Anthony I have watched this effort before as I have with more than one of your impressively informative pieces of work. I am still learning and am amazed at your detail which I have not yet seen elsewhere, perhaps because of the distraction of fancy production or simply lack of detail - research - effort (which is more likely). I find it very hard to find information on the early engines and their creators apart from the famous ones. They deserve their notoriety but others deserve a slice of this cake too (for our understanding and appreciation), You in a way are their voice and our teacher. As a retired teacher I am impressed by your efforts for us. Keep up the great work. The shame for me is the very limited numbers of models for model rail modelers to enjoy. I do agree with Stephenson based on the information I know about Novelty.. You have added to this more than little.
Thank you, well said. As an American I am simply amazed at the history and the science that these men were able to harness. The astonishingly rapid development of the steam engine should be considered the equivalent of putting a man on the moon. The steam engine has certainly had more influence on mankind than the moon landing.
Ericson was also one of the pioneers of the screwpropellers on ships. But not the usual pusher we are used to, but a double, counterrotating traction propeller. So very inovative here, to. A great man, indeed.
I'd agree with Stephenson just based on being prone to clinkering and sooty flues. On top of that she seems to be an incredibly lightweight design, so not sure about how much tractive effort she would've mustered. I'd guess her pulling power would be a fraction of Rocket's or Sans Pareil.
Novelty weighed only 2 tons 15 cwt; half the weight of Rocket (4tons 3cwt) or Sans Pareil (4 ton 8cwt 2 qrs). She was a little teeny tiny thing, so even a load ten times her own weight was about twenty tons, when Rocket could shift over 40!
"But the less said about those expensive failures, the better." Oh, but we're all agog now. Please, do regail us. In seriousness though, I've always had a bit of a fascination with Novelty primarily because so many more amateur railway historians (including many a publisher of more mainstream railway history books) seem to have no earthly clue how it worked. With an engine like Rocket or even Sans Pareil their functionality is fairly obvious. By contrast, Novelty is so alien to anything we in modern times would associate with a steam locomotive that for years I thought the copper tank at one end was the boiler in its entirety and that the tube running to the tiny exhaust pipe chimney was some sort of muffler (which sounds absurd, but it was a feature that was tried on a few early steam engines). I can kind of understand why she was the crowd favorite, with Sans Pareil being the last evolution of the cumbersome colliery tramway engine, while here was this new engine, sleek and lithe, unencumbered by an unsightly tender, with thin spoked wheels like those of a posh carriage, copper "tea urn" boiler gleaming. Little did any onlookers know the devilish complication concealed within her elegant lines. I've heard elsewhere that despite her failure at the Rainhill Trials she was purchased by the Liverpool & Manchester and was primarily used for private charter trains, often being seen pulling a single passenger coach with a horse box and a flatbed wagon with the client's carriage perched atop it.
I'm planning a Spotlight episode on William IV so watch this space! There's no evidence at all Novelty was purchased by the Liverpool & Manchester Railway. She remained the property of Braithwaite & Ericsson until 1833 when she was sold to Dalglish of Wigan. Thereafter she disappears from the historical record. Vertical cylinders barred her from working on the Liverpool & Manchester. Sans Pareil, however, was purchased by the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, but because she couldn't burn coke and made a lot of smoke as a coal burner was of no use to them so was hired to John Hargreaves who worked the Bolton & Leigh Railway in late 1829 and eventually sold to him. Because she he made smoke and had vertical cyliners she would be barred from the Liverpool & Manchester. :-)
Sans Pareil was hardly the final evolution of the pre-rocket school of locomotive design. Hackworth kept refining that kind of engine (ie. with a return flue, vertical cylinders, etc.) for years. Check out Hackworth's locomotive Samson for an example of what he was building almost a decade later in 1838! Hackworth wasn't oblivious to Rocket's finer points though, and he was building more "conventional" engines right alongside his old-fashioned ones. He was however particularly devoted to return flues, which he still used, in a much evolved form, on locomotives like Derwent, which were otherwise conventional designs for their era.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory when did the Liverpool and Manchester railway first steam the Sans Pareil after they brought her from Timothy Hackwarth? what was the price of steam coals for use in steam locomotives during 1829 and 1830? compared to the price of Coke?
Sans Pareil wouldn't have been allowed to run on the Liverpool & Manchester as it made smoke and therefore broke the law, incurring a £50 fine for each occasion it did so. Which is why it went to work on the Bolton & Leigh Railway where it could make as much smoke as it wanted. For coal you're looking at a price somewhere between 30shillings per ton (imperial) and 40shillings per ton. Coke started about 40 shillings per ton. So it was more expensive but the Law said it had to be burned to prevent smoke.
I have to admit, for the most part I was never very interested in the very primitive locomotive designs. But lately they've grown on me, especially with the help of your videos. Thanks for sparking my interest!
Novelty’s a rather interesting engine, not only the world’s first tank engine, but also the only replica of the Rainhill Three with a steam whistle. I suppose it’s rather unique that way, seeing as Sans Pareil has a bell, and Rocket has its driver using a bugle as a warning signal.
The steam whislt hadnt been inventede in 1829 and I'm not aware of the replica of Novelty having one. The Sans Pareil replica has a bell but the original doesn't appear to have had a form of audible warning. The blowing of bugles on the Liverpool & Manchester was part of the Rule Book - horns were to be blown by the fireman and the train guards when approaching level crossings or stations to give warning of their approach. :-)
There’s video footage from 2005 of Novelty and Planet whistling a greeting at each other. here’s the link: ua-cam.com/video/BCxusDqc_5A/v-deo.html it’s about 9 minutes in.
Anthony Dawson Indeed, after all, technology is an ever changing thing. While a replica is the closest we could ever get nowadays, updated building processes, such as welded boilers and roller bearings, really do make a modern day interpretation more mechanically sound, more efficient and, above all, safer than the original ever was.
@@warriorstar2517 the replicas of Rocket, Sans Pareil, Novelty and Planet were built as closely as possible to the originals but with an eye to modern safety requirements. hence the use of steel rather than wrought or cast iron. The use of all steel welded boilers and of course a modern pressure gauge, water gauge and two means of putting water in the boiler. They used plain bearings and have very few mod-cons - Rocket hasn't got an injector for example and uses an axle pump or hand pump. Whilst they are more efficient than the originals, experiment data from the Rainhill replicas shows them to perform very closely to the originals.
The main issue is that having been designed based on a road vehicle she was too "slight" for a railway locomotive. The same went for Trevithick's Road carriage. History is on the side of bigger and more powerful and most definitely easy access to clean steam engines. It is amazing that Braithwait had the audacity to even enter and attend, after being proved wrong over Chat Moss. If I was George, I'd have offered him a trip across the Moss on Rocket.
Had no idea Ericsson was involved in Novelty, the Monitor is a fascinating ship and story. Ericsson even had a flush toilet installed on Monitor which is quite interesting since she was built in 1862.
One of the most entertaining events that I have attended at the NRM in York was the re run of Rainhill! With Messrs Braithwaite & Ericsson with 'NOVELTY (Which was suffering from various "mechanical afflictions"!), Mr Hackworth (who was wearing an impressively tall hat!) with 'SANS PARIEL' and Mr Stephenson snr with 'LOCOMOTION' & Mr Stephenson jnr with 'ROCKET' there was no sign of Mr Burstall or his locomotive 'PERSEVERANCE ' The horse powered entrant 'CYCLOPED' was present albeit with a plastic horse! Mr Brunel was on the footplate of 'IRON DUKE' but due to track gauge issues he was going nowhere! Most of the debate seemed to be focused on Mr Hackworth and his exceptionally tall hat and whether it would fall off during the "Trials"! All in great fun.
As something of a correction. No Flying Scotsman Enterprises did not build the Novelty Replica. It like the Rocket Replica was built by an outfit called Locomotion Enterprises at the Springwell workshops of the Bowes Railway. They went out of business in the September of 1980 unfortunately. I should know as I was involved, on one of these Youth Opportunities Programs run at the time. That scheme morphed into the Youth Training Scheme and later Youth Training.
Very interesting watch, especially as I was Fireman on Novelty in 2002 (BBC Filming at Llangollen). I can certainly believe she was actually converted from a fire engine. If you got the power requirement for the blower from the Llangollen runs, I don't think it reflect to features of the original. I can't believe the blower on the replica was anything like the original. The blower & air pipe, the regulator/steam pipe and valvegear setting were all things that seemed to need some serious workshop time after running tests.
The calculations were based on the experiences of the replica combined with those of the original machine. We now know the blower design in the replica is incorrect as it should have provided a continual stream of air rather than one which pulsed. When we had it at Manchester in 2005 we could not get it to make steam, especially over the short run, so instead a leaf-blower was used. The boiler made steam in abundance and the locomotive worked well, but the fire clinkered easily and the flue tube fouled with carbon deposits. The valve gear of the replica is based on that from the original machine, parts of which are incorporated in the static replica built in 1929. Given how rushed Novelty was, it's not surprising that it has its faults. it's a shame in 1980 the blower was less well understood - the other problem being of course that the replica - and indeed original - wheels are very very narrow. The static replica now in Manchester was fitted with an electric motor to turn over the wheels and valve gear and to go for a trundle up and down but kept falling off the rails.
I could never understand the wheels on the replica - why did nobody stop to think about it running on current railways. Can't comment on the originals but once the rings were fitted it never gave us a problem. Did you ever get her over 15 mph? We found she accelerated ok and the nothing would make her go any faster. As for the valve gear, its not the construction that's the problem its the setting. Not sure about on the TV programme but certainly on my (camcorder) video it was very obvious she was badly uneven - giving only three exhaust beets. I think the clinkering is a good sign as to how hot the fire was getting. On the filming runs it was over about 70% of the grate by the time we called it a day.
@@andrewhurrell6690 They were building as close to an exact replica as possible, hence the copies of Theodore Jones' patent wheels. Rocket had problems in 1980 with wooden driving wheels as they kept coming off - but then again the track at Bold Colliery was in shocking condition and poor old Lion also ended up with its nose in the dirt - and there was insufficient weight at the front end. The replica was speedily fitted with cast steel wheels which helped keep the front end on the rails. The speed limit at Manchester is 10mph. There's a photograph of when the fire dropped of a solid sheet of clinker dropping out of the firebox! To my mind that suggests the fire was dirty, it was perhaps over fired and had been left standing too long/extreme changes in fire temperature. There's also the issue of the original being designed to burn coke and the replica having to run on coal. Rocket also suffered from clinkering at Llangollen. novelty is definately three bits and a gasp. Which is surely indicative of her rushed construction in 1980 to be honest. Unless her builders thought that acceptable. She *does* run after all....
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Were you burning coal at Manchester? At Llangollen she was on 100% coke. I'd also come the conclusion that Novelty and Sans Pareil had been built to look right more than anything else. I seem to remember all three replicas having boilers with major differences from the original, not all due to meeting modern standards. I know the first half of the Llangollen filming runs on Rocket were using coke, I think they used Coal for the second half. Sans Pareil wouldn't burn coke at all.
Mr Dawson, please don't tempt us with a juicy tid-bit and leave us hanging... So looking forward to A, the next loco coming under your spotlight and B, more information on the expensive failures. Top notch as ever Sir, thank you.
did Novelty's builders ever take her as a light engine from Liverpool to Manchester after the Liverpool and Manchester railway had been completed? the reason way i ask this question is because last year i brought a second hand book that was about the events of the Rainhill trials and apprantly someone had heard Braithwaite or Ericssion say to someone that they would have wanted to take Novelty to Manchester from Liverpool if the line had been finished being built?
There was a notice in many newspapers that Ericsson would run Novelty between Liverpool and Manchester in an hour and that he had placed a wager to that effect. There is absolutely no evidence that took place and certainly no evidence Novelty was ever run on the Liverpool & Manchester following the trials by Daglish early in 1831. She then disappears without trace after her rebuild in 1833.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory did Novelty builders ever mentioned her in their later life during a conversation with some one or do you think that she was such a failure to them that they forgot about her? was Novelty the only steam locomotive that Ericsson or Barthwaite ever drove after what they had both went through?
@@eliotreader8220 Ericsson mentions Novelty and William IV in old age in his memoirs calling them "miersably ineffecient". One gets the impression he'd rather gloss over the whole thing. His designs were too complicated for their own good. Sometimes I think deliberately so. Just so show how clever he was. But as George Stephenson said, his locomotives involved "too much ingenuity" - too many innovatinos, too many untested ideas. I think Braithwaite acted as a balance to Ericsson, telling him "no that won't work" as after the partnership ends, Ericsson's designs became increasingly odd, such as his obsessions with hot air engines. John Braithwaite's brother, Frederick, took over the family engineering firm and built locomotives to the design of Edward Bury, and also became a railway engineer.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory is it likely that the original Novelty spent very little time in steam like the recreated Novelty before she was fixed by the NRM so that she could take part in the time watch tv programe?
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory is there any similarity between the Novelty and the USS Monitor as the steam locomotive and the American Iron clad where both built in a short space of time
you say there was no railway in London at the time. This is not entirely true as there was the Surrey Iron Railway. But of course they couldn't have used it for testing as the line was to the wrong gauge.
No. It's slip eccentric with manual override.There's two eccentrics, one per cylinder. The valves have to set by hand to get it moving and then can be locked in.
Anthony I have watched this effort before as I have with more than one of your impressively informative pieces of work. I am still learning and am amazed at your detail which I have not yet seen elsewhere, perhaps because of the distraction of fancy production or simply lack of detail - research - effort (which is more likely). I find it very hard to find information on the early engines and their creators apart from the famous ones. They deserve their notoriety but others deserve a slice of this cake too (for our understanding and appreciation), You in a way are their voice and our teacher. As a retired teacher I am impressed by your efforts for us. Keep up the great work. The shame for me is the very limited numbers of models for model rail modelers to enjoy. I do agree with Stephenson based on the information I know about Novelty.. You have added to this more than little.
Thank you, well said. As an American I am simply amazed at the history and the science that these men were able to harness. The astonishingly rapid development of the steam engine should be considered the equivalent of putting a man on the moon. The steam engine has certainly had more influence on mankind than the moon landing.
Novelty and Monitor having a connection has blown my mind for some reason....
Would you believe Ericsson also invented a solar powered engine? Read up on him, he was sort of the Nikola Tesla of his era.
Likewise, I couldn't believe it myself
Ericson was also one of the pioneers of the screwpropellers on ships. But not the usual pusher we are used to, but a double, counterrotating traction propeller. So very inovative here, to. A great man, indeed.
The clinkering and the fireman's inability to manage the fire was the 4th or 5th nail in her coffin for me!
I'd agree with Stephenson just based on being prone to clinkering and sooty flues. On top of that she seems to be an incredibly lightweight design, so not sure about how much tractive effort she would've mustered. I'd guess her pulling power would be a fraction of Rocket's or Sans Pareil.
Novelty weighed only 2 tons 15 cwt; half the weight of Rocket (4tons 3cwt) or Sans Pareil (4 ton 8cwt 2 qrs). She was a little teeny tiny thing, so even a load ten times her own weight was about twenty tons, when Rocket could shift over 40!
"But the less said about those expensive failures, the better." Oh, but we're all agog now. Please, do regail us.
In seriousness though, I've always had a bit of a fascination with Novelty primarily because so many more amateur railway historians (including many a publisher of more mainstream railway history books) seem to have no earthly clue how it worked. With an engine like Rocket or even Sans Pareil their functionality is fairly obvious. By contrast, Novelty is so alien to anything we in modern times would associate with a steam locomotive that for years I thought the copper tank at one end was the boiler in its entirety and that the tube running to the tiny exhaust pipe chimney was some sort of muffler (which sounds absurd, but it was a feature that was tried on a few early steam engines). I can kind of understand why she was the crowd favorite, with Sans Pareil being the last evolution of the cumbersome colliery tramway engine, while here was this new engine, sleek and lithe, unencumbered by an unsightly tender, with thin spoked wheels like those of a posh carriage, copper "tea urn" boiler gleaming. Little did any onlookers know the devilish complication concealed within her elegant lines. I've heard elsewhere that despite her failure at the Rainhill Trials she was purchased by the Liverpool & Manchester and was primarily used for private charter trains, often being seen pulling a single passenger coach with a horse box and a flatbed wagon with the client's carriage perched atop it.
I'm planning a Spotlight episode on William IV so watch this space!
There's no evidence at all Novelty was purchased by the Liverpool & Manchester Railway. She remained the property of Braithwaite & Ericsson until 1833 when she was sold to Dalglish of Wigan. Thereafter she disappears from the historical record. Vertical cylinders barred her from working on the Liverpool & Manchester.
Sans Pareil, however, was purchased by the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, but because she couldn't burn coke and made a lot of smoke as a coal burner was of no use to them so was hired to John Hargreaves who worked the Bolton & Leigh Railway in late 1829 and eventually sold to him. Because she he made smoke and had vertical cyliners she would be barred from the Liverpool & Manchester. :-)
Sans Pareil was hardly the final evolution of the pre-rocket school of locomotive design. Hackworth kept refining that kind of engine (ie. with a return flue, vertical cylinders, etc.) for years. Check out Hackworth's locomotive Samson for an example of what he was building almost a decade later in 1838! Hackworth wasn't oblivious to Rocket's finer points though, and he was building more "conventional" engines right alongside his old-fashioned ones. He was however particularly devoted to return flues, which he still used, in a much evolved form, on locomotives like Derwent, which were otherwise conventional designs for their era.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory when did the Liverpool and Manchester railway first steam the Sans Pareil after they brought her from Timothy Hackwarth? what was the price of steam coals for use in steam locomotives during 1829 and 1830? compared to the price of Coke?
Sans Pareil wouldn't have been allowed to run on the Liverpool & Manchester as it made smoke and therefore broke the law, incurring a £50 fine for each occasion it did so. Which is why it went to work on the Bolton & Leigh Railway where it could make as much smoke as it wanted. For coal you're looking at a price somewhere between 30shillings per ton (imperial) and 40shillings per ton. Coke started about 40 shillings per ton. So it was more expensive but the Law said it had to be burned to prevent smoke.
1:51 onwards was hilarious, also i didn't know the fire pump engine thing before.
I have to admit, for the most part I was never very interested in the very primitive locomotive designs. But lately they've grown on me, especially with the help of your videos. Thanks for sparking my interest!
My absolute pleasure! Glad to have sparked an interest :-)
Novelty’s a rather interesting engine, not only the world’s first tank engine, but also the only replica of the Rainhill Three with a steam whistle. I suppose it’s rather unique that way, seeing as Sans Pareil has a bell, and Rocket has its driver using a bugle as a warning signal.
The steam whislt hadnt been inventede in 1829 and I'm not aware of the replica of Novelty having one. The Sans Pareil replica has a bell but the original doesn't appear to have had a form of audible warning. The blowing of bugles on the Liverpool & Manchester was part of the Rule Book - horns were to be blown by the fireman and the train guards when approaching level crossings or stations to give warning of their approach. :-)
There’s video footage from 2005 of Novelty and Planet whistling a greeting at each other. here’s the link:
ua-cam.com/video/BCxusDqc_5A/v-deo.html
it’s about 9 minutes in.
@@warriorstar2517 Ah yes, but Planet didn't have a whislt when built either.
Anthony Dawson Indeed, after all, technology is an ever changing thing. While a replica is the closest we could ever get nowadays, updated building processes, such as welded boilers and roller bearings, really do make a modern day interpretation more mechanically sound, more efficient and, above all, safer than the original ever was.
@@warriorstar2517 the replicas of Rocket, Sans Pareil, Novelty and Planet were built as closely as possible to the originals but with an eye to modern safety requirements. hence the use of steel rather than wrought or cast iron. The use of all steel welded boilers and of course a modern pressure gauge, water gauge and two means of putting water in the boiler. They used plain bearings and have very few mod-cons - Rocket hasn't got an injector for example and uses an axle pump or hand pump. Whilst they are more efficient than the originals, experiment data from the Rainhill replicas shows them to perform very closely to the originals.
After it'd many failures she strived higher than expected and it's such a joy to see that in the end he'd design actually worked
The main issue is that having been designed based on a road vehicle she was too "slight" for a railway locomotive. The same went for Trevithick's Road carriage. History is on the side of bigger and more powerful and most definitely easy access to clean steam engines. It is amazing that Braithwait had the audacity to even enter and attend, after being proved wrong over Chat Moss. If I was George, I'd have offered him a trip across the Moss on Rocket.
Had no idea Ericsson was involved in Novelty, the Monitor is a fascinating ship and story. Ericsson even had a flush toilet installed on Monitor which is quite interesting since she was built in 1862.
One of the most entertaining events that I have attended at the NRM in York was the re run of Rainhill!
With Messrs Braithwaite & Ericsson with 'NOVELTY (Which was suffering from various "mechanical afflictions"!), Mr Hackworth (who was wearing an impressively tall hat!) with 'SANS PARIEL' and Mr Stephenson snr with 'LOCOMOTION' & Mr Stephenson jnr with 'ROCKET' there was no sign of Mr Burstall or his locomotive 'PERSEVERANCE '
The horse powered entrant 'CYCLOPED' was present albeit with a plastic horse!
Mr Brunel was on the footplate of 'IRON DUKE' but due to track gauge issues he was going nowhere!
Most of the debate seemed to be focused on Mr Hackworth and his exceptionally tall hat and whether it would fall off during the "Trials"!
All in great fun.
I love how you roll your R's.
As something of a correction. No Flying Scotsman Enterprises did not build the Novelty Replica. It like the Rocket Replica was built by an outfit called Locomotion Enterprises at the Springwell workshops of the Bowes Railway. They went out of business in the September of 1980 unfortunately. I should know as I was involved, on one of these Youth Opportunities Programs run at the time. That scheme morphed into the Youth Training Scheme and later Youth Training.
👍
I think it's definitely a step in railway evolution, the world's first tank engine.
Certainly it was.
I love this kind of video pls do more
Well done 👏
Very interesting watch, especially as I was Fireman on Novelty in 2002 (BBC Filming at Llangollen). I can certainly believe she was actually converted from a fire engine. If you got the power requirement for the blower from the Llangollen runs, I don't think it reflect to features of the original. I can't believe the blower on the replica was anything like the original. The blower & air pipe, the regulator/steam pipe and valvegear setting were all things that seemed to need some serious workshop time after running tests.
The calculations were based on the experiences of the replica combined with those of the original machine. We now know the blower design in the replica is incorrect as it should have provided a continual stream of air rather than one which pulsed. When we had it at Manchester in 2005 we could not get it to make steam, especially over the short run, so instead a leaf-blower was used. The boiler made steam in abundance and the locomotive worked well, but the fire clinkered easily and the flue tube fouled with carbon deposits. The valve gear of the replica is based on that from the original machine, parts of which are incorporated in the static replica built in 1929. Given how rushed Novelty was, it's not surprising that it has its faults. it's a shame in 1980 the blower was less well understood - the other problem being of course that the replica - and indeed original - wheels are very very narrow. The static replica now in Manchester was fitted with an electric motor to turn over the wheels and valve gear and to go for a trundle up and down but kept falling off the rails.
I could never understand the wheels on the replica - why did nobody stop to think about it running on current railways. Can't comment on the originals but once the rings were fitted it never gave us a problem. Did you ever get her over 15 mph? We found she accelerated ok and the nothing would make her go any faster. As for the valve gear, its not the construction that's the problem its the setting. Not sure about on the TV programme but certainly on my (camcorder) video it was very obvious she was badly uneven - giving only three exhaust beets. I think the clinkering is a good sign as to how hot the fire was getting. On the filming runs it was over about 70% of the grate by the time we called it a day.
@@andrewhurrell6690 They were building as close to an exact replica as possible, hence the copies of Theodore Jones' patent wheels. Rocket had problems in 1980 with wooden driving wheels as they kept coming off - but then again the track at Bold Colliery was in shocking condition and poor old Lion also ended up with its nose in the dirt - and there was insufficient weight at the front end. The replica was speedily fitted with cast steel wheels which helped keep the front end on the rails. The speed limit at Manchester is 10mph. There's a photograph of when the fire dropped of a solid sheet of clinker dropping out of the firebox! To my mind that suggests the fire was dirty, it was perhaps over fired and had been left standing too long/extreme changes in fire temperature. There's also the issue of the original being designed to burn coke and the replica having to run on coal. Rocket also suffered from clinkering at Llangollen. novelty is definately three bits and a gasp. Which is surely indicative of her rushed construction in 1980 to be honest. Unless her builders thought that acceptable. She *does* run after all....
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Were you burning coal at Manchester? At Llangollen she was on 100% coke. I'd also come the conclusion that Novelty and Sans Pareil had been built to look right more than anything else. I seem to remember all three replicas having boilers with major differences from the original, not all due to meeting modern standards. I know the first half of the Llangollen filming runs on Rocket were using coke, I think they used Coal for the second half. Sans Pareil wouldn't burn coke at all.
Mr Dawson, please don't tempt us with a juicy tid-bit and leave us hanging... So looking forward to A, the next loco coming under your spotlight and B, more information on the expensive failures. Top notch as ever Sir, thank you.
I agree somewhat, yes she suffered from over complicating, but teething problems are always to be expected.
Should Jove give me another term of life, I would write a book or do a Post-Grad on Vignoles. Quite an gifted man, yet little talked about.
did Novelty's builders ever take her as a light engine from Liverpool to Manchester after the Liverpool and Manchester railway had been completed?
the reason way i ask this question is because last year i brought a second hand book that was about the events of the Rainhill trials and apprantly someone had heard Braithwaite or Ericssion say to someone that they would have wanted to take Novelty to Manchester from Liverpool if the line had been finished being built?
There was a notice in many newspapers that Ericsson would run Novelty between Liverpool and Manchester in an hour and that he had placed a wager to that effect. There is absolutely no evidence that took place and certainly no evidence Novelty was ever run on the Liverpool & Manchester following the trials by Daglish early in 1831. She then disappears without trace after her rebuild in 1833.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory did Novelty builders ever mentioned her in their later life during a conversation with some one or do you think that she was such a failure to them that they forgot about her?
was Novelty the only steam locomotive that Ericsson or Barthwaite ever drove after what they had both went through?
@@eliotreader8220 Ericsson mentions Novelty and William IV in old age in his memoirs calling them "miersably ineffecient". One gets the impression he'd rather gloss over the whole thing. His designs were too complicated for their own good. Sometimes I think deliberately so. Just so show how clever he was. But as George Stephenson said, his locomotives involved "too much ingenuity" - too many innovatinos, too many untested ideas. I think Braithwaite acted as a balance to Ericsson, telling him "no that won't work" as after the partnership ends, Ericsson's designs became increasingly odd, such as his obsessions with hot air engines. John Braithwaite's brother, Frederick, took over the family engineering firm and built locomotives to the design of Edward Bury, and also became a railway engineer.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory is it likely that the original Novelty spent very little time in steam like the recreated Novelty before she was fixed by the NRM so that she could take part in the time watch tv programe?
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory is there any similarity between the Novelty and the USS Monitor as the steam locomotive and the American Iron clad where both built in a short space of time
you say there was no railway in London at the time. This is not entirely true as there was the Surrey Iron Railway. But of course they couldn't have used it for testing as the line was to the wrong gauge.
Isn't it an 0-2-2?
So, the valve gear's a mystery
No. It's slip eccentric with manual override.There's two eccentrics, one per cylinder. The valves have to set by hand to get it moving and then can be locked in.
Too much innovation reminds me of the advanced passenger train,
Appart from the fact, unlike the APT there was no political interference, or changes of budget......
this loco was the embodiment of self worshiping