Jump to content
 

A Missing Link?


MikeOxon

862 views

In my last few posts, I’ve been delving into the almost lost world of the early days of the GWR broad gauge. I notice that my previous post aroused little comment so, perhaps, I have moved rather too far from what most people think of as ‘railway modelling’ - but I do like using models as a way of improving our understanding of these early engines.  I do appreciate the various 'likes' that many of you have given me.

 

Before I move back into more familiar territory, there is one more piece of history to record, regarding an engine that may not have existed at all – at least not in the form in which it was described.

 

Francis Whishaw on the GWR

 

One of the earliest books to survey the British railway scene was Francis Whishaw’s “The Railways of Great Britain and Ireland” of which the 2nd edition, with additional plates, was published 1842.

 

He wrote “THE Great Western Railway is by far the most gigantic work of the kind, not only in Great Britain, not only in Europe, but, we venture to say, in the whole world. Mr. Brunel, not satisfied with the beaten track pursued by those who had gone before him, determined on carrying out this important work on entirely new principles; and, notwithstanding the numerous adversaries he has had to contend with from every quarter, has thus far been eminently successful in his favourite project, and will, no doubt, ere another summer shall have passed away, pronounce this mighty work to be completed throughout.”

 

I should add, though, that Whishaw did go on to criticise the great increase in the costs incurred, over the original Parliamentary estimate … something with which we are all too familiar!

 

Concerning locomotives, Whishaw left us with a puzzle, when he wrote :“we have ... classified these machines according to their magnitude, and the gauge of way to which they severally belong. Thus the six-wheel engines for the seven-feet gauge, as those on the Great Western Railway, belong to class A ; ...An engine belonging to class A is shewn in elevation in Plate 1, the frontispiece. and sections and details of an engine belonging to this class are exhibited in Plates 7, 8, and 9.”

 

Whereas Plate 1 shows a locomotive of the ‘Firefly’ class, the engine shown in Plates 7, 8, and 9 does not correspond to any engine known to have worked on the GWR!:

 

Whishaw_Plate_7800x600.jpg.7ff9e51ad5fcac87ba75eae258872047.jpg
Whishaw Plate 7

 

Whishaw_Plate_8800x600.jpg.4527795e6b0fdc342e8e16b2955c11fa.jpg
Whishaw Plate 8

 

Whishaw does not specifically state that this is a GWR engine, although that assumption has been made by many later writers and is reasonable, considering that no other British railway used a 7 foot gauge..  The image has also sometimes been referred to as being a member of the ‘Firefly’ class, which it superficially resembles, at first glance.

 

I have also noticed that there are many similarities between these drawings and the example of Stephenson’s ‘Patentee’ engine, illustrated in Tredgold’s ‘The Steam Engine, Vol II’, Plate LXXXXIX (99), published 1838. To demonstrate this, I overlaid the two drawings to the same scale, as shown below:

 

Dempsey-Tredgoldoverlay800x600.jpg.584f85e933b987b6e0e1a02596543720.jpg
Comparison between Whishaw’s Plate 7 and Stephenson’s ‘Patentee’

 

Creating a 3D Model

 

I decided to create a 3D model based on Whishaw Plates 7 and 8, shown above. As usual, I imported the two images as ‘canvases’ into ‘Fusion 360’. I used the various sketching tools in this software to create drawings, which I could then extrude to create the main components of the engine. I also copied details of the frames and axle guides from the drawing of the ‘Patentee’ engine in Tredgold’s book..

 

3Dmodel-(annot).jpg.6e88b63b7fec84384a55136203ff80d4.jpg
Examples of Components extruded from Whishaw plates

 

Once I had extruded all the necessary components, including use of the ‘revolve tool’ for the chimney, safety valve, and manhole cover, I assembled them together, within the Fusion 360 software, and created a ‘rendered’ 3D image:

 

Whishaw-5.jpg.632f0733408c2fdfb83794f527c2190b.jpg

My 3D model created from Plates in Whishaw.

 

Comparing Models

 

When viewing the images of the Whishaw engine in isolation, it is not difficult to conclude that this image has similarities with the GWR ‘Firefly’ class. That idea is quickly disposed of, however, when I bring together the above model with the model of ‘Argus’, a member of the Firefly-class that I created in 2021.. Note that both these models were created to the scales indicated on the original drawings.

 

Wishaw-Arguscompared-2.jpg.c7b6c9ab71cb5a7b5f4c2e5d0646236d.jpg

My 3D models of the Whishaw engine and Firefly-class ‘Argus’ brought together

 

Once the two models are placed together, the profound differences between their overall dimensions is immediately apparent! Notice too, the much lighter frames and smaller driving wheels of Whishaw’s engine.

 

Similar Engines

 

There was a Stephenson 2-2-2 of the ‘Patentee’ type, named ‘Harvey Combe’, which was built n 1835 and was used by Messrs. Cubitt, the contractors, during construction of the London and Birmingham Railway near Berkhampstead. The scene was captured by the artist J.C.Bourne, as shown above in my header image:

 

According to an article in ‘The Engineer’ by J.G.H. Warren, dated 24th Sep.,1926, Nicholas Wood, in a “Report to the Directors of the Great Western Railway,” December 10th, 1838, gave results of experiments on the ‘Harvey Combe’ of the London and Birmingham Railway, to compare with contemporary experiments with the North Star of the Great Western Railway.

 

I have not read Wood’s report in full but it suggests the possibility, at least, that similar engines might have been used by contractors engaged in construction of the GWR. It does seem to me that an engine similar to that shown in Whishaw would have been far more suitable for that task than the large-wheeled engines specified by Brunel, as the initial engines for the GWR.

 

Perhaps, then, the engine shown in Whishaw’s book represents a ‘missing link’ between the engines built by Stephenson for the London and Birmingham railway and an engine or engines used during the construction of the broad gauge GWR?

 

Mike

Edited by MikeOxon

  • Like 11
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 4

16 Comments


Recommended Comments

  • RMweb Premium

It's certainly an intriguing question Mike.  A detailed drawing of a 7ft gauge engine from a book published in 1842 and it isn't of any known GWR locomotive of the time.  As always your blog articles make for an interesting read.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

Well, I  am going to have to disagree.

 

You say that "I have moved rather too far from what most people think of as ‘railway modelling’ "

 

A far as I am concerned you are are doing what I consider to be the most important aspect of railway modelling ; using models that you have made to illustrate the history and development of railways. The information available to you is sparse and I think the models you create as a practical realisation of that information are excellent. I try to do the same, but 60 years on I am working with a bit more information and some photographs. 

 

I have learned a lot from your blog, please continue. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

I fully agree with Annie and Dave, Mike. Your topic is probably always going to be niche compared with the latest RTR Manor, but that doesn't make it less important in my view. On the contrary, I think you are clearing the fog on some very interesting aspects of locomotive development.

 

Also, attention and fairness have always been poorly correlated in the social media world.

 

Returning to the topic, the missing link theory is captivating. Time for an updated loco version of one of these soon?

 

 

 

image.png.48ef44c4d914c062df859e1cd5c6f132.png

 

 

 

Edited by Mikkel
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Dave John said:

Well, I  am going to have to disagree.

Well, that's good news!!  It helps me to continue my research when I know others find it of interest. 

 

It always surprises me to realise how rapidly information about earlier times is 'lost'.  We tend to assume we live in an 'information age' where everything is instantly available but that is far from the case.  I have read Robert Harris' book 'Second Sleep', which provides a plausible reminder of how easily our civilisation could 'disappear', just like many others before it.

 

Mike

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to comment

Engagement is very low indeed normally, between 2-5% feedback should be expected - and I think you are well above that in likes and comments in proportion to reads and views.

 

I vehemently disagree with the idea that you are diverging too far from railway modelling. If I have to suffer through another 'how to weather a BR Black locomotive' article/blog/forum post I think I'll go mad - whereas literally every blog entry you have created is interesting, enjoyable, readable to the highest degree, etc. - please don't stop. 

 

I'm very much interested in early railways and I would also be interested in the crossover period from broad to narrow gauge too - and not just locomotives: signals, permanent way, wagons, etc. are all fascinating and given your treatment of the subject so far I have no doubts you have many more rich furrows to plough.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to comment

Thank you for your kind remarks, William (Lacathedrale).  I felt that I was becoming obsessed with minor details of no relevance to anyone!  After a career in research, I like to chase any anomaly I find 🙂

 

As L.P. Hartley wrote — 'The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.'.

 

Mike

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, MikeOxon said:

I felt that I was becoming obsessed with minor details of no relevance to anyone! 

No such thing at all Mike.  There is so little known about many aspects of the early Broad Gauge era that a researcher like yourself who is able to shine a little light into previously unknown dim corners is very welcome.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, crompton said:

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.” Sherlock Holmes

indeed, and that's the problem here - so little data!  I'll keep digging

Link to comment

Hi Mike, I agree with all the sentiments above. Keep the great blogs coming! Did they ever change wheel sets on wagons to transfer from broad to standard gauge, or were goods always manually moved from one wagon to another? Cheers. Meurig

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, crompton said:

Did they ever change wheel sets on wagons to transfer from broad to standard gauge

The rolling stock built when the days of the broad gauge were numbered was designed to be convertible but I don't think it was done in normal operations.  The difference in loading gauge was another problem when transferring from broad to narrow gauge.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment

Interesting supposition. Is there any evidence that contractors used locomotives during the construction phase of the GWML? The research by Brian Arman has focused on Brunel's commissions.

 

And for what it's worth, my day job is in digital community engagement. On a good day, you could expect about a 1-2% active engagement (put simply- people commenting), perhaps 5% passive engagement. Without looking at the back end, I would imagine your blogs are probably some of the most engaged with on RMweb. 

 

Will

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Forward! said:

Is there any evidence that contractors used locomotives during the construction phase of the GWML?

In the July 1837 issue of Herapath's Railway Magazine, there is a statement regarding the GWR (p.22) that "On the entire works at present under contract, there are from 6,200 to.6,300 persons constantly employed, and about 460 horses. There are also four locomotive and two stationary engines, for drawing the waggons, and working the inclined planes."

 

I do appreciate that I have a valued readership, from whom I derive considerable encouragement, but the last couple of posts received less comment than usual, so I thought I may be getting too esoteric even for my faithful followers. 😃 I have been exploring some fairly deep rabbit-holes and hope to emerge with some more practical ideas once i have absorbed all the new information.

Edited by MikeOxon
  • Like 3
Link to comment

The words "Thus the six-wheel engines for the seven-feet gauge, as those on the Great Western Railway, belong to class A"  are interesting. I should have thought that choice of words at  their least imply that there were other Class A engines. I'm away from my library, but what was the situation with other broad gauge lines that early? Were any operational? I just had a reasonable scan through RCTS broad gauge, and I don't know how thorough it is on locomotives that never made it to the GWR. Mind you a contractor's locomotive is also a very viable possibility I would have thought.

Link to comment
On 13/09/2023 at 20:30, crompton said:

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.” Sherlock Holmes

Maybe so , but it can be great fun. The massive beartrap waiting, though, is to be so pleased with one's highly logical and plausible theory that you attempt to hold onto it after contradictory evidence comes to light.

 

Been there, done it, hopefully metaphorically slapped myself round face and instructed self not to be so daft.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
On 02/12/2023 at 22:14, JimC said:

I'm away from my library, but what was the situation with other broad gauge lines that early? Were any operational?

At the time Whishaw was writing even the GWR itself was not fully operational.  He wrote (p.158):

"The line was first opened to the public on the 4th June, 1838, as far as Maidenhead; … and now it is opened to the Faringdon Road, a distance of 63¼ miles from London. The opening of that portion of the line between Bath and Bristol took place on the 31st August last, so that the public have now the use of about 75 miles of this railway; and the whole line Mr. Brunel expects will be finished about August 1841."

The directors of the Bristol and Exeter Railway decided to avoid capital outlay by arranging for the GWR to operate their line for them. The first section of the B&ER line was opened between Bristol and Bridgwater on 14 June 1841, just before the GWR completed its line from London to Bristol.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...