LMR: Winans Friction Wheel Waggons

[What About The Bee]

Detailing early LMR carriages and waggons continues.

On the 28th of May, 1829, Ross Winans received a patent for "certain improvements in diminishing friction in wheeled carriages to be used on railroads". 

Winans not only was a nominal competitor at Rainhill, he sold 12 of his special carriages to the LMR.
    

None other than Charles Blacker Vignoles¹ evaluated the Winans friction wheels, as they came to be known.  In one controlled test, a Winans equipped waggon was loaded with 80½ CWT (9016 pounds or 4½ tons).  The tractive effort to move the Winans waggon was 2½ pounds to the ton or 11¼ pounds total.  Exactly a ratio of 1 part tractive effort to 800 parts load.  A common railway wagon of the LMR was loaded with the same mass. The tractive effort to move the LMR waggon was 9¾ pounds to the ton or just under 46 pounds total.   Approximately part in 196.  The Winans waggons were at least 4 times more efficient than the LMR common railway waggon!  Wow!

In another controlled test, Novelty drew 68% more mass using Winans' waggons than Stephenson's improved waggons²

As to the entry at the Rainhill Trials,  Winans did enter a vehicle that he termed the Manumotive.  The Manumotive was a vehicle driven by two men turning a windlass, another 6 men riding.  It did move along at roughly walking speed. Of course, all of the steamed locomotives were faster and stronger.  That wasn't the point.   The point was a demonstration of his friction wheels, that is what  attracted all the scientific interest.

What was this magical potion?

I will start with what it was not.  It was not a materials combination.  For those with even a passing knowledge, the coefficient of friction varies as a function of materials.  For example, wrought iron on wrought iron has a different coefficient of friction than wrought iron on brass.  This was well known at the time, with prominent engineers promoting their favorite combination. 

It was not lubricants, or unguents as they were named in the day.  Most machines of the day were total loss lubrication.  Oil dripped into the top of the bearing surfaces and ran out the bottom.  Planet had this type of total loss lubrication, with wells just above the bearing seat 

Here is an image from the Winans patent specification to "diminish friction"

The axle is at b, with the wheel at a.  The outer part of the axle tapers to a small cylinder at c.  This small cylinder contacts the friction wheel, f, on the inside of that wheel.  The carriage is at d with the bearings for the friction wheel at e.  The friction wheel is free to turn as the main wheel, a, turns.  A reduction in friction!?

Now when I encounter a novel invention, I like to study it, to determine its secret.  It is hiding right there in plain sight.  It took me the better part of two days to realize how it works.  Once I realized it, I found other references which confirmed the solution.

Here is what it is not.  It does not reduce friction!  No matter the name, friction wheel, or the description that claims diminishing friction, this was misdirection. The coefficient of friction is a constant given the unguent and the materials.  The force to move (tractive effort) is therefore a function of the normal force³ and the coefficient of friction.

What changes in the Winans friction wheels is the torque applied to the bearing surfaces.   When the main wheel turns, the small cylinder acts like a gear reduction (or lever, if you prefer), increasing torque.  The small cylinder rides in the friction wheel groove, which is free to roll, and therefore moves readily.  Once again, the friction wheel is a gear reduction, increasing torque at the bearing interface at e.  The torque generated by the Winans system is higher than the torque generated from a non-compound system.

2½ pound of tractive effort generated enough torque to overcome the retarding friction for the Winans equipped waggon.  Without the Winans patent, 9¾ pounds of tractive effort were required to overcome the retarding friction.  Brilliant!

Winans also detailed an enclosed friction wheel as part of the patent.  Same labels, g representing the case.  This will prove interesting later.

The LMR, on the advice of "two engineers", per a board meeting, voted no confidence in the wheels and the effort was abandoned. In my opinion, this was a major miss by the LMR.  The Winans equipped waggons, purchased by the LMR, dissappear from the LMR record.

Winans was not a crackpot.  Not only did the concept function, the enclosed system swiftly became an oil bath, further reducing friction and made the lubrication loss-less. He went on to be an prominent engineer with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.  He was involved with Peter Cooper and the Tom Thumb locomotive. He patented several other railway improvements.  He developed the camel back family of locomotives. 

 The friction wheel patent was overturned in 1843, when it was challenged in court, based on narrow wording in the patent.   1843 -1828 =15 years.  The patent was going to expire in another 2 years, but the courtroom expense was worth the squeeze.

The board report does not indicate who the two LMR engineers who disparaged the friction wheels were.  It is very hard to argue against a 4× improvement in efficiency, against a 68% advantage over your own improved waggon. One wonders if professional jealousy played a role.  Here's looking at you George, engineer for the LMR.  Vignoles and George had clashed in the past.  Vignoles was a champion of the Braithwaite and Ericsson's Novelty and the Winans equipped waggons, a true competitor to his son Robert. Hmm.

Illustrated: A passenger carriage for the B&O RR, showing the Winans Friction Wheels installed.

Note the outside passenger seating, sideways. The inside passengers sat down below.

Bee

¹of St Helens and Runcorn Railway  and the Intersection Bridge fame.
²no idea what these were
³normal force: the force perpendicular to the surfaces.  Example, one block resting on top of another.  The normal force is gravity, pulling the top block down onto the lower. 
 

Edited February 29 by What About The Bee
Add tags

[threelink]

Hello Bee. Another fascinating topic. I had not heard previously of the Winans wheel. I seems an ingenious arrangement but does the friction wheel f rotate at about twice the speed of the carrying wheel a, with all that entails in terms of wear ? I am still trying to get my engineering head round the principles involved but at first blush it seems an exceptional piece of lateral thinking. Those early pioneers were very clever men.

[threelink]

I think I get it now and my earlier post should be disregarded because I was talking tosh!

[What About The Bee]

Hello ThreeLink

Think of the diameters of the objects, and thence the consequent circumference.  

The main wheel at c has a small diameter, and consequently small circumference.  There will be many revolutions of the main wheel to one revolution of the friction wheel at f, due to the ratio of diameters.  

It took me quite awhile to discover the secret.  I was almost at the point of George Stephenson, discarding it as rubbish.  Give it another go, it is amazing when understood!

Bee

[threelink]

Hi, Bee. I am at a loss to know why this wheel did not catch on and have a much wider application. I can only presume that there was some element of its design that made it less popular than it seems to have deserved - perhaps initial cost?

[What About The Bee]

Hello ThreeLink 

It would be anachronistic to judge the Winans Friction Wheel waggons by modern standards.  Fortunately, we have Earle, A Treatise on Railroads, 1830, by which we may evaluate the waggons.

The first thing to note is that Earle is 100% aware of the Winans Friction Wheel waggons, mentioning him by name.  It is somewhat strange that no one can ever seem to spell his name correctly!

Now go back to the first post, and find Vignoles evaluation with the 68% enhancement.  Notice that the Winans waggons are 2 TONS less than the Stephenson improved waggons, in aggregate.  Meaning the ratio is actually 16 :: (27+2) or 81% more efficient, not 68%.

Earle also specifies cheapness.  Perhaps Winans wanted too much from the LMR to license the patent. 

The last point Earle raises is curves.  Go back and examine the patent drawing for the unenclosed Winans friction wheel.  Notice the odd shape of the tread of the wheel?  This was explicitly stated as to facilitate curves in the Winans patent.  It does meet the criteria, but simply isn't the modern shape, inverted from Winans.

The Winans patent did enjoy great success in the US railroad market.  Why not in Britain?  Hard to say.

Bee

[What About The Bee]

Apropos to the previous post, John Sullivan, Civil Engineer, writes in December 1830

The author seems to indicate the "chief engineer" [G. Stephenson] was forced to admit the advantage of the Winans friction wheels, yet the previous investment in waggons and Winans price was too high a burden.

That is, financial reasons.

Bee