The 1829 Locomotive Trials
The Need for Speed
In the late 1820s there were just four options when it came to motive power for railways: a) Horses. b) Self-acting inclines where gravity did the work. (c) Rope haulage by stationary engines. (4) Locomotives. Often a combination of these options was used.
By 1821, despite there being some 200 miles of tramways and railways in use in Britain, horses remained as the most common choice for motive power.
As construction of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway progressed, the Board of Directors wanted to be able to provide a service combining speed and reliability and began to conduct research into the best method of doing this. Eventually they decided on locomotive power, offering a prize to find the locomotive “which shall be a decided improvement on those now in use, as respects the consumption of smoke, increased speed, adequate power and more weight.” The contest, later to be known as the Rainhill trials, was advertised in the Liverpool Mercury of 1st May 1829.
By 1821, despite there being some 200 miles of tramways and railways in use in Britain, horses remained as the most common choice for motive power.
As construction of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway progressed, the Board of Directors wanted to be able to provide a service combining speed and reliability and began to conduct research into the best method of doing this. Eventually they decided on locomotive power, offering a prize to find the locomotive “which shall be a decided improvement on those now in use, as respects the consumption of smoke, increased speed, adequate power and more weight.” The contest, later to be known as the Rainhill trials, was advertised in the Liverpool Mercury of 1st May 1829.
The Judges and the Entrants of the Locomotive Trials
THE JUDGES:
Three of the most eminent engineers of the day – Wood, Rastrick and Kennedy – were appointed as judges. Nicholas Wood was the Chief Engineer at Kinningworth Colliery, where he had been connected with locomotive work for some 15 years. John Urpeth Rastrick, previously employed by the Board in the initial research activity, was a partner in Foster, Rastrick & Co., who had an engine building works at Stourbridge, where they had previously built three locomotives for America. Rastrick’s notebook on the trial is an invaluable source of information throwing light on contentious issues such as the form of the Rocket’s Firebox. John Kennedy had previously been involved in the improvement of spinning machinery. His brother was later involved in building locomotives as a partner in Liverpool’s Bury and Curtis firm. The reports of Wood and Rastrick, however, suggest that Kennedy held little real role in the Trials.
Unfortunately, the report made by the Judges to the Directors is not known to exist, but there is no lack of other reports, which varied from the detailed technical ones, to newspaper reports. Only six of the locomotives that came to Rainhill started the competition. Two of those were later ruled out and one more was deemed ineligible. The winner was clear – The Rocket was the only locomotive completing the distance and complying with all the other requirements.
THE ENTRANTS:
The Rocket: This locomotive was erected and driven during the Trials by Jon Dewerance who in 1839 became Locomotive Superintendent of the L & M R.
Sanspareil: was designed and built by Timothy Hackworth, then Engine Superintendent of the Stockton and Darlington Railway.
The Novelty: Was designed by Ericcson and built by Braithwaite & Ericcson, whose works were situated in London. Its sleek appearance made it the public’s favourite.
Perseverance: This was entered by Timothy Burstall, of Leith, who had some experience of building steam road coaches.
Cylopede: This was a horse-propelled solution which may today seem not to have been worthy of the Trials, but at the time engineers regarded the possibility of literally using horse power very seriously.
Three of the most eminent engineers of the day – Wood, Rastrick and Kennedy – were appointed as judges. Nicholas Wood was the Chief Engineer at Kinningworth Colliery, where he had been connected with locomotive work for some 15 years. John Urpeth Rastrick, previously employed by the Board in the initial research activity, was a partner in Foster, Rastrick & Co., who had an engine building works at Stourbridge, where they had previously built three locomotives for America. Rastrick’s notebook on the trial is an invaluable source of information throwing light on contentious issues such as the form of the Rocket’s Firebox. John Kennedy had previously been involved in the improvement of spinning machinery. His brother was later involved in building locomotives as a partner in Liverpool’s Bury and Curtis firm. The reports of Wood and Rastrick, however, suggest that Kennedy held little real role in the Trials.
Unfortunately, the report made by the Judges to the Directors is not known to exist, but there is no lack of other reports, which varied from the detailed technical ones, to newspaper reports. Only six of the locomotives that came to Rainhill started the competition. Two of those were later ruled out and one more was deemed ineligible. The winner was clear – The Rocket was the only locomotive completing the distance and complying with all the other requirements.
THE ENTRANTS:
The Rocket: This locomotive was erected and driven during the Trials by Jon Dewerance who in 1839 became Locomotive Superintendent of the L & M R.
Sanspareil: was designed and built by Timothy Hackworth, then Engine Superintendent of the Stockton and Darlington Railway.
The Novelty: Was designed by Ericcson and built by Braithwaite & Ericcson, whose works were situated in London. Its sleek appearance made it the public’s favourite.
Perseverance: This was entered by Timothy Burstall, of Leith, who had some experience of building steam road coaches.
Cylopede: This was a horse-propelled solution which may today seem not to have been worthy of the Trials, but at the time engineers regarded the possibility of literally using horse power very seriously.
This poster of the locomotives is currently on display in the waiting room of Rainhill Station.
The Challenge
The object of the Trials (or Ordeal as they were later officially termed) : The Railway required motive power able to cover the road between Liverpool and Manchester at a given speed, with a given load. The stipulations were the result of careful thought to bring out from the contestants exactly what the Railway was looking for.
The main areas for consideration were: The engine’s ability to ‘consume its own smoke’ – this was considered very important and meant that coke had to be used as fuel. This remained the case until the much later introduction of the deflator plate and brick arch which enabled coal to be burned satisfactorily. Whilst the L & M R Act was imperative on this point, revised conditions referred to later contain no reference to this point and during the trials smoke was emitted. Stephenson and Booth were already looking at smoke elimination in experiments conducted with the 'Lancashire Witch' where they had tried producing steam without smoke using bellows. Burning coke in itself did not ensure freedom from smoke. Smoke emitted by the Rocket during the trials was attributed to coal having been accidentally mixed with the coke.
The second stipulation was regarding limiting boiler pressure to 50lbf/in, which in the 1830s was high for locomotives but low for road carriage practice where 300lbf/in was not unknown. The third stipulation called for the provision of two safety valves, although in fact a third was required for the mercury in the pressure gauge as required in stipulation six. Reports show the locomotive builders to have taken exception to the requirement for use of expensive mercury for the gauge for the length required, indeed Burstall who entered Perseverance, ignored the stipulations to the extent of substituting the gauge with a special valve he considered better. Stipulation four required the locomotive to be spring borne, and carried on six wheels unless the weight did not exceed 4.5tons when four would suffice. It also stipulated a maximum height of 15 feet. For further interest, please see video link below.
The main areas for consideration were: The engine’s ability to ‘consume its own smoke’ – this was considered very important and meant that coke had to be used as fuel. This remained the case until the much later introduction of the deflator plate and brick arch which enabled coal to be burned satisfactorily. Whilst the L & M R Act was imperative on this point, revised conditions referred to later contain no reference to this point and during the trials smoke was emitted. Stephenson and Booth were already looking at smoke elimination in experiments conducted with the 'Lancashire Witch' where they had tried producing steam without smoke using bellows. Burning coke in itself did not ensure freedom from smoke. Smoke emitted by the Rocket during the trials was attributed to coal having been accidentally mixed with the coke.
The second stipulation was regarding limiting boiler pressure to 50lbf/in, which in the 1830s was high for locomotives but low for road carriage practice where 300lbf/in was not unknown. The third stipulation called for the provision of two safety valves, although in fact a third was required for the mercury in the pressure gauge as required in stipulation six. Reports show the locomotive builders to have taken exception to the requirement for use of expensive mercury for the gauge for the length required, indeed Burstall who entered Perseverance, ignored the stipulations to the extent of substituting the gauge with a special valve he considered better. Stipulation four required the locomotive to be spring borne, and carried on six wheels unless the weight did not exceed 4.5tons when four would suffice. It also stipulated a maximum height of 15 feet. For further interest, please see video link below.
The Spectacle
The Rainhill Trials were a remarkable event by any standards. Very few people had ever seen a locomotive in action so as far as the public of the time were concerned it would have been like watching what today would be termed science fiction. The racecourse atmosphere of the Trials was clear with large crowds, a grandstand and a band playing. There was the equivalent of a race card naming the runners and an excitement in the air about the prospect of making – or losing – money.
The Times of 8th October reported: ‘Never, perhaps, on any previous occasion, were so many scientific gentlemen and practical engineers collected together at one spot as there were on the rail-road yesterday'. Spectators lined the 1.5 miles of tracks with 200 L&MR employees struggling to kept them off the course. The two local public houses did a roaring trade, one of them even named itself ‘The Rail Road Tavern’.
The Times of 8th October reported: ‘Never, perhaps, on any previous occasion, were so many scientific gentlemen and practical engineers collected together at one spot as there were on the rail-road yesterday'. Spectators lined the 1.5 miles of tracks with 200 L&MR employees struggling to kept them off the course. The two local public houses did a roaring trade, one of them even named itself ‘The Rail Road Tavern’.
The Winner - The Rocket
Speed had been a large consideration for the Directors of the L&MR, and Rocket proved that this could be achieved, combined with the ability to haul a worthwhile load and operate reliably. The results of the Trials exceeded expectations. Within a few months passengers were being conveyed over L&MR at over 35 miles an hour.
However, immediately after the trials it was widely reported in the newspapers and technical journals that Novelty had not had been given more of an opportunity to prove itself.
The Liverpool Mercury explained: “The course is thus left clear for Mr Stephenson and we congratulate him, with much sincerity, on the probability of his being about to receive the reward of £500. “This is due to him for the perfection to which he has brought the old-fashioned locomotive engine, but the grand prize of public opinion is the one which has been gained by Messrs Braithwaite and Ericsson, for their decided improvement in the arrangement, the safety, simplicity, and the smoothness and steadiness of a locomotive engine.”
However, immediately after the trials it was widely reported in the newspapers and technical journals that Novelty had not had been given more of an opportunity to prove itself.
The Liverpool Mercury explained: “The course is thus left clear for Mr Stephenson and we congratulate him, with much sincerity, on the probability of his being about to receive the reward of £500. “This is due to him for the perfection to which he has brought the old-fashioned locomotive engine, but the grand prize of public opinion is the one which has been gained by Messrs Braithwaite and Ericsson, for their decided improvement in the arrangement, the safety, simplicity, and the smoothness and steadiness of a locomotive engine.”
COPYRIGHT © The Rainhill Railway and Heritage Society 2025. All rights Reserved 2010 - 2025.
