RAILWAY AND CANAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY EARLY RAILWAY GROUP

Occasional Paper 251

BENJAMIN HALL’S TRAMROADS AND THE PROMOTION OF CHAPMAN’S LOCOMOTIVE PATENT

Stephen Rowson, with comment from Andy Guy

Stephen Rowson writes - Some year ago I had access to some correspondence originally in the Llanover Estate papers and made this note from within a letter by Benjamin Hall to his agent John Llewellin, dated 7 March 1815:

Chapman the Engineer called on me today. He says one of their Engines will cost about £400 & 30 G[uinea]s per year for his Patent. He gave a bad account of the Collieries at Newcastle, that they do not clear 5 per cent.

My original thoughts were of Chapman looking for business by hawking a working model of his locomotive around the tramroads of south until I realised that Hall wrote the letter from London. So one assumes the meeting with William Chapman had taken place in the city rather than at Hall’s residence in . No evidence has been found that any locomotive ran on Hall’s Road until many years later after it had been converted from a horse-reliant tramroad. Did any of Chapman’s locomotives work on ’ tramroads?

______

Andy Guy comments – This is a most interesting discovery which raises a number of issues.

In 1801, Benjamin Hall, M.P. (1778-1817) married Charlotte, daughter of the owner of ironworks, Richard Crawshay, and was to gain very considerable industrial interests from his father- in-law.1 Hall’s agent, John Llewellin, is now better known now for his association with the Trevithick design for the Tram Engine, the earliest surviving image of a railway locomotive.2

1 Benjamin Hall was the son of Dr Benjamin Hall (1742–1825) Chancellor of the of , and father of Sir Benjamin Hall (1802-1867), industrialist and politician, supposedly the origin of the nickname ‘Big Ben’ for Parliament’s clock tower (his father was known as ‘Slender Ben’ in Westminster).. 2 Llewellin is discussed by Dr Michael Lewis in Appendix 2 of ‘ re-examined’ by A Guy, Dr M Bailey, Dr D Gwyn, Dr MJT Lewis, J Protheroe-Jones & J Rees in Early Railways 6, ed by A Coulls (Milton Keynes, 2019). 1

Benjamin Hall, c1814 William Chapman

The reference in the letter to ‘Chapman the Engineer’ can only refer to William Chapman (1749- 1832), the noted civil and mechanical engineer. He patented a number of inventions, particularly in regard to rope making, coal loading and (with his brother Edward Walton Chapman), a system for locomotives that embodied two major principles.3 The first of these was to enable traction beyond the limits of adhesion, by using a steam-powered winch mounted on the locomotive to haul on a chain laid between the rails. The second was the use of a bogie to aid negotiating curves and, by means of one or more additional axles, to spread the weight bearing on the rails. The letter’s reference to ‘one of their Engines’ and the cost of £400 strongly suggest that Hall is referring to the patent locomotive engines.4

It might be wondered what railway Hall could have had in mind for a Chapman engine, and in fact there are a surprising number of possibilities – Hall had an interest in at least six railways in early 1815, which may be briefly summarised as:5

(1) Rumney Branch: plateway, 2 ft 11 ins.6 (2) Hall’s Tramroad: plateway, 2 ft 11 ins.

Benjamin Hall owned the two furnaces at Rumney (), known together as the Union Iron Company, left to him in 1810 under Richard Crawshay’s will. He brought in limestone and sent out iron along a branch of 1806 of the Tredegar ironwork’s tramroad, with Hall’s own line joining his two sites. The branch was superseded by the Brinore Tram Road and Hall’s Trevil Tramroad in 1815.

3 A method, or methods, of facilitating the means, and reducing the expence, of carriage on railways and other roads. Patent dates of 30th December 1812 (no. 3632 for and Wales) and April 1813 (Scotland). It is William rather than his brother who is usually regarded as the active of the two brothers in this patent. 4 The Heaton locomotive was built by Butterley for £480: Derbyshire Record Office, D 503/42/1. 5 The sketch maps do not show unrelated canals or railways. All gauges are over the flanges. The names of the lines are those commonly used rather than official, with the exception of the Brinore Tram Road. 6 J van Laun, Early Limestone Railways (Newcomen Society, 2001); G Rattenbury, Tramroads of the Brecknock & Abergavenny Canal (R&CHS, 1980). 2

(3) Brinore Tram Road: public plateway, 3 ft 6 ins.7 (4): Hall’s Trevil Tramroad: public plateway, 3 ft 6 ins.

Not unnaturally, Hall was unhappy about Rumney’s reliance on the tramroad of a competing company. He instigated a replacement system in agreement with Dixon & Overton, who wanted to lease Hall’s colliery at Brinore (Bryn Oer). Hall requested the Brecknock & Abergavenny Canal to build a tramroad to the Trevil quarries, to the limit of the 8-mile clause of its canal act. On its refusal, he insisted on the legal right to have it built by others, and Overton and John Llewellin made surveys for possible routes. In 1813, the Brinore Tram Road Company was formed, with Hall and Dixon as major shareholders.

Hall then finessed the Canal Company by continuing the line, on his own land, beyond the statutory limit, to serve Brinore Colliery and his Union ironworks at Rhymney. The two lines were joined at Trevil in May 1815.

(5) Hall’s, Benjamin Hall’s, or Abercarn Tramroad: public plateway, gauge uncertain8

Situated in the lower reaches of the Ebbw Valley, the Abercarn ironworks was supplied with coal from a private railway system by 1798. In 1808, Richard Crawshay bought the Abercarn Estate, collieries and ironworks and passed it to Benjamin Hall for a nominal sum.

Hall reorganised the transport system, bringing the colliery lines to a new private basin on the Monmouthshire Canal. This included an extension of the line eastwards into the Sirhowy valley, the new line then running north to collieries on the eastern flank of the valley. This required a tunnel described as, ‘only large enough to permit the passage of the small horse- drawn trams’.9 The new lines in the two valleys were completed in 1814, with the waggons capable of a load of one ton. In 1815, he let out one of the collieries, on condition that the coal was carried on his plateway.

7 van Laun; Rattenbury. 8 Extended in the 1820s to become ‘Sir Benjamin Hall’s Tramroad’. G Rattenbury, ‘Hall’s Tramroad’, Journal of the Railway & Canal Historical Society, vol 29 part 4, no 138, March 1988; ‘Hall’s Tramroad: Abercarn’ by F. Frowen, part 1, Archive, issue 55, Sept. 2007. 9 The tunnel was later enlarged: its original dimensions are uncertain. 3

(6) Tappenden’s, Abernant or Cefn Tramroad: public plateway, gauge 4 ft 4 ins.10

In the to the west of , three ironworks were active in the early 19th century: , and Abernant. Frustrated by the failure to build the promised Aberdare Canal, connecting to , the three companies agreed to a proposal from the Canal to form an eight-mile line to the canal head, so providing an outlet near Swansea. It opened towards the end of 1804.

The Tappendens of Abernant ironworks soon found that the agreements they had made had been poorly considered, and ended up paying for much of the construction and all of the maintenance costs, plus a heavy and continuing liability to the Neath Canal. Added to this, the double incline at the western end proved expensive to run and maintain, ineffective and unreliable. Short of capital, the Tappendens mortgaged the line to Richard Crawshay in 1810 and sold to him the title. On Crawshay’s death later that year, the line was bequeathed to Benjamin Hall.

Hirwaun went bankrupt in 1812, the same year that the Aberdare Canal was opened, with a tramroad to Aberdare ironworks. Abernant declared bankruptcy at the end of 1814, leaving Hall with a tramroad that urgently required major maintenance work but which had no immediate prospect of traffic. ______

The sketch map (left) gives some impression of the spread of Hall’s tramroad interests. In theory, any might have been in mind for Chapman’s patent engine, whether for the bogie, the chain winch or for both. However, in the spring of 1815, some were more likely than others.

Line 1, the Tredegar Branch, was about to be made redundant by the Trevil and Brinore tramroads, but Line 2 was probably retained as an internal track between the two forges. Lines 3 & 4, the links to Trevil and Talybont were about to be completed, and no doubt at the forefront of Hall’s mind, as was Line 5 at Abercarn, just finished but with colliery leases being organised that hinged on his tramroad. The problem here may have been the new tunnel, which appears to have been poorly suited to locomotive use. The Abernant line, 6, ex-Tappendens, was more or less derelict and with no immediate traffic,

10 P Tann, ‘The Tappenden Tramroad to the Neath Canal, 1801-14’, Journal of the Railway & Canal Historical Society, vol 32, part 2, no 164, July 1996; S Rowson & IL Wright, The Glamorganshire and Aberdare Canals (Black Dwarf, 2001). 4 unless Hall believed that Chapman’s chain-winch engine could supersede the troublesome incline and improve the tramroad in the hope of future business. This seems unlikely.

The frontrunners therefore appear to be the Brinore/Trevil and the Abercarn tramroads, both of which were being actively developed by Hall and overseen by Llewellin early in 1815. It may be relevant that the Nantyglo ironworks probably had a Blenkinsop rack locomotive in 1813, and in 1832, Neath Abbey built for ironworks a locomotive, Perseverance, that allowed either adhesion or drive for a rack rail (the original design also embodied bogies), followed by Dowlais in 1836.11 The quest for a system beyond adhesion in the south Wales ironworks puts interest in Chapman’s system into context, although there is no evidence that Hall went beyond this enquiry of March 1815.

______

THE PATENT

In respect of the Chapman brothers’ patent, Hall’s letter throws some light on a little discussed aspect: how it was promoted. An engine was quoted about £400, but it is unclear if William Chapman is offering to have one built, or just suggesting the likely price if Hall was to arrange its construction. The annual patent charge was certainly very reasonable at 30 guineas.

By contrast, Blenkinsop had a dizzying range of prices for his patent, ranging from the encouraging to the decidedly optimistic. It was the latter end that he had supposedly agreed in discussions with a Welsh company (Nantyglo?), at £50 per mile per year.12 Had Benjamin Hall taken this charge for the Brinore line, for example, it would have cost the Tram Road Company around £600 every year, compared to Chapman’s £31.50: if Hall was aware of Blenkinsop’s earlier price, the contrast would have counted greatly in Chapman’s favour.13 It is known that Blenkinsop was very active in promoting his patent. For example, in May 1814 he wrote in reply to the agent for Earl Manvers, ‘I beg leave to hand you a few Impressions of my Patent Steam Carriage which is daily at work here.’14

The situation of William Chapman has been perceived to be different. All the known locomotives associated with him were for railways under the engineering directive of his associate, the viewer John Buddle, including the three engines directly designed under the 1813 patent, for the Heaton, Lambton and Whitehaven collieries.15 As a result, the patent has been regarded as effectively reserved for Buddle’s patronage rather than openly and actively marketed. Hall’s letter and other evidence clearly show this not to be the case.

An early example is that of the Wylam waggonway. In May 1814, William Chapman wrote to Buddle:

11 CF Dendy Marshall, A history of railway locomotives down to the end of the year 1831 (London, 1953), pp 54, 212; G Rattenbury & MJT Lewis, Merthyr Tydfil tramroads and their locomotives (R&CHS, 2004), pp 63-69, 73-5, 80-84. 12 Dendy Marshall, p 54 (the two original documents quoted are at the North of England Institute of Mining & Mechanical Engineers, 3410 / Wat / 3 / 112 and Wat/ 1 / 6 / 53). 13 In addition of course, the Blenkinsop system would require a cogged rail. 14 Northumberland Archives, The Blenkinsop Report Book, NRO 962, p 91. 15 Buddle had in fact paid for the patent and he conducted the trials of the engines: A Guy, ‘North Eastern locomotive pioneers 1805- to 1827: a reassessment’ in Early Railways [1], ed by A Guy and J Rees (Newcomen Society, 2001), p 132. 5

Pray what is Mr. Blacket about - I left a Plan for making his Beast act upon a Chain with great Simplicity compared with his complicated Machine which even if it would answer would require [machinery ?] for its wheels.16

Chapman was presumably referring to his chain-winch system, with this rather tantalising note written when the ‘Puffing Billy’ series at Wylam was first coming into operation.17 The initial four-wheel arrangement quickly had to be changed during 1814 to the use of twin frames to carry eight wheels. One of the continuing questions about this arrangement is whether one or both of these frames might be bogies as in Chapmans’ patent, and, if so, whether Wylam ever acknowledged the fact. Come what may, Chapman is clearly offering his patent ideas to others outside the ‘Buddle bubble’, evidently with his associate’s approval and support. Wylam was local to Chapman and Buddle, and it is not known if the colliery had requested advice or whether it was just offered by Chapman.

A national ‘marketing campaign’ was however clearly undertaken. The patent of December 1812 was published in the Repertory of Arts, Manufactures, and Agriculture.18 Unlike many others, it was printed in full rather than in summary, complete with plates, and unusually had at its end, ‘Observations by the Patentees’, lauding its usefulness, noting its imminent use on the Heaton waggonway on Tyneside, and stating that:

Rather than the Repertory simply reporting the patent, this strongly suggests that this item was fed to it by Buddle and Chapman. It confirmed the close relationship between the two men, and served as an explicit public endorsement of the patent by the highly- influential Buddle. In addition, they had themselves printed a booklet in mid-1813 (left) containing the patent specification with exactly the same ‘advertisement’ at the end, presumably to be sent out to any interested parties.19

In February 1815, a year after the Repertory had published the patent, it included an account of the Chapman locomotive built for the Lambton waggonways, just south of the River Wear.20 This design incorporated the double frame with a switchable adhesion or chain- haulage system, depending on the gradient. The article was glowing: ‘It appears highly probable, that this invention must prove a great saving both in public and private rail-ways from the great number of horses and men which one single engine may be substituted for.’

16 Durham Record Office, NCB1/JB/263. 17 Rather than, for example, combining the axles with chains, a design later patented by Stephenson but which may have been anticipated by William Chapman. 18 Vol XXIV, 2nd series, no CXLI, FEB 1814, pp 129-142: books.google.co.uk/books?id=Mx5FAQAAMAAJ 19 books.google.co.uk/books?id=1eLcUM78_d4C . 20 Vol XXVI, 2nd series, no CLIII, FEB 1815, pp 161-2: books.google.co.uk/books?id=sdtgAAAAcAAJ. 6

This same report was also published by several newspapers.21 It smacks more of marketing than reportage, and it is noteworthy that this Repertory article had come in as, ‘a Letter to the Editors’. The identical account had already been published in The Cambrian on 21st January 1815, headed ‘To the Editor’ and signed ‘A.Z’.

Repertory, February 1815 The Cambrian, January 1815

It was clearly part of a publicity and sales campaign, and the timing of early 1815 suggests that it may well have hit a target with Hall and Llewellin. Either man was likely to have seen it in the Repertory or in The Cambrian, their local newspaper. If not, Hall’s meeting with Chapman would most likely have brought the Lambton report to his notice, as was the case in the contact between Chapman and Davies Giddy, the scientist and engineer.22

Giddy had attended some of the Penydarren trials of Trevithick’s locomotive, which sparked in him an interest in railways. In March 1816, William Chapman replied to an evident request from Giddy:

The inclosed will give you the Information you desired, and when I am again in Town [London] I will give you any Elucidation required.

(by courtesy of The Royal Institution of Cornwall (Courtney Library) – Trevithick-Giddy Collection)

21 As in Dendy Marshall, p 72, and found in others for early 1815. An edited version was printed in the July 1815 edition of The Literary Panorama and National Register , new series, vol 2 (London 1815), p 461, and headed: ‘Account of a locomotive engine, executed by Messrs. Chapmans, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, according to their patent’: books.google.co.uk/books?id=1RcAAAAAYAAJ. 22 Guy et al, ER6, 167-8, etc: Davies Giddy changed his surname to ‘Gilbert’ in late 1816. As both Giddy and Hall were Tory MPs in this period, it is possible that they discussed Chapman at Westminster. 7

The ‘inclosed’ is still in the files, and it is an account of the Lambton railway as given in the Repertory and the newspapers. There can be little doubt that the same was given to Benjamin Hall at his meeting with Chapman, and that it was sent out in reply to any enquiry about the patent engine. Indeed, it may well be that it was these sheets that went to the editors of the magazines and newspapers in the hope of inclusion.23

The Lambton account from the Giddy archive (by courtesy of The Royal Institution of Cornwall (Courtney Library) – Trevithick-Giddy Collection).

The Lambton report may have looked rather tempting to Hall and Llewellin. It potentially bridged the gap between a possibly promising invention and its practical application. With their new plateways for Brinore, Rhymney and Abercarn, it offered the prospect, through the use of multiple axles, of locomotive haulage without the need to replace existing rails. It also avoided the subsequent problem of a long fixed wheelbase on the curves by using two frames, including a bogie.

The engine now could be heavy enough for effective work (a stated load of about 54 tons in the case of Lambton), and when the gradient became problematic, the powered chain-winch could take over from adhesion (‘and the charge for the use of it is very moderate’). Furthermore, and particularly relevant for Hall, the patent specifically stated that its design was applicable, ‘where the ledges either of the ways or of the wheels regulate the direction of the carriage’, in other words, to plateways or edge railways.

For whatever reason, Hall’s enquiry seems to have gone no further. This may have been wise, for just as he was making contact with Chapman, the patent design was struggling. The Heaton waggonway had to close in May 1815 due to a disastrous flood in the mine. The Lambton engine did not in fact prove a success: the chain-winch system would not be used elsewhere. The locomotive would later be rebuilt in more conventional form for adhesion only and without twin frames. Buddle was already in the process of building his ‘Steam Elephants’ for Wallsend in early 1815, but again without the patent features, and while the Whitehaven eight-wheeled locomotive of 1816 did include the two frames and relied on the patent, it seems to have operated for only a couple of years.24

23 Another copy can be found in the archives of the British Geological Survey: BGS 903, Bell Collection, vol 4, item 122. The Collection was principally assembled in the north east of England. 24 These and later Chapman locomotives are discussed by Guy in ER, pp 132-5. 8

CONCLUSION

Hall’s note to Llewellin has proved a most useful discovery. It introduces the interest in a Chapman patent engine to the burgeoning south Wales railways and illuminates the remarkable range of Benjamin Hall’s railway interests. As for the patent engine, this letter supports other evidence that it was not reserved just for the benefit of Buddle’s collieries. That may have been the reality of those engines built, but the ambition was evidently much greater. Buddle and Chapman went to some lengths to reprint their patent and the Lambton report, to send copies to the Repertory and to a number of newspapers, to meet or correspond with interested parties such as Hall and Davies Giddy.25

The chain-winch system might well have a quick and no doubt justified demise, but the lack of attention paid by the market to the Chapmans’ bogie, despite their best efforts, was unfortunate and, with hindsight, might be regarded as regrettable.26 As with Trevithick’s understanding of adhesion and the advantages of the blast pipe, it was another key feature of the locomotive that would ultimately have to be ‘discovered’ all over again.

______

October 2019

25 Where else might it have been distributed? 26 Chapman even suggested a twin-framed, 8-wheel railway carriage as early as 1813: Guy, ER, p 124; books.google.co.uk/books?id=MSU4AQAAMAAJ, p 24. 9