Thomson Road Steamer

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

“Next in order, two large farm wagons were attached behind the steamer, each fitted up with loose seat boards across the body, and as many as could ride were seated, when she steamed out on the public road, passing obstructions and avoiding gate posts in admirable style. Once in line on the road, our iron horse seemed sud­denly excited, and went as though a whole lot of ‘old boys’ were after him.

“Fortunate­ly, the road was a fair one, with here and there a stone, sufficient to give us a good shaking. We sped away a circuit of some two or three miles, and returned to the starting point by entering the domain on the opposite side from that at which we had left it, and crossed by farm roads, through an area of 50 acres or more, which had recently been plowed by the engine. The work appear­ed to have been executed in a superior man­ner, with a uniform depth of 9 inches. We next, witnessed with intense interest the plowing of the sward, which was continued until the novelty was slightly waning.”

Arguments against Direct Traction

William Churchill Oastler, the American agent for Aveling & Porter road locomotives, read a paper titled “Steam Plowing Machinery” at the February 1871 meeting of the New York Society of Practical Engineering, in which he stated: “One of the best authorities on steam cultivation says, ‘Direct traction plowing is utterly and entirely out of the question.’

“The experiment has been tried over and over again in England by every manufacturer of steam plowing machinery, and always with the same result. No matter whether the engine be a light or heavy one, work­ed by chain or gear, with plain broad wheels or with rubber tires, it is invariably found that as much power is taken to propel the engine alone over the land as is required to haul the plow, in other words, 50 percent of the whole duty of the locomotive is wasted. This is the case on level field; on hilly ones the feat is an impossibility.”

Oastler also cited an English War Department report, where rubber-tired driving wheels were compared to iron driving wheels, using an Aveling & Porter traction engine traveling over hard ground. The conclusion of this comparison was that no significant improvement in traction was obtained using wheels with rubber tires.

Being the American manufacturer of traction engines using the Thomson rubber-tire patent, Williamson responded to Oastler’s assertions. His letter was published in American Artisan, March 22, 1871. Williamson labeled the results of the English War Department report as absurd, critical of the test not being run over soft ground and objecting that the rubber-tired wheels were not constructed according the recommendations of Thomson, as to the width and thickness of the rubber used.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print