JOHN WESLEY HACKWORTH PART 3 From The Globe
THE BATTLE OF THE BLAST PIPE
By Trev Teasdel
In parts 1 and 2 1 we told the story of John’s delivery of the first locomotive to go to Russia in 1837 and saw the development of his career as an inventor and engineer in his own right. In this part I hope to outline the story and issues that led John Wesley Hackworth into the controversy that became known as ‘The Battle of the Blast Pipe’.
John mounted a vigorous defence of the reputation of his father (Timothy Hackworth) in the press and following the publication of The Life of George Stephenson in 1857, and in doing so –
‘Brought his father’s name into prominence, and without him, and the clear knowledge which he had of the railway beginnings, it is likely the achievements of Timothy Hackworth would not have merely been obscured but lost altogether.’ says Robert Young. 2
Young also tells us that ‘John rebelled against the calm assumption by others of the credit due to Timothy Hackworth and spent an enormous amount of time and energy in combating this in writing and lecturing on early locomotive history.’ 3
It wasn’t an easy task, although John clearly enjoyed the fray, but he was vilified in the process cited as being ‘angry’, delivering a ‘diatribe’ ‘battering his opponents’ and more. This vilification continues in some circles, whenever his name is mentioned, and despite all the fine achievements we have mentioned in earlier parts, it is for this he’s best remembered.
The question is, did this finger pointing define the man at heart? – Robert Young, while having his own criticisms, clarifies to us that John ‘…was a kind and gentle heart, free of all malice, a tender husband and father during a long lifetime of troubles which would have broken many a man.’ 4
His qualifications in the matter were that he occupied a unique position in early railway history and in his own words says ‘I saw the Stockton and Darlington Railway opened, was brought up upon it, knew every horse, every locomotive driver, and fireman, every director, nearly all the shareholders, and every noteworthy incident that occurred thereon for the first 20 years; and if any living man knows anything of its history, and working, I am the man!’ 5
It's not even that Timothy Hackworth was the antithesis of George and Robert Stephenson. The constructive relationship between Timothy and the Stephensons is documented in letters held in the ‘Hackworth Family Archives’ at NRM York. George ‘head hunted’ Hackworth for the Forth Street works and later as Superintendent of the S & D Railway. The letters show the Stephensons valued Hackworth’s skills and knowledge as a blacksmith and engineer, and often sought his opinion on technical issues.
By way of example here’s a quote from a letter from Robert Stephenson in Liverpool to Timothy Hackworth March 29th 1829 - the issue was stationary engines v locomotives ‘…Let me have your general opinion as to the locomotive engine system. Is it as convenient as any other? Would you consider 13 ½ tons in summer and 10 tons in winter, a fair performance for a good locomotive engine? You will oblige me by answering promptly as possible, as the discussion of the merits of the two systems is yet going on amongst the directors here.’ 6
What Was The Main Issue?
The main controversy centred on who invented the ‘Blast Pipe’, but first let’s consider how inventions arise. People think of them as the brainchild of one person, but inventor Jacque Fresco, founder of The Venus project, said ‘We all stand on the shoulders of one another’. 7 Invention is a long process of accumulation, combination, trial, and error, asking questions and refinement. Hackworth didn’t start from scratch, he had long experience of working with locomotives by the time he built the Royal George. Like all inventors, he was a problem solver, concerned to make things more efficient. His task with the Royal George was to produce a locomotive that would change the fortunes of the S&DR. Elements of Hackworth’s blast pipe were there already but crucially, the design was not, and the power of the steam blast was not yet recognised, utilised or mentioned in any patents.
What Was the Blast Pipe and What Did it Achieve?
‘The mere throwing of this steam into the chimney, either by one or two eduction pipes, did not constitute a blast pipe’ 8
In John Wesley Hackworth’s so called ‘diatribes’ and in Robert Young’s book, they were concerned to distinguish between what George Smith 9 called a ‘Real blast pipe’ and systems that preceded it. Timothy Hackworth’s description of it was sometimes used retrospectively by descendants and commentators to describe earlier systems where the exhaust was merely dispatched through the chimney without the steam blast effect, and much of John’s effort was to clarify it. These sketches appeared in The Engineer in 1857, illustrating the difference.
Robert Young explained ‘The blast pipe enabled full boiler pressure to be maintained under all conditions when the locomotive was running, by the action of draught produced by exhaust steam. The mere throwing of this steam into the chimney, either by one or two eduction pipes, did not constitute a blast pipe. To direct the waste steam of a locomotive into a chimney is the natural and obvious way of getting rid of it. The object of a chimney is to convey dust, smoke and vapour and smell high into the air out of the way.’ 10
He continued ‘It was common knowledge that the fire brightened when intermittent steam escaped from the pipe into the chimney, just as resulted from the use of bellows but what was not known was that the pipe could be so designed and adjusted that the exhaust steam sufficed to provide all the draught necessary for efficient haulage.’ 11
The Battle of the Blast Pipe
The battle began with the publication of The Life of George Stephenson in 1857 by Samuel Smiles. The book started a wordy warfare carried on in the Engineer newspaper (and other papers) for three months and revived during the Railway Jubilee in 1875 and indeed, thereon since! Robert Young says that before this book –
‘All the railway world knew of Hackworth's use of the blast pipe at Rainhill, in the Sanspareil, through the burst cylinder, though not of its previous application in the Royal George which was not so generally known. When the ‘Chapter in the history of Railway Locomotion' was published in the Practical Mechanics' Journal in 1850, the facts were given in some detail but in 1857 a surprising number of assertions were made by Smiles, when he stated that George Stephenson had invented the blast pipe - Smiles called it the 'life breath of the locomotive'. 12
The problem was that the authority of Smiles, a popular writer of the day, carried a lot of weight with the public, and so it was natural that the son of Timothy Hackworth, would have felt indignant at the neglect accorded to his father's work.
Samuel Smiles sources were lacking and in the Preface of the 2nd edition 1864 he admits ‘Most of the facts relating to the early period of George Stephenson's career were collected from colliers, brakesmen, engine-men, who had known him intimately… The information obtained from these old men—most of them illiterate…though valuable in many respects, was confused, and sometimes contradictory; but, to insure as much accuracy as possible, the author submitted the MS. to Robert Stephenson, prior to the publication of the 2nd edition.’ 13
Despite this, Smiles still claimed that ‘The invention of the Steam-blast by George Stephenson occurred in 1815, and was fraught with the most important consequences to railway locomotion… Without the steam-blast, the high rates of speed could not have been kept up; …and locomotives might still have been dragging themselves along at little more than five or six miles an hour.’ 14
Smiles was obviously aware of this controversy when he wrote - ‘As this invention has been the subject of considerable controversy, it becomes necessary to add a few words..’. 15
He debunked all claims to the invention, except that of George Stephenson, on much the same grounds as John Wesley Hackworth, but Smiles included Timothy Hackworth in his assessment –
‘It has been claimed as the invention of Trevithick in 1804, of Hedley in 1814, of Goldsworthy Gurney in 1820, and of Timothy Hackworth in 1829. With respect to Trevithick, it appears that he discharged the waste steam into the chimney of his engine, but without any intention of thereby producing a blast; and that he attached no value to the expedient is sufficiently obvious from the fact that in 1815 he took out a patent for urging the fire by means of fanners, like a winnowing machine.’ 16
In 1875 the controversy returned during the 1st Railway Jubilee. John responded in 1876 with a lengthy letter to the Times entitled ‘Who Invented the Steam Blast?’ 17 The letter was ‘excluded from the Times’ but John published it himself as a tract, from his base in Priestgate, Darlington, as an open letter to the editor of the Northern Echo. (This tract can be found online – see notes).
If John was ‘angry’, it’s sublimated. His responses were informative and coherent. He responded to Miss Gurney (descendant of Sir Goldsworthy Gurney) and Samuel Smiles along the lines we have already discussed.
John answered Samuel Smiles in his tract ‘Who Invented the Steam Blast?’ 1876 –
‘George Stephenson, in his first locomotive at Killingworth, 1814, adopted Blenkinsop’s exhaust, ejecting the steam vertically into the air from an inverted T pipe; and in his subsequent engines, Stephenson resorted to the plan used by Timothy Hackworth in the Wylam locomotives four or five years before, the method being to carry the exhaust pipes just within the circumference of the chimney, and allow the steam to escape upwards. This became the established mode and the engines did tolerably well in conveying coals at three to five miles per hour on short lines….but even with strict observance of these conditions, the engines not infrequently came to a halt….matters were in this state when the Stockton and Darlington Railway approached completion, and as the distance intended to be worked by horses and locomotives was 20 miles, it was predicted by competent judges that it would be impractical by the latter power and such it proved to be, for after 18 months of the locomotives the directors determined to abandon them, as horses were found to do the work at less cost.
At this juncture Timothy Hackworth proposed to make an engine to answer the purpose..and the directors resolved, as a last experiment, that Hackworth be allowed to carry out his plan. This engine , The Royal George, was started in 1827..suffice to say it had his invention, the blast pipe for the first time.’ 18
John quoted from page 17 of the Rastrick and Walker report March 1829 that went before the directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and which was witnessed by John Wesley Hackworth, Robert Stephenson and Joseph Lock, to show what the Royal George could do.
I quote Robert Young here as he gives more detail than John, and tells us that before they laid out their report to the directors, Robert Stephenson asked two engineers to try an experiment with the Royal George as a practical proof of the efficiency which the locomotive attained.
The report read "It appears by this experiment the engine took forty-eight and three quarters tons of goods, 2,500 yards up a rise of ten feet a mile, and returned down (being equal to 5,000 yards upon a level) at a rate of eleven and two-tenths of a mile an hour, and that the steam was blowing off when the experiment was concluded.
I state the preceding as it has been given to us - Hackworth’s engine is undoubtedly the most powerful that has yet been made, as the amount of tons conveyed by it compared with other engines proves." 19
John went on to say ‘In 1828, George Stephenson being wishful to produce an equally powerful engine, built the Lancashire Witch, which besides having the Wylam mode of exhaust, was provided with two bellows - an arrangement he was sanguine would effect the desired result. After the trial – he wrote to his friend, Timothy Hackworth – ‘Liverpool, July 25th 1828. We have tried the new locomotive engine at Bolton ; we have also tried the blast to it for burning coke, and I believe it will answer. There are two bellows worked by eccentrics underneath the tender.’
‘It did not answer, and it is obvious at this date, Stephenson knew nothing of the blast pipe, nor did he acquire a knowledge of it October 1829. At a preliminary trial of the Sanspareil, Hackworth gave Stephenson a brisk run on his engine, when the latter made his observations, and at length put the question – ‘Timothy, what makes the sparks fly out of the chimney?’ Mr Hackworth touched the exhaust pipe near the cylinders and said – ‘It is the end of this little fellow that does the business’. 20
William Gowland, an engine driver whom George Stephenson brought from Killingworth to assist in opening the Stockton & Darlington line in 1825, after having run the Royal George two years, and been the driver of the Sanspareil at Rainhill, gave testimony in a letter to The Engineer, 23rd October, 1857, to the following effect:
‘I was driver of the Royal George on the Stockton and Darlington Railway for about two years, it having come out of Shildon works in 1827 - the complete production of Timothy Hackworth. It contained the blast pipe as perfect as any used at the present day…I can solemnly assure you that when the Sanspareil left Shildon it contained the blast pipe not only by accident but by clear design, with a full knowledge of its value, as proved in the case of the Royal George. Of course everybody knew that the Rocket had not the blast pipe when it came to Rainhill. The Sanspareil had.’ 21
By 1882, aged 61, John was tired of the fray and wrote to his brother-in-law George Edward Young –
‘Having fought the battle – almost single handed – under some very vexatious circumstances, I begin rather to flag!’ 22
Blast Pipe Letter
John died in 1891 but the ‘battle’ continued in a less vigorous way by the Hackworth family. An important element was the ‘blast pipe letter’ which had a history of its own. The letter from George Stephenson to Timothy Hackworth, dated Liverpool 28th July 1828 was handed down to John Wesley Hackworth and then to his descendants.
The Blast Pipe Letter above
The letter, ‘which can be interpreted as evidence that Hackworth invented the blast pipe’ prompted Young to write ‘The ‘two bellows worked by eccentrics’ did not answer, and the letter is very sufficient witness that Stephenson had not yet become acquainted with the principles of the exhaust steam blast.’ 23
According to Alison Kay and Jane Hackworth-Young, 24 the letter travelled to the World Columbian Exposition or Chicago World Fair, where other Hackworth items were displayed and then sent to Albert Hackworth, John Wesley Hackworth’s son, who had emigrated to Canada to establish the Worth Engineering Works of Toronto, and to his cousin, Samuel Holmes, also in Canada. When Robert Young needed original sources for his book Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive (1923), Samuel tried to send the documents to him, however transport of the ‘blast pipe’ letter to the UK was delayed by WW1. Finally, Samuel’s widow sent the letter from New York to Albert’s daughter Esther Alderslade, in Thornaby on Tees, in 1921 where most of John’s descendants lived. The family periodically showed the letter to journalists, whenever there was a relevant event or jubilee. In 2005 the letter was presented to NRM at Locomotion, with the press in attendance, by Jane Hackworth-Young, and John’s campaign once again was discussed in the press. The letter now resides in the Hackworth Family archive NRM York.
Albert Hackworth - John Wesley Hackworth's (From the Joan Hackworth Weir Collection)
This concludes our story of John Wesley Hackworth. It is hoped that those wishing to critique John Wesley Hackworth will now, at least, take the trouble to look at what John was actually saying, rather than writing him off with the all too often meaningless descriptors such ‘angry tirade’!
Notes
1 See the Globe issue 13 December 2020 entitled John Wesley Hackworth Part 1 and issue 14 April 21 John Wesley Hackworth Part 2.
2 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive - Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p365
3 Ibid
4 Ibid
5 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive - Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p356
6 Letter from Robert Stephenson to Timothy Hackworth Liverpool March 17th 1829. To be found on the Joan Hackworth Weir website https://joanhackworthweircollection.blogspot.com/2015/02/letter-from-robert-stephenson-to.html
7 Jacque Fresco YouTube video Think https://youtu.be/Ot1wztaqREw
8 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive - Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p210
9 Thomas Hackworth – Locomotive Engineer. George Turner Smith 2015 p39
10 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive - Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p210
11 Ibid p210 / 2011
12 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive - Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p211
13 The Life of George Stephenson and his son Robert Stephenson – Samuel Smiles 1868 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/46229/pg46229-images.html#Page_152
14 Ibid p170
15 Ibid
16 Ibid
17 “Who Invented the Steam Blast?”. Tract by John Wesley Hackworth 1876. Can be read here https://joanhackworthweircollection.blogspot.com/2021/11/who-invented-steam-blast-tract-by-john.html
18 Ibid
19 Robert Young Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive p174 quoting p21 of Rastrick and Walker report March 1829
20 “Who Invented the Steam Blast?”. Tract by John Wesley Hackworth 1876. Can be read here https://joanhackworthweircollection.blogspot.com/2021/11/who-invented-steam-blast-tract-by-john.html
21 Ibid
22 Letter from John Wesley Hackworth to George Edward Young 1882 – find it here https://johnwesleyhackworth.blogspot.com/2020/11/john-wesley-hackworth-letters.html
23 Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive - Robert Young 1923 (2000) edition p220
24 The Story of the Hackworth Papers by Alison Kay and Jane Hackworth-Young from the National Railway Museum Review Spring 2013 can be found here https://joanhackworthweircollection.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-blast-pipe-letter-july-25th-1928.html
Further resources to be found at NRM York https://www.railwaymuseum.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-04/Hackworth%20Family%20Introduction%20%26%20Archive%20List.pdf
By Trev Teasdel 2021 with acknowledgement to Joan Hackworth Weir, Margaret Weir, Kyle Teasdel, Jane Hackworth-Young, Ulick Loring, Caroline Hardie, Alison Kay and all the Hackworth forebears quote in this work.
