Loss of the 'Rocket'

In 1829, George and Robert Stephenson despatched their locomotive, Rocket, to Liverpool to take part in the Rainhill Trials. However, they were also commissioned to build a winding engine for use on the 1-in-100 gradient outside Rainhill. This engine was sent by sea around Scotland; Rocket was hauled overland. In the event, only Rocket reached Liverpool - the winding engine was lost when the ship it was on was wrecked in a storm, costing the Stephensons the £500 prize money they earned by winning the Trials. What if, for one reason or another, Rocket never reaches the Trials - either because it was lost with the winding engine, or for another reason? As it was the only engine to successfully complete the trials in OTL, would the L&MR abandon locomotives entirely in favour of winding engines or would they accept one of the other, less satisfactory designs? (Not entirely implausible - one of the other competitors was bought IOTL despite its failure; another was bought by a branchline in Lancashire and worked there for several years). More importantly, without Rocket's famed 29mph speed record, how does 19th Century technology develop differently?
 
One of the other designs will likely win the competition, if not the race- the Novelty, another design, was seen as a faster engine, but couldn't carry the required load for the competition, and the Sans Pareil broke down halfway through. If the Rocket is lost, then Stephenson takes a big financial hit. I dunno if he'd end up in debtor's prison or not, but his input in locomotive design will be missing for many years afterwards.

Steam locomotives will still begin being bought and used on railways during that era, but likely with more skepticism or lower expectations due to the failure of all the present locomotives Rainhill Trials to pass the test. There'll likely be weaker designs overall, but they'll still prove popular as a fad at first, though they'll eventually be as effective as OTL in the end.

Expanding this outwards, it'd probably mean a delayed arrival of the steam locomotive to America, seeing instead a prolongation in the popularity of canals and a continued growth of canal cities due to the lack of competition from railways. The spread westwards will be slowed, although not delayed, by the prolonged lack of steam trains in the US, likely leading to larger populations in the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basin regions and sparser settlement in the Great Plains, Rockies, and even California.

Without as much momentum westwards and fewer settlers out that way, the eventual war with Mexico (The settlement of Texas by people from the United States will not be disrupted much by the lack of rails, since the routes taken were mostly by water anyways and railways in the US, OTL, were were far more popular in the North than South anyways. Thus an eventual Republic of Texas and US-Mexico conflict over it is still likely) would result in a peace treaty much less concerned over territories in the far west, although the US would still be keen on reaching the Pacific.

tl;dr- If there's no Rocket at the Rainhill trials, then the US probably wouldn't control what is in OTL the US southwest.
 
In 1829, George and Robert Stephenson despatched their locomotive, Rocket, to Liverpool to take part in the Rainhill Trials. However, they were also commissioned to build a winding engine for use on the 1-in-100 gradient outside Rainhill. This engine was sent by sea around Scotland; Rocket was hauled overland. In the event, only Rocket reached Liverpool - the winding engine was lost when the ship it was on was wrecked in a storm, costing the Stephensons the £500 prize money they earned by winning the Trials. What if, for one reason or another, Rocket never reaches the Trials - either because it was lost with the winding engine, or for another reason? As it was the only engine to successfully complete the trials in OTL, would the L&MR abandon locomotives entirely in favour of winding engines or would they accept one of the other, less satisfactory designs? (Not entirely implausible - one of the other competitors was bought IOTL despite its failure; another was bought by a branchline in Lancashire and worked there for several years). More importantly, without Rocket's famed 29mph speed record, how does 19th Century technology develop differently?
Only possible consequence of Stephensons' failure to provide Rocket for the Trials would be that this design wouldn't become mainstream of locomotive evolution.
 
Only possible consequence of Stephensons' failure to provide Rocket for the Trials would be that this design wouldn't become mainstream of locomotive evolution.
But none of the other designs were good enough to pass the trials! Extrapolate here a bit, man- how would the 19th century develop with weaker steam locomotives and less support for them? Would Britain be as large an industrial power? Would Prussia still defeat France in the Franco-Prussian war with a smaller rail system to transport troops with?

C'mon, technology affects politics.
 
The failure of the Rocket to reach the trials would have been a big defeat to the Stephensons. One good question is, whether those in favour of rope haulage would have been impressed enough with the performances of the Sans Pareil and the Novelty: the balance of power between the locomotive/fixed engine parties within the Board could have depended on this. George Stephenson was the Chief Engineer of the Company, and given the tenacity of him and his son, there is no way locomotives would have been abandoned on the railway. I could see the Stephensons trying to push through another set of trials, on some technicality, now well knowing their engines would be superior.

I'd say the L&MR would have still adopted steam locomotives as the mainstay in haulage within some years. There would have been some delay, and the growth of the "Stephenson empire" would have been weaker. Would this make for a more splintered market, more different railway factions and later, say, a battle between several different rail gauges? A lot of butterflies there, but still it is very likely the railway system would have grown to span Britain within a few decades.
 
But none of the other designs were good enough to pass the trials! Extrapolate here a bit, man- how would the 19th century develop with weaker steam locomotives and less support for them? Would Britain be as large an industrial power? Would Prussia still defeat France in the Franco-Prussian war with a smaller rail system to transport troops with?

C'mon, technology affects politics.
IMO there are too much emphasis on that trial, since it more added to glory of the winner then to technology. Keep in minds, there were only two contenders Rocket and Novelty, while Sans Pareil was ineligible for the prize. Now, why the other designs were not good enough to pass the trials. The conditions were harsh (The locomotive had to be fully sprung, it weight hadn't be more than six tons, if carried on six wheels, and 4 1/2 if on four wheels, it had be capable of hauling a load of three times its own weight at 10 mph etc.) and none of commercial locomotives were able to fit. Rocket was built specifically for the competition with lighter and weaker engine than most commercial engines used to be (later engines of that design were heavier and more powerful).
 

Thande

Donor
Let's not get too anglocentric here. Britain was at the forefront of research into locomotives, but we were hardly the only people doing it. Even if the absolute worst-case scenario of giving up on locomotives altogether results from this, some Frenchman or American or whoever will do it five or ten years later.
 
Let's not get too anglocentric here. Britain was at the forefront of research into locomotives, but we were hardly the only people doing it. Even if the absolute worst-case scenario of giving up on locomotives altogether results from this, some Frenchman or American or whoever will do it five or ten years later.
In this case it is hard be not anglocentric. None of other countries had well developed railways and in the absolute worst-case scenario we more likely would get early development of steam cars.
 
Let's not get too anglocentric here. Britain was at the forefront of research into locomotives, but we were hardly the only people doing it. Even if the absolute worst-case scenario of giving up on locomotives altogether results from this, some Frenchman or American or whoever will do it five or ten years later.
German, I'd warrant.

The region had the proper ingredients for development there- relatively peaceful conditions, a strong demand for the transport of goods, raw resources needed for railway construction and maintenance, and money, especially in the north and west. The Ruhr valley comes to mind.

France was busy fighting itself in Paris during that era and I'm not so certain about the history of railways pre-steam there.

America was busy digging canals during that time.
 
Top