Patentee: The Basics
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 тра 2020
- Some locomotives are just unlucky: one such was Robert Stephenson's patent six-wheel locomotive, Patentee.
'Locomotives of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway' by Pen & Sword Transport will be published in 2021. Check out their range of railway titles:
www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Trans...
Carry on the conversation over at my author page:
/ onhistoricallines
Or Pen and Sword Transport Talk
/ 533195533925163
Very interesting video. Just one important detail, Le Belge wasn't the first locomotive to run in Belgium but it was the first locomotive to be built in Belgium. However, the first three locomotives delivered and used during the inauguration of the first national railway line were all Patentees. 1 "La Flèche" a 1A1 Built by Stephenson , 2 "L' Eléphant" a B1 built by Taylor, 3 "Stephenson" a 1A1 Built by Stephenson. "Le Belge" was delivered about 8 month later and was the sixth locomotive of the national railway company.
A few notes about the Arend: It was NOT the first locomotive in the Netherlands. It was the second. The first was De Snelheid (The Speed) which was also based on the Patentee. The Snelheid pulled the first train but the Arend travelled with the train in case anything went wrong.
The Arend was not rebuild in 1935 but in 1938 for a movie about 100 years dutch railways (ua-cam.com/video/irRQOL6Tj7A/v-deo.html). The makers of this movie wanted to rebuild De Snelheid but almost all drawings of this engine where destroyed. Every drawing of the Arend still existed and that's why they rebuilded the Arend instead.
Anyway, great video and I can't wait to see more! ;D
Side note: Not for that particular film, but to celebrate the centenary of the Dutch Railways in 1939. Drawings survived of "Leeuw" (Lion), a copy of Arend, which they used to make Arend.
Really enjoying these. Very well researched. How about Furness Railway’s FR20?
Great researching! ✅
One of my favourite type of locomotives including Jennie Lynd! Sad I shall never see the running one patentee, hope to see Fairy Queen once.
It's a shame that none of these first commercial steam train engines were saved! However, it is amazing that the original Rocket was found and is now on display, next to the replica! I can not blame them for scrapping them when they were warren out, how were they to know the value of these two hundred years later! If only a Planet class engine had been parked in a shed or abandoned in the woods!
Fascinating narrative on Patentee.
Thank you very much for this video!
A cursed locomotive indeed but she had second chance given to her in the end, such a shame she wasn't saved if not for her unlucky history at least
Fascinating, Anthony.
Thankyou
something from the Middleton video which i didnt thik about at the time, why the loco is always depicted in the middle of the train
The only depiction I can think of is the print of a locomotive and train passing the Old Leeds Parish Church. That print is inaccurated in several respects including giving the locomotive two chimneys! George Walker shows it the head of a train of coal waggons, presumably travelling from right to left. Another contemporary drawing of it in the Monthly Magazine also shows it at the end of a train, which it is presumably pulling. It's entirely possible the engine was marshalled in the middle so as to draw and propel. What we do know is that they worked intermittently - they had no coal tender and only a very small water tank - at first the steam pressure was let off to refill the boiler!
Always interesting to see the differences between European and North American practice. The 2-2-2 and 0-4-2 being extraordinarily rare in North America though apparently ubiquitous in Europe and Great Britain.
We had flatter track with less severe curves so a long, fixed wheelbase could cope.
The classic American 4-4-0 was (as I understand it) designed for uneven track, with compensated springing. That is, the axleboxes on the two main axles were linked by an 'equalising beam' which effectively gave a single point of support on that side of the loco. So together with the bogie pivot at the front, that was three-point suspension, which avoided twisting the frames. I don't think any domestic British engine ever adopted that.
(I once examined a New Zealand 'J' class 4-8-2 in its shed and was fascinated to find that everything was compensated, from the front bogie to the rear trailing truck, with equalising levers between the ends of the springs).
You see how we can call this sort of thing a "patentee type" based on its wheel arrangement, when did this become the accepted nomenclature, was this the practice in writings of the late 1830s/1840s or is it something we've retroactively done in deference to a later practice such as referring to any 4-6-2 tender engine as a "pacific type"
At the time they were known as "Patent Engines" or "Patent Locomotives" by Robert Stephenson & Co (and those who built them under licence). Quite what others referred to them as I'm not sure.
Robert Stephenson & Co also referred to "Planet" and "Samson" types in their order books, too.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory interesting, often wonder how much we have added looking back rather than continued on in tradition.
Interesting you note the convertion of exisiting planet types into patentee types, rather reminds me of the GWR new build that has the theoretical ability to be converted from 4-6-0 into 4-4-2 formation. If the people with say in such things ever get a bit bored of Planet being Planet they could work in such a conversion when she needs an overhaul and give us a taste of a patentee for a year or two and go backwards quite easily. (Flanged drivers of course)
@@trainskitsetc I dont think it will be possible with Planet
Thanks ! Your channel rules !
I thought the Patentee type was limited to 2-2-2. Wasn't aware that 0-4-2's like Lion or Ajax qualified. But a fascinating story anyway.
The patentee type simply refers to a six wheel locomotive with "blind" i.e. flangeless centre driving wheels. The enrolled patent drawings show a 2-2-2 and an 0-4-2.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I see. So a 2-4-0 or 0-6-0 with flangeless centre drivers might also be a 'patentee'? But any 2-2-2 or 0-4-2 with flanges all round would, strictly, not be a Patentee.
Being very careful with nomenclature, I notice you say the 2-2-2 (illustrated by Jenny Lind and North Star) would be a mainstay for years. I had assumed you included those as 'Patentee' type but I think that was a wrong assumption. (I see Wikipedia calls the 2-2-2 wheel arrangement a 'Jenny Lind' or more generically, a 'single'.)
So it would be fairer to say the Patentee made 2-2-2's popular, but most 2-2-2's were not Patentees?
@@cr10001 "Patentee" was the first modern six wheeled locomotive. Six wheelers had existed before, but Patentee was the first modern locomotive. The design was derived, quite naturally from the "Planet" (2-2-0) type. The Patentee type became the single most popular wheel arrangement for passenger locomotives in the late 1830s. Whilst Stephenson's original patent called for the centre /driving wheel to be blind, in actual service the original "Pantentee" and her successors did have flanged driving wheels following an accident where "Patentee" broke her leading axle, and with only the trailing wheels at the rear having flanges she came seriously to grief. She was then fitted with new flanged driving wheels on the grounds of safety. And if you read the 1838 description of Stephenson's patent locomotive the driving wheels are flanged.
Problems encountered with the use of a crank axle on the Grand Junction Railway led to Joseph Locke and William Buddicom to come up with what is now termed the "Crewe" type. This had outside cylinders and the driving wheels had a straigth axle supported on inside frames. The leading and trailing wheels were supported on outside frames. David Joy's famous "Jenny Lind" has the same arrangement of framing. Basically "Jenny Lind" is a form of "Crewe Type".
The defining feature of the Patentee type is: six wheels; outside frame; inside cylinders; crank axle. "North Star" is a Patentee just on an enlarged scale.
The "Crewe" type also had six wheels but has outside cylinders, a straight axle and a mix of framing for the driving and carrying wheels.
Finally, I'd not trust Wikipedia as far as I could throw it.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I think we have here one of those cases where developments led common usage to deviate from precise terminology. That is, the acquisition of flanges by 'Patentee' et al led to 2-2-2's being called 'patentees'. I assume that developments in trackwork led to the curvature at points etc being reduced over time, which would have made it easier for flanged six-wheelers to negotiate.
The classic example of this is terminological creep is Mallets. Americans (usually) chide me for calling a Big Boy a 'Mallet' or even a 'simple Mallet' (since as we know, Mallet's patents included compounding). In response to my 'what do you call it then' they just say 'articulated', which might pass in the US but is useless if trying to compare the features of one with, say, a Garratt which is also articulated.
Life really is a movie
Had the Patentees done away with slip eccentrics? as Stephenson developed the Stephenson valve gear with fixed eccentrics, expansion link and radius rod somewhere during his carreer.
Patentee herself was built with the same slip eccentric valve gear as Planet. Stephensons went over to Gab gear about 1836. Link valve gear didn't come in until the 1840s with William Howe and William Williams developing what became known as 'Stephenson Link' in 1841. A simple design really, derived from Buddicom-type gab valve gear.
5.5 ton axel load on rails designed max 4t? Did they decide the rails could actually handle more?
Bayard is a mid thirties replica of the original one.
So are the different wheel configurations considered there own class of engines or all they all considered and referred to as a Patantee? Cuz if so, that's pretty cool that one class of locomotive could have different wheel configurations especially since that seems to be one of the factors when differentiating classes.
The Six-Wheeler was the Patentee Type, and could appear in differant forms, the main two Classes being the Patentee 2-2-2 for passenger trains, and the "Large Samson" 0-4-2 for working goods trains. The Patentee 2-2-2 evolved from the "Planet Class" 2-2-0 whilst the Large Samson, as the name suggest, evolved from the 0-4-0 "Samson". Locomotive building firms like Charles Tayleur & Co referred to them as classes A B C or D depending on the wheel configuration. I'm planning a video on "Samson" and also "Atals" the big 0-6-0 built to move heavy coal trains :-)
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory thanks!! I appreciate the clear up, I guess I didn't quite understand the video enough lol, but I've always had an appreciation for early steam locomotives so I'm in love with your channel
@@uniquely.mediocre1865 Awwww thanks! It could just be my way of explaining things and over-simplifying a bit too much. But I'm glad you're enjoying them! Spread the good word!
Newton - Le Willows is in Merseyside not Cheshire.
It was probably Cheshire at the time, I don't think "Merseyside" as a county existed in the 1830s.
@@MajorMagna Thank you but Newton - Le Willows was in Lancashire not Cheshire I do know this because I've looked at old maps from that time because it was in Lancashire, until it went into Merseyside in 1974, The information I've given you is true I've lived in Lancashire for most of my life since 1972, because it was very close to St Helens & North Of Warrington, which was also in Lancashire until 1974,when it went into Cheshire including Burtonwood & Winwick because I used to barrow old maps from that period, from The local Library which showed that Newton - Le - Willows, was in Lancashire, not Cheshire, plus I went on a Heritage bus tour from starting from St Helens Bus Museum, you can check it out, because what I've told you is true.
@@MajorMagna Lancashire was around in 1830, was formed at the same time as Cheshire three hundred years before, Merseyside was formed in April 1974, but Newton - Le - Willows has never been a part of Cheshire, I've looked at maps dating back then, Newton - Le - Willows as never been a part of Cheshire, the Lancashire boundary started from South of Latchford, where The Manchester Ship Canal now runs along, to Manchester. Northwards to West Moreland & Cumbria, Westwards to Liverpool & Eastwards to Manchester & Yorkshire, [now West Yorkshire].
Yikes.