Talk:Stephenson's Rocket

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links[edit]

I've just reverted one of these (which had been hijacked) but none of them seems to offer much and I'm not really inclined to keep any of them. Any thoughts? Anything better that should be in? --Old Moonraker 16:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Style[edit]

How are we styling "Rocket"? In here, it's italicised, it's roman and it's quoted roman (using single quote marks, too, when the encyclopedia's adopted style seems to be for double quotes, with singles for nested quotations). If it's a vessel name, the way, say, USS Enterprise is a vessel name (as opposed to type), it should be italicsed. If it's just a sort of "brand name" (like "Cunard liner"), it should be roman without quote marks. I can't see any any reason for quote marks unless we're quoting. Ajarmitage (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Replicas[edit]

I have added references to another US replica of Rocket. Perhaps one of the two is the one made for Buster Keaton. I would be interested to know. The Chicago one is just visible in a photo at

http://www.msichicago.org/whats-here/exhibits/transportation-gallery/

The 0-2-2 'Rocket' at Philadelphia is a different sort of locomotive, see http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM7DK4_Reading_Railroad_1_Rocket_the_Franklin_Institute_Philadelphia_PA

81.86.167.71 (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Seguin[edit]

I have reverted this addition as Seguin "was not aware of the contemporary construction of the Rocket". [1]. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning copyrightabuse[edit]

Dear members of Wikipedia,

The intro of this article and several others has been copied and used in the game Trainstation from Pixel Federation. It is in use on Facebook and the game is copyrighted bij the Pixel Federation. I don't know correctly if that is allowed, but I noticed it when I wanted to look up more information about other locomotives.

Your regards. Michael 1988 (from the Dutch Wikipedia). Michael V 1988 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. Does the game acknowledge Wikipedia as the source of some of its content? The terms of free re-use of WP material are very broad, see WP:REUSE for more. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. But there are more articles being used in that game. If you want to know them all, i could try to look them all up. I shall put up a list on this page. Michael V 1988 (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is solved, they mailed me last week (finally) and they putted up links what the source is from their text, even when i suggested only to put this on (Source:Wikipedia). Michael V 1988 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Information[edit]

I've taken the liberty of adding subsection headings to this articel article to help structure it. This has brought up a couple of issues with the content.

  1. Firstly, I always understood that Rocket won the Rainhill trials. Did it? The article doesn't actually say so.
  2. And secondly, what happened next? I assume that Rocket was then used on the Liverpool and Manchester railway - at least until 1834 when the engine was re-built.
  3. Are these 1834 changes what we see today in the Science Museum? Or were Donaldson's failed innovations removed? Or were further modifications made?

I'll have a go at fixing these myself, but I don't have access to all the relevant references. Can somebody else help? Thanks Hallucegenia (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the 1830-1834 and 1834-1840 periods are only vaguely documented. There's not much in published books, the best recent research is in conference or journal papers. Try a university library index and journals of bodies like the Newcomen & Stephenson societies.
Again AFAIK, there are three main modifications to Rocket and these took place before 1834, whilst Rocket was seen as a working (if not first rate) locomotive. Rocket was built to win a contest that Stephenson recognised would be judged on an unrealistic speed, rather than hauling capacity - so Rocket was built deliberately light. With some very quick hindsight, even their other 0-2-2 outside cylinder locomotives were more powerful. Rocket was rebuilt to reflect these, I think around the same time.
  • The cylinders were lowered from the original Lancashire Witch's diagonal to the current Science Museum position. This was because of poor riding and hammerblow, possibly also involving breakage of the fishbelly rails.
  • The firebox capacity was enlarged and the shape simplified. The early design was in copper with a diagonal outer wrapper. The design visible today has wrought iron throat and backplates, with a (probably copper) drum wrapper (now disappeared) attached.
  • The drum smokebox was adopted.
By 1830 the inside-cylinder 2-2-0 Planets had also appeared. Owing to the reduced rocking couple of the cylinders, they rode much better, even with their comparably short wheelbase. The 0-2-2s were now less favoured for fast trains, but Rocket didn't have as much capacity for freight as some of the others, even the 0-2-2s, let alone the coupled locos. So when some crazy admiral pops up waving money and looking for a loco to fiddle with, Rocket - and most importantly, it's non-crank axle - was the most expendable guinea pig. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've revised the text to make it clearer, saying where I think we need proper citations.Hallucegenia (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the expansion work here. I think we still need something about Seguin, re the multiple fire-tubes. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cylinder size[edit]

The "Complete Book of Locomotives" (ISBN 978-1-84477-716-7) says cylinders are:

  • 8 x 17; rather than
  • 8 x 7;

Which is it? Tabletop (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about the real size, but a moment's look at the crankpins will show that 17" might be right and 7" is far too short. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the cylinder size data, but not the metric equivalents which are now wrong. Hallucegenia (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Axle load ?[edit]

Engine weight of

  • 4 tons 5 cwt surely implies axle load of
  • 2 tons 2.5 cwt and not
  • 2 tons 10 tons ?? Tabletop (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would only be the case if the weight was evenly distributed between the two axles. As Rocket is quite asymmetric, it deliberately places more weight on the drivers. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Robert and George Stephenson[edit]

I think we need to link to the two engineers' pages much earlier / more prominently in the article. Not sure best how to do this.

In the lede, there is the phrase: "It is the most famous example of an evolving design of locomotives by Stephenson..." This implies one specific Stephenson, but doesn't say which, and is not a link. (Linking via the Robert Stephenson and Co link is inadequate.)

Neither Robert Stephenson nor George Stephenson is linked until well down the page (in 'Credit for the Design'). The links are then repeated in the following paragraph (section), but not for the rest of the article. Considering Stephenson is mentioned in the article title, I think we need the link/s in the lede too.

I know views differ about multiple links. Personally, I would look to repeat important links in each major section, when first encountered, to allow for any readers who do not read the entire article. Hence I would duplicate the links in "Opening-day accident", as they certainly fit there; and probably remove them from 'Before Rocket' (which looks like a very old section!)

EdJogg (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC) -- (Not actively watching, but will respond to email notifications. Sorry for the drive-by comment...)[reply]

Good idea. Hallucegenia (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stephenson's Rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenson's Rocket[edit]

Stevenson's Rocket redirects to this article, as it is a common misspelling indeed. It was also a short-lived (1974-1977) teenybopper/glam rock group from Coventry however, with a quite peculiar story. Therefore a disambiguation page should be implemented. 82.217.120.75 (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need to have that article written first. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stephenson's Rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Liverpool?[edit]

Stephenson's_Rocket#Rainhill_Trials describes Rocket as being trialled at Killingworth, then 'dismantled at Newcastle' for road transport to Carlisle, then by ship to Liverpool. However Killingworth is some miles from Newcastle. Whilst it did probably go through Newcastle (that being the road along the Tyne), wouldn't it have gone by rail to Wallsend (the staiths for the Killingworth colliery line), then been dismantled there? (and certainly at the time, Wallsend isn't Newcastle) It didn't (AFAICS) go back to Forth Street (which is Newcastle) by rail, for dismantling. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Quick answer. I'm saying to the best of my belief what the source says ... but the cogs of my mind were churning somewhat the same way as yours. My knowledge and memories of Newcastle are a bit brown, its all a bit north of Watford to me. By Newcastle. Looking at the map its about 5 miles from Killingworth to South Street Newcastle where the works were. For that distance and with locally trusted people and able to supervise properly they may well have simply carted Rocket by horse wagon, (possibly taking the the wheels off .. but probably not), and they'd probably done that with other engines before. At the works they could have crated Rocket for the journey across to Carlisle. And they may have preferred to do it that way than trying to crate for shipping at the colliery. Its likely also how they got it from the works to Killingworth in the first place, and probably a three hour job at 2mph. One of the other loco's make its way to Rainhill by road wagon fell off and was never fulling right for the trials. Reading the source (Ferneyhough,p48ish) Robert wrote to Booth on 18300905 saying he had tested Rocket at Killingworth ... On Friday next the engine will leave via Carlisle for Liverpool the arriving Wednesday week. Also "after a great deal of trouble we have gotthe tubes perfectly tight" ... Back in Newcastle Rocket was partially dismantled and hoisted into horse-drawn wagons ... On Sat 12 Sept the precious cargo "lumbered" across "rough" "tortuous" roads for 70/miles .... In Liverpool it was horse wagoned to Crown Street for assembly and tender mate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "... by ship to Liverpool?" How would that have happened? The Eden flows north to the Solway Firth? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By this time there was a canal to Port Carlisle, on the Solway. The Eden was navigable into Carlisle itself in earlier times, but was prone to silting and ships were getting bigger. I'm not sure which they loaded Rocket at, but AIUI most cargo in 1829 would be loaded in Carlise, then down the canal on the same ship.
The canal was never successful, and it was part of the ongoing struggles between Maryport, Carlisle and Whitehaven as to which was to be the dominant port. The problem AIUI was the wind. The canal had been built to a large size, to allow ships into Carlisle rather than transhipping to barges at the Port, but this was very difficult to navigate (ships, rather than barges, were too big for horse haulage) and often the prevailing winds made travel in one direction impossible for weeks at a time. Nor was the canal big enough to permit steamships. So once steam became practical, this was a candidate for conversion to a railway as the Port Carlisle Railway. Which either failed, or was built and failed. Either way, Port Carlisle was abandoned for shipping by the steamship era. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, very interesting. I had no idea. It's a shame there isn't more about all that at the Carlisle article. But it is mentioned and linked. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Carlson,p219) mentions specifically barge to Bowness(-on-Solway) on the Solway firth. And (Thomas,p66) says steam named Cumberland so we have her ... and on p67 said Rocket's chimney was repainted each night at Rainhill!Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it now??[edit]

I thought that at the moment Rocket is on display at the National Railway Museum. It could just be a replica . I need an answer. Thanks 87.114.14.153 (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still at the NRM, but it's now at Shildon rather than York [2] Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephenson%27s_Rocket&oldid=1198076429"