to a halt\u2026.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.<\/i><\/div>\n

<\/i><\/div>\n
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.<\/i>\u2019 18<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
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.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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.<\/div>\n
I state the preceding as it has been given to us – Hackworth\u2019s 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<\/div>\n
John went on to say \u2018In 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 \u2013 he wrote to his friend, Timothy Hackworth \u2013 \u2018Liverpool, 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.\u2019<\/div>\n
\u2018It 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 \u2013 \u2018Timothy, what makes the sparks fly out of the chimney?\u2019 Mr Hackworth touched the exhaust pipe near the cylinders and said \u2013 \u2018It is the end of this little fellow that does the business\u2019. 20<\/div>\n
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:<\/div>\n
\u2018I 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\u2026I 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.\u2019 21<\/div>\n
By 1882, aged 61, John was tired of the fray and wrote to his brother-in-law George Edward Young \u2013<\/div>\n
\u2018Having fought the battle \u2013 almost single handed \u2013 under some very vexatious circumstances, I begin rather to flag!\u2019 22<\/div>\n
Blast Pipe Letter<\/div>\n
John died in 1891 but the \u2018battle\u2019 continued in a less vigorous way by the Hackworth family. An important element was the \u2018blast pipe letter\u2019 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.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
The Blast Pipe Letter above<\/i><\/div>\n

<\/i><\/div>\n
The letter, \u2018which can be interpreted as evidence that Hackworth invented the blast pipe\u2019 prompted Young to write \u2018The \u2018two bellows worked by eccentrics\u2019 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.<\/i>\u2019 23<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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\u2019s 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 \u2018blast pipe\u2019 letter to the UK was delayed by WW1. Finally, Samuel\u2019s widow sent the letter from New York to Albert\u2019s daughter Esther Alderslade, in Thornaby on Tees, in 1921 where most of John\u2019s 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\u2019s campaign once again was discussed in the press. The letter now resides in the Hackworth Family archive NRM York.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Albert Hackworth – John Wesley Hackworth’s (From the Joan Hackworth Weir Collection)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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 \u2018angry tirade\u2019!<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
Notes<\/b><\/div>\n
1 See the Globe issue 13 December 2020 entitled John Wesley Hackworth Part 1 and issue 14 April 21 John Wesley Hackworth Part 2.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
2 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive – Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p365<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
3 Ibid<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
4 Ibid<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
5 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive – Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p356<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
7 Jacque Fresco YouTube video Think https:\/\/youtu.be\/Ot1wztaqREw<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
8 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive – Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p210<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
9 Thomas Hackworth \u2013 Locomotive Engineer. George Turner Smith 2015 p39<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
10 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive – Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p210<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
11 Ibid p210 \/ 2011<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
12 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive – Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p211<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
13 The Life of George Stephenson and his son Robert Stephenson \u2013 Samuel Smiles 1868 https:\/\/www.gutenberg.org\/cache\/epub\/46229\/pg46229-images.html#Page_152<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
14 Ibid p170<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
15 Ibid<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
16 Ibid<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
17 \u201cWho Invented the Steam Blast?\u201d. Tract by John Wesley Hackworth 1876. Can be read here https:\/\/joanhackworthweircollection.blogspot.com\/2021\/11\/who-invented-steam-blast-tract-by-john.html<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
18 Ibid<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
19 Robert Young Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive p174 quoting p21 of Rastrick and Walker report March 1829<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
20 \u201cWho Invented the Steam Blast?\u201d. Tract by John Wesley Hackworth 1876. Can be read here https:\/\/joanhackworthweircollection.blogspot.com\/2021\/11\/who-invented-steam-blast-tract-by-john.html<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
21 Ibid<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
22 Letter from John Wesley Hackworth to George Edward Young 1882 \u2013 find it here https:\/\/johnwesleyhackworth.blogspot.com\/2020\/11\/john-wesley-hackworth-letters.html<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
23 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive – Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p220<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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<\/div>\n

<\/b><\/div>\n
Further resources to be found at NRM York<\/b> https:\/\/www.railwaymuseum.org.uk\/sites\/default\/files\/2018-04\/Hackworth%20Family%20Introduction%20%26%20Archive%20List.pdf<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

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

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 \u201cThe World\u2019s First Railway Jubilee\u201d which \u2018burlesques the voluminous and heated correspondence\u2019 that appeared in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"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\/8"}],"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=8"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8\/revisions\/39"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsrainbow.com\/johnwesleyhackworth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}