Talk:W & J Galloway & Sons

Image caption
moved from User talk:Weiterbewegung Hi. You captioned the image of the engine in MMoSI. Can you explain what you mean by '... extraction engine'? While I am not familiar with this particular engine it looks from the image very much as though it has trip gear operated drop valves with oil-filled dashpots. This would not constitute 'hydraulic' valve-gear. Are you sure of your terminology here? Globbet (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1419251 - Delete? Weiterbewegung (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would assume that the author of the photo knew what he was talking about when he uploaded the photo to Geograph, either through personal knowledge or what it says on the exhibit at the museum. Until something different is definitely shown, leave the caption as is.  In any event it should not be removed from the article as it illustrates what the company produced (even if we are not quite accurately describing it at the moment). NtheP (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the MoSI's description of the engine. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the caption simply describes the engine as a cross-compound horizontal condensing engine with whatever internal links are appropriate. Obviously the gen about when it was built and the customer etc needs to stay, I'm only talking about the description of the engine itself.  I don't know if the MOSI text is copyright or not but perhaps it or a precis of it could be added to the image description at File:Galloways Engine & Boiler.jpg - incidentally as a photo from geograph I have proposed that the image is moved to Commons. NtheP (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to delete as it has a suitable Creative Commons licence. I have adjusted the caption to not say anything the museum's description doesn't. I must go and see this one. Globbet (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to note that the photographer, Chris Allen, has uploaded hundreds of pictures of steam engines and other steam-powered industrial plant to Geograph (he has over 4000 images there) although I cannot vouch for his technical knowledge of any particular engine. It's worth checking his submissions to Geograph when looking for illustrations for steam engine manufacturers, as his pictures cover numerous examples of stationary engines which have since been scrapped.
 * -- EdJogg (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether either of you aught to be questioning the caption to this graphic. It was obviously composed by someone, probably an expert, at the MOSI in Manchester. I think therefore that the original wording should be reinstated.Weiterbewegung (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the updated version is in accordance with the MOSI's description as linked above, not the original version, which was based on Chris Allen's wording at Geograph. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I adjusted it further, since MOSI uses the phrase "drop-inlet valve" rather than "inlet drop valve". I have assumed that this is still a type of drop valve, for the purpose of the wikilink, but if not, it shows that there is another article/section missing from WP to describe the different terminology. And, since we have access to it, I have used the MOSI page as a reference. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately "drop-inlet valve" is a bit clumsy, which is why I changed it, possibly not for the better. The engine's inlet valves are drop-valves, but its HP exhaust valves aren't (did I read 'piston valve' somewhere?), and the LP being uniflow it has no exhaust valves. I don't know how best to describe succinctly the salient features of this unusually 'modern' engine. Globbet (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The spec table at the end of the MOSI page indicates 'piston exhaust' valve on HP cylinder.
 * Since this is a significant example, maybe it is better served by its own subsection (under a heading 'Products-->Elm Street Mill engine'), rather than expanding the already over-length caption any further. The picture caption could then be simplified to "The Elm Street Mill engine, preserved at MOSI", and the significant features of the engine explained in more detail within the text.
 * EdJogg (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Over technical jargon and images.
I see no benefit in including highly technical esotericisms. The general reader neither needs to, nor wants to, be baffled and blinded by science. Weiterbewegung (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You may not see the benefit, but since the article already mentions the related patent, and since Galloway tube redirects to this article, this technical addition is highly relevant. The 'general reader' of a page such as this is highly likely to be interested in such technical matters, or else they can choose to ignore them. And if they don't know what a Lancashire boiler is, for example, they can follow the wikilink to find out -- that's what it is there for!
 * You think that sentence is 'highly technical' -- go look at some of the pages concerning maths or physics and try following the equations...
 * EdJogg (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would expect 'some (if not all) of the pages concerning maths or physics' to be technical, but not articles to do with history, which is an arts discipline. Highly technical stuff, especially unintelligible line-drawings, about Galloway tubes belongs on the Galloway tube article page, not this one. (By the way, Mr. Jogg, your exclamation mark suggests that you are shouting at me: not nice manners.) Weiterbewegung (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotal, unsubstantiated, and inconsequential additions.
Please avoid all of these. Weiterbewegung (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly do!
 * Please avoid removing contributions made by other editors. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Who’s a clever boy then?
I perceive that some people are able to edit this article without it showing up on my watch list. Interesting. Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That shouldn't be possible, but please note that, by default, the watchlist only displays the latest edit to a page, so to see any intermediate edits since you last looked you need to click the history link. You can change the way the watchlist behaves by clicking on "My preferences" at the top of any page and selecting the "Watchlist" tab. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Galloway, Bowman & Glasgow" and the "Caledonian Foundry"
Several sources (including List of Liverpool and Manchester Railway locomotives) make reference to "Galloway, Bowman & Glasgow" of the Caledonian Foundry, Manchester, as suppliers of locomotives to the Liverpool and Manchester Railway -- this includes Caledonian (locomotive) (which article contains an as-yet unlinked mention of W & J Galloway & Sons).

This article does not mention that company, nor that foundry. Is there any link between any of them? This may be the source of confusion about supply of boilers for "the first Liverpool and Manchester Railway train" [sic].

EdJogg (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "first train" is horribly unclear. It's an obvious post from the library catalogue (the URL cited), but despite Maurice's demand to know just which shelf it's to be on, a reference that doesn't even specify which "train"(sic) is too vague to be of much use. Particularly as Rocket and Planet are known to have been built, including their boilers, at Stephenson's works. The Galloway-boilered locomotives are later than this. So, hardly "first", whichever it was. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * GBG reference now resolved (tp my satisfaction, at least). Articles cross-ref'd. Sitush (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is a stub
When I first started this article on 12th December 2010 – all that time ago – I of course labelled it a stub. At some stage someone added various other labels, but did not add ‘stub’ to them. Nevertheless it is still, quite obviously, a stub and should be regarded as such.Weiterbewegung (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is still, as you quite rightly say, a stub, and marked as such with the GreaterManchester-stub and UK-manufacturing-company-stub templates at the bottom. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

W & J Galloway vs Galloway, Bowman and Glasgow
The current text kind-of suggests that the formation of W & J Galloway precipitated the demise of Galloway, Bowman and Glasgow. Was this the case? Were the two companies competing for business? Was the loss of the sons' engineering skills, from the latter to the former, a factor? Text might benefit from a tweak to confirm or avoid this deduction. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. I will tweak when I've dug around a bit more. As my knowledge currently stands, it seems likely to be that the GBG partnership was reaching its close in any case, due to the age of the partners. Records for the W & J Galloway firm are scarce for the first 5 years of its existence (a fact noted by several sources). BTW, Bowman and Glasgow from 1828 had their own engineering sideline in which John Galloway snr was not involved, so perhaps the Galloway family in general felt not merely capable of going alone but also "put out" by what B & Glasgow had done - I'm a trawling the London Gazette to find movements in the partnership & its eventual termination. Sourcing problems mean that the expansion of this article is not going to progress quite a quickly as did Churchill Machine Tool Company - well, not based on my input at any rate. I could really do with a friend in the US who can see the bits of Google's stuff that is only "snippet view" over here. Sitush (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I know you'll be able to adjust the wording to suit, once the facts are clearer. At present it does sort of imply that the new company brought about the end of the old one, although it is clear that the ages of the senior partners must have been a major factor too.
 * There's no hurry to resolve the matter, so don't worry if the article doesn't expand quickly. Could do with a little more in the 'gap' where I've left a comment, though, as it's not clear why the company eventually failed. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I said Bowman and Glasgow had a separate partnership in my response above. It was not Glasgow but rather Galloway, and this is now mentioned in the article. I've found a source for the split of the sons from the older partnership & will add it soon. Later years are still proving a pain, not helped by Manchester Central Library being shut for the duration - I might try Salford Museum as a source for docs, if I dare risk parking my car there. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Involvement in cotton industry?
I'm just leaving a note here in case it becomes relevant/alternately verified: London Gazette p 2963 of issue 21917 29/8/1856: "Notice is hereby given, that the Partnership heretofore subsisting between us the undersigned, William Galloway, John Galloway, Andrew Ker, James Brooke, and Robert Turner, carrying on business at Manchester, in the connty of Lancaster, as Cotton Spinners, under the style or firm of R. Turner and Co., is this day dissolved by mutual consent, so far as relates to the said James Brooke. All debts owing to and by the concern will be received and paid by the undersigned, William Galloway, John Galloway, Andrew Ker, and Robert Turner.—Dated this 2th day of August, 1856." Sitush (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Review notes
EdJogg (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lede paragraph needs reworking. It is now too short and does not adequately summarise the article. (Also, the second sentence has too many sub-clauses (needs splitting) and runs-on uncomfortably from the first sentence.)
 * DAB required for Madrid Museum -- plenty to choose from at Category:Museums in Madrid!
 * "...boiler tubes are strengthened by the presence of tapered water tubes..." This doesn't sound right and doesn't tally with the description at the end of the article, where the reason for the tubes is to improve thermal efficiency (the additional strength being a by-product).
 * Section W & J Galloway & Sons:
 * "40 horsepower Galloway boiler". I don't remember seeing a boiler specified in this way, although it could be 'of a size suitable for supplying a 40hp engine'? But then, I've only ever seen them specified in terms of pressure, not volume of steam per time, which is what is relevant here.
 * Replacement of 'He' (last para) -- please check OK
 * "Carnforth Hematite Iron Co" -- Haematite ?? (may need an in-line comment if the current spelling is correct)
 * NB -- cite text, references and patent table not checked


 * Thanks for the above and for the inline comments, I appear to have come through without too much of a bashing. As you are aware, there are some big gaps which need filling - and information is proving a little hard to come by. I'll get there eventually, though.
 * Lead: done a partial re-work, although it has introduced something which is not mentioned in the article body because I've lost my citation for it (electric power - death of Galloways), It'll turn up.
 * museum is sorted. Got a photo of the jack but awaiting clearance to use it
 * the boilers tubes issue pre-dates my involvement. "Maurice" wrote that sentence & I just added stuff around it. I've deleted it. It never made much sense to me, either, but I am no expert. The detail of the boiler is at the bottom of the article anyway, so no big deal.
 * 40hp etc is how it is described in the cited document
 * Hematite looked wrong to me also - I've seen enough photos of railway wagons to know how it s/b spelled! However, it is what the cited document says. What I've done now is just ignore the typo in the cite - it isn't a quote & so I should not have been so fussy about reproducing it.
 * your replacement of "he" was correct. Very messy, this article, with too many people having similar names


 * I've got the feeling that even without the (huge and incomplete) patent table I've more than quintupled the size of this thing, so hopefully it is somewhere near to what "Maurice" had done/was going to do before it all went wrong there.


 * Thanks again. Will keep you updated. ' Sitush (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Couple of points.
 * Haematite is correct, but 'Hematite' was quite widely used too.
 * The taper of Galloway tubes is so that they can be inserted easily, not for strength, not for circulation.
 * The use of strengthening Galloway tubes between the flattened faces of the Galloway boiler is crucial. The "breeches boiler" pre-dated Galloway, and even the Lancashire boiler. This used a near-circular, oval or kidney-shaped flue after the merge of the two furnaces. However it had relatively low heating area and was also made from hand-curved plates, thus expensive. It couldn't be broadened out any wider, or else the flat faces would collapse under pressure. Galloway's 1851 patent was to improve the old idea of the breeches boiler, by using their 1848 patent Galloway tubes as stays across it. The Grace's Guide photo is illustrative - we need to find something similar. This gave a wide, flat-plated (cheap) flue with lots of area.  Galloway tubes in circular flues don't have much additional staying effect - the circular furnace is already strong enough, but they're essential for this flat-faced wide flue.
 * In the most general case, Galloway tubes are full of water, not steam. Early water tubes and thermic syphons were too wide to fill with steam and those boilers that did have steam-filled tubes often suffered circulation and local overheating problems. This wasn't sorted out until the 1870s (initially) or even 1900, with Yarrow's scientific and experimental approach to understanding circulation.
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Andy. All this thermic siphon etc stuff precedes me. I have seen mention of some of the design points you note but, tbh, I'm not good on the technical issues of boilers and so left well alone, using the premise that these things were looked at by yourself, Edjogg etc when "Maurice" was around. But I'm open to amendments. Even better, I'm open to you amending! ' Sitush (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Some responses:
 * Reason for the 'Hematite' comment is that my Firefox auto-spell-check highlighted it, and it's bound to be a magnet for future edits. Hopefully the note will avoid this.
 * The boiler section grew out of a couple of links and pictures -- mostly my doing, probably! I think Andy (our resident WP boiler expert) will probably have an article on Galloway boilers somewhere up his sleeve. (Along with the other articles I keep finding for him to do :o) )
 * Have you noticed the character in the 'See also'? I added this with a weasely link as I could not be more precise over the relationship. Now you have not only revealed that there was a whole dynasty of Galloways, but also identified him separately, although his date of birth differs between the two articles. Probably now time for the See Also to be integrated into the text, but I'll leave that for you....
 * EdJogg (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Mr Dingle is getting prodded into a corner here. We may have to bribe him with a bowl of cawl. I've had my eye on the MP character, weasly-worded (as perhaps most MPs s/b!), for a while but even now have not firmed up sufficient evidence to verify the statement you have flagged. He's definitely in the mix, but I have not yet made the precise connection noted: some sources say he was senior partner, some say he was a director (of various descriptions). He could not have been a partner in Galloways because it was a ltd co. but, even discounting that, the situation is confusing. It will all come out in the wash. I've also spotted a lot of almost certainly correct additional info on sites that unfortunately would fail WP:RS, so I'm trying to backtrack to where they got their stuff from. The one journal that would really make a difference to a lot of this, and similar articles, is The Engineer. I'm back at Cambridge Uni for a discussion paper in 2 or 3 weeks: might try to blag my way into the copyright library there and spend an hour or two speed reading. 30 years since I last went inside what Queen Mary famously described as the biggest ... in Cambridge. Think construction, building things and what you do with a tent. Sitush (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've scanned a boiler image. Not as good as the Graces one, but the best I had on the bookshelf. I doubt I'll be doing the whole encyclopedia though, apparently my scans aren't good enough quality for Commons, so there's yet another eejit trying to delete great swathes of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ta. Do Commons not understand the GIGO principle for scans of old catalogues etc? I'm going to be worried now cos the ones on the Churchill article are poor ... but so were the originals. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Stationary IC engines
Any relation?

Or could it be from the car maker? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've not yet found more than extremely brief suggestions/glimpses that they may have had an involvement in IC, although they certainly were involved with gas engines. My gut feeling is that they did tinker with it but I've no idea how far it progressed. It really is a shame that the latter years of this company appear to be poorly documented in secondary sources. However, I'm aiming for a big search of The Engineer etc soon (when my own IC engine is rather less stationary than it is designed to be) and hope that may reveal things. I'll bear this one in mind. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wm. Galloway from Waterloo (Iowa) is a story on it's own; thus interconnected with cooperation's for automobiles and gas-engines etc. see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:William_Galloway and (actually little) info in de:William Galloway Company Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Galloway tube patent, March 1851
The article says that the tube patent of 1851 is number 13532 but Chaloner has it as 13552. Obviously, they are not both right. I can't find the patent at all on the Esp@cenet, Google Patent or London Gazette websites, probably because it is too old. Since 13532 is uncited (or, rather, only cited to itself), I'm inclined to go with Chaloner.

Any old-timers here who might know where the 13532 comes from without me trawling the history? - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

New Images
New images on Commons.b --ClemRutter (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)