Talk:Fenton, Murray and Jackson

Title

Would this article not be better entitled Fenton, Murray & Co. This would obviate the need for articles referring to Fenton Murray and Wood to be redirected to using a later name of the firm? Peterkingiron 12:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It was never called Fenton, Murray and Co. There are redirect pages for all the names it was known by so it can be found from any of them. Chevin 17:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In the book I cite for the beam engine story, it is known only as Fenton Murray & Co, as described in the accounts of the drainage commissioners. Brunnian (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand to be corrected. The company may have been Fenton Murray and Co at some time. What is the date of the beam engine story? I'll have to find out how long Jackson was with them. Chevin (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The engine was delivered in 1824, but not set to work until 1825, as butterley supplied both scoop wheels. see ('Machines, Mills & uncountable costly necessities', R L Hills, Goose & Co (Norwich), 1967). The project was started by John Rennie, who died before the order for the engines was placed. A visit is entertaining, although the Fenton, Murray engine is long gone there is a small museum on the site. There is a different engine intact at Pinchbeck (http://www.wellandidb.org.uk/about.php). Several of the early engines on the fens were condensing type, but I don't know about this one, by 1824 expansive working might have been used.

Hills wrote an updated version of his book ('The Drainage of the Fens', Rev. Dr. Richard Leslie Hills). I can't afford it. Nor can I afford the various interesting works of "K.S.G. Hinde", although his 'Fenland Pumping Engines ' may be reprinted if demand is high enough --Brunnian (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

An unincorporated business was usually known by the names of its partners. Before business names registration was introduced (I think) in the 19th century, a firm's name was liable to vary considerably. I do not know about this case, but it might easily have eben knwon by some as Mr Murray & Co. A firnm whose partnership deed said it was to be called A, B, C, & D, might easily be called A & Co. or B & Co., and B & Co. might become usual if B was the actively partner. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy

The article states By 1840, they were turning out up to twenty engines a year. However, by 1843, the boom was over and the company closed down. yet according to other sources one of the owners went on to take part of Shepherd and Todd and becoming E. B. Wilson and Co producing locomotives.

So I don't see how it can be said "the boom was over". "Closing down" is not the same as a dissolved partnership. Is the current text fair?Oranjblud (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall have to revisit this, but it may be worth studying the economic history of the nineteenth century. The period was subject to successive booms and busts with none of the checks and balances we have now. Thus the company could have closed, with the people concerned returning to the business when the financial climate improved. Chevin (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the suggestion that that it was not the same Fenton that moved to the Railway Foundry, I have looked up the reference in Lowe and also an account by an apprentice at both works. Chevin (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't got access to any of the sources - but I wondered if they had simply moved to a bigger premises with a new investor. Some sources claim that Watt and Boulton bought land round the Round Foundry preventing expansion (though this may not be accurate).Oranjblud (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No Fenton, Murray and Jackson closed down completely. David Joy says he was dismiised. Fenton bought up the existing business of Shepherd and Todd three years later, presumably when the UK economy was on the mend. I have read about Bouton and Watt buying up land around the Round Foundry but cant now find a reference (Fenton's high presure boilers were extremely efficient) Chevin (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

   (Sorry for delay; i've had 3 edit windows concerning this open since the 16th, while I was distracted from dealing with it.)
   Barring conspiracy theories, the Railway-Foundry Fenton lived 1815 Aug 29 - 1863 April 22, and cannot be the Fenton who "joined [with Wood, and Murray] in 1797". The Round-Foundary Fenton is said to have lived 1754-1834 (tho someone may want to see whether that recent source cites a contemporary source), presumably making him the subject of the portrait.
   There is a source that makes them out to be father and son -- which is plausible if the elder married or remarried with someone decades younger, say in his late 50s. However, that source did not give their dates, so i consider confidence in that to be nearly as poorly founded as the identification of one man with the other. And -- tho the genealogist is likely an unreliable amateur -- it is claimed that those dates are also to be those of a James Fenton (son of a third and still earlier JF, BTW) and that in 1779 he married a woman who died in 1827 (at the age of 78 or 79); if so, the Railway-F JF can be a legitimate son of the Round-F JF only if that wife were eventually divorced, or she delivered him when she was within about a year, in either direction, of age 66.
--Jerzy•t 08:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

   Presumably, per Chevin's citation of Joy in restoring the disputed 'graph, Joy is the apprentice in question. I am not questioning the shutdown of FMJ, but it is clear that the Railway-F JF was not born when the Round-F JF gave his name to his companies in the 1790s. The cited excerpts from Joy do not bear on whether the founder of FMJ was the man he worked with at FCCo: they are consistent with, on one hand, his believing that the Railway-F JF was a founder of FMJ, and on the other with him being sure that the two JFs were unrelated. And BTW Joy was under 10 y.o. when, AFAweK, the founder of FMJ died.
--Jerzy•t 09:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

   The Lowe work seems to be damn near inaccessible (6 WorldCat entries for North American libraries); i think you'll need in practice to quote the relevant statements.
--Jerzy•t 10:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I will make the comment that Murray died in 1826, so that the firm may well have ceased to have a partner from his family about then. I doubt the story about Boulton and Watt is right. Before 1800, if Fenton Murray were infringing their patents, they would have used the courts; afterwards, their activities were focused on the Sho Foundry at Smethwick. I think the answer to the question of whether the company closed for three years in the 1840s should probably be answered by refernece to what happened to the Round Foundry in that period: who owned it; what use did they make of it. It should be possible to determine the question of land ownership from the memorials registered in the Deeds Registry at Wakefield Record Office. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Much of this is also mentioned at Matthew_Murray#Hostility_of_Boulton_and_Watt - again I can't vouch for its accuracy.

There's an extended essay here http://assets.newspaperclub.com/newspapers/0/2171_rec4r39t/newspaper.pdf it goes into sufficient detail on some points to be convincing as a source (rather than a regurgiatation of the standard story).

http://c9425687.myzen.co.uk/MRT/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=138 says they went bankrupt - I don't know if that is correct or synthesis (ie did they actually go bankrupt or just cut their losses?) - it does confirm that orders dried up. "Spring came, and times were slacker. Finally Mr. Jackson sent for me to tell me that they were going to close the works, so I should not be wanted.".Oranjblud (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Prescience

   How farsighted of Murray and Jackson Wood to include Fenton's name in the partnership:

The firm began as Fenton, Murray and Wood, founded by Matthew Murray and David Wood in 1795 ...

about 2 years before ...

They were joined in 1797 by James Fenton...

And such a shame that we lack a reference supporting it! For the time being, clearly the following is a plausible account of the events, and a {{fact}} tag will appropriately hint about the truth (which is that we've kinda been guessing) until we can pin down the details:

The roots of the firm lie in the enterprise founded by Matthew Murray and David Wood in 1795; it became known as Fenton, Murray and Wood after the 1795 inclusion of James Fenton as a partner.

--Jerzy•t 11:32, 3 & 07:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

   In the other 'graph of the same section, does the intent of "adhesion" differ from the familiar traction? Our articles on those topics make the same distinction that i do in my gut: traction prevents slippage at the contact point, without forces of adhesion, that would tend to bond the wheel and rail together in the portion of the wheel immediately behind the contact point as it breaks contact with the rail there. The term "adhesion" may have been used instead at the time, before working engineers were entirely clear about making the distinction; in that case

"adhesion" (traction, in modern terms)

might be the proper wording.
--Jerzy•t 12:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting those errors. I think "adhesion" is the preferred term here - the difference is subtle but adhesion is more akin to "frictional coefficient" whereas "traction" is closer in synonymy with "force". It could be changed to say "to solve problems of limited tractive force caused by adhesion limited by the coefficient of friction" (or better variants) if you want to link everything.

There was another error http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fenton%2C_Murray_and_Jackson&diff=490471828&oldid=490454339 - according to "A Biographical Dictionary of Civil Engineers in Great Britain and Ireland .. A. W. Skempton" (Murray's entry p.461) and "Biographical Dictionary of the History of Technology, Lance Day" (Murray's entry, p.509) - Fenton appears to have been financier, and account keeper. Lister also appears to have been a finacier of the company. I can't verify the dates.Oranjblud (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

   As to "adhesion", the physics concept of adhesion appears to relate only metaphorically to the use of it here.
   But on reflection, this is a not just a "company-ography", but a biz-org article within a hypertext encyclopedia -- in contrast to free-standing works which must occasionally digress from their core topics in order to support readers who lack background in important side-topics. The business fact under discussion is that Blenkinsop's use of R&P made FMW take certain steps. The confusing and probably misleading mention of "adhesion" aside,

In 1811, John Blenkinsop was interested in using steam locomotives on the Middleton Railway and had patented a rack and pinion system to [whatever]. Fenton, Murray and Wood were asked to design a suitable locomotive. Built in 1812...

would better be replaced by something closer to

The partnership was approached to design a locomotive that would exploit the rack-and-pinion patent granted to Blenkinsop in 1811. Their 1812 product...

since thatThat link will lead users to information that has been accruing the benefits of many eyeballs for five years and counting, instead of trying to produce another account of the same events, which even if successful would be a form of overlap that our practices seek to avoid (-- See point 2 on the WP-namespace section at this link.).
   I ask that we move in the direction of trying to improve on that version, instead of on the problem-beset recent contrib.
--Jerzy•t 19:33 & :36, 8th, & 07:35, 9th, May 2012 (UTC)

   As to Fenton's role, Financier mentions for several activities, each confirmed by at least one of my excellent dictionaries. On the other hand, i've a strong impression of the main sense being a middle-man between investors and entrepreneurs, while the stated activities sound more like those of a direct, hands-on investor of his own funds. IMO, a more specific term, and a source directly mentioning whose money was at risk, and what Fenton's long-term FMJ roles were, would be valuable.
--Jerzy•t 07:35 & 08:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The article James Fenton (1815-1863) now exists. As noted above this is not the same person as James Fenton, (1754-1834) James Fenton (1754-1834), as involved in mechanical engineering businesses in Leeds. Please check for errors (I have already found one), and link if needed. I have checked the immediate linking articles, but there may be others that can be linked, or may contain this error. Thanks.Oranjblud (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)_{I have struck thru, and corrected in bold, a redlink whose target page should never be created -- except perhaps as a Rdr to the possible bio article, if and when that article is created.Jerzy•t 07:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)}

   And note that the Fenton who was lead partner in a business that is the topic of the accompanying article (and which modified its name to reflect replacement of one of the lesser partners), is the Fenton who continues to lack a WP biography. The other was lead partner in a business serving the same market, but founded a generation or two later, without any overlap (despite the same surname) as to the actual people mentioned in the respective company names. The two were previously explicitly confounded in the accompanying article, and apparently, implicitly confounded in all other WP mentions of either Fenton. (So don't sell your hair to a wig shop in Vegas: get rid of confusion.)
--Jerzy•t 07:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

According to A Biographical Dictionary of Civil Engineers in Great Britain and Ireland: 1500-1830 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jeOMfpYMOtYC p.461 (Matthew Murray) James Fenton suppied most of the capital for a steam engine works in Holbeck. (no date or specifics given)

According to Industrial biography; iron workers and tool makers (Samuel Smiles) p.318, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rvAxBH9kxFYC Fenton was involved in the 1795 establishment (contradicting the article)

In the web article http://c9425687.myzen.co.uk/MRT/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=138 Fenton does not join in 1795 but later (as in the article) - he is described as a wealthy colliery owner. The same page also states that the James Fenton of Railway Foundry was the son of Murray's partner the earlier James Fenton. (but mistakes him as the Fenton of Fenton, Murray and Jackson).

According to Matthew Murray, pioneer engineer: records from 1765 to 1826 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cEQEAAAAMAAJ page 102 quote "They afterwards took as partners James Fenton, a financier whose family had owned the coal mines at Rothwell, and William Lister, a millwright, of Bramley". Also p.8 "Mr. Fenton found most of the capital".

I still can't find reliable information on a family relationship between the two Fentons - the fact that the newer Fenton was born in Scotland would be unexplained if they were father and son.Oranjblud (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added those references - I think the date of 1797 for foundation may be wrong, and it may be 1795, but I can't verify properly either.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranjblud (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 May 2012‎