Talk:Tom Thumb (locomotive)

Horse Race
Should we get more information about that original test up there? (i.e. the date?) It's such a symbolically important event. How much is known though? DHDiamond (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Data removal
I've removed the large data dump that looked suspiciously like a copyvio. If it wasn't, the data (which is still in the page history) will need to be better integrated into the article text. I've started this with the infobox, and I intend to return to this article with a few references that I've got for early locomotives (including ). Slambo (Speak) 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to pick up Sagle's discussion in B&O Power this evening (I hope). Mangoe 12:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Replica vs. original
Sagle provides calculated dimensions for the original engine as against those of the replica, and I emphasize "calculated" (meaning worked out on the basis of statements from Cooper, Latrobe, one W. H. Brown, and Ross Winans). I'd like a second opinion as to whether to substitute those for the dimensions of the replica.

Also, Sagle doesn't mention a belt between the two axles, and I don't see any indications of one in any of his illustrations. I don't have White to check against but you should recheck to make sure that this isn't a misunderstood version of the belt that drove the blower. Mangoe 04:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll reread it tonight and update as appropriate. Yeah, we should use the original specs in the infobox.  There's also a bit more to add from James Dilts's book "The Great Road" about the operation and design philosophy that I need to digest and add too. Slambo (Speak)  10:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 0-2-2 is the correct configuration with the drawings also published in the current issue of Railway Age. I've updated the text and added the ref. Slambo (Speak) 20:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As with a lot of these early locomotives, very little information was recorded about Peter Cooper's engine. I haven't been able to find out exactly what information Major Pangborn had to reconstruct his version of the locomotive.  But it doesn't match most of the information I have been able to find on it, which I think makes the 1927 replica questionable.  Here is a list of the most important differences between the replica and the original that I have found in my research:


 * The original frame of the engine was made from wood not of iron or steel. See the B. H. Latrobe's birds-eye view sketch from 1868 in which he painstakenly drew the wood grain for every part, "The Great Road, The building of the Baltimore & Ohio, the nation's first railroad, 1828-1853" by James D. Dilts, illustrations after page 158.
 * The railing on the engine were wood as well. See the ad from 1831 that is one of the only contemporary illustrations of the engine, same attribution as above.
 * The replica does not use Ross Winan's friction wheel journal boxes. Although the simple journal boxes on the replica would have been close to the ones on the engine at the end of it's life. The version of the engine that ran on August 28, 1830 used the friction wheel journal boxes.  See the ad from 1831 as above.
 * The original engine does not appear to have used a barrel as a source of water. Instead the engine's boiler was filled with water at regular stop points along the roadway.  One written source states that "Peter experimented and found that the water in the boiler would last one hour; then the fire would have to be drawn, and the boiler cooled and refilled." But I need to find the attribution for that quote, Brown maybe? Other sources state that only 15 minutes was needed to water the engine, "Fifth mile occupied five minutes and twenty-five seconds. Sixth mile travelled in six minutes; one minute was lost in changing to the other track. Seventh mile travelled in five minutes and thirty seconds; the engine stopped at the middle depot for fifteen minutes to receive a supply of water. Eighth mile performed in six minutes.", Brown, 1871.  Niles' Weekly Register, Sept. 4, 1830, says "The thirteen miles were made in 61 minutes, including four lost in taking in water, .."  None of the contemporary illustrations of the locomotive depict a barrel on the engine for water or anything else.
 * The steam engine on the replica is very similar to the one used in the second half of the life of the engine. See ad as above. Although for the August 28, 1830 run, Peter Cooper's steam engine that he brought with him from New York, was used.  Peter Cooper purchased the engine from a ship engine manufacturer in New York (I need to find the attribute for this).  Typical practice in the 1820's with these engines match the Latrobe illustrations attributed above.  That is they had a wooden "A" frame, with a single cylinder in an upright position.  "I happened to have an engine in my factory, which I took on to Baltimore,..", Peter Cooper, "The Great Road" page 92, Dilts as above.
 * The boiler used on the replica is different then the ones depicted in the 1831 ad and in Latrobe's 1868 illustrations. - Grimm1966 (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

0-4-0 or 0-2-2?
Here the article states that Coopers TT was an 0-2-2 which makes more sense if you follow Whyte Notation but I've seen a few articles else where that claim it was an 0-4-0 (trains.com being one of them) which doesn't make sense to me or by the standard. The simple fact that proves it wrong is that there was only 2 drive wheels via one driven axle and 2 trailing wheels (0-2-2). If it were an 0-4-0 it would require no leading wheels, 4 driven wheels and no trailing wheels. I know which one is true and I don't dispute the editors entry; but shouldn't that statement be cited just to minimize any opportunity for someone to argue about it? I've tried to find citations but unfortunately the only ones I found that even mention it's Whyte Notation class is trains.com and a few others that look like they got their info from trains.com. Not a complaint just a thought.
 * --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 05:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, now I'm even more confused. I found some clearer images of Tom Thumb and it appears that the locomotive was a 2-2-0 because it shows the rear wheels are driven not the front. Which is which anyone know the solution to this mystery? --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed wheel config per Whyte Notation
Tom Thumb was indeed 2-2-0, 2 front guide wheels, 2 driven wheels and 0 trailing wheels. Although this locomotive was designed before Whyte notations were standard it does make better sense to follow it. -- DP 67  talk/contribs 22:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not correct, the original 0-2-2 is correct. Mr. Latrobe writes, "On the crank shaft, which rested on the frame of the car, was a spur-wheel which geared with a pinion on the forward road wheels so as to increase speed;..", "The Early Motive Power Of The Baltimore And Ohio Railroad (1912)" by J. Snowden Bell, page 7.  The front axil was powered by the single cylinder engine, the rear axil was not powered and might have had the drum attached to it for the blower fan.  Mr. Latrobe writes, "The fuel was anthracite coal, and an artificial draught, in the fire-box at the bottom of the boiler, was created by a fan, driven by a belt passing around a wooden drum attached to one of the road-wheels,..", same attribute. - Grimm1966 (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Which date of the race is correct?
There are many links that containing several different dates of the race between Tom Thumb and the horse. Wich date is correct August 18 1830    or September 18 1830    or August 25 1829 ? Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If August 25 1829 is not the date of the race then there is a mistake in Wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1829_in_rail_transport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blast furnace chip worker (talk • contribs) 14:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Italic text


 * According to Anthony J. Bianculli's Trains and Technology: Locomotives, 'In August of 1830 the tiny Tom Thumb carried B&O directors thirteen miles along the road in one hour and twelve minutes. The return trip was made in fifty-seven minutes, excluding four minutes for a water stop midway.  Tom Thumb's successful run will ever be overshadowed by the loss of a fateful race with a horse, generally, but wrongly, reported to have occurred on the return trip with the directors.'  So when was it?  'There is strong evidence that the contest occurred on 18 September 1830'.  The phrase 'strong evidence' suggests that the precise date can't be proved beyond all doubt. --Antiquary (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the answer. But that is about unother dates? Why they exist in some links? There they have been took from? Do you know? Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Dilts in "The Great Road", page 95, quote, "The race on the B&O probably did not take place on August 28, as Latrobe indicated. The more likely date is September 20, 1830, when Charles Carrol of Carrollton celebrated his ninety-third birthday by taking a ride on the railroad with other dignitaries. "On the return of the guests to Baltimore, they were met by Mr. Cooper's Locomotive Engine," the Gazette reported. Speed trials were conducted, during which the engine's "connecting band" (the belt powering the fan blower) broke.  When questioned in 1882 by a reporter who hinted that the Tom Thumb had been beaten, Cooper responded: "Yes--no--not exactly; they tried a little race one day...It was some time after our first experiments; we had been out several times, when the men, whose horses had been out there, came on the track to try paces with us, but it didn't amount to anything. It was rather funny, and the locomotive got out of gear."" - Grimm1966 (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tom Thumb name
The name "Tom Thumb" was coined by John H. B. Latrobe in a speech at the Maryland Institute on March 23, 1868. In his speech he said, "But the triumph of this Tom Thumb engine was not altogether without a drawback. The great stage proprietors of the day were Stockton & Stokes; and on this occasion a gallant gray of great beauty and power was driven by them from town, attached to another car on the second track—for the company had begun by making two tracks to the Mills—and met the engine at the Relay House on its way back." Once Peter Cooper read Latrobe's speech, he also started using the name "Tom Thumb" for the engine, and it stuck. The locomotive was called "Alderman Cooper's engine/locomotive" during the time of it's use. Grimm1966 (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting piece of trivia, but needs a citation for it to be included. Hopefully you or someone else can provide it? Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Materials
If someone can find this, it would be interesting to add to the article: what was the blower belt made of? It predated vulcanized rubber. It seems that leather would tend to slip. Also, how were the gas line connections made? I suppose the temperatures involved could have been low enough to allow the use of lead solder, but that doesn't make a really strong connection.Dakane2 (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"Great Train Race" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Train_Race&redirect=no Great Train Race] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Fork99 (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)