Brunel was an excellent civil engineer. When it came to locomotives, he didn't have a clue what he was doing. I'd heard of Hurricane and Thunderer, the 100 claim being very dodgy. Never knew about the Projector, or Murray's articulated... Thing. Here's food for thought, 10ft driving wheels, 4 boilers above and below, each side of the crank axle, cylinders inbetween... True 1830s engineering.
Brunel was far from infallible - his 'baulk road' trackbed and 'atmospheric' traction being two other notable failures. Though these days his successes tend to be remembered rather more than his failures. He was certainly ambitious in his designs.
Sometimes, I kind of wonder if he or anyone else involved with the GWR, had ever tried to take advantage of the broad gauge layout for other means, such as seeing if Crampton's handiwork would fare better on broad guage track (seeing as it was made with the intent of high-speed travel, with as little rough riding as possible), compared to the potentially more brittle structure of the standard gauge track, or even taking advantage of the wider wheel span, by potentially making a more squat-like engine, for use on lines with lower-hanging ceilings, sort of working similar to how certain rolling stock was built around the axles, rather than on top of them.
@@retrogamelover2012 Trouble is, the wider gauge doesn't lower your axle height, and the boiler has to fit above that. Though admittedly the broad gauge means that, for a given height of boiler, the loco should be more stable sideways. Curiously enough though, this sideways stability does not seem to have been a significant problem, even on narrow gauge, as the enormous South African 25NC's would illustrate. The only designs that managed to successfully drop the boiler below the top of the main driving axles were Cramptons and Garratts, so far as I know.
@@cr10001 Well, I didn't neccesarily say it was just the boilers (although, I can imagine there being some way to essentially create one, that was low enough to still function, whilst navigating low ceilings), as things like where the driver and fireman would operate the engine would've been something to work out, as well. Either way, I guess this whole "re-inventing the wheel" thing, is kind of what Brunel was essentially known for, and what essentially made his creations rather hit and miss, despite the ambitions.
Fantastic video as always. It may be a little niche/technical, but how about a video on the successes and failures of early valve gear/reverser mechanisms? All we ever usually see is Walschaerts valve gear or Stephenson's linkage in modern steam engines, with very limited exceptions.
@@TheBroughamGamer the NZR did quite a sensible thing and equipped the last members of the Ka 4-8-4 class with bakers, whilst the rest all had walschaerts. the baker equipped had better high (relative) speed characteristics while exhibiting poor low speed power characteristics, the baker equipped versions ended up exclusively used on express duties, ending up ill suited for freight. interesting that poppitt equipped locos seem to exhibit the same characteristics. one of the things regarding valve gear is theres considerable science behind them. the NZR using walschaerts from very early in it's development and ordering locos from different world manufacturers to NZR design equipped with walschaerts. the baldwin U ten wheeler and the world's first Pacific, the Q class had walschaerts but was so poorly executed by Baldwin's the NZR for later orders let the manufacturer revert to Stephenson because they could make that okay.
Last episode when you asked to see what locos we wanted you to discuss I almost put the Ajax but thought, "there is probably not enough info on that". Lo and behold what does my sub box show me AJAX! Please continue this series as it is absolutely my favorite on the tube. Sincerely, - Harrison S.
I just love how those flat wheels were made - So different to the spoked ones on other contemporary engines. Brunel's odd steam locomotives remind me much of his paddle-driven steamships, somehow. I think that may have also had some influence on the "piston speed" specification, as steamships tended not to run their steam engines as rapidly as a typical locomotive for similar wear-reduction reasons. I also love how you delve into reliability of narrators in these early railway videos, as there's a lot of questionable information on these railways that is accepted as fact. Have you taken a look at Hurricane or Thunderer? Edit: Nevermind, there it is!
It's interesting to learn how much success Brunel had in civil engineering; bridges, tunnels, railways, even steamships were a doddle for him. Yet locomotives were the thing to finally stump him. One wonders what it was about railway engines that Brunel couldn't wrap his otherwise brilliant head around; contrary to his usual oeuvre, could it be that for once he was thinking too small? Even more fascinating as only a few years later his first Chief Mechanical Engineer, Daniel Gooch, would design a whole generation of broad gauge locomotives that would blow their standard gauge competition out of the water until the end of the 19th Century.
Probably cost. Early locomotives were expensive and the GWR would need many of them. A vast fortune had been spent on building the railway and its infrastructure. Boilers had to be short, as they burnt coke, and long boilers were not suitable for it.
Could simply have been a matter of time. Early locomotives were highly specialised machine, the very cutting edge of technology, often requiring redesign even while being constructed. The fact that he was outsourcing the design rather than just the construction, suggests he may not have had the time to devote to understanding the specific peculiarities of locomotives. The early locomotives were very much a tinkerers dream: design & build something that you think will work, if it doesn't or if you figure out a better way just modify it, and keep going till either it's works the way you want or you realise your original design was wrong and start again. Unfortunately that wasn't really Brunel's style, he very much drew up big grand plans, set them in motion and then moved on to the next project, occasionally returning to deal with any issues. While he happily got his hands dirty, he probably couldn't devote several months, if not years, to building one locomotive.
Another excellent video sir. In all honesty, Brunel's shortcomings when it came to locomotive design is not all that surprising. Speaking of surprises, might I suggest William Church's aptly named "Surprise" of 1838(?) as a potential topic? It seems tricky to get any concrete info about it.
These men, like Brunel, were inventing steam railways, let's cut them some slack. Also locomotives on the broad gauge we're never developed to their true potential, since the demand was to regauge.
Robert Stephenson had pretty much established the 'standard' locomotive by the time Brunel was designing these. Brunel's designs were utterly absurd for the period. He was trying to do his own thing and no one - other than Gooch - could tell him otherwise. Shame really.
I love this channel already and only arrived today! I feel I should take issue with the suggestion Brunel didn't have a clue about locomotives. Just to stick up for him as it looks like nobody else here has. I'm an engineer...but not the mechanical kind unfortunately. My area is more concerned with giving myself regular electric shocks. I may therefore talk a load of rubbish from now on (or according to some family members always have been). I always thought broad gauge was a fine idea and we were worse off with the standard gauge. The benefits of a wide track must have struck Brunel as freedom from the heavy restrictions imposed by the standard width. Apart from the extra cost and complexity of the infrastructure all the rest must have looked rosy to him, allowing for comfortable, stable high speed running. The big wheels could be set outside the locomotive and passenger carriages with the centre of gravity below the axles. There would be more space for a big boiler and the front area could be lowered and have negligible impact on streamlining if not an improvement. The big wheels would counter friction by the same factor of the wheel size difference. These trains should have rolled better than any other freeing up power to move the train. The big wheel should ride better too. I'm not sure where the specs mentioned came from or why those would be specified by Brunel, but it looks to me like his train was never built how he envisioned it, and that is a shame.. Or have I got it completely arse about tit as usual?
The Broad Gauge was an excellent idea & we would've been better for it. It was what Brunel designed to work on the railway that was at fault, not necessarily the track. All you needed was to widen a Stephenson engine to 7'&1/4", & it automatically was improved as there was far more room for a boiler & cylinders. Brunel just couldn't do locomotives. He was brilliant at just about everything else, mind.
0:55 Quite right, I happily admit to being a Brunel fan, and I wouldn't even try to deny how absolutely ludicrous his locomotive requirements were. Considering how much time, effort and thought he put into the actually railway, it's almost as if he just plunked numbers out of thin air for the requirements. I suspect (or possibly hope) that if he had actually sat down himself to design and build a locomotive, he would have both realised his mistake and perhaps eventually produced a reasonable locomotive. Brunel was a great engineer, but he was also still just human, and he got things wrong. Even some of his successes were nearly failures because he tried to overreach, something I can relate to myself (though obviously on a far less grand scale).
His locomotive stipulations were unworkable. And his track design was also a failure. Lessons learned from the Liverpool & Manchester Railway had shown that the track is dynamic and needs to be elastic. Yet Brunel designed his railway to be absolutely solid. He just ignored everyone else and did his own thing, sure in the knowledge he was the cleverest person there was. (a bit like John Ericsson in that regard)
Hurricane looks like a dog's breakfast. All that length and only one set of drivers. It could have easily have been a six-coupled locomotive. Seems to me, to be large-wheel porn and a competition to see who had the biggest. I'm standing in room with walls of 2.6m height, those wheels were another 400mm taller than that. They probably would have been the single most expensive component on the locomotive. It's mind blowing.
Harrison was trying to build a locomotive to Brunel's specification: low piston speed meant large driving wheels to compensate. Low axle weight meant spreading it over numerous axles especially if you wanted to build a big locomotive with a decent-sized boiler. Yes it does look a mess but Harrison was working to a very restrictive design criteria! Harrison was a very competant engineer, it's all logical but also utterly illogical - like Brunel's specification.
Brunel's glowing report on Ajax was contradicted by Gooch who briefly condemned Ajax as faulty like other Mather Dixon locos. Perhaps Brunel was trying to justify extra payments he had advised to the makers for modifications including the larger wheels suggested by them and additional outside frames to accommodate them. Brunel left Mather Dixon to address the Directors directly but did say 'if the 10 foot wheel and the consequences which you say arise from its adoption are to be considered by you as ordered by me.'
In Brunel's evidence to the Guage Commissioners in 1845 he tries to exculpate himself from the 'blame' of the 10ft driving wheels. Which is just a tad mealy mouthed of him to be honest.
Hurricane - a fascinating machine. Almost a precursor of the Garrat engines. I guess the main problem they would have had would've been the steam conduits between the boiler and the drive unit needing to be both flexible and steam tight?
I always wondered how much weight the story of 'Hurricane' hitting 80-100 mph actually has. There seems to be very little information on Hurricane & all seems a bit contradictory to each other.
Hurricane's layout reminds me of a paddle steamer. There must have been some engineering knowledge cross-over between railway and marine engineers; Thomas Elliot Harrison's father built ships in Sunderland - subject for a future video? Were flexible steam-pipes used in any other application in the early railway era? How did Hurricane's ones work?
I think Hurricane probably was the answer to constructing a successful locomotive complying with Brunel's requirements. Gooch reported that "it worked very well, equal to any we have" and that it was a much better engine than Thunderer, the other Harrison Patent. However it was the last of the 'freaks' to be delivered and was found to consume excessive amounts of coke which, no doubt along with its general awkwardness, meant it was kid aside after only 14 months. By then Gooch had persuaded Brunel that the future lay in heavy locos of the North Star type which complied with none of the original specifications.
Almost absolutely no weight. No adhesive weight on the drivers, nonexistent internal streamlining, poor steam circuit, awkward cylinder dimensions and design, no proper wheel balancing. The locomotive probably could barely move at 10 miles per hour. And even if it could get up to those sorts of speeds, it would be so poorly balanced and weighted that it would have smashed itself into pieces. You can’t just slap some big wheels on a boiler and expect it to go fast. The locomotives of the year 1900 couldn’t get up to 100 mph with trains, there wasn’t anything close to a hope for Hurricane. I’d be more interested to know if it ever actually ran in revenue service, because that itself would be an impressive feat for this thing.
Would it be possible to make video about locomotives Ajax and Minotaurus build by Jones, Turner and Evans in 1841 for Kaiser Ferdinand Nordbahn? They were 0-4-2 locomotives.
Hi I am thinking about building two Hall class locomotives and three Bulleid pacifics a West Country Class and a Battle of Britain class and a Merchant navy Class and two Beyer garratts called Duke of Edinburgh and The other Has no name at the moment but the Battle of Britain class locomotive will be Named Neville Chamberlain and the Merchant navy Class will be named White Star Line and the West Country Class will be named Severn Valley also I thoroughly enjoyed watching your videos as they are very informative and interesting 👍 this information is something that I was never taught in my History lessons I was taught wars and America Nothing about Railway and locomotive but I think History on war and America is also interesting. Keep up the informative and inspiring videos Cheers.Lewis 👍
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Thanks apart from the making of the Model Hall Class locomotives and the Three Bulleid pacifics and the two Garratts I also plan to build full sized versions because I was looking through a Steam locomotive Book and on one of the pages was a picture of a scrapped Steam locomotive with "PLEASE DON'T LET ME DIE" Written on the smoke box door and there was a sad face painted on the smoke box door.
I greatly admire all of your videos, and I wonder whether you might be interested in making one that covers a curious case of early industrial espionage - the utterly unsuccessful two Blenkinsop-type locomotives built by the Royal Iron Foundry in Berlin in 1816 and 1817, respectively. I am quite certain that, though information is somewhat scarce, this would be a story worth telling.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Perhaps typical of the rolling stock that you cover; the trains I've grown up with had practically stubby funnels or were streamlined to not appear to have one.
There is one other engine with massive driving wheels that should be daken note of. the "Crampton" that Norris had made. 7 foot driving wheels with a 6 wheel pilot and the boiler's firebox being below the main axle, with the engineer's deck on top of the boiler. Even the rebuilds after their poor use had massive 6 foot driving wheels in the 4-4-0 configuration.
By the way, "De Arend" was certainly not "narrow gauge", build for a track gauge of 2000 mm (measured from the middelpoint of each rails, about 1995 mm to present standards). Later, the track gauge in The Netherlands was converted to 1435 mm.
@@m.l.vanzoen236 The 2.141 gauge is very wide. The reason "De Arend" was included was as an example of best practice of conventional locomotive design dervied from Stephenson practice.
@@pireson9127 It's one of the great unknowns. There's no illustrations of if so there are only a few textual references. I do include it in my book on Liverpool & Manchester Locomotives: www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Locomotives-of-the-Liverpool-and-Manchester-Railway-Hardback/p/18771
do you mind me asking what you meant when you was talking about her working boiler pressure as I did not understand what you said about the working boiler pressure used on the Liverpool and Manchester railway?
Officially the safety valves on the Liverpool & Manchester were set at 50psi. However, according to one French observer, the Chevalier de Pambour, the calibration was poor so that the boiler pressure was actually 75psi. When John Dewrance took over as Locomotive Superintendent in 1840 he unofficially raised boiler pressure to 75psi but didn't tell the Board of Directors who thought he was still using 50si. They thought 75psi far too high and very dangerous indeed.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I understand from reading the book Red for Danger that a lot of boilers did blow up during those early days but i understand that only one blew up during the life of the Liverpool and Manchester railway company?
@@eliotreader8220 Boiler explosions were pretty rare occurences in the 1830s and upto about 1845. I'd suggest you read the book on them by C H Hewison: he used to work for the Railway Inspectorate after having been a Premium Apprentice at Doncaster on the LNER. The explosion on the L&M was to poor old Patentee - check out my video - and was due to faulty design and materials. Boiler explosions became an increasing problem in the mid-1840s not just due to more locomotives but due to a) a type of boiler known as a long plate boiler which was particularly prone to failure and b) lack of maintenance due to boilers not being inspected regularly, lack of proper maintenance, and it has to be admitted the lack of tools to properly check inside a boiler: candles and flare lamps aren't a brilliant way of inspecting inside a boiler barrel but is all there was. The Liverpool & Manchester had such an excellent track record due to good boiler design and demanding they be tested to three times working pressure. Red for Danger is pretty week on the early mainline period to be honest, and he has chosen some of the worst accidents to include so is a bit skewed to be honest.
Hello Mr. Dawson. I'm curious about your impending book on LMR Locomotives. Will you be covering each locomotive individually, or as a class. Particularly so when it comes to the so called Bird and Ostrich classes. Is the book to be exhaustive of every locomotive of the LMR? Service Locomotives (not mainline) as well? I do hope this won't be too much trouble to answer. Thank you for your time!
Good evening. It will be covering locomotives by class and including as much detail as is known about each member. It will follow locomotive development chronologically from Twin Sisters to the Bird Class; there will be a section on the more unsual/experimental types; locomotive working; workshops; enginemen and firemen and finally a chapter on rolling stock.
Too bad some of these locos didn't survive so we would have an example of them, I'd love for us to have had 2 of the Jersey central bicycle locomotives, 1 or 2 Erie triplexes, An original Deleware and hudson or rio grande challenger, A virginian yellowstone, a Boston and Albany 4-8-2 with the strange superheater. LNER garatt, Pennsy s2 turbine, Union pacific steam turbine, Norfolk and western Jawn henry.
Another forensic take down of Brunel's reputation as a mechanical engineer, as if one were needed. Its more than time that the Stephensons took their rightful place in the public understandiing of the development of the railway.
@Matthew Tymczyszyn It isn't. They tell you about Stephenson's Rocket in primary school and leave it at that. The railway may get mentioned while discussing the Industrial Revolution.
Exactly! Robert Stephenson was the Greatest Railway Engineer during the Heroic era of railways in the 19th Century. Yes he had failures ie the Dee Bridge. But virtually everything else he ever did most certainly did not fail! People often overlook things like the St Lawrence Bridge or his Egyptian train ferries!
I would disagree- the Stephensons and Brunel are all extremely influential engineers, but in different aspects- the Stephensons were brilliant locomotive engineers and well respected route surveyors, but Brunel was brilliant at surveying and civil engineering
Yeah he was on the footplate and probably drove it. However his opinion of the engine compared with that of Daniel Gooch was very very differant. Gooch thought it was a very poor machine.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory so its very possible that Brunel took this engine for what we would call a test drive then? until last year I had only heard only one story about I.K. Brunel driving a steam locomotive as it was something he did not like to do unlike the future Sir Daniel Gooch.
@@eliotreader8220 Someone like Brunel was a bit of a micro-manager, and to make sure everything met his own high standards he would have tested most of his locomotives in person before accepting them on 'his' railway. Famously Brunel thought having an educated locomotive driver as a bad thing - at a time when everyone else was saying engine drivers needed to be educated, literate men - and when asked if he found a train running wrong road, so running toward him on the same line, he said he'd ram it! Very odd gentlemen our Mr Brunel.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I brought two books about the early broad gauge engines used by the Great western railway during its early years to the 1870s I learned a lot about them and the large job that the future Sir Daniel Gooch faced getting these engines to run I understand that he had to burn a lot of the midnight oil to get them to work in time for the first trains the following morning. I understood that he also inspected their fuel as well to see if it was up to his standards
All Mather Dixon's locos needed repairs and alterations before being put into use, the boilers, certainly of the earlier ones had a very high water level leaving inadequate steam space (hence the second done added to Ajax's boiler). The valve gear was badly designed and Brunel criticised the cylinder stroke of their first engines as too short (hence the large wheel s and longer stroke of Ajax). Mather Dixon locos on other lines nearly all had exceedingly short lives, compared with those of other builders, too. As late as October 1840 the Great Western was witholding final payment for the locos and the firm was pleading hardship as a result.
What's up I am an American railfan but I watched steam locomotives from all over the world I once watched this French Steam era film of this I think it was in Paris it's a later date Maybe 1920s maybe later it showed this tank engine that I've never ever seen this valve cure ever it was so strange the action of the Piston Rod move another Rod that turned a rotary valve on the side of the valve chest do you know about the Tank Engine I'm talking about it's been a long time since I've seen it this locomotive if you know of a please make a video on that valve gear I have no clue what that is very interesting looking action on how it functions peace out into the world have a great day
Thank you for your question :-) The valve gear sounds like a form of Poppet valve gear. A Poppet Valve is quicker to open and shut than a traditional slide or piston valve. They can be worked using a rotary cam or by an oscillating lever as on the example you mention. The Poppet valve was very efficient for gas-flow engines, like a steam engine, and they became very popular in Europe, particularly Austria and France in the C20th. Andre Chapelon, the great French genius of steam, used them in his very famous designs. Hope that helps.
The problem with big wheels is you have no tractive effort. Yes you cover a greater distance per revolution of the wheel but there is a compromise. A locomotive with large wheels will have a high top speed but low effort ,and a locomotive with small wheels will have pulling power but no top end speed.
Metallurgy was not as well understood nor controllable at the time, and so inferior materials and manufacturing processes had to be taken into account. The welded, high strength all steel boiler of the 280psi Merchant Navy class locomotives for example is a VERY different beast to the copper and iron hot-riveted boilers of the early days of steam!
@@abrr2000 as I think we're all inferring here: slow in comparison with modern standards is actually very insulting and belittling the extraordinary engineering achievements of the pioneers. comparison with engineering centuries in the future is hardly fair. shall we compare our supposedly wondrous achievements of today with things that will only be invented or progressed in years to come? your op would've been a lot more favourable if you'd just left your comment as noting pressure was low in comparison with modern equipment, without being derisive.
Single wheeler series is ended? But but... Theres more single wheeler locomotive you havent make video of like iron duke,rover, and in the other countries. Hhhh well... guese i dont see the rover class then
@@AnthonyDawsonHistoryReally! so... this series is about the weird one's and then after this you still make a vid about single wheeler but a proper and more official loco design?
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory oh thank god i was panic when you said its the end of massive wheels loco series, then cool i like to see more of your vid in the future im always love your content i cant wait.
The more I see... the more I am certain that Elon Musk got his brain the same place Brunel did, the border between genious and batshit crazy certainly is razor thin. I guess the line then as now is that of having wealthy parents or being born poor. One leads to an asylum, the other fame.
Brunel was an excellent civil engineer. When it came to locomotives, he didn't have a clue what he was doing. I'd heard of Hurricane and Thunderer, the 100 claim being very dodgy. Never knew about the Projector, or Murray's articulated... Thing. Here's food for thought, 10ft driving wheels, 4 boilers above and below, each side of the crank axle, cylinders inbetween... True 1830s engineering.
can't even put a boiler and an engine on the same frame smh
Brunel was far from infallible - his 'baulk road' trackbed and 'atmospheric' traction being two other notable failures. Though these days his successes tend to be remembered rather more than his failures. He was certainly ambitious in his designs.
Sometimes, I kind of wonder if he or anyone else involved with the GWR, had ever tried to take advantage of the broad gauge layout for other means, such as seeing if Crampton's handiwork would fare better on broad guage track (seeing as it was made with the intent of high-speed travel, with as little rough riding as possible), compared to the potentially more brittle structure of the standard gauge track, or even taking advantage of the wider wheel span, by potentially making a more squat-like engine, for use on lines with lower-hanging ceilings, sort of working similar to how certain rolling stock was built around the axles, rather than on top of them.
@@retrogamelover2012 Trouble is, the wider gauge doesn't lower your axle height, and the boiler has to fit above that. Though admittedly the broad gauge means that, for a given height of boiler, the loco should be more stable sideways.
Curiously enough though, this sideways stability does not seem to have been a significant problem, even on narrow gauge, as the enormous South African 25NC's would illustrate.
The only designs that managed to successfully drop the boiler below the top of the main driving axles were Cramptons and Garratts, so far as I know.
@@cr10001 Well, I didn't neccesarily say it was just the boilers (although, I can imagine there being some way to essentially create one, that was low enough to still function, whilst navigating low ceilings), as things like where the driver and fireman would operate the engine would've been something to work out, as well.
Either way, I guess this whole "re-inventing the wheel" thing, is kind of what Brunel was essentially known for, and what essentially made his creations rather hit and miss, despite the ambitions.
"....less a locomotive and more a procession". Marvellous turn of phrase!
Fantastic video as always. It may be a little niche/technical, but how about a video on the successes and failures of early valve gear/reverser mechanisms? All we ever usually see is Walschaerts valve gear or Stephenson's linkage in modern steam engines, with very limited exceptions.
Don't forget the more popular choice near the end of steam. The Baker valve gear
@@TheBroughamGamer the NZR did quite a sensible thing and equipped the last members of the Ka 4-8-4 class with bakers, whilst the rest all had walschaerts. the baker equipped had better high (relative) speed characteristics while exhibiting poor low speed power characteristics, the baker equipped versions ended up exclusively used on express duties, ending up ill suited for freight. interesting that poppitt equipped locos seem to exhibit the same characteristics. one of the things regarding valve gear is theres considerable science behind them. the NZR using walschaerts from very early in it's development and ordering locos from different world manufacturers to NZR design equipped with walschaerts. the baldwin U ten wheeler and the world's first Pacific, the Q class had walschaerts but was so poorly executed by Baldwin's the NZR for later orders let the manufacturer revert to Stephenson because they could make that okay.
Last episode when you asked to see what locos we wanted you to discuss I almost put the Ajax but thought, "there is probably not enough info on that". Lo and behold what does my sub box show me AJAX! Please continue this series as it is absolutely my favorite on the tube.
Sincerely,
- Harrison S.
I've been enjoying your videos since I subscribed, I've had a marathon of these videos all week.
theropod hunter, me too.
Me too
The locomotives in this episode are amazing such fascinating unusual machines and ajax
Ooh, and other basics video. Really love these. Keep up the good work.
excellent, as usual.
I guess you could say these type of engines were not "wheely" useful?
Bad puns aside another stupendous video!
Wow. Interesting.
I just love how those flat wheels were made - So different to the spoked ones on other contemporary engines. Brunel's odd steam locomotives remind me much of his paddle-driven steamships, somehow. I think that may have also had some influence on the "piston speed" specification, as steamships tended not to run their steam engines as rapidly as a typical locomotive for similar wear-reduction reasons.
I also love how you delve into reliability of narrators in these early railway videos, as there's a lot of questionable information on these railways that is accepted as fact.
Have you taken a look at Hurricane or Thunderer?
Edit: Nevermind, there it is!
It's interesting to learn how much success Brunel had in civil engineering; bridges, tunnels, railways, even steamships were a doddle for him. Yet locomotives were the thing to finally stump him. One wonders what it was about railway engines that Brunel couldn't wrap his otherwise brilliant head around; contrary to his usual oeuvre, could it be that for once he was thinking too small? Even more fascinating as only a few years later his first Chief Mechanical Engineer, Daniel Gooch, would design a whole generation of broad gauge locomotives that would blow their standard gauge competition out of the water until the end of the 19th Century.
Probably cost. Early locomotives were expensive and the GWR would need many of them. A vast fortune had been spent on building the railway and its infrastructure. Boilers had to be short, as they burnt coke, and long boilers were not suitable for it.
Possibly money, and time , and existing patents
Could simply have been a matter of time. Early locomotives were highly specialised machine, the very cutting edge of technology, often requiring redesign even while being constructed. The fact that he was outsourcing the design rather than just the construction, suggests he may not have had the time to devote to understanding the specific peculiarities of locomotives.
The early locomotives were very much a tinkerers dream: design & build something that you think will work, if it doesn't or if you figure out a better way just modify it, and keep going till either it's works the way you want or you realise your original design was wrong and start again. Unfortunately that wasn't really Brunel's style, he very much drew up big grand plans, set them in motion and then moved on to the next project, occasionally returning to deal with any issues. While he happily got his hands dirty, he probably couldn't devote several months, if not years, to building one locomotive.
Thank Heavens for the arrival of the young Daniel Gooch!
Well quite. And the locomotives of Mr Stephenson.
Another excellent video sir. In all honesty, Brunel's shortcomings when it came to locomotive design is not all that surprising. Speaking of surprises, might I suggest William Church's aptly named "Surprise" of 1838(?) as a potential topic? It seems tricky to get any concrete info about it.
These men, like Brunel, were inventing steam railways, let's cut them some slack. Also locomotives on the broad gauge we're never developed to their true potential, since the demand was to regauge.
Robert Stephenson had pretty much established the 'standard' locomotive by the time Brunel was designing these. Brunel's designs were utterly absurd for the period. He was trying to do his own thing and no one - other than Gooch - could tell him otherwise. Shame really.
Just found your channel pretty cool. Not very often you find UA-cam channels talking about steam locomotives from 1804 to 1840.
Welcome aboard!
Thanks
I love this channel already and only arrived today!
I feel I should take issue with the suggestion Brunel didn't have a clue about locomotives. Just to stick up for him as it looks like nobody else here has. I'm an engineer...but not the mechanical kind unfortunately. My area is more concerned with giving myself regular electric shocks. I may therefore talk a load of rubbish from now on (or according to some family members always have been).
I always thought broad gauge was a fine idea and we were worse off with the standard gauge. The benefits of a wide track must have struck Brunel as freedom from the heavy restrictions imposed by the standard width. Apart from the extra cost and complexity of the infrastructure all the rest must have looked rosy to him, allowing for comfortable, stable high speed running. The big wheels could be set outside the locomotive and passenger carriages with the centre of gravity below the axles. There would be more space for a big boiler and the front area could be lowered and have negligible impact on streamlining if not an improvement. The big wheels would counter friction by the same factor of the wheel size difference. These trains should have rolled better than any other freeing up power to move the train. The big wheel should ride better too.
I'm not sure where the specs mentioned came from or why those would be specified by Brunel, but it looks to me like his train was never built how he envisioned it, and that is a shame..
Or have I got it completely arse about tit as usual?
The Broad Gauge was an excellent idea & we would've been better for it. It was what Brunel designed to work on the railway that was at fault, not necessarily the track. All you needed was to widen a Stephenson engine to 7'&1/4", & it automatically was improved as there was far more room for a boiler & cylinders. Brunel just couldn't do locomotives. He was brilliant at just about everything else, mind.
0:55 Quite right, I happily admit to being a Brunel fan, and I wouldn't even try to deny how absolutely ludicrous his locomotive requirements were. Considering how much time, effort and thought he put into the actually railway, it's almost as if he just plunked numbers out of thin air for the requirements. I suspect (or possibly hope) that if he had actually sat down himself to design and build a locomotive, he would have both realised his mistake and perhaps eventually produced a reasonable locomotive.
Brunel was a great engineer, but he was also still just human, and he got things wrong. Even some of his successes were nearly failures because he tried to overreach, something I can relate to myself (though obviously on a far less grand scale).
His locomotive stipulations were unworkable. And his track design was also a failure. Lessons learned from the Liverpool & Manchester Railway had shown that the track is dynamic and needs to be elastic. Yet Brunel designed his railway to be absolutely solid. He just ignored everyone else and did his own thing, sure in the knowledge he was the cleverest person there was. (a bit like John Ericsson in that regard)
Hurricane looks like a dog's breakfast. All that length and only one set of drivers. It could have easily have been a six-coupled locomotive. Seems to me, to be large-wheel porn and a competition to see who had the biggest. I'm standing in room with walls of 2.6m height, those wheels were another 400mm taller than that. They probably would have been the single most expensive component on the locomotive. It's mind blowing.
Harrison was trying to build a locomotive to Brunel's specification: low piston speed meant large driving wheels to compensate. Low axle weight meant spreading it over numerous axles especially if you wanted to build a big locomotive with a decent-sized boiler. Yes it does look a mess but Harrison was working to a very restrictive design criteria! Harrison was a very competant engineer, it's all logical but also utterly illogical - like Brunel's specification.
Brunel's glowing report on Ajax was contradicted by Gooch who briefly condemned Ajax as faulty like other Mather Dixon locos. Perhaps Brunel was trying to justify extra payments he had advised to the makers for modifications including the larger wheels suggested by them and additional outside frames to accommodate them.
Brunel left Mather Dixon to address the Directors directly but did say 'if the 10 foot wheel and the consequences which you say arise from its adoption are to be considered by you as ordered by me.'
In Brunel's evidence to the Guage Commissioners in 1845 he tries to exculpate himself from the 'blame' of the 10ft driving wheels. Which is just a tad mealy mouthed of him to be honest.
Brunel seemed to struggle to tell one end of a locomotive from the other bless his cotton socks.
He was a man of aesthetics and symmetry.
Hurricane - a fascinating machine. Almost a precursor of the Garrat engines. I guess the main problem they would have had would've been the steam conduits between the boiler and the drive unit needing to be both flexible and steam tight?
The first thing that came to my mind seeing a picture of Hurricane was: How much weight is there on those driving wheels? Wheelslip much?
I always wondered how much weight the story of 'Hurricane' hitting 80-100 mph actually has. There seems to be very little information on Hurricane & all seems a bit contradictory to each other.
Hurricane's layout reminds me of a paddle steamer. There must have been some engineering knowledge cross-over between railway and marine engineers; Thomas Elliot Harrison's father built ships in Sunderland - subject for a future video? Were flexible steam-pipes used in any other application in the early railway era? How did Hurricane's ones work?
I think Hurricane probably was the answer to constructing a successful locomotive complying with Brunel's requirements. Gooch reported that "it worked very well, equal to any we have" and that it was a much better engine than Thunderer, the other Harrison Patent. However it was the last of the 'freaks' to be delivered and was found to consume excessive amounts of coke which, no doubt along with its general awkwardness, meant it was kid aside after only 14 months. By then Gooch had persuaded Brunel that the future lay in heavy locos of the North Star type which complied with none of the original specifications.
Almost absolutely no weight. No adhesive weight on the drivers, nonexistent internal streamlining, poor steam circuit, awkward cylinder dimensions and design, no proper wheel balancing. The locomotive probably could barely move at 10 miles per hour. And even if it could get up to those sorts of speeds, it would be so poorly balanced and weighted that it would have smashed itself into pieces.
You can’t just slap some big wheels on a boiler and expect it to go fast. The locomotives of the year 1900 couldn’t get up to 100 mph with trains, there wasn’t anything close to a hope for Hurricane. I’d be more interested to know if it ever actually ran in revenue service, because that itself would be an impressive feat for this thing.
Would it be possible to make video about locomotives Ajax and Minotaurus build by Jones, Turner and Evans in 1841 for Kaiser Ferdinand Nordbahn? They were 0-4-2 locomotives.
Hi I am thinking about building two Hall class locomotives and three Bulleid pacifics a West Country Class and a Battle of Britain class and a Merchant navy Class and two Beyer garratts called Duke of Edinburgh and The other Has no name at the moment but the Battle of Britain class locomotive will be Named Neville Chamberlain and the Merchant navy Class will be named White Star Line and the West Country Class will be named Severn Valley also I thoroughly enjoyed watching your videos as they are very informative and interesting 👍 this information is something that I was never taught in my History lessons I was taught wars and America Nothing about Railway and locomotive but I think History on war and America is also interesting. Keep up the informative and inspiring videos Cheers.Lewis 👍
Hi Lewis - good luck with your model making adventures! I can't wait to see them - especially the Garrat.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Thanks apart from the making of the Model Hall Class locomotives and the Three Bulleid pacifics and the two Garratts I also plan to build full sized versions because I was looking through a Steam locomotive Book and on one of the pages was a picture of a scrapped Steam locomotive with "PLEASE DON'T LET ME DIE" Written on the smoke box door and there was a sad face painted on the smoke box door.
I greatly admire all of your videos, and I wonder whether you might be interested in making one that covers a curious case of early industrial espionage - the utterly unsuccessful two Blenkinsop-type locomotives built by the Royal Iron Foundry in Berlin in 1816 and 1817, respectively. I am quite certain that, though information is somewhat scarce, this would be a story worth telling.
It is a fascinating story, you're right :-)
Speaking of peculiarities, I can't help but notice that the main smoke pipe looks like one of the old ventilators my house used to have.
Not that peculiar! It's a typical iron chimney with a wire mesh bonnet which acted as a spark arrester. Many UK locomotives were fitted with them.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Perhaps typical of the rolling stock that you cover; the trains I've grown up with had practically stubby funnels or were streamlined to not appear to have one.
There is one other engine with massive driving wheels that should be daken note of. the "Crampton" that Norris had made. 7 foot driving wheels with a 6 wheel pilot and the boiler's firebox being below the main axle, with the engineer's deck on top of the boiler. Even the rebuilds after their poor use had massive 6 foot driving wheels in the 4-4-0 configuration.
Yeah I know of her.... but seven foot driving wheels aren't that unusual .... or large.
Beg pardon Mr. Dawson but what was the exact cylinder dimensions for ajax? and how small was the boiler?
By the way, "De Arend" was certainly not "narrow gauge", build for a track gauge of 2000 mm (measured from the middelpoint of each rails, about 1995 mm to present standards). Later, the track gauge in The Netherlands was converted to 1435 mm.
Narrow gauge compared to Brunel!
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Only 140 mm short? Even the gauge in Spain is not so wide.
@@m.l.vanzoen236 The 2.141 gauge is very wide. The reason "De Arend" was included was as an example of best practice of conventional locomotive design dervied from Stephenson practice.
Would there not have been a high gyroscopic effect on such large wheels making it difficult to go round curves?
Your videos are very good and are well researched , have you ever thought of doing on on the locomotive Dreadnought .
Do you mean the one intended for the Rainhill Trials or the 'Coal Miner's Friend' built by Hughes for the L&Y?
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Yes the Bury engine . Phil.
@@pireson9127 It's one of the great unknowns. There's no illustrations of if so there are only a few textual references. I do include it in my book on Liverpool & Manchester Locomotives: www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Locomotives-of-the-Liverpool-and-Manchester-Railway-Hardback/p/18771
do you mind me asking what you meant when you was talking about her working boiler pressure as I did not understand what you said about the working boiler pressure used on the Liverpool and Manchester railway?
Officially the safety valves on the Liverpool & Manchester were set at 50psi. However, according to one French observer, the Chevalier de Pambour, the calibration was poor so that the boiler pressure was actually 75psi. When John Dewrance took over as Locomotive Superintendent in 1840 he unofficially raised boiler pressure to 75psi but didn't tell the Board of Directors who thought he was still using 50si. They thought 75psi far too high and very dangerous indeed.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I understand from reading the book Red for Danger that a lot of boilers did blow up during those early days but i understand that only one blew up during the life of the Liverpool and Manchester railway company?
@@eliotreader8220 Boiler explosions were pretty rare occurences in the 1830s and upto about 1845. I'd suggest you read the book on them by C H Hewison: he used to work for the Railway Inspectorate after having been a Premium Apprentice at Doncaster on the LNER. The explosion on the L&M was to poor old Patentee - check out my video - and was due to faulty design and materials. Boiler explosions became an increasing problem in the mid-1840s not just due to more locomotives but due to a) a type of boiler known as a long plate boiler which was particularly prone to failure and b) lack of maintenance due to boilers not being inspected regularly, lack of proper maintenance, and it has to be admitted the lack of tools to properly check inside a boiler: candles and flare lamps aren't a brilliant way of inspecting inside a boiler barrel but is all there was. The Liverpool & Manchester had such an excellent track record due to good boiler design and demanding they be tested to three times working pressure. Red for Danger is pretty week on the early mainline period to be honest, and he has chosen some of the worst accidents to include so is a bit skewed to be honest.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory did the new Locomotive Superintendent get into trouble for that?
@@eliotreader8220 He did.
Hello Mr. Dawson. I'm curious about your impending book on LMR Locomotives. Will you be covering each locomotive individually, or as a class. Particularly so when it comes to the so called Bird and Ostrich classes. Is the book to be exhaustive of every locomotive of the LMR? Service Locomotives (not mainline) as well? I do hope this won't be too much trouble to answer. Thank you for your time!
Good evening. It will be covering locomotives by class and including as much detail as is known about each member. It will follow locomotive development chronologically from Twin Sisters to the Bird Class; there will be a section on the more unsual/experimental types; locomotive working; workshops; enginemen and firemen and finally a chapter on rolling stock.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Thank you!
Too bad some of these locos didn't survive so we would have an example of them, I'd love for us to have had 2 of the Jersey central bicycle locomotives, 1 or 2 Erie triplexes, An original Deleware and hudson or rio grande challenger, A virginian yellowstone, a Boston and Albany 4-8-2 with the strange superheater. LNER garatt, Pennsy s2 turbine, Union pacific steam turbine, Norfolk and western Jawn henry.
Another forensic take down of Brunel's reputation as a mechanical engineer, as if one were needed. Its more than time that the Stephensons took their rightful place in the public understandiing of the development of the railway.
@Matthew Tymczyszyn It isn't. They tell you about Stephenson's Rocket in primary school and leave it at that. The railway may get mentioned while discussing the Industrial Revolution.
Exactly! Robert Stephenson was the Greatest Railway Engineer during the Heroic era of railways in the 19th Century. Yes he had failures ie the Dee Bridge. But virtually everything else he ever did most certainly did not fail! People often overlook things like the St Lawrence Bridge or his Egyptian train ferries!
I would disagree- the Stephensons and Brunel are all extremely influential engineers, but in different aspects- the Stephensons were brilliant locomotive engineers and well respected route surveyors, but Brunel was brilliant at surveying and civil engineering
You don't get any of that in schools anymore. Unfortunately they're all woke here.
when you said Brunel examined the Ajax does that mean that he drove engine in order for him to see how it ran along the track?
Yeah he was on the footplate and probably drove it. However his opinion of the engine compared with that of Daniel Gooch was very very differant. Gooch thought it was a very poor machine.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory so its very possible that Brunel took this engine for what we would call a test drive then? until last year I had only heard only one story about I.K. Brunel driving a steam locomotive as it was something he did not like to do unlike the future Sir Daniel Gooch.
@@eliotreader8220 Someone like Brunel was a bit of a micro-manager, and to make sure everything met his own high standards he would have tested most of his locomotives in person before accepting them on 'his' railway. Famously Brunel thought having an educated locomotive driver as a bad thing - at a time when everyone else was saying engine drivers needed to be educated, literate men - and when asked if he found a train running wrong road, so running toward him on the same line, he said he'd ram it! Very odd gentlemen our Mr Brunel.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I brought two books about the early broad gauge engines used by the Great western railway during its early years to the 1870s I learned a lot about them and the large job that the future Sir Daniel Gooch faced getting these engines to run I understand that he had to burn a lot of the midnight oil to get them to work in time for the first trains the following morning. I understood that he also inspected their fuel as well to see if it was up to his standards
is that a spark arrester on the top of the chinmey of Ajacks
so the Ajax would have been alright if she had been built with sightly smaller driving wheels as they was her only faulty part?
All Mather Dixon's locos needed repairs and alterations before being put into use, the boilers, certainly of the earlier ones had a very high water level leaving inadequate steam space (hence the second done added to Ajax's boiler). The valve gear was badly designed and Brunel criticised the cylinder stroke of their first engines as too short (hence the large wheel s and longer stroke of Ajax). Mather Dixon locos on other lines nearly all had exceedingly short lives, compared with those of other builders, too. As late as October 1840 the Great Western was witholding final payment for the locos and the firm was pleading hardship as a result.
@@mikebrown3772 thank you for that infomation on the Ajax
do we know if a spark arrester was actually fitted to the top of her funnel?
What's up I am an American railfan but I watched steam locomotives from all over the world I once watched this French Steam era film of this I think it was in Paris it's a later date Maybe 1920s maybe later it showed this tank engine that I've never ever seen this valve cure ever it was so strange the action of the Piston Rod move another Rod that turned a rotary valve on the side of the valve chest do you know about the Tank Engine I'm talking about it's been a long time since I've seen it this locomotive if you know of a please make a video on that valve gear I have no clue what that is very interesting looking action on how it functions peace out into the world have a great day
Thank you for your question :-) The valve gear sounds like a form of Poppet valve gear. A Poppet Valve is quicker to open and shut than a traditional slide or piston valve. They can be worked using a rotary cam or by an oscillating lever as on the example you mention. The Poppet valve was very efficient for gas-flow engines, like a steam engine, and they became very popular in Europe, particularly Austria and France in the C20th. Andre Chapelon, the great French genius of steam, used them in his very famous designs. Hope that helps.
The problem with big wheels is you have no tractive effort. Yes you cover a greater distance per revolution of the wheel but there is a compromise. A locomotive with large wheels will have a high top speed but low effort ,and a locomotive with small wheels will have pulling power but no top end speed.
I think you did when they introduced sanding. I think Stirling, and Johnson might disagree with you, although you're right in principle.
Ajax The Stubby Tank Engine
50 psi? 16mm to the foot models operate at 30-40psi no wonder trains of the eara were so slow.
Metallurgy was not as well understood nor controllable at the time, and so inferior materials and manufacturing processes had to be taken into account. The welded, high strength all steel boiler of the 280psi Merchant Navy class locomotives for example is a VERY different beast to the copper and iron hot-riveted boilers of the early days of steam!
they weren't slow at all. they were the fastest things made on the planet at the time. your basis for comparison is severely lacking I rather think...
@@muir8009 they are slow by modern standards. Even a standard bycicle can achieve around 25MPH on the flat, a steam train that goes 15mph... is slow.
@@abrr2000 as I think we're all inferring here: slow in comparison with modern standards is actually very insulting and belittling the extraordinary engineering achievements of the pioneers. comparison with engineering centuries in the future is hardly fair. shall we compare our supposedly wondrous achievements of today with things that will only be invented or progressed in years to come? your op would've been a lot more favourable if you'd just left your comment as noting pressure was low in comparison with modern equipment, without being derisive.
Im building a 71/4 b12
11:26
A great example of a ridiculous spec driving innovation. Creating new problems to be solved. A regular thing for aircraft requirements today.
Single wheeler series is ended? But but...
Theres more single wheeler locomotive you havent make video of like iron duke,rover, and in the other countries.
Hhhh well... guese i dont see the rover class then
Single wheelers aren't over - just the ones with unusually large wheels or layouts.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistoryReally! so... this series is about the weird one's and then after this you still make a vid about single wheeler but a proper and more official loco design?
@@lautanbintangempatlima8350 yep yep
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory oh thank god i was panic when you said its the end of massive wheels loco series, then cool i like to see more of your vid in the future im always love your content i cant wait.
The more I see... the more I am certain that Elon Musk got his brain the same place Brunel did, the border between genious and batshit crazy certainly is razor thin.
I guess the line then as now is that of having wealthy parents or being born poor. One leads to an asylum, the other fame.
Goofy Ahh train