(eBook PDF) The European Union: How

Does It Work? 5th Edition

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-the-european-union-how-does-it-work-5th
-edition/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

(eBook PDF) Politics in the European Union 3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-politics-in-the-
european-union-3rd-edition/

(eBook PDF) Politics in the European Union 4th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-politics-in-the-
european-union-4th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Policy-Making in the European Union 7th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-policy-making-in-the-
european-union-7th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Fairhurst's Law of the European Union 12th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-fairhursts-law-of-the-
european-union-12th-edition/
(eBook PDF) European Union Law 3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-european-union-law-3rd-
edition/

(eBook PDF) European Union Politics 6th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-european-union-
politics-6th-edition-2/

(eBook PDF) European Union Politics 6th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-european-union-
politics-6th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Law of the European Union 11th by John

Fairhurst

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-law-of-the-european-
union-11th-by-john-fairhurst/

(eBook PDF) European Union Law (Core Texts Series) 10th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-european-union-law-core-
texts-series-10th-edition/
DETAILED CONTENTS

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  xiii

LIST OF FIGURES  xvi

LIST OF BOXES  xvii

LIST OF TABLES  xix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS  xx

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS  xxiv

NEW TO THIS EDITION  xxv

THE EUROPEAN UNION’S MEMBER STATES xxvi

HOW TO USE THIS BOOK xxvii

PART I Background1
1 Introduction 3
Daniel Kenealy, John Peterson, and Richard Corbett

Studying the EU 4

Why bother? 6

Understanding the EU: Theory and Conceptual Tools 11

International Relations (IR) approaches 12
A comparative politics approach 13
A sociological/cultural approach 14
A public policy approach 15
Different theories, different insights 16

Themes17
Experimentation and change 17
Power sharing and consensus 18
Scope and capacity 19

Chapter Layout 21
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 21
FURTHER READING 21
WEB LINKS 23
viii Detailed Contents

2 How Did We Get Here? 24

Desmond Dinan
Introduction25
Post-War Problems and Solutions 26
The Schuman Plan 28
The European Defence Community 29
The European Community 30
Consolidating the European Community 33
Crisis and compromise 35
The EC after De Gaulle 36
A difficult decade 36
The Emerging European Union 37
Economic and monetary union 38
Maastricht and beyond 38
Enlargement, constitution building, and crisis 40

Conclusion43
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 44
FURTHER READING 44
WEB LINKS 45

PART II Major Actors 47

3 The EU’s Institutions 49
Richard Corbett, John Peterson, and Daniel Kenealy
Institutions in Treaties and in Practice 50
The European Commission 50
Tasks and powers 50
How the Commission is organized 51
The Council (of Ministers) 54
Vice president of the Commission / high representative
for foreign and security policy 56
The Council presidency 58
Voting in the Council 58
Coreper59
European Council (of Heads of State or Government) 60
The European Parliament 61
The powers of the EP 62
European Court of Justice 64
Why Institutions Matter 67
Experimentation and change 68
Power sharing and consensus 68
Scope and capacity 69

Conclusion70
 Detailed Contents ix

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 72
FURTHER READING 73
WEB LINKS 73

4 Member States 75
Brigid Laffan

Introduction76
Six Determining Features 77
Entry date 77
Size80
Wealth82
State structure 84
Economic ideology 84
Integration preference 86

Member States in Action 90

Managing EU Business 91
A Community of Values 92
Explaining Member States’ Engagement 92
Conclusion95
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 95
FURTHER READING 96
WEB LINKS 97

PART III Policies and Policy-Making 99

5 Key Policies 101
John Peterson with Alberta Sbragia

Introduction: Policies in the EU 102

Key Features of EU Policies 104
Differences between national and EU policies 104
The primacy of economic integration 108

‘Market-building’ Policies 108

Competition policy 109
Commercial (trade) policy 110
Economic and Monetary Union 111

‘Market-Correcting’ and ‘-Cushioning’ Policies 113

Common Agricultural Policy 113
Cohesion policy 115
Environmental and social regulation 115
Justice and home affairs policy 116

Comparing Policy Types in the EU 117

Conclusion119
x Detailed Contents

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 120

FURTHER READING 120
WEB LINKS 121

6 How Policies Are Made 123

Daniel Kenealy with Fiona Hayes-Renshaw

Introduction124
How it Works Formally 125
The basic rules 126
The principal actors 127
The key stages 128

What Happens in Practice 128

The adapted rules 129
A variety of actors 133
Fluid stages 136

Assessing the Process 138

Is the process transparent? 138
Is the process efficient? 139

Theory and Practice 141

Conclusion142
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 143
FURTHER READING 143
WEB LINKS 144

7 Democracy in the European Union 146

Richard Corbett

Democracy Beyond the State? 147

Legislating through Representative Assemblies 149
How representative are the Parliament and the Council? 150
Involving national parliaments 152

Separation of Powers 154

Executive Accountability 155
Respecting Fundamental Rights 159
Political Parties 160
Conclusion162
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 163
FURTHER READING 163
WEB LINKS 164

PART IV The EU and the Wider World 165

8 EU Enlargement and Wider Europe 167
Ulrich Sedelmeier with Graham Avery
 Detailed Contents xi

Introduction168
Widening versus deepening 168
Enlargement as soft power 169
An institutional paradox 171

How the EU Has Expanded 172

Why countries want to join . . . 174
. . . and when the EU decides to let them in 177
Recent enlargements 178

Prospective Members 180

Balkan countries 180
Turkey181
Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland 183

Wider Europe 183

European Neighbourhood Policy 183
The Eastern Partnership 185

What Limits for EU Expansion? 185

Evaluating Enlargement 188
Leaving and Joining 189
Conclusion190
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 190
FURTHER READING 190
WEB LINKS 191

9 The EU as a Global Actor 193

John Peterson and Niklas Helwig

Introducing European Foreign Policy 194

How it developed 195
The basics 196
A National ‘System’ of Foreign Policies 200

The Community System 201

Commercial (trade) policy 202
Aid and development 204
Externalizing ‘internal’ policies 204

The CFSP and CSDP 206

Theorizing the EU as a Global Actor 210
Conclusion212
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 213
FURTHER READING 214
WEB LINKS 215

10 Brexit and the Future of Two Unions 216

Daniel Kenealy, John Peterson, and Richard Corbett
Introduction217
xii Detailed Contents

The Referendum 218

Why have a referendum? 218
The referendum campaign 220
Understanding the result 222

How to Leave the EU 223

The negotiation process 224
Can Article 50 be revoked? 226

What Might Brexit Look Like? 226

The key issues 227
Hard versus soft Brexit 228

The Future of Two Unions 232

Brexit and UK constitutional politics 232
Brexit and the EU’s future 234

Conclusion235
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 236
FURTHER READING 236
WEB LINKS 237

11 Conclusion 238
John Peterson, Daniel Kenealy, and Richard Corbett

Introduction239
Three Themes 239
Experimentation and change 239
Sharing power and seeking consensus 242
Scope and capacity 243

Explaining the EU 243

International relations approaches 244
A comparative politics approach 245
A public policy approach 246
A sociological/cultural approach 246

Where Do We Go from Here? 247

Debating the future of Europe 247
How will it work? 249

Conclusion251

APPENDIX: CHRONOLOGY OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION 253

GLOSSARY  259

REFERENCES  267

INDEX293
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Previous editions of this book have emphasized change as a constant in the world
of European Union (EU) politics and public policy. That certainly applies to the EU
since the fourth edition was published in 2015. As we concluded writing the fourth
edition the EU had seemingly emerged from the depths of the global financial crisis
that had rocked the Eurozone between 2010 and 2012. As we finalized that edition,
the global refugee crisis was emerging as the EU’s latest crisis, a reality that has crys-
tallized since 2015. Meanwhile Europe’s leaders struggled with a revanchist Russia,
under President Vladimir Putin, which intervened in the Donbass region of Ukraine
in 2014, creating a frozen conflict that persisted despite efforts by the French and
German governments to alleviate the situation.
As we approach the present fifth edition of the book our task remains a daunt-
ing one. The most challenging days of the financial crisis do seem to be behind the
EU. However, significant and complicated public policy challenges persist as the EU—
and particularly the 19 member states who use the euro as their currency—tries to
complete the project of a banking union and looks for new institutional mechanisms
to strengthen the governance of the Eurozone and its ability to absorb the effects of,
and counter, any future economic crisis. Similarly, although the refugee crisis is less
intense in 2018 than it was in 2015, significant challenges remain as EU member
states struggle to absorb those who have arrived over recent years. There remains a
pressing need for the EU to speak with a strong and coherent voice on the global stage
as Russia extends its influence in the EU’s neighbourhood, as multiple crises and con-
flicts continue to unfold in North Africa and the Middle East, and as China seeks to
extend its economic influence and leverage globally via its Belt and Road Initiative.
The policy agenda in Brussels remains a full one.
These significant policy challenges—and there are more not mentioned here—are
made even more difficult by a rising tide of populist political sentiment across the
EU and beyond. The election of Donald Trump as US president in November 2016
added yet another volatile and unpredictable element to the mix given the impor-
tance of the transatlantic relationship both economically and in terms of security. In
several member states—notably Poland and Hungary—a form of illiberal democra-
cy is taking root, which poses a challenge to some of the EU’s founding principles.
Euroscepticism, a phenomenon linked politically to populism, remains an issue for
the EU. Anti-EU parties made significant gains in the 2014 European Parliament elec-
tion. As we completed the fourth edition, we remarked on the prospect of an existing
member state—the United Kingdom (UK)—voting to leave the EU. On 23 June 2016,
citizens of the UK did vote to leave the EU. This event was a seismic one that shook
the Union to its core: the first time in the EU’s 60-year history that its membership will
shrink, from 28 to 27. Brexit—as it has come to be called—poses a major challenge for
xiv Preface and Acknowledgements

the EU as it attempts to minimize the disruption and turbulence caused by the depar-
ture of a member state, and to maintain the integrity of the Union for its remaining
27 members.
As in previous editions, we the editors—and our authors—can offer little more
than educated guesses about what the effects of these institutional, political, and eco-
nomic changes will be. The status quo looked fragile as we went to press, suggesting
that more changes were likely to be in the offing. We (or most of us) are, by now,
battle-hardened as to how much and fast the ground can shift in European integration.
What the Union does, how it does it, and with what consequences, have all altered or
intensified in some (usually significant) ways since the fourth edition of this volume
was published.
We have tried to reflect the most important of these changes in this new edition.
Each individual chapter has been significantly updated (three years is a long time in
EU affairs), especially, but not only, to take account of the UK’s vote to leave the EU.
We have added several new authors to be sure that, even as we offer a basic introduc-
tion to the Union, our book reflects findings from the very latest and most perceptive
research on European integration. The editorial team remains the same as it was for
the fourth edition.
Our core mission remains the same: to produce a clear, concise, truly introductory
text for students and the curious general reader. No experience required. We know
the EU is important; we demonstrate why and how in the following chapters. We also
know that it can be made both comprehensible and interesting; our aim is to show
how. If we succeed, it is in great part due to our team of star contributors, and support
and publishing staff.
First, the contributors. One of the book’s most distinctive and strongest quali-
ties is its blend of academics and practitioners. All chapters were either co-authored
or reviewed by both an academic and practitioner. We thank our team of authors
for making this blend workable and even enjoyable. Special thanks are owed to
the authors or co-authors who contributed to the first four editions: Alexander
Stubb, Laura Cram, Lynn Dobson, Lykke Friis, David Martin, John D. Occhipinti,
Michael E. Smith, Michael Shackleton, Rory Watson, Albert Weale, Andrew Geddes,
Marlene Gottwald, and the late, great Sir Neil MacCormick. We also continue to be
in the debt of Elizabeth Bomberg who was the lead editor of the first three editions.
Elizabeth did more than anyone to establish this book’s credentials as the first one
to assign to inquiring minds trying to make sense of this strange and often baffling
political beast.
A second batch of thanks goes to the editorial and production team. As always,
we are in considerable debt to series editor Helen Wallace, who has offered not only
excellent substantive guidance but also unflagging and essential encouragement in the
production of this and past volumes. Thanks also to the editorial and production team
at OUP, especially Francesca Walker (née Mitchell), who demonstrated patience and
skill in seeing the project through, and Aishwarya Panday for efficiency and precisions
during the production process.
 Preface and Acknowledgements xv

Third, our readers. The advantage of doing multiple editions is that we are able
to benefit from the feedback from the last one as we plough ahead with the next one.
We’ve profited enormously from comments offered by reviewers of the first four edi-
tions, by practitioners in Brussels, and by the many EU studies colleagues who have
used this book in their teaching. An extremely useful range of comments, criticisms,
and suggestions came directly from end users themselves—including students using
the earlier editions in their courses at the University of Edinburgh.
Finally, amidst all the tumultuous change, there is always one constant: the support
offered by our partners and families, and presumably those of our authors. Like last
time, only more so: we could not have done it without you.
Daniel Kenealy, John Peterson, and Richard Corbett
Edinburgh and Leeds
LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 The three pillars of the European Union 5

4.1 ‘Onion’ Chart of EU Enlargements 78

5.1 Breakdown of EU spending commitments, 2017 114

6.1 Ordinary Legislative Procedure (OLP) flowchart  137

8.1 The Expanding European Union 181

8.2 The European Union’s Neighbourhood Policy 184

9.1 How it really works: CSDP missions 207

LIST OF BOXES

1.1 What’s in a name? 4

1.2 The three pillars of the European Union 5

1.3 The practical significance of the EU 7

1.4 Constitutional, Reform, or Lisbon Treaty? 8

1.5 Key concepts and terms 10

1.6 The treaties 18

1.7 Lost in interpretation? 20

2.1 Interpreting European integration 25

2.2 Key concepts and terms 26

2.3 How it really works 28

2.4 Compared to what? 32

2.5 How it really works 34

3.1 How it really works: Who initiates policy? 54

3.2 How it really works: Reaching decisions in the Council 56

3.3 Voting in the Council of Ministers 58

3.4 How the European Parliament ‘squeezes’ power 63

3.5 Compared to what? The ECJ and the US Supreme Court 65

3.6 How it really works: Turf wars! 67

3.7 Enlargement’s institutional impact 69

3.8 Other institutions and bodies 71

4.1 Key concepts and terms 76

4.2 Rescuing the euro 88

4.3 How it really works: Referendums 89

4.4 How it really works: Decision gridlock? 94

5.1 Key concepts and terms 103

5.2 How it really works: Budget bargaining 105

5.3 The policy competences of the EU 107

6.1 Key concepts and terms 124

6.2 A plethora of policies, processes, and procedures 125

xviii List of Boxes

6.3 How it really works: Trilogues 130

7.1 Key concepts and terms 148

7.2 Compared to what? Referenda in EU member states 150

7.3 Compared to what? The Council and the German Bundesrat 152

7.4 Compared to what? How are heads of executive chosen? 157

7.5 European political parties 160

8.1 Key concepts and terms 168

8.2 Criteria for membership 170

8.3 Chronology of enlargement 172

8.4 Prospective members 174

8.5 The path to membership 174

8.6 Compared to what? EU and NATO—a double race to

membership 176

8.7 How it really works: Joining the EU individually or together 177

8.8 Other Europeans 187

9.1 Key concepts and terms 196

9.2 How it really works: The EU and the Middle East and
North African region 201

9.3 How it really works: Making foreign policy decisions 205

9.4 Compared to what? The EU and Russia 208

9.5 Insights: The EU Global Strategy 210

10.1 Article 50: The provision meant never to be used 223

10.2 Hard versus soft Brexit: The available models 228

11.1 What’s in a name? 240

11.2 Two-speed Europe? 251

LIST OF TABLES

1.1 Theories of European integration and the EU 16

4.1 Clusters of member states by size 80

4.2 Member states’ gross domestic product in 2017 83

4.3 Public attitudes to EU membership 87

5.1 CAP spending breakdown: top recipients 114

5.2 Policy types in the EU 118

6.1 Stage at which agreement has been reached on dossiers concluded

under the co-decision/Ordinary Legislative Procedure 131

6.2 Average length of time required to reach agreement under

the co-decision / Ordinary Legislative Procedure 140

7.1 Election of Commission President by the European Parliament 156

9.1 European foreign policy: Three systems 199

10.1 Mapping ‘red lines’ 230

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACP African, Caribbean, and Pacific

AECR Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists

AKP Turkey’s Justice and Development Party

ALDE Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe

APEC Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation

ASEAN Association of South-east Asian Nations

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

CEPOL European Police College

CETA Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

CEU Central European University

CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy

CIA Central Intelligence Agency (US)

CoE Council of Europe

COPS European Political and Security Committee

CoR European Committee of the Regions

Coreper Committee of Permanent Representatives

CSDP Common Security and Defence Policy

DG Directorate-General (European Commission)

DUP Democratic Unionist Party

EAF European Alliance for Freedom

EaP Eastern Partnership

EC European Community

ECAS European Citizen Action Service

ECB European Central Bank

ECHO European Community Humanitarian Office

ECHR European Convention on Human Rights

ECJ European Court of Justice

ECOFIN (Council of) Economic and Financial Affairs

ECSC European Coal and Steel Community

EDC European Defence Community

EDF European Development Fund

 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms xxi

EEA European Economic Area

EEC European Economic Community

EEW European Evidence Warrant

EFTA European Free Trade Association

ELDR European Liberal, Democratic and Reformist Party

EMS European Monetary System

EMU Economic and Monetary Union

ENP European Neighbourhood Policy

EP European Parliament

EPACA European Public Affairs Consultancies Association

EPC European Political Cooperation

EPP European People’s Party

ERF European Refugee Fund

ERM Exchange Rate Mechanism

ESC Economic and Social Committee

ESDP European Security and Defence Policy

ESFS European Financial Stability Facility

ESM European Stability Mechanism

ESS European Security Strategy

ETUC European Trades Union Confederation

EU European Union

EULEX European Union Rule of Law Mission

Euratom European Atomic Energy Community

Eurostat European statistical agency

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation (US)

FCO Foreign and Commonwealth Office

FD Framework Decision

FRG Federal Republic of Germany

FTA Free Trade Area

FYROM Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

GAERC General Affairs and External Relations Council

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GDP gross domestic product

GMOs genetically modified organisms

GNP gross national product

xxii List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

IGC Intergovernmental Conference

IMF International Monetary Fund

IO international organization

IR international relations

JHA justice and home affairs

MAXCAP Maximizing the Integration Capacity of the European Union

MEP member of the European Parliament

MEPP Middle East Peace Process

MFA Minister for Foreign Affairs

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NGO non-governmental Organization

NSS National Security Strategy

OEEC Organization for European Economic Cooperation

OLP Ordinary Legislative Procedure

OMC open method of coordination

OMT Outright Monetary Transactions

OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (formerly CSCE)

PCTF Police Chiefs Task Force

PES Party of European Socialists

PESCO Permanent Structured Cooperation

PIS Law and Justice Party (Poland)

PNR Passenger Name Record

PTA preferential trade agreement

QMV qualified majority voting

REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals

S&D Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats

SAP Stability and Association Process

SCIFA Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers, and Asylum

SEA Single European Act

SGP Stability and Growth Pact

SIS Schengen Information System

SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprise

SNP Scottish National Party

TEC Treaty establishing the European Community

 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms xxiii

TEU Treaty on European Union

TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of European Union

TTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

UK United Kingdom

UKIP United Kingdom Independence Party

UN United Nations

UNICE Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe

US United States

VIS Visa Information System

VWP Visa Waiver Program (US)

WEU Western European Union

WTO World Trade Organization

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

GRAHAM AVERY St Antony’s College, Oxford

RICHARD CORBETT Member, European Parliament

DESMOND DINAN George Mason University

FIONA HAYES-RENSHAW Independent researcher, Brussels

NIKLAS HELWIG Johns Hopkins University

DANIEL KENEALY University of Edinburgh

BRIGID LAFFAN European University Institute

JOHN PETERSON University of Edinburgh

ALBERTA SBRAGIA University of Pittsburgh

ULRICH SEDELMEIER The London School of Economics and Political Science

FRANCESCO STOLFI Macquarie University

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
regarding the machines as did the engineers who reported against
their use on the railway.
 CHAPTER IV.
An important improvement in the locomotive—Bury’s original “Liverpool,” the first inside cylinder
engine—Bury’s own account of his invention—Other authorities agree with Bury—Extract,
supplied by the Secretary of the L. & N. W. Rly., from the minute books of the Liverpool and
Manchester Rly.—An early authentic list of Bury’s locomotives—Description of Bury’s
“Liverpool”—Last hoard of on the Bolton and Kenyon Railway—The “Invicta” for the first
Kentish railway—Still preserved by the S.E.R—First official trip on the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway—Formal opening of the L. & M.R.—The locomotives that took part in the
ceremony—The “William the Fourth” and “Queen Adelaide” for the L. & M. Rly.—Hackworth’s
“Globe” for the Stockton and Darlington Railway—The romance of her construction, life, and
end—Stephenson’s “Planet”—Some of her feats on the L. & M. Rly.—Heavier locomotives for
the L. & M. Rly.—Dodd’s engine for the Monkland and Kirkintilloch Rly.—Historical locomotive
sold by auction for 20 guineas—Bury’s “Liver” for the L. & M. Rly.—More Hackworth “iron
horses” for the Stockton and Darlington Rly—Despite their peculiarities, they prove most
successful—The “Caledonian.”
We have now to deal with one of the most important improvements in the locomotive—
viz., that introduced by Mr. Edward Bury, of the Clarence Foundry, Liverpool, in the design
of his celebrated “Liverpool,” (Fig. 17). Of late years many extraordinary statements
concerning various types and designs of locomotives have been made, and the
“romancing” relative to the original “Liverpool” is perhaps the most conspicuous, whilst at
the same time its utter incorrectness is easily proved.
One of these statements is that “the first engine built by Bury at Clarence Foundry was
an outside cylinder engine, the ‘Dreadnought,’ which was completed March 30th, 1830, but
proved a failure. However, he lost no time, but, with the assistance of his foreman, Mr.
Kennedy, got out working drawings for a new engine, to be named the ‘Liverpool.’ This
engine, No. 2 in the locomotive order book, and class A in the description book, was
commenced early in January, 1831; it was completed in March of that year, and in May,
1831, it was put to work on the Petersburg Railroad of America. It had four coupled wheels
of 4ft. 6in. diameter.”
Now, as to the facts, Bury’s books were sold by auction by his creditors on August 15th
and 16th, 1851; and, even if the books are now in existence (which is extremely unlikely), it
is obviously impossible for them to contain the particulars quoted above, for the very simple
and conclusive reason that the facts relative to the original “Liverpool” are quite different to
the statement just quoted.
There are three improvements with which Bury is justly credited in the locomotive now
under review—viz., the adoption of (1) horizontal inside cylinders below the smoke-box, (2)
cranked driving axle, and (3) coupled driving wheels of the (then) great diameter of six feet.
In describing this historical “Liverpool” locomotive we cannot do better than quote Bury,
the maker and designer of it, and Kennedy, his foreman, who constructed it. The former, at
a meeting of the Institute of Civil Engineers, held on March 17th, 1840, read a paper on the
locomotive, and, speaking of the inside cylinder engine, said: “This form of engine Was
adopted by the author as early as 1829, when he constructed the ‘Liverpool,’ which was
the original model engine, with horizontal cylinders and cranked axles. It was set to work
on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in July, 1830.”
 Fig. 17.—BURY’S ORIGINAL “LIVERPOOL,” THE FIRST ENGINE WITH INSIDE
CYLINDERS AND CRANKED DRIVING AXLE COUPLED WHEELS, 6ft.
DIAMETER

About 1843 there was considerable discussion amongst engine builders and locomotive
engineers as to the relative safety of inside and outside cylinder, engines, and also
regarding the superiority of the four-wheel or six-wheel locomotive. Bury and Co. thereupon
issued a circular giving a history of the locomotive practice of their firm, and the various
advantages claimed for their locomotive designs.
From this circular we extract the following remarks, as bearing upon the point now
under discussion:—“It was the good fortune Of the conductor of this foundry to originate
the construction of four-wheel engines, with inside framing, crank axles, and cylinders
placed in the smoke-box.... The first engine on this principle was manufactured in this
foundry in 1829, prior to the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.” Such are
Mr. Bury’s statements concerning the original “Liverpool.”
We will now see what his partner, Mr. James Kennedy, the then President of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, had to say regarding the “Liverpool.”
At a meeting of the Institute of Civil Engineers, held on November 11th, 1856, a
communication was read from Mr. Kennedy, in which he stated that “the late George
Stephenson had told both Bury and Kennedy, after having seen the ‘Liverpool’ engine on
the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, that his son, the present Robert Stephenson, had
taken a fancy to the plan of the ‘Liverpool,’ and intended to make immediately a small
engine on the same principle.” This he afterwards did, Stephenson’s “Planet” being the
said engine “on the same principle.” Kennedy went on to state that “the letter-book of the
firm (Bury and Co.) for the year 1830 contained the whole of the correspondence on the
subject between the Directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and Bury.”
The reader can readily judge as to which statement is likely to be correct—those of
such well-known men as Bury and Kennedy, which are concise, straightforward statements
of known and accepted facts, or the recently published remarks concerning the “books,
etc.”
 Fortunately, students of locomotive history are not even obliged to decide either one
way or the other on the statements pro and con already quoted concerning the original
“Liverpool,” but are able to gain independent and conclusive evidence on this important
point in locomotive history. For the purpose of finally clearing up the point, the writer
communicated with the Secretary of the London and North Western Railway, asking him to
examine the Directors’ Minute Books of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway for the year
1830, to see if these authentic documents contained any reference to Bury’s “Liverpool.”
Mr. Houghton most generously had the search we required made, and the result was as
might have been expected. But let the letter tell its own tale.
“London and North Western Railway,
“Secretary’s Office, Euston Station, N.W.
“June, 3rd, 1896.
“Dear Sir,—With further reference to your request for information relative to Bury’s locomotives, I have had
the Minute Books of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway searched for the years 1829-30.
“Towards the end of 1830 the Board sanctioned the [further] trial of the ‘Liverpool,’ and it was
consequently allowed to work on the railway in competition with one of Mr. Stephenson’s engines. The
engineer was dissatisfied with the size of the wheels, which were 6ft. instead of his maximum 5ft.; and there
was a long controversy as to the respective merits of circular and square fire-boxes, which was ultimately
referred to arbitration, when the square boxes recommended by Mr. Stephenson were given the preference.
—Yours truly,

“(Signed) T. Houghton.”
The above letter conclusively settles the points in dispute—viz., that the “Liverpool” was
tried on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1830, and that the diameter of the wheels
was 6ft.
We have thus pricked the specious bubble that stated the “Liverpool” was duly
commenced to be built in 1831, and that the diameter of the wheels was but 4ft. 6in.!
Readers may wonder why such obviously inaccurate statements should be published.
One can only conjecture. Many lists of early locomotives have during the past few years
been published. These should, however, be accepted with the very greatest caution. The
following table of dimensions of Bury’s early engines appeared as long ago as September
18th, 1857, in the Engineer. As this was nearly forty years before “locomotive lists” had any
marketable value, there can be no reason to call in question its accuracy:—
No. Diam. No. Diam. Length Inside Area Total
No. of Diam. of Length Diam. of
of of of of of Diam. of of Surface.
Engines Cylinder. Stroke Wheels.
Tubes. Tubes. Tubes. Tubes. Tubes. Fire-box. Tubes.
No. Ins. Ins. Ft. Ins. No. Ins. No. Ins. Ft. Ins. Ft. Ins. Inches. Sq. Feet.
2 12 18 6 0 79 1¾ 52 1½ 7 11½ 3 9 19 450.26
3&4 11 16 5 0 73 ¾ 24 1½ 7 1 3 0 16⅜ 303.58
5 8 16 4 6 40 1¾ 13 1½ 6 5 2 7½ (6) 12⅝(7) 150.28
6&7 12 18 5 6 76 2 13 1¾ 8 6 3 7 18½ 18¹/₁₆ 390
8&9 9 16 5 0 40 1¾ 13 1½ 6 11 2 10½ 12⅜ 162
10 9 16 4 4 43 2 9 1¾ 7 1 3 0 14⅛ 189.1
11 8 16 4 6 40 1¾ 13 1½ 6 7½ 2 9½ 12⅝ 155.2
12 & 13 10 16 4 6 51 2 9 1¾ 7 2½ 3 0½ 15¼ 222.74
14 8 16 4 6 43 1¾ 9 1½ 6 8 2 10½ 12⅝ 155
15, 16, & 17 12 18 4 6 58 2½ 2 2 8 2 3 7 19⅛ 19¹/₁₆ 318.40
18 & 19 10 16 4 6 76 2 — 1¾ 7 2½ 3 2 15¼ 251
 At the present time there exists a market for early, locomotive details; as with other
marketable commodities, given a demand, a supply (of some kind) will be forthcoming.
We have a copy of the report prepared by the arbitrators, appointed by the Directors of
the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, to inquire into the question of the round or square
fire-box, as mentioned in Mr. Houghton’s letter. The report was made by John Farey and
Joshua Field, two celebrated engineers of that period, and was in favour of the square fire-
box.
It will now be of interest to give a description of Bury’s original “Liverpool,” which was
designed and her construction commenced in 1829. She contained many unusual features.
Instead of a tubular boiler a number of convoluted flues were used. The fire was urged by
bellows fixed under the tender; the driver stood at one end of the engine in front of the
smoke-box, and the fireman at the other end, behind the fire-box; the cylinders were
horizontal, placed inside the frames beneath the smoke-box; their diameter was 12in., the
stroke being 18in.; the four wheels were 6ft. in diameter, and were coupled, and the driving
axle was, of course, cranked.
The “Liverpool,” in this her original state, was used as a ballast engine in the
construction of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, but not being very successful, was
withdrawn., After some alterations, she was again put to work on July 22nd, 1830. Then
the crank axle appears to have broken, and she was again removed for repairs, and again
put to work on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway on October 26th, 1830. After the
report previously mentioned, the Directors refused to purchase the “Liverpool,” and Bury
removed her to the Bolton and Kenyon Railway. Here she attained a speed of 58 miles an
hour with twelve loaded wagons. On this line one of her wheels broke, and the driver was
killed. As a result of this accident, she was then rebuilt and sold to Hargreaves, the
contractor, for locomotive power on the Bolton and Kenyon Railway, and continued to work
on that line for some years.
The Canterbury and Whitstable Railway was opened on May 3rd, 1830, and was the
first locomotive line in the South of England. The original engine, the “Invicta” (Fig. 18), is
still preserved by the South Eastern Railway at Ashford, but it is a mere chance that this
engine did not disappear nearly sixty years ago. The Canterbury and Whitstable Railway
Company, after a short time, let the working of the line to contractors, and they preferred to
work it by horse-power, and we find that in October, 1839, the contractors were advertising
the “Invicta” for sale, describing her as of “12 horse-power, 18in. stroke, cylinders 24in.
long, 9½pin. diameter, wheels 4ft. in diameter.” Fortunately for students of early
locomotives, there was no demand for the engine anywhere in the neighbourhood of
Whitstable, there then being no other locomotive line nearer than Greenwich, on which she
could have been used; so no buyer was forthcoming, and the “Invicta” was thereupon laid
up. The dimensions of the “Invicta,” as supplied to us by Mr. J. Stirling, are as follows:
Cylinders, 10½in. diameter, fixed in inclined position over leading wheels, and working the
trailing wheels; stroke, 18in.; four-coupled wheels, 4ft. diameter; wheel base, 5ft.; boiler,
10ft. 5in. long, 3ft. 4in. diameter, containing a single flue 20in. diameter; distance from top
of boiler to rails, 6ft.; from top of chimney to rails, 11ft. 1in.; chimney, 15in. diameter; total
length over all, 13ft. 6in. At the bottom of the chimney is a kind of smoke-box, measuring
about 2ft. 4in. high, 1ft. 8in. long, and 2ft. 4in. wide. The South Eastern Railway exhibited
the “Invicta,” at the jubilee of the Stockton and Darlington Railway in 1875, and at the
Newcastle Stephenson Centenary in 1881. The “Invicta,” when originally built, is said to
have had a tubular boiler.
 Fig. 18.—THE “INVICTA,” CANTERBURY AND WHITSTABLE RWY., 1830

The Directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1829 ordered of Stephenson
and Co. seven engines of somewhat similar design to the “Rocket.” The Directors made
their first trip by railway from Liverpool to Manchester and back on Monday, June 14th,
1830. The train was drawn by the “Arrow,” and consisted of two carriages and seven
wagons; the total weight, including the engine, was 39 tons, the journey to Manchester
being made in two hours one minute, whilst the return trip to Liverpool only took one and a
half hours, a speed of 27 miles being attained for some distance.
The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was formally opened on September 15th, 1830,
when the “Northumbrian” (Fig. 19), driven by George Stephenson, hauled the train
consisting of the Duke of Wellington’s carriage, the band, etc., on one line, whilst the
“Phœnix,” “North Star,” “Rocket,” “Dart,” “Comet,” “Arrow,” and “Meteor,” each hauled a
train upon the other line. Starting from Liverpool, the eight trains proceeded towards
Manchester. At Parkside Mr. Huskisson was run over by the “Rocket,” and he was placed
on the “Northumbrian” and conveyed to Eccles in 25 minutes, or at the rate of 36 miles an
hour.
 Fig. 19.—THE “NORTHUMBRIAN,” THE ENGINE THAT OPENED THE LIVERPOOL
AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY

The Duke of Wellington’s carriage was now left without an engine, and a curious sight
was witnessed; a long chain was obtained, and the trains which had been up to this point
hauled by the “Phœnix” and “North Star,” consisting of ten carriages, were joined together.
The chain was then fixed to the Duke of Wellington’s train on the other line, and so the rest
of the journey was performed by the two engines and ten carriages on one line hauling
another train upon a parallel set of rails. It may be of interest to observe that the carriage
built for the Duke of Wellington was provided with eight wheels, so it will be noticed that
eight-wheeled passenger stock is not at all a modern introduction, but, on the contrary, has
been in use ever since the opening of the first railway built for the conveyance of
passengers. The vehicle in question was 32ft. long and 8ft. wide.
The two engines ordered by the Directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway of
Braithwaite and Ericsson after the style of the “Novelty,” were named “William the Fourth,”
(by special permission of that monarch) and “Queen Adelaide.” They were delivered to the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway immediately the railway was opened, and on
September 22nd, 1830, the “William the Fourth” ran off the rails on the Sankey Viaduct. A
very considerable number of trials were made with these locomotives on the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway; but, as was the case with Bury’s “Liverpool,” Stephenson strongly
objected to any other maker’s engines being used on the line, and he was, therefore,
always ready to find out some fault in the engines not of his construction tendered to the
company. Braithwaite and Ericsson claimed four great advantages for their class of
engines—viz., (1) the total absence of all smoke; (2) the dispensing with a chimney; (3) a
saving of 120 per cent. in the cost of the fuel, and of 30 per cent. in the space required to
store it; (4) a saving of 400 per cent. in the space occupied by the boilers.
Several improvements were introduced into the “William the Fourth,” and “Queen
Adelaide,” so that they differed somewhat from the “Novelty.” They were provided with four-
wheeled tenders, which were placed in front of the engines. The four wheels of the engines
were 5ft. in diameter, the wheel base being 6ft. 9in. The horizontal portion of the boiler was
8ft. long, the vertical portion, containing the fire, etc., being 6ft. 6in. high and 4ft. diameter.
The cylinders were vertical, but worked downwards; they were located one on each side of
the vertical portion of the boiler, and a little to the rear of the leading wheels, to which the
motion was conveyed by means of bell-cranks and connecting-rods—the latter joined the
axle within the wheels, so that the driving axle was cranked.
The next engine that requires our attention is the celebrated “Globe” (Fig. 20), designed
for the Stockton and Darlington Railway by Timothy Hackworth, and built by R. Stephenson
and Co. The “Globe” was built for passenger traffic; she was provided with a steam dome,
and was the first locomotive built with this advantageous appendage for obtaining dry
steam. The valve motion was reversible by a single lever. The heating surface was
provided for by means of a single fire-tube, whilst behind the fire-bridge, and extending to
the chimney, were seven small radiating tubes crossing the main flue.
This idea of Hackworth’s was afterwards introduced by Galloway in his stationary
engine boilers, and patented by him. The engine “Globe” had a cranked axle and inside
cylinders.
Hackworth explained the construction of the “Globe” to the Directors of the Stockton
and Darlington Railway, and he was instructed to go to Newcastle and arrange for the
building of the “Globe” by Stephenson and Co. He saw the officials at the Forth Street
Works on March 3rd, 1830, and after the examination of the plans there, it is stated that
one of the officials objected to the crank axle, saying “it would certainly involve a loss of
power, as the efficient length of lever could only be calculated from the inside of the journal
to the axle’s centre.” It is well known that Geo. Stephenson had previously seen Bury’s
“Liverpool,” and said of it, “My son has taken a fancy to the plan of the ‘Liverpool’ engine,
and intends to make immediately a small engine on the same principle.” Hackworth’s reply
to the objection to the crank axle was “that he held Stephenson responsible only for
supplying good workmanship, and not for any failure of the design, should such occur.”

Fig. 20.—HACKWORTH’S “GLOBE” FOR THE STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON

RAILWAY. THE FIRST LOCOMOTIVE WITH A STEAM DOME
On March 3rd, 1830, Hackworth, in company with Harris Dickinson, one of R.
Stephenson and Co.’s foremen, drove over to Bedlington Iron Works to order the boiler
plates required for the construction of the “Globe.”
 Hackworth remained at Newcastle till March 6th, and being satisfied that the
construction of the “Globe” would be immediately proceeded with, he returned to
Darlington, having obtained a promise of quick delivery. The boiler plates were delivered at
the Forth Street Works, April 14th, 1830.
The completion of the engine was, however, delayed until after R. Stephenson and Co.
had delivered the “Planet,” inside cylinder locomotive, to the Liverpool and Manchester
Railway. The “Globe” opened the Stockton and Middlesbrough Branch of the Stockton and
Darlington Railway on December 27th, 1830. Her speed frequently exceed 50 miles an
hour with passenger trains.
In consequence of a deficiency of water, she blew up in 1839. The engine was provided
with a copper globe for the purpose of obtaining dry steam—hence her name “Globe.” She
had four wheels, each of 5ft. diameter.

Fig. 21.—STEPHENSON’S “PLANET,” LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY

Stephenson soon put into practice the borrowed idea of inside cylinder locomotives, to
his own advantage, and on October 4th, 1830, he delivered the first engine of his
construction containing inside cylinders, placed in the smoke-box, as suggested to R.
Stephenson by Trevithick. This locomotive was named the “Planet,” and was constructed
for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. The cylinders were 11in. diameter, stroke 16in.
The boiler was 6ft. 6in. long, 3ft. diameter, and contained 129 tubes. She weighed eight
tons; the driving wheels were 5ft. diameter, and were placed just in front of the fire-box.
The leading wheels were 3ft. diameter, and projected beyond the front of the smoke-box.
The frames were outside the wheels, and were of oak lined with iron plates. As the “Planet”
embodied several improvements not before used in the engines constructed by
Stephenson for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, it is natural that the locomotive
should be able to perform better service than the earlier ones. On November 23rd, 1830,
she conveyed a train from Manchester to Liverpool in one hour, including a stop of two
minutes for water.
On December 4th, 1830, the “Planet” (Fig. 21) hauled a mixed train, weighing 76 tons
without the engine and convoy (tender) from Liverpool to Manchester in two hours thirty-
nine minutes’ running time.
Stephenson continued to supply various locomotives to the Liverpool and Manchester
Railway with different minor improvements; thus the “Mercury,” built in December, 1830,
had the outside frame placed above the driving axle, an improvement on the “Planet,”
which had the frames below the driving axle. But all these early engines of Stephenson
were of a very unsatisfactory character. Pambour, writing in 1834, says of them: “When an
engine requires any repair, unless it be for some trifling accident, it is taken to pieces and a
new one is constructed, which receives the same name as the first, and in the construction
of which are made to serve all such parts of the old engine as are still capable of being
used with advantage. The consequence of this is that a reconstructed or repaired engine is
literally a new one. The repairs amount thus to considerable sums, but they include also
the renewal of the engines.”
The directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway soon found the method of
working their heavy trains with four or five locomotives was far from economical, and
Stephenson was required to supply more powerful engines for the merchandise traffic. He,
therefore, built the “Samson” and “Goliath.” These were only four-wheel engines, but all the
wheels were made of one size and coupled together. The former was delivered in January,
1831, and on February 25th she conveyed a train weighing 164 tons (without reckoning the
weight of engine or tender) from Liverpool to Manchester in two and a half hours. The
dimensions of the engines were: Cylinders 14in. diameter, stroke 16in., wheels 4ft. 6in.
diameter, heating surface 457.10 sq. ft.
In 1831, the Directors of the Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway decided to work their
line by locomotives, and instructed Mr. Dodd, their engineer, to design engines for the
purpose. He, however, merely adopted the plan used in the construction of the
“Locomotion” (Stockton and Darlington Railway), with the cylinders placed partly within the
boiler over the wheels, working by means of cross-heads and connecting-rods. He also
adopted the tubular boiler, which was, of course, wanting in the “Locomotion.” The engines
were constructed by Murdoch and Aitken, of Glasgow, and were the first locomotives built
in that city. The first was put to work on May 10th, 1831, and the second on September
10th, 1831. The boilers of these two locomotives were lagged with wood, and metallic
packing was for the first time employed in connection with the pistons. The cylinders were
10½in. diameter, stroke 24in., steam pressure 50lb. The locomotives were supported on
four coupled wheels, the coupling-rods having ball-and-socket joints at each end. A speed
of six miles an hour was attained with Dodd’s engines, and, although of rough design, they
were much more economical in fuel and repairs than the engines supplied about the same
time by Stephenson to the neighbouring Glasgow and Garnkirk Railway. These latter two
engines were named the “St. Rollox” and “George Stephenson.” Their dimensions were as
follows:—
Diameter Wheels Weight in
of Stroke.
Driving. Leading. working order.
cylinders.
St. Rollox 11in. 14in. 4ft. 6in. 36½in. 6 tons.
George Stephenson 11in. 16in. 4ft. 6in. 4ft. 6in. 8 tons.

The gauge of this line was only 4ft. 6in. The “St. Rollox” cost the G. and G. Railway
about £750; that company sold it to the Paisley and Renfrew Railway for £350, and the
latter, in December, 1848, when the gauge of their line was altered, disposed of the
locomotive by auction for £13. It had wooden wheels. At the same auction the other two
locomotives of the Paisley and Renfrew Railway were also sold, and realised only 20
guineas each, although about ten years previously the Paisley and Renfrew Railway had
paid Murdoch, Aitken, and Co. £1,100 for each of them. They were six-wheel tank engines.
The Scotch engines we have just been describing, all burnt coal in place of coke, and as
they caused a good deal of smoke they were much objected to on that account.
We have previously stated that upon the advice of two engineers the Directors of the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway had refrained from purchasing more locomotives from
E. Bury, but other people soon saw the good points of his engines, and in 1832 the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway considered it policy to purchase another locomotive
from the Clarence Foundry. This engine was called the “Liver.” She had cylinders 11in.
diameter, 16in. stroke, and driving wheels 5ft. diameter. The “Liver” worked very
successfully, and in 1836 her fire-box was altered to burn coal, but this experiment turned
out somewhat of a failure.
Towards the end of 1831, and during 1832, the increasing traffic on the Stockton and
Darlington Railway made a considerable increase in the number of locomotives necessary.
Hackworth designed two new classes of engines to work the trains. One type was known
as the “Majestic” class, and six engines of this description were soon at work.
The “Majestic” locomotives had each six-coupled wheels. The heating surface was
obtained from a tube 9ft. long, 2ft. 6in. diameter, one end of which communicated with the
fire-grate; the other was divided from the boiler by a partition-plate, inserted in which were
104 copper tubes 4ft. long, and reaching to the smoke-box. It should be observed that the
boiler was 13ft. long. The cylinders were fixed in a vertical position in front of the smoke-
box, the connecting-rods working on a straight shaft or axle parallel with the wheel axles:
this driving shaft was coupled by outside rods to the six wheels. The slide-valves had “lap,”
and were worked by two eccentrics, which also worked the force pumps. The engine was
reversed by means of a single lever. This class of engines included:—

“Majestic,” built by Hackworth.

“Coronation,” built by Hawthorn.
“William the Fourth,” built by Hackworth.
“Northumbrian,” built by Hackworth.
“Director,” built by Stephenson.
“Lord Brougham,” built by Hackworth.

All of them were built from Hackworth’s designs, the leading dimensions being:
Cylinders, 14½in. diameter, stroke, 16in.; boiler, 13ft. long, 3ft. 10in. diameter; weight of
engine—empty, 10¼ tons; full, 11¾ tons. The other class of engines designed by
Hackworth at this time included:—

“Darlington,” built by Hawthorn.

“Shildon,” built by Hackworth.
“Earl Grey,” built by Hawthorn.
“Lord Durham,” built by Stephenson.
“Adelaide,” built by Stephenson.
“Wilberforce,” built by Hawthorn.
 “Wilberforce,” an illustration of which is given (Fig. 22), was built by Hawthorn, of
Newcastle, and commenced to work in 1832; it had six coupled wheels 4ft. in diameter; the
cylinders were 14¾in., with 16in. stroke. Like many of the locomotives of that period, the
“Wilberforce,” as will be observed, had two tenders, one at each end of the engine. On the
tender at the front end, which only carried coals (the fire-door being at the chimney end of
the engines), the fireman stood; whilst the other tender, at the foot-plate end, carried water
in a barrel, and also the tool boxes. The engine wheels were made of two separate
castings or rings, and the axles were all straight, the crank-shaft being carried in separate
bearings beneath the foot-plate. There were no tail lamps in those early days; to make up
for this deficiency a cresset containing burning coal was used. In some cases, when it was
necessary to indicate the destination of the engine, or the section to which it belonged, as
many as three of these cressets of glowing coals were employed on the same locomotive.

Fig. 22.—“WILBERFORCE,” A STOCKTON & DARLINGTON RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVE

On certain favourable gradients the “Wilberforce” was capable of taking 36 loaded
chaldron wagons, equal to about 171 tons, and its coal consumption is given as 68lb. per
mile. During the year ending June, 1839, this engine ran 16,688 miles, conveyed 635,522
tons over one mile, and cost £318 10s. 8d., or 4.5d. per mile run, for repairs. The wages of
the driver and fireman during the same period amounted to £353 12s. 8d.
The engines of this class, in their time, performed a greater amount of work than any
others then existing. As late as 1846 one of the principal officials of the Stockton and
Darlington Railway said of them: “Take them, weight for weight, they surpass any engine
on the line.”
The cylinders were 14½in. diameter, 16in. stroke; the valve gearing, wheels, etc., were
similar to the “Majestic” class, but the cylinders were fixed on a framing extending 6ft.
beyond the boiler over the driving shaft, which was coupled to the six wheels, each of 4ft.
diameter.
The heating surface of the engines was on a different system, a “return multitubular fire-
tube” being employed. This comprised a principal tube 8ft. long and 28in. diameter at the
fire-grate end, and 24in. at the other. Here was fixed a D-shaped box; from this, 89 copper
tubes conveyed the heated air back through the boiler to the semi-circular box fixed at the
fire-grate end; the chimney came out of this smoke-box extension. These flues proved
most economical, many lasting as long as six years, and, when necessary, duplicate ones
could be fixed, and the engine again at work in three days. The boiler was 10ft. long and
4ft. 4in. diameter, weight of engine 10¼ tons empty, 11¾ tons loaded.
 The “Magnet,” built by Hackworth, at Shildon, in 1832, was an improvement on the
above. The cylinders were 15in. diameter, 16in. stroke. The fire-tube at the furnace end
was 2ft. diameter, and was divided in the middle by a 4in. fire-brick partition. The number of
return tubes was 110. These were 7ft. 6in. long. Hackworth was at this time hauling all the
trains on the Stockton and Darlington Railway by contract, at the rate of 2-5d. per ton of
goods per mile; afterwards reduced to a still lower price. He paid the Stockton and
Darlington Railway interest at 5 per cent. on the cost of locomotives employed on the line,
which were the property of the Stockton and Darlington Railway Company, but leased to
him.

Fig. 23.—GALLOWAY’S “CALEDONIAN,” BUILT FOR THE LIVERPOOL AND

MANCHESTER RAILWAY IN 1832
An engine named “Caledonian” (Fig. 23) was supplied to the Liverpool and Manchester
Railway in 1832, by Galloway, Borman and Co. She had inside frames, four coupled
wheels 5ft. diameter, and a domed fire-box. The curious point about the locomotive was the
location of the cylinders, which were placed on the frame in front of the smoke-box, and
were fixed vertically, with the piston-rods working through the upper cover, connecting-rods
working downwards to the leading wheels, the axle of which was below the frames, in front
of the smoke-box.
As might be expected, the “Caledonian” was far from being an easy-running locomotive,
and, after several times running off the rails, she was rebuilt with inside cylinders and a
crank axle.
 CHAPTER V.
A Stephenson “bogie” engine for America—The genesis of a world-
famous locomotive film—Its initial effort in locomotive construction, the
“Experiment”—Her cylinder valves—Two early Scotch locomotives—
Stephenson favours 6-wheel engines, and constructs the “Patentee”—
Forrester’s “Swiftsure”—Opening of the Newcastle and Carlisle Rwy.—
The “Comet”— R. Stephenson’s early “ultimatum,” the “Harvey Combe”
—Hackworth to the front with a locomotive novelty— The first
locomotive in Russia—The “Goliath”—The “Tyne” and her steam organ
—Other early Newcastle and Carlisle Rwy. engines—An engine-
driver’s reminiscences —No eight hours day then—The “Michael
Longridge”— Opening of the Grand Junction Rwy.—Its first
locomotives.
R. Stephenson and Co., in 1833, constructed a locomotive for the
Saratoga and Schenectady Rail Road of America, which deserves
mention from the fact that it had a leading bogie, rendered necessary
because of the sharp curves on the Saratoga and Schenectady Rail
Road. R. Stephenson named this locomotive the “Bogie,” because
the low wagons used on the quarries at Newcastle were locally
called “bogies,” and it was from these vehicles that he developed the
idea of providing a small truck to carry the leading end of the
locomotive in question. Ever since 1833 the swivelling truck used for
supporting locomotives and other railway rolling stock has, in
England, been designated the “bogie.”
Richard Roberts, of the firm of Sharp, Roberts and Co. (the
predecessors of Sharp, Stewart and Co., Limited), in the year 1833,
turned his attention to locomotive construction. His initial effort was
of a somewhat novel kind. Four locomotives of his first design were
constructed, one—“Experiment”—for the Liverpool and Manchester
Railway, and the others for the Dublin and Kingstown Railway. The
cylinders, which were 11in. diameter, were placed in a vertical
position on the frames, just at the point were the boiler entered the
smoke-box. By means of cross-heads and side-links the motion was
conveyed to a bell-crank, and so transmitted by a connecting-rod to
the driving wheels. There was, of course, a similar arrangement of
cylinder, crank, etc., on both sides of the engine. The stroke was
16in. The driving wheels, 5ft. in diameter, were placed in front of the
fire-box, and had inside bearings; the leading wheels were located
below the vertical cylinders, and had outside bearings. The pump
was placed in a horizontal position above the frame over the driving
wheels, and was worked by a rod actuated by the vertical member of
the bell-crank.
The “Experiment” (Fig. 24) was unsuccessful, and was rebuilt,
when a third pair of wheels was added, and the position of the
cylinders, bell-crank, etc., altered. The valves were, also of a novel
kind, patented by Mr. Roberts in 1832. Colburn thus describes them:
“The valve, of wrought-iron, was formed of two concentric tubes or
pipes, the larger pipe having holes perforated to admit steam from
the steam-pipe into the annular space. This annular space was
closed steam-tight at each end of the valve, and steam could only
escape from it alternately to each end of the cylinder through the
slots. The exhaust steam passed from one end of the cylinder
directly into the waste pipe, and from the other end it traversed the
interior of the pipe of the cylindrical valve. These valves did not work
well, as they did not expand equally with their cast-iron casings when
heated by steam. For this reason the cylinder valves were soon
abandoned. It should be mentioned that, in Mr. Roberts’ first
engines, the valve for each cylinder was worked with a motion
derived from the opposite side of the engine. No eccentrics were
employed, the requisite motion being taken from a pin near the
fulcrum of each bell-crank, and transmitted thence through suitable
gearing to the valve attached to the cylinder on the opposite side of
the engine.”
 Fig. 24.—ROBERTS’S “EXPERIMENT,” WITH VERTICAL
CYLINDERS, BELL-CRANK, CONNECTING-ROD,
AND CYLINDER VALVES

The engines used on the Dundee and Newtyle Railway,

constructed in 1833, partook somewhat of the character of Roberts’s
“Experiment,” inasmuch that right-angled cranks and vertical
cylinders were employed, the diameter of the latter being 11in., and
stroke 18in. These engines were named “Earl of Airlie” and “Lord
Wharncliffe,” and were constructed by J. and C. Carmichael, of
Dundee. Both these engines were delivered at the end of
September, 1833. The “single” driving wheels were placed in the
leading position, the axle being just behind the smoke-box. The
cylinders were placed on the side frames, about midway between
the two ends.
The piston-rods worked upwards, and the motion was conveyed
by means of rods from the piston cross-heads. These connecting-
rods passed down outside the pistons, and were connected to one
end of the bell-cranks, which were fixed beyond the cylinders, with
the pivots over the centre of the second pair of wheels. From the
lower ends of the bell-cranks the driving-rods were pivoted, the other
ends being connected to the outside cranks of the driving wheels.
The fire-box end of the engines was supported on a four-wheel truck
or bogie. These engines weighed 9½ tons each, and cost £700
each. An ordinary four-wheel wagon, fitted with a water-butt, was
used for a tender.
An engine of similar design was ordered from Stirling and Co., of
the East Foundry, Dundee, and delivered on March 3rd, 1834.
Mr. A. Sturrock, the first manager of Swindon Works, and
afterwards locomotive superintendent of the Great Northern Railway,
helped to construct this engine, which was named “Trotter.” Mr.
Sturrock was at the time an apprentice at the East Foundry.
The gauge of the Dundee and Newtyle Railway was only 4ft. 6in.,
but when the line was taken over by the Dundee and Perth Railway
the gauge was altered to the normal gauge of Great Britain. The
original engine, “Earl of Airlie,” after some alteration, of course, could
not run on the railway, but for some years after the change the “Earl
of Airlie” was employed as a stationary pumping engine.
Stephenson’s four-wheel passenger engines with a short wheel
base were found to be very unsteady at the very moderate speeds
then attained, and he, therefore, added a pair of trailing wheels, thus
constructing a six-wheel “single” passenger engine. Stephenson
considered that the moderate wheel base of these small engines
with six wheels would, on the easy curves of the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway, offer considerable resistance, so he took out a
patent, in which he provided that the middle or driving pair of wheels
should be without flanges (or flanchès, as they were then called). He
claimed that by this modification the six-wheel passenger engine
would pass round curves with much less strain and greater safety.
The first engine so constructed by Stephenson he designated the
“Patentee,” and she was delivered to the Liverpool and Manchester
Railway in January, 1834. She had outside frames, inside cylinders,
18in. stroke, 12in. diameter; the driving wheels were 5ft. diameter.
George Forrester and Co., Vauxhall Foundry, Liverpool, in 1834
constructed a six-wheel engine named “Swiftsure.” This locomotive
possessed many novel features. It had outside horizontal cylinders;
the frames were also outside, thus making the cylinders a
considerable distance apart. The connecting-rods were keyed on
cranks, at some distance outside the frames, whilst the fact that the
driving wheels were not counterbalanced caused the engines of this
class to be most unsteady at even moderate speeds, and they were
soon known by the sobriquet of “Boxers.” Colburn says: “A few
pounds of iron properly disposed in the rims of the driving wheels
would have redeemed the reputation of these engines.” The
arrangement of cylinders and frames allowed the leading wheels to
be placed well forward, the total length of the frames of the
“Swiftsure” being 17ft. The driving wheels were 5ft. diameter, and the
cylinders 11in.; the stroke was 18in.

Fig. 25.—HAWTHORN’S “COMET,” THE FIRST ENGINE OF

THE NEWCASTLE AND CARLISLE RAILWAY, 1835
In the “Boxer” Forrester employed his patent valve gear, with
vertical gab ends and four eccentrics.
A portion of the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway was opened
March 9th, 1835, and R. and W. Hawthorn constructed the first
engines for that railway. No. 1 was the “Comet,” (Fig. 25), a four-
wheel (coupled) locomotive; the cylinders (12in. diameter, 16in.
stroke) were placed below the smoke-box, the connecting-rods
passing under the leading axle. The wheels were 4ft. diameter.
Hawthorn’s valve gear was used in the engines of this class, which
was actuated by four fixed eccentrics. The “Comet” continued to
work on the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway for a number of years,
and was afterwards used as a stationary engine for driving the steam
saws at the Forth Bank Engine Works, Newcastle. She was so
engaged up to and subsequently to 1863.
About 1836 short-stroke locomotives came into favour, and
Tayleur and Co. built ten for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.
Although the cylinders were 14in. diameter, the stroke was only 12in.
We need scarcely add the experiment was not successful, although
some of the original broad-gauge engines were built with short
strokes. These will, however, be dealt with fully later on.
In 1836 R. Stephenson and Co. constructed the “Harvey Combe”
locomotive. She was a ballast engine, and was engaged in the
construction of the London and Birmingham Railway. R. Stephenson
had a minute description of this engine written by W. P. Marshall, and
the work in question is stated to be “the most perspicuous and the
illustrations of the most elaborate kind of any work describing a
locomotive.”
The fact that at once strikes the intelligent reader as peculiar is
that, although the “Harvey Combe” was designed “for conveying the
earth excavated in the construction of a line of railway,” as Marshall
“perspicuously” puts it (but which we should shortly describe as a
“ballast” engine), she is a “single” engine! and, therefore, is not much
like a modern six-coupled ballast engine. She cost £1,400, and was
of 50 horse-power.
The principal dimensions of the “Harvey Combe” were: Cylinders,
12in. by 18in.; driving wheels, 5ft., and leading and trailing 3ft. 6in.
diameter; 102 tubes, 1⅝in. internal diameter; total heating surface,
480ft.; weight, empty, 10 tons; with fuel and water, 11 tons 18 cwt.
No flanges were provided to the driving wheels. Although the
“Harvey Combe” was built for, and had rough usage as, a ballast
engine, yet, when at the end of 1837 Nicholas Wood was making
experiments for the purposes of his report to the Great Western
Railway as to the broad-gauge, the “Harvey Combe” was the
principal narrow-gauge engine with which he experimented. With a
gross load (including engine, etc.) of 81 tons, she attained a speed
of 25 to 53 miles an hour, and consumed 0.47lb. of coke per ton per
mile. With a gross load of 50 tons the speed reached was only 32.88
miles an hour, with the above coal consumption.
In 1836, Hackworth built a locomotive of novel construction—viz.,
with double-acting ram or trunk engines, by means of which piston-
rods were dispensed with, the connecting-rods being pivoted directly
on to the piston and oscillated within the trunk.
This was the first locomotive engine ever seen in Russia. She
commenced work on the Zarskoe-Selo Railway on November 18th,
1836, a religious service being held and the locomotive consecrated
before the first train was run. Of this engine the Russian Emperor
remarked in English, “It is the finest I ever saw.” An old officer of the
Stockton and Darlington Railway, informs the writer that a locomotive
on the double-acting trunk principle was also built by Hackworth for
that line, and so far as his memory serves him, he believes it was the
“Arrow” passenger engine. The “Arrow” had leading and trailing
wheels 3ft. 6in. diameter; driving wheels, 5ft. 6in. diameter; 135
tubes in the boiler of 1¾in. diameter; cylinders, 20in. in diameter, and
with a stroke of only 9in.!
We have already mentioned the first engine (the “Comet”)
supplied to the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway, but several of the
other early locomotives used on that line were powerful ones, and
their design in advance of the generality of locomotives then in use.
Thus, the “Goliath,” one of the first engines supplied to the line by
Hawthorn, in March, 1837, hauled a train consisting of 63 wagons of
coal, weighing 267 tons, 12 miles in less than 40 minutes.
The “Goliath” had six-coupled wheels 4ft. diameter, cylinders
14in. diameter, 18in. stroke. Total heating surface 550.91 sq. ft.
Weight, empty, 11¾ tons; in working order, 13 tons. The “Atlas,” built
by R. Stephenson and Co. in 1836, drew a train of 100 wagons,
loaded with coal, coke, and lime, and weighing 450 tons, 10¾ miles