The John Bull: A British Locomotive Comes to America by David Weitzman describes in detail each and every part of this early locomotive. But Weitzman does not focus on the engine for its historical significance alone. The locomotive is also important because we still have it. And it is not just a relic of a bygone age; the last time it ran was September 11, 1981, one hundred and 150 years after the day it first ran on 1831. Somehow the John Bull never blew up and was never sent to the scrap yard. Rather, it wound up in The National Museum of American HIstory which is part of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC. It is a national treasure.
John WR The John Bull: A British Locomotive Comes to America by David Weitzman describes in detail each and every part of this early locomotive. But Weitzman does not focus on the engine for its historical significance alone. The locomotive is also important because we still have it. And it is not just a relic of a bygone age; the last time it ran was September 11, 1981, one hundred and 150 years after the day it first ran on 1831. Somehow the John Bull never blew up and was never sent to the scrap yard. Rather, it wound up in The National Museum of American HIstory which is part of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC. It is a national treasure.
I thought it might be of interest to some here to see a photo of the John Bull during the re-enactment mentioned by JohnWR.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/publicresourceorg/493887457/
(note: the 'flickr' photo is NOT mine.. found it on-line)
The first Metroliner! It is very cool to see it and think about what it started. The RR that claims to have run the first scheduled passenger train doesn't have it's relic. It exploded. They do have a pretty neat replica, though. The Best Friend of Charleston replica is sitting in the lobby of NS's Atlanta headquarters at the moment - fully visible from the street. Charleston will get it back as soon as they have suitable place to display it.
I wonder if they might be able to borrow the John Bull replica from Pennsylvania for a while?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannder if they might be able to borrow the John Bull replica from Pennsylvania for a while?
Don,
The John Bull replica was completed in late November or early December, 1939. That is about a month before I was born. Do you think the Norfolk Southern would have any interest in putting me on display in Atlanta?
John
Lest we get too teary-eyed about Britishness, it might be remembered that the American contribution to the design should be equally, if not more, recognized. In general, if Angus Sinclair is to be believed (and while it's possible he was highly biased, as I believe Pangborn was, he certainly spoke out enough about British bias to have recognized and forestalled it in himself) most if not all of the British imports were generally unsuited to American track and operations -- the John Bull being no exception. To call it a "Metroliner" is, perhaps, strangely appropriate (in that it was supposed to be so great, but needed so much work to make it even runnable, and it was supplanted by better technology fairly briskly) but I doubt that is the sense you meant...
When i see the working replica of Ezekiel Childs' locomotive, or anything by Phineas Davis, or Ericsson's Novelty (which was far better suited to American practice) -- then we can talk. That is the beginning from which American railroading practice actually grew.
And note that I didn't even need to mention Nathan Read or Oliver Evans, or Jacob Perkins -- real innovators, not colliery excuses. Or, for that matter, how useful the tech of the contemporary road carriages in Britain was over here... once the wallowing tanks with their kingbolt-trick arrogance and red-lead joints passed into well-deserved history...
Now, now, Overmod, let's not be too hard on the Brits. Remember it was a learning process for them too, and everything has to start somewhere. Certainly the "John Bull" needed some mods to get it to work on American track, but it's no the locomotives fault american trackage wasn't as well built as the British trackage was. At any rate "John Bull" ran well enough to last in service until 1869. Not too shabby for a first-generation steam locomotive. And let's keep in mind that next to parliamentary democracy Britain's greatest gift to the world was the steam locomotive!
There's a great story about the running of the "John Bull" in 1981. I remember the Smithsonian magazine article. When they got the idea of running the engine on its 150th anniversary they jacked up the engine and hooked an air compressor to it so see if everything still worked. When the pressure wa right they opened the throttle and BOOM! Seventy-plus years of assorted crud blew out of the smokestack and all over the exhibit hall! But lo and behold, everything still worked as advertised.
The next issue of "Smithsonian" had a letter to the editor which said "I just KNEW you guys played with all the cool stuff you've got when it's after hours and nobody's looking!"
OvermodLest we get too teary-eyed about Britishness, it might be remembered that the American contribution to the design should be equally, if not more, recognized.
A British teacher I once had observed "We climb the ladder round by round."
When Robert Stevens brought the John Bull to America we were still using vertical boilers. He went to the best locomotive builder in the world. And I think he got the best locomotive that could be had back then. It was soon altered with its awkward looking pilot. And Isaac Dripps built what looks like a rolling shack to keep himself out of the rain. But it ran and it ran for a good many years.
But I have to agree that US locomotive history is a lot more than the John Bull.
John WRWhen Robert Stevens brought the John Bull to America we were still using vertical boilers.
And it pays -- again, reading Sinclair and Pangborn -- to remember why. In the B&O case, in particular, the very sharp curves required a very short locomotive wheelbase. Difficult to get this with a horizontal boiler that has correct draft and reasonable polar moment of inertia (although I doubt the designers called it that at the time! ;-} )
When sharp curves were not necessary, America went neatly to horizontal boilers (as in South Carolina) and native production that seems to have worked just fine in the absence of abuse. (I could make a joke here, but it would quite rightly be whacked by the mods...)
OvermodTo call it a "Metroliner" is, perhaps, strangely appropriate (in that it was supposed to be so great, but needed so much work to make it even runnable, and it was supplanted by better technology fairly briskly) but I doubt that is the sense you meant...
It connected the US's two largest cities (with a ferry ride at each end) and chopped more than a day's travel out. Metroliner!
Certainly! Imagine going from a three mile-an-hour mode of transportation to a fifteen mile-an-hour one, i.e. the "John Bull" and its train. "Metroliner" indeed, if not the "Acela"!
Firelock76Certainly! Imagine going from a three mile-an-hour mode of transportation to a fifteen mile-an-hour one, i.e. the "John Bull" and its train. "Metroliner" indeed, if not the "Acela"!
In the earliest days to get from New York to Philadelphia you had to sail to the southern tip of New Jersey and then. tacking, go back up the Delaware Bay. At some point (I don't know when but Ben Franklin did this) you could cross to South Amboy and take a stage coach to Bordentown which is as far as tidewater comes up the Delaware. Than you could sail down the river the rest of the way. The Camden and Amboy eliminated both the state coach and the sail down the Delaware. My own recollection is that it could go as fast as 30 miles an hour, an incredible rate of speed in tthose days.
But it was hard to get the C&A charter through the State Legislature. Robert Livingston had a large interest in the Delaware and Raritan Canal and he did not want competition from a railroad. Col. John Stevens, whose vision was behind the C&A was never able to get the Legislature to approve of his line. His son Robert was a little more practical. Robert Stevens bribed Robert Livingston and got the charter.
Overmod,
The Andrew Jackson, rebuilt to resemble Phineas Davis's Atlantic, is on display at the B&O Museum in Baltimore. I think the grasshoppers are fascinating too. But I don't know that the Camden & Amboy or the John Bull can be excluded from American railroad history.
with best regards, John
OvermodAnd it pays -- again, reading Sinclair and Pangborn -- to remember why. In the B&O case, in particular, the very sharp curves required a very short locomotive wheelbase. Difficult to get this with a horizontal boiler that has correct draft and reasonable polar moment of inertia (although I doubt the designers called it that at the time! ;-} )
Unless, of course, you add a leading truck to help take the curves. Some railroads opted for that method.
Overmodreasonable polar moment of inertia (although
I think the issue of moment of inertia is better addressed through the center of gravity. I would think that the center of gravity of a vertical boiler is higher than that of a horizontal boiler and that the vertical boiler would be more likely to tip over while rounding a sharp curve.
The "Grasshoppers" certainly are fascinating, neat-looking locomotives. Some lasted quite a long time as utility engines for work trains and track crews, but certainly they were an evolutionary dead-end, similar to the rotary aircraft engines used during the First World War. They couldn't have been all that safe for the engine crews either, considering all that exposed machinery the enginemen had to work around. One moments inattention and "crunch!"
John WR Overmodreasonable polar moment of inertia (although I think the issue of moment of inertia is better addressed through the center of gravity. I would think that the center of gravity of a vertical boiler is higher than that of a horizontal boiler and that the vertical boiler would be more likely to tip over while rounding a sharp curve.
At the speeds used on the B&O?
I could get into the general discussion of high vs. low roll center and its effect on the track, but will spare you much of the MEGO. Interested readers can look at the early history of the New Haven electrification, and why the 'odd D' and DD1s were built the way they were. Or note why Cramptons were a dead end even if it was extremely unlikely they'd tip over on curves...
Pays to read Sinclair about reasons for early horizontal boilers (definitely preferable if you want increasing size and efficiency in railroad packaging, or for that matter low cylinders). Long chassis combined with single-point firing MEANS at least the convection section has to be horizontal. This is part of the reason why vertical-boiler engines failed to thrive in the locomotive world. Perhaps far more interesting is why they failed to thrive in 'railmotors' (see John White's book on the American passenger car for a great many useful examples to study, and there are others of equal value in Britain...)
OvermodAt the speeds used on the B&O?
I understand that steam locomotives were developed, especially in the early years, by trial and error and I can understand that very early builders which little prior knowledge to go on would try a vertical boiler. And no doubt they were run at safe speeds. But the idea that locomotives with vertical boilers and all the moving rods and beams that the B&O grasshoppers used were really superior to horizontal boilers boggles my mind. I see these as interesting but ridiculous contraptions.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.