Jump to content
 

David Joy's 'Jenny'



@Compound2632provided the answer to my question “Where next, I wonder?” at the end of my previous post about Dewrance’s ‘Bird’ class for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.

 

Jenny Lind took British locomotive design into what might be termed the ‘modern age’ partly by abandoning one of the early Victorian ‘sacred cows’ that a low centre of gravity was essential and also by recognising that increasing the boiler pressure was an important step towards greater power and fuel economy.

 

There is another link, in that ‘Lion’, which I referred to in my previous post, was built by Todd, Kitson & Laird. E.B.Wilson worked for that company for a short time before founding his own company, with David Joy as manager of the drawing office. In that capacity, Joy played a major part in the development of the ‘Jenny Lind’ locomotive.

 

After modelling various obscure prototypes, I felt I was returning to the mainstream, with a prototype which has received attention from many other modellers. For example, there is a fine example on @5&9Models'Blog .

 

As usual, my aim was to create a model that I could then place in context with other earlier and later designs.

 

Creating a 3D Model of ‘Jenny Lind’

 

I have a fairly standard routine now for creating engine models, starting by importing a drawing into ‘Fusion’ as a ‘canvas’. In this case, I used a 3-view drawing published in ‘The Engineer’ (6th March 1896, p.246.)

 

 

The_Engineer81Jan-Jun1896275800x600.jpg.adb4b4e920036d43e050905ce729f2a4.jpg
Drawings of Jenny Lind locomotive, from ‘The Engineer’

 

I found a rather beautiful engraving, also in ‘The Engineer’ (Jan. 10th 1896, p.36)), which helped with the details:

 

JennyLind2800x600.jpg.d2109bff04778a6b8cfdcddee41a7d24.jpg

'Jenny Lind' Engraving

 

I extruded the various parts separately – boiler, firebox, smokebox, etc. before bringing them together as a 3D model in ‘Fusion’. I keep all the parts as separate bodies, so that they can easily be modified later, if necessary, and be rendered individually in ‘Fusion’, which helps when re-creating the complex liveries applied to many 19th century locomotives

 

Modelling the Boiler Fittings

 

As is the case for almost all my models, there were a few new lessons to be learned. The fluted dome and safety valve cover are typical products of E.B.Wilson & Co. (and later by Manning, Wardle & Co.)

 

I already had a fluted barrel for the dome, which I had produced for my model of ‘Aeolus’, so could import that into my current model, but the tapered and fluted safety valve cover was a new challenge. The method I devised was to first draw a rectangle corresponding to the width of one of the grooves in the sides of the cover’. I then tilted the rectangle with the ‘move’ tool so that it corresponded to the inclination of the side of the cover and used the ‘push-pull’ tool to cut a single groove into the cover. After that, I could use the ‘pattern on path’ tool to create a circular pattern from this single ‘feature’ This process is shown below:

 

SafetyValve_Steps.jpg.9ff9b0fd9828469098c316ce4255ce6d.jpg

Steps in creating fluted safety valve cover

 

The riveted outside frames and wheels were created by my usual methods, while the side sheets to the footplate were copied from my model of the 'Bird' class.  Since ‘Jenny’ is a more familiar prototype then many of my recent models and a very ‘pretty’ engine, I decided to create more of the minor parts than I often do.

 

Modelling the water feed system

 

The sandboxes were a simple extrusion from the profile but the feed pumps and injectors presented a greater challenge. I have not gone for a ‘hi-fi’ representation but something that I feel would be appropriate if printed at 4mm/ft scale.

 

I built up these items from a collection of smaller components that I then brought together into a 3D model. For the injector valves on the sides of the boiler, I created the parts shown below using ‘revolve’ and ‘extrude’ tools, as appropriate, from the drawings:

 

 

3D-model_Injector-1.jpg.7bee3f6d2dc7ee6c62dea20c24737d36.jpg

Feed water injector

 

Similarly, I created the water pump from the following individual parts:

 

 

3D-model_feedpump.jpg.e8b673d370ee36160ca196a1f53f0965.jpg

Feed water pump

 

I then used the ‘combine’ tool to assemble these two items and, finally, linked them all together by means of the ‘pipe’ tool in ‘Fusion’, as shown below:

 

3D-model_Injectors.jpg.f87c4dda40e8407a00c69175ca2a5c03.jpg

3D-model of feed water ‘plumbing’

 

A few other detailing parts, such as the Salter spring and whistle, came from other models.

 

‘Rendering’ my model in ‘Fusion’

 

With all these parts completed and placed on the main model, I think my model looks rather striking in the livery that I copied from an illustration on the Getty Images website

 

 

3D-model_Jenny-7a.jpg.2a3fded298429185e4fae7fde6e4a593.jpg

3D-model_Jenny-8.jpg.872a4efe7312d057965aff76297e8195.jpg
Two views of my model of ‘Jenny Lind’

 

Comparisons

 

As I stated at the outset, my aim was to create a model that I could place in context with other designs. I believe that this can be very informative, as individual illustrations often fail to show differences in scale.

 

A good example is the comparison between my previous post on the L&M ‘Bird’ Class which first appeared in 1841. At first glance, they look fairly similar … until I put them side by side:

JennyvOstrich.jpg.5af10c6cc696b2fbef7f4c89be18631d.jpg

Compare ‘Ostrich’ and ‘Jenny’

 

Moving forward in time, the ‘Jennys’ first appeared in 1847.  In 1866, Armstrong introduced his ‘Sir Daniel’ class on the GWR, which I have also modelled . The comparison of these two is shown below:

JennyvSirDaniel.jpg.96bcd7532fb8e4b6c10f7d5dd0944ccf.jpg

Compare ‘Jenny’ and ‘Sir Daniel’


Through the intervening years, the basic layout of the engines has not changed but the early Victorian obsession with low centre of gravity has gone, so that a larger diameter boiler can still fit between the wheels and the firebox can be expanded. The pattern set by the ‘Jenny’ was to continue through most of the 19th century, until the mould was finally broken by moving the cylinders outside, so that these could also expand.

 

As a note to myself, the increasing open-ness below the boiler means that I must do more to fill in the ‘motion’.

 

Mike

 

 

 

Edited by MikeOxon
update links

  • Like 10
  • Craftsmanship/clever 5

20 Comments


Recommended Comments

  • RMweb Premium
Compound2632

Posted (edited)

Splendid. I think the colour scheme is that of the Brighton at the time - perhaps @burgundy can confirm? Apart from the Brighton, a major customer for Jennys was the Midland, where they revolutionised reliability and performance, and certainly influenced Kirtley's designs. To continue the Midland connection, S W Johnson was an engineering apprentice with E B Wilson & Co, under James Fenton; I'm not sure of the exact dates but it must have been around the time the Jennys were being built as he was 17 in 1848.

 

The engraving from The Engineer of 1896 is evidently a copy of the 1848 lithograph in the comments to your post on the Bird class for which we have David Joy's word that it was made from his own drawing.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Thanks 1
Lacathedrale

Posted

I started doing a 3D model from the same drawings, but stalled out early - amazing that you've completed it, looks great. Have you thought about printing or making printable?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
MikeOxon

Posted

4 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Have you thought about printing or making printable?

I believe it should be printable.  The problems come if I want it to fit 00 gauge track.  On my 'Sir Daniel', I had to recess the driving wheels into the sides of the boiler.  As I mentioned, I kept the detailing simple enough for my printer to handle.

 

More significantly, I have nowhere to put a physical model!

 

Mike

  • Like 3
MikeOxon

Posted

24 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

To continue the Midland connection, S W Johnson was an engineering apprentice with E B Wilson & Co, under James Fenton; I'm not sure of the exact dates but it must have been around the time the Jennys were being built as he was 17 in 1848.

Knowing of your expertise in all things 'Midland', I'm pleased you approve of my model.  It's interesting to learn about the relationships between the generations of locomotive designers.

 

Mike

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • RMweb Gold
ChrisN

Posted

Mike,

What does it feel like to be modelling 'modern image'?

 

It is very interesting that the 'modern engine' is as far back as 1847.

  • Like 2
  • Funny 2
Schooner

Posted

Another exquisite and enlightening blog post Mike, thank you.

 

Re.

6 hours ago, MikeOxon said:

I want it to fit 00 gauge track

Is it naughty of me to point out that EM seems very little extra hassle nowadays?

 

:)

  • Like 1
burgundy

Posted

11 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Splendid. I think the colour scheme is that of the Brighton at the time - perhaps @burgundy can confirm?

I think the suggestion of a "standard" colour scheme at this time might be stretching a point!

According to Bradley, the E B Wilson locos were delivered with boilers with varnished mahogany lagging. Subsequently, this was painted, with the wooden strips alternately vermilion and sage green and eventually given metal cladding, painted Brunswick green with crimson lake frames.

Green was a fairly standard colour for many companies in those days and someone who knows about paint technology and its history may be able to explain why it was an accessible and popular colour. 

Best wishes 

Eric 

PS As @Schooner suggests, a benefit of EM is that it gives you 1.5mm extra space between the wheels. This can save having to chew lumps out of the boiler and cladding behind the driving wheels.  

  • Like 2
MikeOxon

Posted

4 hours ago, burgundy said:

I think the suggestion of a "standard" colour scheme at this time might be stretching a point!

According to Bradley, the E B Wilson locos were delivered with boilers with varnished mahogany lagging. Subsequently, this was painted, with the wooden strips alternately vermilion and sage green

I think I'll pass on trying to paint alternative stripes of vermillion and green.  That's interesting about the polished mahogany.  The opinion regarding early GWR locomotives is usually that the mahogany lagging was painted from the start.

 

I saw in a page of the Brighton Circle website that different liveries were used for different classes at one stage.  I quote:

 

"However some engines ran in other liveries:

Bury 0-4-0: Indian Red.

Bodmer 2-2-2: dark blue lined in red and gold.

Kingston: bright emerald green with vermillion lining."

 

I shall assume that the illustration I have followed shows yet another variation.

  • Like 4
MikeOxon

Posted

15 hours ago, Schooner said:

Is it naughty of me to point out that EM seems very little extra hassle nowadays?

 

Not at all - it's just that my only layout is 00.  If I do print this model, it will only be as a display piece, so I shall stick with true scale.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • RMweb Gold
Mikkel

Posted

I can sympathise with the Victorians’ emphasis on low centre of gravity. It seems intuitive. I wonder how the new developments with a higher centre of gravity were tested in practice. I would  have kept my distance.

  • Like 2
MikeOxon

Posted

1 hour ago, Mikkel said:

It seems intuitive.

In D.K.Clark's book 'Railway Machinery'  (1855) he wrote "Though it is proper to keep down the mass of the machine so far as convenient the height of the centre of gravity is practically a matter of minor importance." 

 

Within the context of engine sizes and speeds of the time, too low a centre of gravity increased the side-thrusts on the flanges and rails, whereas raising the C-of-G moves the forces towards the vertical on curves, which the rails are better able to withstand. 

 

Of course, as speeds and weight increase, other factors come into play but, in the early period, attempts to keep the boiler low hindered development.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • RMweb Premium
Compound2632

Posted

4 minutes ago, MikeOxon said:

Within the context of engine sizes and speeds of the time, too low a centre of gravity increased the side-thrusts on the flanges and rails, whereas raising the C-of-G moves the forces towards the vertical on curves, which the rails are better able to withstand. 

 

Indeed. This was the core fallacy of the broad gauge. 

MikeOxon

Posted

Just now, Compound2632 said:

This was the core fallacy of the broad gauge. 

I agree.  The broad gauge could have made more sense if the loading gauge had been much greater but, as other Nations proved, the standard gauge is capable of carrying much larger vehicles than any British loading gauges allow

  • Like 2
Simond

Posted (edited)

The success of narrow gauge railways, and extremely large vehicles on standard gauge ( think Channel tunnel shuttles)  suggests that the track gauge is not generally a constraining factor.  Structure gauge in the UK Southern region in particular has been a significant constraint on trade, and rail use.  If we had been able to make use of “rolling motorway”, it might have been an alternative to HS1.

 

I do not understand why a lower CoG should have any effect at all on flange side loads on the track.  The track has to steer the train irrespective of the height of the CoG, so for the same weight and speed, the side loads should be the same.    And, the vertical loads will also be the same, for the same weight.
 

Of course, if the driver is worried that the loco might fall over, he might go slower, which would certainly reduce those forces!

Edited by Simond
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • RMweb Premium
Compound2632

Posted

47 minutes ago, Simond said:

 

I do not understand why a lower CoG should have any effect at all on flange side loads on the track.  The track has to steer the train irrespective of the height of the CoG, so for the same weight and speed, the side loads should be the same.    And, the vertical loads will also be the same, for the same weight.

 

There's some good A-level physics questions in there! Most of the time, the flanges don't come into the question, rather the angle of contact between the coned tyre and the rail head.

 

But where CoG really comes into play is when the engine is in motion, rolling, piching, and yawing. The track has to resist the transverse component of the resultant forces, which is greater for lower CoG as you can readily see by drawing a triangle of forces.

 

Initially, there was the belief that the track needed to be as rigid as possible to withstand transfers forces - hence Brunel's baulk road and the preference for inside-keyed track. But by the 1870s it came to be realised that a bit of transverse springing in the rail fixings gave overall a smoother ride, so there was a general shift to outside-keyed track.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Simond

Posted

50 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But where CoG really comes into play is when the engine is in motion, rolling, piching, and yawing. The track has to resist the transverse component of the resultant forces, which is greater for lower CoG as you can readily see by drawing a triangle of forces.


I don’t agree.  The horizontal vector will be the same in both cases.

 

Whilst I’m sure we’re on the same page about overturning moments, why would the steady state horizontal/transverse force component change?  
 

It has to be enough (whether through flange contact or friction on the cone) to turn the vehicle.  The height at which it is acting relative to the rail head is immaterial to the magnitude of the force required.

 

atb

Simon


 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
MikeOxon

Posted

On 09/01/2025 at 19:11, Compound2632 said:

The engraving from The Engineer of 1896 is evidently a copy of the 1848 lithograph in the comments to your post on the Bird class for which we have David Joy's word that it was made from his own drawing.

Curious - in 'The Engineer' on page 25 of the issue in which the engraving appears ((Jan. 10th 1896) they state: "Our engraving is reproduced from a photograph of a Jenny Lind which was on the Midland Railway."

  • RMweb Premium
Compound2632

Posted

7 minutes ago, MikeOxon said:

Curious - in 'The Engineer' on page 25 of the issue in which the engraving appears ((Jan. 10th 1896) they state: "Our engraving is reproduced from a photograph of a Jenny Lind which was on the Midland Railway."

 

image.png.41d1756d201064fa8e2f5cef5c770fc5.png

 

Practical Mechanic 1848, presumed to be the lithograph Joy states to have been made from his own drawing:

 

1280px-Jenny_Lind_locomotive.jpg

 

It would appear that none of the Midland engines were named - Jenny Lind herself being the prototype engine supplied to the Brighton. I wonder if The Engineer was indulging in a little fiction to cover itself against accusations of copyright infringement?

 

The Midland 'Jennys' came in three groups:

  • 22 built new by E.B. Wilson & Co. between 1847 and 1851;
  • 17 nominally rebuilt from old engines over the same period, 13 by Wilson and 4 at Derby;
  • 35 built new at Derby between 1851 and 1856, some using parts made by Wilson.

That is 74 in total. The Midland's locomotive stock stood at 403 at the end of 1856, so Jennys made up nearly a fifth of the stock.

 

I've not been able to find a good number for the total number of Jennys built; Wikipedia says Wilson built around 70. The Brighton batch was ten locomotives. The story told is that the design originated with a Brighton order for ten 2-2-2s of John Gray's design but Gray's 'horse-leg' motion was rejected by the incoming Brighton loco superintendent, who was none other than Matthew Kirtley's elder brother Thomas. Thomas' career was cut short by death after barely ten months in post but perhaps there was just time enough for him to recommend the engines to Matthew.

 

Thomas and Matthew were Geordies, hand-picked by George Stephenson for the L&MR, taking part in the opening day. Thomas was loco superintendent on the North Midland Railway at the 1844 amalgamation that formed the Midland Railway; his younger brother, loco superintendent of the considerably smaller Birmingham & Derby Junction was appointed over him for reasons that appear to be lost in the mists of time. His son William eventually became his uncle's Works Manager at Derby, moving to Longhedge as the Chatham's loco superintendent on Johnson's appointment at Derby. He remained in post there until the formation of the working union with the South Eastern in 1898, which saw both his retirement and that of his oppo, James Stirling. (Now there's another interesting family of engineers!)

  • Informative/Useful 4
burgundy

Posted

The Brighton had 10 Jennies from E B Wilson, delivered in 1847/8, with the last one scrapped, in rebuilt form as an 0-4-2 tank, in 1882. Five more appeared in 1853/4 as very early products of Brighton Works, with the note that much material had been bought in and a small amount salvaged from scrapped locos. 

Best wishes 

Eric

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

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...