CHAP. IV., 5.] 



MECHANICS. GEORGE STEPHENSON. 



87 



dispensed with verifying his results under circum- 

 stances so peculiar as those of a rail way and a train of 

 carriages. The necessity of doing so was manifested 

 by the opposition, and even ridicule, with which the 

 idea of friction being in this case independent of ve- 

 locity was received, showing, as has been correctly 

 observed, " how small was the amount of science at 

 that time blended with engineering practice." The 

 friction of even the indifferent railways of those days 

 amounted to only 10 Ib. per ton of load ; consequently 

 an incline of only 1 foot in 100 would increase by 

 one-half the resistance to the motion of a carriage on 

 a railway. Hence Stephenson determined to con- 

 struct railways having only the smallest inclinations, 

 and to use fixed engines for higher slopes. With re- 

 spect to common roads, he showed by powdering 

 even a level railway with sand, that the most power- 

 ful locomotives then in use speedily came to rest; 

 this, with the previous objection, overruled in his 

 mind the possibility of advantage in that case. 



With low gradients and small resistances, together 

 with the proved invariability of friction with speed, 

 high velo- there necessarily came into Stephenson's mind the 

 cities on practicability of using high velocities. At a very early 

 ways- period (1816) he spoke in one of his patents of con- 

 veying goods " at nearly double the rate at which 

 they were then usually carried along railways," in 

 other words, at 10 or 12 miles an hour, and this he 

 states " with no hesitation, speaking from experi- 

 ments already made," referring, no doubt, to those 

 on friction made along with Wood about this time. 

 Yet after nine years of farther experience, his old 

 coadjutor Wood deserted him on this grand point, 

 and in the first edition of his book on Railways (1825, 

 p. 290) he disclaims the " ridiculous expectation" 

 that locomotives will be seen to travel at " 12, 16, 

 18, or 20 miles an hour," and scorns " the promulga- 

 tion of such nonsense." Even in 1829 he reported to 

 Messrs Walker and Rastrick, who were referees on 

 the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, " that no lo- 

 comotive engine should travel more than 8 miles an 

 hour." If at this comparatively late period perhaps 

 the most practised railway engineer in England held 

 these opinions, and that with the full knowledge of his 

 friend Stephenson's matured convictions (which it is 

 difficult to believe were not pointed at in this para- 

 graph), we may imagine the opposition which the 

 plans of the latter were likely to meet with from in- 

 terested or even indifferent persons. 



At last a company was formed, and funds pro- 

 vided to construct the Liverpool and Manchester 

 Railway. It is unnecessary to state how successfully 

 Stephenson conquered the engineering difficulties of 

 the line, and refuted the predicted impossibility of 

 crossing the Chat Moss. In every respect this rail- 

 way became a model for those which succeeded, and 



(404.) 

 The Man- 

 chester and 

 Liverpool 

 Railway. 



in essentials very little has been added by 25 years' 

 experience on lines of the same gauge. But now came 

 the struggle as to how this beautiful road was to be 

 worked ; with horses, by means of fixed engines, 

 or by locomotives. It was not without a struggle 

 that Stephenson gained his point. Even in 1829 

 the prejudices of the engineering profession were still 

 strong against the locomotive. And it is curious to 

 read in the contemporary documents with what dis- 

 trust they were regarded. The clumsy expedient of 

 a series of stationary engines 1^ miles apart, dragging 

 the trains by ropes, would probably have been adopted 

 to the disgrace of the age, but for the energy of Ste- 

 phenson and his commercial friends. A competition The loco- 

 of locomotives was at last agreed to, which took motive 

 place on October 6, 1829, on a level piece of rail- 4^" 

 way at Rainhill near Liverpool. Though the makers 1829 at 

 of engines had their energies hampered by various Rainhill. 

 needless conditions (particularly as regards the weight 

 of the engines, under the mistaken notion, that velo- 

 city could only be combined with lightness), several 

 excellent engines appeared; but the " Rocket" made 

 at Stephenson's factory at Newcastle, not only gained 

 the prize, but far exceeded in its performances the 

 limits assigned in the programme. It weighed 4 

 tons, and dragged a gross load of 17 tons, at the 

 rate of 15 miles an hour, but moved itself with a 

 velocity of 35 miles an hour. The "Novelty" of 

 Messrs Braithwaite and Ericson was also very suc- 

 cessful. The prize was awarded to Stephenson, and 

 this success was mainly due to the admirable inven- 

 tion of the multi-tubular boiler, imagined by Mr 

 Booth, and carried out by Stephenson. To distribute 

 the water of the boiler in tubes, and allow the heat of 

 the furnace to act around them, was an idea as old 

 as the time of Watt, but it did not succeed. To carry The multi 

 the hot air of the furnace through tubes surrounded tubular 

 by water, was the more successful arrangement of 

 Booth and Stephenson, to the right working of which 

 the draught occasioned by the steam-blast in the 

 chimney was essential. The idea, it is said, had oc- 

 curred both in France and America, but it certainly 

 remained practically inefficient, perhaps on account 

 of the want of draught. 



This invention, by increasing almost without limit (405.) 

 the evaporating power of the boiler, which is the go ^P g g e ^_ 

 key to the efficiency of a locomotive, completed for ces8) 

 the time the skilful improvements on locomotives 

 and railways, which, as has been seen, we owe mainly 

 to Stephenson. The comparatively trifling ameliora- 

 tions which have occurred in either, and the stereo- 

 typed character of even the minor arrangements, such 

 as those of stations and of passenger carriages, show 

 how much the sagacity of the engineer had antici- 

 pated the accommodation of the public. 1 



I here close my account of Mr Stephenson and of g ^ c c e 



1 I do not overlook of course the modifications introduced in the broad-gauge system of the Great Western Railway. Mr 

 Brunei indeed tried to show how far he could deviate without positive injury from Stephenson's plans ; in some points, perha.'jf, 

 be did so with advantage, yet, on the whole, the results do not shake Stephenson's position as the commanding engineer of his time. 



