Talk:Rainhill trials

Untitled
was one of the drivers to hold these trials not also that some saw George Stephenson as having a conflict of interest ? (ie he was both advising the Railway about the preferred means of haulage ( steam locomotive) and happened to be closely connected with a company making steam locomotives) (same tale on the Stockton and Darlington, of course, but/and Edward Pease (the S&D chairman) was also a director of Robert Stephenson & Co)  Rjccumbria 14:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

George Stephenson was in the middle of nearly everything to do with the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. A number of other people from the L&MR were also involved with Robert Stephenson & Co. My feeling is through, however much we talk of improper relationships and even foul play over Sans Pareil's castings (I've yet to edit this into the Sans Pareil Page), history has shown Stephenson to be correct!

It also seem to be true to say that there were very few people in the world who could have got the L&MR to where it was in 1830/31 other than George and Robert Stephenson. AHEMSLTD 14:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Rainhill 150 Anniversary
Should the Rainhill 150 Anniversary Cavalcade (1980) also be mentioned here? - I see the Sans Pareil image was taken at that event... Andywebby 23:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What was this event called? "Rail 150", "Rocket 150" or "Rainhill 150" ?  What was the date of the cavalcade?  (no image metadat on my old slides!) Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have an official programme and ticket, I'll have a look Paypwip (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, found the official programme. It was called 'Rocket 150' and was held on 24, 25 and 26 May 1980. The programme has a forward by Sir Peter Parker, Chairman of British Railways board, Event timetable, A full list of the locomotives taking part in the cavalcade, and a site plan. Paypwip (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review
This article is currently under Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 03:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ten locomotives
The articel says: "Ten locomotives were entered, but only five locomotives actually began the tests."

This raises the questions:

What are the names of the other five locomotives?

Who did build them and what did they look like?

--Panzerlad (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Consolation prize for Perseverance
Was this £25 (per article), £26 (per recent change) or £25 guineas – slightly more than £26 (a guinea is 5% more than a pound: it's a pound and a shilling, rather than the 20 shillings that made up a pound). AFAIR, and which fits with the general cultural use of guineas, this prize was a round number of guineas. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Many books give the first prize as £500, so other prizes are likely to have also been pounds, not guineas. This PDF doc says £25. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strike that. It's far too similar to our own Perseverance (steam locomotive). We could do with checking that book by Bowen-Cooke though. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Summary
This article takes an awful long time to get to the point. I think the initial summary needs much improvement, and should mention the Stephenson's and the Rocket.CuddlySteve (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Now done. Hallucegenia (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary illustration - from the I.L.N.?
I don't think this can be described as a "contemporary" picture. The Illustrated London News first appeared in 1842, and I see that no date or page number is given in the source notes.

It is much more likely to be later conjectural picture; the overbridge on the left looks nothing like the actual Rainhill bridge, and the grandstand was actually ¼ mile east of the bridge. (See R.H.G. Thomas: The Liverpool & Manchester Railway, Batsford, 1980, p71.)

The same engraving appears in Samuel Smiles' Lives of the Engineers G & R Stephenson - on p259 in the only edition I have, published in 1904. It probably also appeared in earlier editions, but the first of these was in 1861-2. Hyjack7 (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So, can anyone say exactly when this engraving first appeared? And if it ever was in the Illustrated London News, what date and page? 'Contemporary' - with what, exactly? Hyjack7 (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

St Helens
I have just deleted a recent insertion which said that the Rainhill Trials were held "in St Helens, Lancashire". In 1829 St Helens was a small town about 2.6 miles away from the Trials site, so it isn't true to say they were held "in" St Helens, and "Lancashire" is already mentioned just below.Hyjack7 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Stationary engines
...a competition to decide whether stationary steam engines or locomotives would be used to pull the trains.
 * For the benefit of technophobes, could we have a few simple words on how a train can be pulled by a stationary engine? Valetude (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's doubtful if the competition was about this anyway. Stationary engines were already in place for the tunnel inclines to the Liverpool terminus (and later the other terminii there). However the decision to use locomotives for the long flat section between the cities was already decided in favour of locomotives. The question was largely whether to buy from the established makers of Stephenson or Hackworth, or else something altogether new.
 * There's no good WP article on this at cable-hauled incline. Cable railway (by its current content, not title) and funicular aren't really the same thing. Inclined plane railroad goes off in yet another direction.
 * In the 1810s-1820s, there was a transition from gravity or horse-hauled plateways to steam-hauled railways. Eventually this would mean locomotives, but at the time this was a whole new technology. Steam engines were well established as mining pumps, becoming established as reliable stationary steam engines (heavy, immobile, relying on engine houses and large boilers) and still barely working experiments as mobile locomotives. So the decision on how to operate a new railway, either with fixed or mobile engines, was far from clear-cut. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A good example of a railway that used stationary engines for all traffic was the London and Blackwall Railway. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Loosely speaking (Ferneylough,1980,Ch. 4) Could be quoted to say the competition was about stationary vs travelling engines. Rastrick and Walker had produced a report for the board in Spring 1829 all but recommending the (more technologically stable) stationary engine but with a "get out" clause saying travelling locomotives were improving and at some point might prove better.  Robert Stephenson and Locke (George Stephenson was Civil Engineer at this time) produced a counter-report showing the disadvantages of stationary engines.  The board was thus getting counter reports from distguished engineers in the field at the time.  It likely it was felt the contemporary locomotives of the time were probably not quite up to it. (Thomas,1980,p64...) The suggestion of Walker that a competition be held with an incentive premium to produce an improved engine of £500 would be taken up.  The subcommittee of (Cropper(pro-stationary), Sandars, Moss, Benson and Rotherham) produced the trial specification but (G. Stephenson (L&M Civil engineer) and Booth (L&M treasurer - effectively CEO & who had engineering appreciation & pro-locomotive) may have had a hand in the specifications.  It is pragmatically likely Booth would have discussed with G. Stephenson (his engineer in Liverpool) how locomotive performance could be achieved and discussed Georges failed attempt at a multi-tube boiler the year before ... and persuaded (sometime pessimistic) Robert in Newcastle to take on the build when he had a full order book.  Hence the joint project with Booth organising the firebox (and tender) build in Liverpool.  Advice and support also cam from George to Robert ... when the first attempt at a multi-tube boiler pressure test leaked from everywhere and the cause was hopeless ... George's reply from Liverpool was ... "try again".  Original:: Pragmatically Booth required an engine at the trials what was going to do well and at that point team Stephenson were most likely to deliver.  It was not unnoticed the non-independence of Rocket from the Company's Treasurer and (Civil) Engineer at the trials, Hackworth being particularly upset his failed cylinder was made by Robert Stephenson.  If no engine had been successful at the trials Booth would have had pressure to use stationary engines... That is my understanding anyway from various sources.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Passenger railway
"(Note: The only other passenger railway in the world at that time, the Stockton and Darlington Railway, had an average speed of only about 8 miles per hour (13 km/h).)"

Not factually correct, it would seem. Referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_railway_history :

"1807 - First fare-paying, passenger railway service in the world was established on the Oystermouth Railway in Swansea, Wales."

"1825 - Stephenson's Stockton and Darlington Railway, the first publicly subscribed, adhesion worked railway using steam locomotives, carrying freight from a Colliery to a river port (Passengers were conveyed by horse-drawn carriages) - so the welsh was earlier

"1830 - The Liverpool and Manchester Railway opened, and the first steam passenger service, primarily locomotive-hauled, began. The line proved the viability of rail transport. Large scale railway construction started in Britain, then spread throughout the world, beginning the Railway Age." 109.156.246.251 (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's steam-hauled, public ticketed passengers and was the first to do so.
 * The Oystermouth was horse-hauled.
 * Steam-hauled railways before this were privately-owned coal hauliers (the availability of cheap coal was a factor in adopting steam). They weren't publicly usable, they didn't carry passengers.
 * The S&DR was longer than others, so it was an attractive transport option for local people and general goods. The S&DR opened such a public service. However steam locos were still a rare bit of advanced technology: so they were used for hauling the heavy coal trains, but the shorter and lighter passenger or mixed services were hauled more cheaply by horses.
 * The L&MR was the first to combine all of these: steam-hauled services, on a public ticket basis. As they also hauled lighter, faster trains than the coal trains of the North East, this long line needed to run all trains at the same speed and so couldn't mix some loco-hauled trains with horses. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Booth
It is almost incomprehensible to leave Henry Booth completely out of this article. Apart from  He was co-sponsor of the premier engine Rocket with input into its specification and arranged for its firebox to be built in Liverpool. He also had the power to arrange systemic bias to ensure the trial could be optimally arranged for Rocket's participation; whilst perhaps giving (relatively) limited notice to competitors. That said his objectives to get suppliers to raise the bar to provide locomotives suitable for operating the Liverpool and Manchester railway and demonstrating to give investor confidence that locomotives could do the job were probably his primary objective. Trouble is what I have here is as uncited might be WP:ORIGINAL and a non disruptional insertion might be a tad difficult.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Round about the time of Rocket 150 in 1980, there was an article titled "Henry Booth and the Rocket" published in one of the British railway magazines. At that time there were three which didn't specialise in modelling - Modern Railways, Railway Magazine and Railway World, and I really don't think that it would have been in Modern Railways, This article described (among other things) how it was Booth's suggestion that the boiler should have 25 small tubes to increase heating surface - back in the 1820s, all boilers had one large tube, which might be U-shaped. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can actually source various stuff on Booth, its just that his involvement is often forgotten. His connection with Rocket and the L&MR was probably why independent judges of the trials were needed.  I can source this and insert something which is not WP:UNDUE when I get round to it;  probably something in a recent edit that made me rescan this.  I need to tidy the Henry Booth article at some point anyway.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I found it, but and not after seven months searching:
 * which was in the very first issue of RM that I bought with my own money (four or five earlier issues, incl. Sep 1979, were gifts). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @. Thanks. Does it perchance confirm Booth organised for the building of the (original) firebox for Rocket in Liverpool, and, perhaps even more to satisfy my curiosity, who actually built it?  (It was then shipped to newcastle where Robert connected in all up and wrote back it wouldn't work because everything leaked and George wrote back something like "try again"? Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @. Thanks. Does it perchance confirm Booth organised for the building of the (original) firebox for Rocket in Liverpool, and, perhaps even more to satisfy my curiosity, who actually built it?  (It was then shipped to newcastle where Robert connected in all up and wrote back it wouldn't work because everything leaked and George wrote back something like "try again"? Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move
I think the recent page move (From "Rainhill Trials" to "Rainhill trials") should have been discussed here first.

Most sources I see use the capitalised form to describe this event. These include: The Science Museum The Museum of Science and Industry, Manchester St Helens council Engineering Timelines NESTA

I can't offhand find any sources that use the form "Rainhill trials". I do see sources that use phrases like "the trials at Rainhill". The National Railway Museum uses "trial" uncapitalised in "the L&MR's directors decided to hold performance trials to discover "the most improved locomotive engine" for the railway, with a prize of £500." Here, but that is not the same as the descriptive title "Rainhill trials". Nowhere uses that title without capitalising the second word. Hallucegenia (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * in your move request at WP:RM/TR, you mention "per common lowercase usages in sources". Could you please point me to those sources that use the uncapitalised phrase "Rainhill trials" to refer to this event? Thanks, Hallucegenia (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See book n-grams. While use of caps has been increasing, it's not near the threshold suggested by MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Revert move: Disruptive controversial move of Proper Name by . The word threshold isn't mentioned on MOS:CAP ... I was up all night waiting for an ambulance to take someone to hospital and I don't need being played about.   was asked for specific sources and didn't provide any specific example.  And even if this move passed it was controversial and should have been pre-discussed.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear about your troubles. No intention to play you here, but I hope you get some sleep.  If you need help looking at specific sources, here are some I find via book search:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Re "threshold", I meant the "consistently" criterion in the lead: "only words and phrases that are are capitalized in Wikipedia".  Dicklyon (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you to User:Dicklyon for the link to Google n-grams and your list of examples from Google books.
 * N-grams looks like a very useful resource. I hadn't encountered it before, and will use it in future. However, the graph I get shows that the usage of "Rainhill Trials", with the second capital, was the majority usage in all years after 1975. After 1999 it is used in a substantial majority of these sources. In my opinion, this meets the threshold required in MOS:CAPS, at least in modern texts.
 * Only three of the six books listed are about railway history in NW England. Book No4 "English Railways" dates from 1915 so does not reflect modern usage. Book No2 "The Industrial Archeology of NW England" also uses the lower case form, but this book is 40 years old. Book No5 "The Leviathan of Wealth" actually uses both forms "Rainhill trials" and "Rainhill Trials" within the text, so is not particularly helpful. The other three books are not specifically about railway history. Do they count as reliable subject matter experts for the purposes of MOS:CAPS?
 * When I search on Google for "rainhill trials", select "Books" and filter for preview being available, I get nine distinct examples on the first page. From the "Found Inside" box, or by using the Preview facility, I note that eight use "Rainhill Trials" and only one (Book No2 from above) uses the lower case form. For me, that is conclusive. What do others think? Note that other editors will get a different first page, depending on how the Google search algorithm works for them.
 * As an aside, I note that the first book on my Google list ("The Rainhill Trials" by Dawson, 2018 ) has a foreword by Anthony Coulls. Coulls is the Senior Curator of Railway Transport and Technology at the National Railway Museum, and therefore has both Rocket and Sans Pareil in his care. He uses the form "Rainhill Trials" too.
 * Regards, Hallucegenia (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

So to begin with I am disrupted to expanding those URLs into something useful, obviously this has taken some time. (Snow, 2016) uses "Rainhill trials" in body text quotes sources using "Rainhill Trials". (Richards, 2007)/(Richards 1973) uses both forms. (Beasley, 1997) is an adaptation of an earlier publication. Of the books I use for L&MR stuff (Carlson, Robert E.; 1969) uses "Rainhill Trials"; (Thomas, RHG; 1980), (Fernyhough, F; 1980), (Dawson, 2019), (Dawson, 2020), (Dawson, 2021) all use Rainhill Trials. (I'll dig the full cites for those if I have to, but I don;t want to lose this edit). Obviously I'm broadly concuring with Hallucegenia's analysis. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You should both review the criterion in MOS:CAPS. Sources are obviously not consistent on this, hence WP uses lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've read the guideline and I'm unmoved. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The MOS:CAPS criterion states that "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia."
 * There are three types of reliable sources: sources that consistently capitalise; sources that consistently use lower case; and sources that are inconsistent and use both formats. In the case of the Rainhill Trials, the substantial majority of modern reliable sources about the subject are of the first type, and use capitalisation throughout. Your own n-grams analysis shows that this majority has been at least 2:1 for the past 23 years. I consider that size of majority to be substantial.
 * You are trying to argue that all or nearly all sources must use capitalisation before WP should, which is what not what MOS:CAPS says at all. In this context, the word consistently refers to self-consistency within each source. It does not refer to consistency between sources: if it did, the criterion would not also include the threshold of substantial majority. I think that your statement above is nonsense. Regards, Hallucegenia (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A 2:1 frequency in favor of capitalization is not what I consider to be a "substantial majority", especially considering that in n=gram stats so many capitalized occurrences are in headings and other title-case contexts that don't really contribute to the question here. If you look at how sources treat proper names (e.g. "Eiffel Tower"), there's a clear distinction between "consistently capitalized" and not, probably around 90% or more in usage stats. Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And unfortunately, the n-gram stats don't tell us anything about the proportion of sources that use it consistently one way or the other. They just count occurrences.  With so many occurrences being headings and title citations and such, some discouting of the capitalization rate is always in order. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are more 21st-century books (and a magazine) that user lowercase trials: Sources are clearly not consistently capitalizing it, as they do with proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2010 Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey
 * 2010 The Industrial Revolution
 * 2012 The National CV of Britain: A non-PC history of Britain
 * 2013 Iron, Steam & Money: The Making of the Industrial Revolution
 * 2011 Charles Dickens in Context
 * 1990 Did You Know?: New Insights Into a World that is Full of Astonishing Stories and Astounding Facts
 * 2002 The Railway Magazine

Note what Djm- says above: (Snow, 2016) uses "Rainhill trials" in body text, quotes sources using "Rainhill Trials". So that book contributes 2 counts to lowercase and 2 to uppercase in the n-gram stats. But those uppercase uses are citations to book titles, so if we had a way to collect stats on usage in sentences, which is what WP relies on, we would not count those capped ones at all. Many of the 21st-century capped occurrences are like this, title-case citations to prior works (such as these books); many others are title-case chapter headings and such. Plus, there's just a big tread in special writing, such as rail-fan writing, toward capping things important to the topic; see WP:SSF. We should stick with WP's guidance and avoid unnecessary capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I remain unmoved by the old pluralis majestatis unless She says it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But she has Covid. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Another for lowercase: and ... after the Rainhill trials Timothy Hackworth's 'Sans Pareil' ... (Reed, p. 17). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. There's consensus that there is not a "substantial majority" of sources that capitalize "trials"; !voters consequently agree that, per MOS:CAPS, we should not capitalize it either. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Rainhill Trials → Rainhill trials – Per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, we should use sentence case, not title case. This event is commonly referred to in sources as "the Rainhill trials" with lowercase trials, all through the 19th and 20th centuries. Recently there's a tendency toward more capitalization, but not enough to meet the criterion in MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Nom's case is mostly made in the discussion section above, which links n-gram stats and about 10 21st-century books that user lowercase "trials". It's nowhere near the threshold criterion of "consistently capitalized in relialbe sources".  Rather, it's a modern railfan thing, capping things important to them (see WP:SSF). Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Dicklyon (they already said what I would and cited what I would).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per noms case, noting also that n-grams don't distinguish headings etc from prose and therefore tends to over-represent caps. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Object "Rainhill Trials" is the name in use at most modern sources indicating the significance of the event, correctly capitalized as a proper name, which was a larger event than the specific trials where locomotives were testing against the criteria when "Rainhill trials" is more appropriate. The article here covers the total event including demonstration runs, etc.  There seems to be some misunderstandings in the support !votes about "per nom and Dicklyon" as nom. is Dicklyon.  MOS:CAPS is a guideline not a policy.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "most" is not the relevant criterion. It's "substantial majority"; I pointed about a dozen or so 21st century sources that use lowercase trials.  When sources show this clearly that the caps are not necessary, MOS:CAPS says we use lowercase.  And yes looks like somewhat was slightly confused. Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – yeah, I agree with Dicklyon's most-recent post here. Tony (talk)  03:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)