An unusual historical steam locomotive is the Grasshopper. Although the steam locomotive was invented (or evolved) in Great Britain the Grasshopper is a locomotive unique to the USA. As far as I know it is unique to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad which, in the first half of the 19th century, had several of them. One, The John Hancock, may be seen by copying and pasting this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o3ZhybaZ_s
I have long been fascinated by the "Grasshopper." Originally evolved from an 1831 design, some were still in use in the 1880's. One of these days I hope get to the the B&O Museum to see one in person.
By the way, that link sent me to the movie "Some Like It Hot."
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
I find the grasshoppers fascinating too. I do wonder why the design was adopted in the first place although I know this was in the earliest days of steam locomotives.
Yes, the link is to Some Like it Hot. I think it has some excellent interior views of a sleeping car. I did not put the link in because of the movie itself.
Actually a number of reasons for the overhead beams and vertical cylinders. Think about it.
The vertical cylinders won't rack the frame, and a much longer stroke is possible than with cranked wheels directly driven by horizontal mains. The beams act as reducing levers.
I trust you observed the relative absence of need for a heavy crosshead requiring relatively fine machining or fitting skills. This doubtless simplifies the job of providing and maintaining the piston-rod packing. Design is tolerant of considerable slop in the joints and whip in the levers... at low speed. Unsurprising that the things could be kept in service for so long...
RME
I did noticde that there is no need for cross heads but not much beyond that. I thought the designers had just adapted a common design for stationary engines of that day. But now that you have pointed it out I can see that the design was consistent with American technology at the time.
It's easy with 20/20 hindsight to say that early steam-locomotive designs are 'primitive'. Without looking either at what was state-of-the-art in machine tools or what was available as material and supplies. Consider for example the composite beam made of a 'piece of tree' with tension truss rods over bridges at midpoint. What would you use in the early 1830s that could provide mass-to-stiffness that would be comparable...
Interesting how many early designers were watchmakers. Phineas Davis, for example , figured out how to put a multispeed transmission in a locomotive right at the outset of American design -- had he not been killed early, who knows what might have ensued... including capitalization of the 'scaled-up watchmakers' tools' to make precise gearing cost-effectively. ( Yes, the panic of 1836-7 would probably have killed development anyway... but it's still interesting to think about...). Likewise, if Oliver Evans hadn't been stone-poor, imagine the joys of high-pressure engines decades earlier...
I advise always looking at why a given early locomotive was made as it was before laughing at it -- there is very often good reason, and even shy of that, you might get a more sympathetic attitude about design under conditions of uncertainty...
(You see this later, too -- look at the whole area of riding cutoff between the 1850s and 1890s, or some of Woodard's designing like outside dry pipes or unitary central machinery, or NYC's first 4-8-4 (with one of the scariest-at-the-time gauges ever made) as a few examples to get you started.
Overmod ( Yes, the panic of 1836-7 would probably have killed development anyway... but it's still interesting to think about...).
Andrew Jackson's policy of no government paid for internal improvements plus his specie circular which caused the economic problems in 1836.
I didn't know Phineas Davis was a watch maker. As was Matthias Baldwin.
Me lads, I've been a student of history my whole life, and let me tell you NEVER assume the old-timers didn't know what they were doing, and about almost everything. Don't underestimate their level of sophistication either, they'll surprise you every time.
Of course, they didn't get it right ALL the time, but still...
Ok, there is a large steam powered clock in Sydney Au copied from one in Europe. IIRC it was built before 1840. Can one assume that watch makers of the early steam era were more technically adept so far as precision maching was concerned and therefore more comfortable with the stretch to steam power? J.R.
I think it's safe to assume that clock and watchmakers were the absolute masters of metal and machine work back in those days, gunsmiths probably coming in a close second.
Back in medieval times the best torture instruments were made by clockmakers, but hoo-boy, that's another story.
I don't assume old timers didn't know what they were doing, Still, a clock is not a steam engine and the differences are not intuitively obvious. They had to learn as they went along.
John WR I don't assume old timers didn't know what they were doing, Still, a clock is not a steam engine and the differences are not intuitively obvious. They had to learn as they went along.
Sorry John, I didn't mean to infer you assumed the old-timers didn't know what they were doing, not at all. I was speaking of contemporary people in general.
Actually, Firelock, I was wondering why in the 1830's an American locomotive builder would not follow Robert Stephenson's idea for the Rocket. But you suggest the answer, that when the grasshoppers were built America had did not yet have the machines available obtain the fine tolerances that the British. Americans went with what they had. It was not ideal but still quite successful for the time.
Well, it did take time for the "Rocket" type of engine to migrate here to the US. When it did the American designers picked up the ball, so to speak, and ran with it.
Interesting thing about the "Rocket": At the Rainhill trials in England, I believe in 1825, the "Rocket" wasn't the best performing locomotive in any one category, but like a decathalon athlete its all-round performance was better than all the other locomotives.
A bit of trivia: The Duke of Wellington was at the Rainhill trials but wasn't impressed by the railroads. "They will only encourage the lower classes to move about needlessly" he said. Great soldier, but a bit of a snob!
Actually the lower classes had been moving around because of railroads for some time what with the children they used to haul coal cars inside the mines. But I Duke of Wellington was right. As a member of the lower classes I've been able to move around quite a bid by train and no doubt he would consider that moving about to be needless.
Yeah, "Old Hooky", that's what the British soldiers called him on account of his big honker, affectionately I might add, just wouldn't have approved of riff-raff like us!
Too bad he didn't come over here so Andy-By-God Jackson could kick his butt too!
Sorry to all our British friends, this is all in fun don't you know!
But our British friends gave him his name "Old Hooky." And there is no disrespect to the British in Andrew Jackson's affection embrace of him.
Absolutely right! The technology of materials and manufacture had to evolve along with locomotivre
design. Imagine boring a steam cylinder reasonably round and mostly the same size from end to end
using a chisel set into a log with a horse pulling it around and around. No piston rings, just leather
packing like in a water pump. Hammering out boiler plates with a hot fire and big hammers.
Even drilling holes for rivets was a challenge. The wonder is not that those early locomotives were
crude, the wonder is that they were successful enough to inspire others to try improving them rather
than giving the whole thing up as a bad job.
Chuck Peck
OldReliable Imagine boring a steam cylinder reasonably round and mostly the same size from end to end using a chisel set into a log with a horse pulling it around and around.
Imagine boring a steam cylinder reasonably round and mostly the same size from end to end
using a chisel set into a log with a horse pulling it around and around.
Didn't they have stationary steam engines? And boring machines?
Certainly they had boring machines, that's how cannon were made.
Cannon barrels were cast solid from the 18th Century onward, it made for a denser cast and a stronger barrel. THEN that solid mass had the bore drilled into it.
Here's a tidbit for you: One way cannon inspectors checked the integrity of a barrel was to strike it on the muzzle. If it rang like a bell they knew they had a good gun. SO, if you ever find yourself by Civil War or Revolutionary War bronze gun take something soft like a stick or a ball-point pen and rap the muzzle. Listen to it ring! BTW, this usually only works with bronze guns, not so often with iron.
Firelock76Here's a tidbit for you: One way cannon inspectors checked the integrity of a barrel was to strike it on the muzzle. If it rang like a bell they knew they had a good gun. SO, if you ever find yourself by Civil War or Revolutionary War bronze gun take something soft like a stick or a ball-point pen and rap the muzzle. Listen to it ring! BTW, this usually only works with bronze guns, not so often with iron.
Will it work at all with iron? I thought I might try it the next time I'm in Cadwallader Park in Trenton where the Swamp Angel is displayed.
John, I don't think it works with iron. At any rate, if I remember correctly the "Swamp Angel" blew up, so the barrel had a flaw to begin with.
Interesting thing about iron guns. Up through the Civil War period they were considered good for only one casting. When the gun barrel wore out for various reasons they were condemned and dumped. This is one of the reasons you see them being used as fence posts around 19th Century buildings, the Anheuser-Busch brewery in Saint Louis has cannon barrels as fence uprights. You see them used a lot in Civil War cemeterys as well. They were also used as ships ballast.
Bronze guns, on the other hand, COULD be melted down and recast when they wore out.
Firelock76if I remember correctly the "Swamp Angel" blew up, so the barrel had a flaw to begin with.
You do remember correctly, Firelock. While being used at the siege of Charleston the gun split into two pieces. Years later Charles Carr, a Trenton iron manufacturer, brought it as part of a load of scrap iron. When he discovered what he had he put the gun back together and donated to the City. Today it still stands as he donated it back in 1876. But I'm sure that if struck it will not sound like a bell. Here is a link to an article from The New York Times that reports the donation of the Swamp Angel to the people of Trenton, New Jersey:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0E13F83E5B137B93C3A91789D95F428784F9
PS. But I thought the whole point of Parrott guns was that they were not supposed to blow up.
John
Well, Parrott guns weren't supposed to blow up, but they certainly could. Not all of course, but if you ever see a photo of Civil War artillerymen serving a Parrott gun you'll notice NONE of them are standing directly behind the breech. When a Parrott let loose it was usually the breech that blew out. Sometimes they'd go just ahead of the breech reenforcing ring, which is where the Swamp Angel came apart.
Interestingly, the Parrotts were a "substitute standard" piece of artillery, never officially adopted wholeheartedly by the US Army. The official rifled cannon was the Three Inch Ordnance Rifle, a wrought iron gun adopted just before the war. The Ordnance Rifle was an outstanding piece, there's no record that I know of of one ever blowing up. In fact, they continued in use for a number of years after the Civil War. The Parrotts were pulled from service as soon as the war ended and never used again.
I imagine that having a gun like the Swamp Angel blow up which you were firing it must have been discouraging.
Never the less, sitting on its stone platform in Cadwallader Park it is an impressive sight.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.