Timewatch Rocket and its Rivals
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 07. 2018
- 2002 BBC Documentary from the 'Timewatch' series. Features a recreation of the 1829 Rainhill Trials and charts the history of the locomotives involved, the trials themselves and the Liverpool and Manchester Railway
- Věda a technologie
For everyone who loves railroads this video is a jewel. Thanks a lot!
Whoa! George Stephenson did not successfully survey the L&M. George's survey was so bad he was humiliated in Parliamentary Committee and the L&M had to withdraw their original bill. George Stephenson was then discharged by the L&M. The final survey was by Charles Vignoles under the supervision of the Rennie brothers, who were the chief engineers. If the Rennies had been available -- and not so expensive -- they would have built the railway, too. But ... George had to be rehired and, as it turns out, it was the best thing that could happen to the L&M.
It is not really true that the Rennies priced themselves out of the job. Their terms were not at all outrageous, but it appears that some in the company just wanted George back.
The reliance on the reports from the Mechanics Magazine are very misleading. They are written by Charles Blacker Vignoles, who apart from being on the team for Novelty, also had a complete dislike of George Stephenson. So his reports that Novelty was the people's favourite need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Vignoles was the man who surveyed the route of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, but when Stephenson was given the job of building the line, he only wanted his people, and Vignoles knew he wasn't wanted, and when he made an error marking out the Wapping Tunnel, he felt he had no choice but to leave, and resented George Stephenson for that.
As for Stephenson supplying a faulty piston cylinder. Robert Stephenson, who was a close and good friend of Hackworth, cast 6 cylinders and let Hackworth choose the two he wanted.
Typical BBC lack of thorough research and typical sensationalist reporting.
The thing is, Rocket won the trails. The others were both unlucky and victims of poorer engineering.
Whay has Henry Booth got a rubbish Scouse accent? Liverpudlians would have sounded more Lancastrain back then.
It's Cycloped not Cyclopede.
I want my licence fee back. 🤣
An interesting story but bad BBC research makes it a bit sensationalist. The short of it is The Rocket won. The other locos were victims or poorer engineering and just plain bad luck. Suggesting a different outcome is ridiculous.
I want my licence fee back 🤣
@@octaviussludberry9016 I wholeheartedly disagree. It's not ridiculous at all to explore how history might have turned out differently had circumstances been improved. I for one found this experiment and its results fascinating, particularly aspects like Novelty's firing problems (the inability to remove clinker on the move and the gassing of its own crew were fatal weaknesses) and Sans Pareil's impressive performance had she been in peak condition. And ultimately, history bore that out; the L&M bought Novelty and used her for limited service and shunting alongside Rocket, and Timothy Hackworth became Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, continuing to build engines to his oddball designs.
That said, I actually do agree with your conclusion, if not the way you argue it. In the end, even if Rocket hadn't won at Rainhill, it ultimately would have proved to be the future of locomotive design for one very simple reason: scaleability. Both Novelty and Sans Pareil were technological dead ends or near enough; you simply couldn't build a locomotive bigger than Novelty to that design, and likewise the engines Hackworth built after Sans Pareil never grew that much bigger and ultimately hit their apex with Derwent of 1845. By contrast, Rocket was acknowledged even by the Stephensons as merely a prototype, with the production model Northumbrian Class already being built and the superior Planet Class that would set the standard for every steam locomotive built to the present day not being far behind. In short, even if Novelty of Sans Pareil had won, they would merely have been the last of their kind, having led to an engineering cul-de-sac, while Rocket, though not the winner itself, would surely have been seen as superior for the flexibility and scaleability of its design; you couldn't make a bigger Novelty, but you could make a bigger Rocket.
You've got to admire the way Ray Towell and gang offer the Novelty lads a hand when they failed, I'm sure there was much mickey taking later though
The Sans Pareil replica looks so pretty and interesting, seeing it go full speed looked pretty cool ngl
Been looking for this video for ages!! Thank you
Very welcome! Yes I also couldn't believe it wasn't on CZcams or anywhere else for that matter, then remembered I had it on VHS. T'was duly converted to DVD , ripped and uploaded here! Glad you have enjoyed it :)
I've watched it 2/3 times now, it's still great to watch.
This is on BBC Iplayer right now, which talks about the building of these engines...
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p011w92v/the-rainhill-story-stephensons-rocket
Considering it was an 'Open' multi national event, for 1829 it was quite generous.
To finish first, first you have to finish. That is all that it boils it down to.
Technically, George was too busy to design a locomotive so his son Robert designed the Rocket
Yes, but history -- and Samuel Smiles -- have tended to give George Stephenson too much credit and Robert -- and Henry Booth -- not enough.
As the video says, the Stephensons were producing far more advance engines within months. Even if Sans Pareil had won and Hackworth garnered investment to start a factory he would have had to switch to a similar design or be driven out of business.
True on both counts. Even the Stephensons themselves acknowledged at the time that Rocket was only a prototype. The improved Northumbrian Class, the production models of Rocket, were already underway while the Rainhill Trials were going on, and Robert Stephenson was already drawing up the next step, the Planet Class 2-2-0, which would go on to set the standard for every steam locomotive built up to the present day.
Meanwhile Timothy Hackworth left the trials without the glory or contracts, but still became Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, continuing to build locomotives to his bizarre designs inspired by Sans Pareil. Ultimately, this would reach its peak with his Derwent of 1845. But by then the writing was on the wall; Hackworth's engines were the last evolutions of an obsolete design, while the Stephensons' creation was the future.
That's not a particularly fair assessment of hackworth. At the time he was the most eminent locomotive engineer in the world. Only his locomotives of which sans pareil was the zenith were successful, reliable, safe and commercially successful. It was a technological dead end but hackworth continued building and developing locomotives, for the S&Dr and his own firm, some very advanced. He pioneered use of the cranked axle and inside cylinders (globe) developed the first trustworthy safety valve and invented the blast pipe - without which rocket wouldn't have performed. Sans pareil was using tried and tested and proven technology. Rocket was revolutionary. And sans pareil wasn't sabotaged. George Stephenson had written to hackworth asking him to enter a locomotive, why? Because he of all people knew that at that time as far as locomotive engineering went, hackworth was *the* go to man. And Stephenson wanted to prove that locomotives were the future.
Novelty = Primitive Coffee Pot locomotive
I wonder if this 'Rocket' replica was the one that visited Australia in the early 1980's. A short, straight line was set up on an oval which is now the site of Melbourne Park, home of the Aust. Open Tennis comp.
As the old saying goes; "To win a race, you must finish!"
Love it
Just watching this again, and another small flaw is apparent. Fanny Kemble's account at the end was probably not referring to Rocket. At no point in any account does it say which loco is pulling the train that day, and Rocket was then working as a ballast engine on Chat Moss and stored at Manchester. Newer, better engines had been delivered throughout 1830, and she is more than likely referring to one of them. Possibly Arrow.
Don't forget they had other rivals!. Canal's and their wealthy/greedy landowners and investors
George Stephenson owned only 20% of Robert Stephenson & Co. Robert owned 20%, Henry Booth 20% and Edward Pease 40%.
9:54 THE VIADUCT STILL EXISTS?!?! WOW!
Although it would've looked fantastic with its freshly cut stone-work!
The boiler inspection of the novelty wasn't up to much.
Why not? The inspector found several things that needed fixing or replacing. The clinker problem had nothing to do with inspection.
@@jppicur
I am not referring to the clinker.
I am referring to the fact that the boiler began to leak under pressure.
@@TugIronChief I imagine that Mr. Vignoles, editor of Mechanic's Magazine and 4th member of Team Novelty, essentially said 'pass this boiler or you'll lose your job.'
@@TugIronChief According to the rules set by the Rainhill Trials judges, engines would have their boilers put under strain 3x their working pressure. However, not long after this test, which Novelty originally passed, she failed, and was dismantled. In a pinch for time due to a miscommunication, her boiler joints were hastily made. Unsurprisingly, one failed. By today's standards, thoroughly unacceptable. In 1829, it was pretty much par for the course to have your engine's boiler fail, either catastrophically or reasonably harmlessly (for the crew, mind, the engine would go up either way.)
DI maidi bom 😃
"Ракета" привела Россию к отмене крепостного права
Rocket won. Too bad everyone else.
Hoksworth Wipple it was a lucky break for history that the original Sans Pareil broke down.
@@richieosborn2639 Not really. Sans Pareil did not meet the rules of the competition, it was too heavy for four wheels and should have been on six. It was also out of date technology. Its design would have badly damaged the track over extended use.
@@liverpoolandmanchesterrailway The Wilberforce, essentially a 6-wheeled Sans Pareil, showed more promise, but was far from perfect. Derwent, of 1845, was only then showing Rocket influence. Mr. Ackworth was rather behind his time, and despite his superior manufacturing workmanship, bad luck and failure to adapt to the future brought about his undoing.
As the old saying goes; "To win a race, you must finish!"
Expensive,slow and uncomfortable. So nothing has changed with British Railways then?