Coal Mining in East Leeds

[The Parksider]

chameleon wrote: Whooa! You've given me a lot to go through there Parksider and I feel a short field trip might be needed weekend permitting.One thing is certain - what we read by others does not seem to be the whole story does it?Where abouts on the Foxwood site do you think the chamber is which you mention? I have one or two niggles of seeing things but, that was along time ago wasn't it? I'd be delighted if you had a look (and a look for traces of the second aquaduct at Weetwood).I dunno which maps you have. On the Old-maps 1854/1893/1894 and in the roundhay book Wyke beck does seem to split at ellers close/dibb lane.The whole prolem is that it's tough following lines to discriminate between a field boundary, a district boundary or a stream/watercourse.Seems a good old black line will do for the lot!!!!!I look forward to what I expect to be "the definitive view"!!At Foxwood the culvert is easy to find in the stream and walk up to the second level of playing fields near where the old ramp/steps were and you will see a very large drain cover.I only assumed that was Ross gill in it's culvert, but on all the 1800's maps it appears Ross gill may have gone down the line of Brooklands Drive outside the school front gates and down.But then again (you following this) that line of flow may be man made?

[grumpytramp]

The Parksider wrote: Where's Mr. Grumpytramp? Apologies there have been grave matters of state to attend to!Very interesting stuff.Unfortunately I am really struggling to recall the lay of the land ....... it has been a good few years since I wandered along Wyke Beck!In the first instance I think you to need to take a step back from both the current state of Wyke Beck and its associated watercourses and culverts. The very nature of the beck and the areas drainage have changed beyond recognition from the days of the Mill's construction. I suspect without the influence of the lakes in Roundhay Park, the replacement of much of the original meadow over much of the area with concrete, tar and paving slab and the influence of mining has made significant differences to ground water flows . I would expect that in times past all the watercourse would have higher mean flows, be less prone to flash flooding but I also suspect more prone to flooding along its natural flood plain downstream of Easterley Road. The Parksider wrote: I dunno which maps you have. On the Old-maps 1854/1893/1894 and in the roundhay book Wyke beck does seem to split at ellers close/dibb lane.The whole prolem is that it's tough following lines to discriminate between a field boundary, a district boundary or a stream/watercourse. I have just had a good squint at this and I am afraid I think is just a field boundary, set where the slope intersects the flood plain (hence the wiggly line). If you zoom in old-maps at Dib Lane on the 1851 sheet there is a bench mark on North Lane which shows a level of 182' AOD (though I concede it may read 192' AOD ........ but the invert level of the beck is probably at least 10-15' lower from memory. On the 1909 sheet I can see a bench mark of 193.4' AOD just at the Mill. Over a mile or so I cannot see any chance of leading water to the Mill from the Wyke Beck without mechanical assistance. The Parksider wrote: Owens states Smeaton had designed for Temple Newsam a hydraulic ram that "forced" water up to a height of 26 feet and thus up to the level of the house". Was a hydraulic ram used to push water up to Foundry Mill??? NoOK time to stop teasing!!!    

[grumpytramp]

OK a possible break through ........ Quote: SEACROFT COKE FURNACE.The whole rise, as per level taken by Mr. Eastburn, from the tail of the colliery drain to the surface of the mill-pond at a full head, is thirty-three feet four inches, and there is reason to suppose, from observations since made, that, by pursuing Mr. Porter's drain, there will be a loss of level of two feet ; our neat difference to work upon will, therefore, be thirty-one feet four inches, upon which fall, to allow for a sufficient head and clearances, let us, for the present, suppose the water-wheel to be overshot of twenty-eight feet high, and upon this height, by calculation drawn from my experience, to work a coke furnace roundly, that is, at a middling speed, will require 7294 tons of water per day to be expended upon it.I also calculate, that this quantity of water expended upon the present corn-mill will grind corn at the rate of three bushels, or a load, per hour; it will, therefore, follow, that for so much of the year as the natural supply of water will keep the present mill going, so as to grind at the rate of a load per hour, so much of the year this natural supply may be expected to work the furnace, as above mentioned, without any foreign aid, and this information the proprietors will the most naturally get upon the spot. From what has occurred to me upon the subject, I should state it as follows:That for five months in the year there will be a full supply of water to go on continually at the rate above mentioned, which will give 5 months waterThat for three months more there will be as much as will give two-thirds of the quantity requisite, which will amount to 2 months waterAnd that for the other four, there will at an average not be more than what will cause the mill to go six hours in twenty-four, which will amount to 1 months water                                                                                                The furnace may, therefore, expect to have yearly 8 months water Now, though the average of the four dry months is stated at six hours water, yet it frequently happens, that for three months together the natural supply does not amount to above three hours' water per day; so that without some subsidiary power, this furnace must undoubtedly blow out every summer, and this subsidiary power, I advise, to be a fire-engine, and that a sufficient power to work the furnace at the above rate, independently of the natural supply, for, when the natural supply is too scanty to work the furnace, the engine being set a-going will work till the natural supply has filled the ponds, and then the engine may cease working, and save fuel till the ponds become empty again; or the natural supply may be employed at the boring mill, even at the scarcest time.The whole quantity, then, 7294 tons per day, I can engage to raise back by a fire-engine of no more than a thirty-inch cylinder, and this engine I can warrant will work with three cwt. of coals per hour, that is, seventy-two cwt. per twenty-four hours, of the quality of the late Halton Bright; that is, if we allow 2| cwt. the horse pack weight to each corf, this will amount to two dozen and eight corves per day. The quality of the coals wherewith this engine will probably work is unknown to me ; but, in proportion as they are better or worse engine coals, the consumption will be greater or less ; but this engine would be worked with about eighty-six cwt. of raw sleck per twenty-four hours, such as were used to be led from the sleck heap to theengine at Halton; and if we allow the same weight and measure to the dozen of sleck, as of coals, this will be no more than three dozen two corves of sleck per twenty-four hours, which, if laid down at the engine door, at Is. 6d. per dozen, the engine will work at the price of 3s. 3d. per day in fuel, more or less, as the sleck (or small coal) will be procured and laid down at the engine door for more or less than Is. 6d. per dozen.Now, if the engine is worked four months in the year, at the rate of 3s. 3d. per day, the whole amount of the fuel will be only 19l. 16s. 6d.; but this likewise will be more, if the engine is worked longer than the whole four months, either on account of the defect of the natural supply, or to keep the boring mill at work ; or if done at many different intervals, an addition will be required to make the water boil each time of lighting the fire.The engine will be attended by one man, when its work can be done in twelve hours, and by two men when working twenty-four hours: when it wants leathering, the wright of the works will be wanted to assist, and when not used, the engine-keepers will be employed in other labouring work. oh aye the source ......... the great man himself Quote: The Report of John Smeaton, Engineer, concerning the Powers necessary for working a Coke Furnace at SeacroftAusthorpe, l6th January, 1779. J. SMEATON

[grumpytramp]

I would therefore suggest that the water feeding the mill was from natural drainage and water from a drainage tunnel (sough) draining coal or iron workings. This may have been driven from hillside above the Wyke Beck at a higher elevation to the mill to intersect mine workings. There may have been supplementary pumping underground to the sough (any saving in the total head of water to be pumped by 18th and 19th Century was ruthlessly exploited by mining engineers)Where and what was the mine drain is another question?By the way Mr Eastburn referred to here was Henry Eastburn, the son of Smeaton's sister-in-law Faith, arrived as a pupil in 1768. He was to work with Smeaton for 20 years, settling in Whitkirk after his marriage in 1779.    

[grumpytramp]

Happy new year!

[chameleon]

'.... it appears Ross gill may have gone down the line of Brooklands Drive outside the school front gates and down.'That is the route I determined from looking at the maps and google earth to be honest!

[The Parksider]

grumpytramp wrote: I would therefore suggest that the water feeding the mill was from natural drainage and water from a drainage tunnel (sough) draining coal or iron workings. This may have been driven from hillside above the Wyke Beck at a higher elevation to the mill to intersect mine workings. There may have been supplementary pumping underground to the soughWhere and what was the mine drain is another question? You'll have to forgive my dumbness but Smeaton seems to be saying that the ponds run dry of water and an "engine" is used to pump water into the ponds??You suggest (or does he indicate) the water is from underground mine drainage?? but what route would the flow take???I know of no deep mine in the area save Seacroft Colliery/Brian pit some distance away - would they have driven a drainage level that far?I'm still foxed by the idea that a culvert was cut from a dam at Dibb Lane, and intrigued by Burt's off map of this??? I suspect that over the period 1577 when this supposedly happened to the end of the mill various ways of obtaining water - more than one - could have occured?Ross Gill is very real and goes somewhere, appearing to have a T Junction on all maps at Brooklands View.Thorpes Map of 1819 in Burts book is less cluttered that the OS maps and shows Ross Gill cutting around the hillside above the mill and into the ponds.It has that T junction where it either goes down to the beck or carries around the hillside to the ponds.It goes down to the beck and actually joins the outflow of the Mill on Thorpes Map.I still (on the basis of thorpes map) think it feasible that Ross Gill was somehow diverted for when the mill ponds were dry. How that can tie in with a pumping engine? Well again forgive me but could the engine have pumped Ross Gill water into the watercourse around the hillside???Then when the ponds supplied water the engine was turned off? Or am I missing somthing obvious.

[The Parksider]

chameleon wrote: '.... it appears Ross gill may have gone down the line of Brooklands Drive outside the school front gates and down.'That is the route I determined from looking at the maps and google earth to be honest! Have you got Burt's book and if so can you look at Thorps Map of 1819. It's clear Ross Gill has two ways to go?? It seems clear that the second way is following the hillside around into the ponds. Thoughts???

[chameleon]

The Parksider wrote: chameleon wrote: '.... it appears Ross gill may have gone down the line of Brooklands Drive outside the school front gates and down.'That is the route I determined from looking at the maps and google earth to be honest! Have you got Burt's book and if so can you look at Thorps Map of 1819. It's clear Ross Gill has two ways to go?? It seems clear that the second way is following the hillside around into the ponds. Thoughts??? Yes, I have the book, most of Godfrey for the leeds area, a couple of IGS geological maps of East Leeds and a few aging OS maps to go at (and I've just remembered a few A4 copies of older maps with Whinmoor and bits of Seacroft tucked away somewhere!). A busy weekend so little time to do much on this I'm afraid

[chameleon]

I was looking at Godfrey earlier and quite how Iv'e managed never to see the mill on the very edge of sheet 218.04.... I can't explain!Unfortunately, it is far from clear from what can be seen, how the ponds fill or where any other cutting my lie. There are a couple of symbols I don't recognise which may distinguish between biundaries. paths, streams - I have an acquaintence better versed than I in this who I will ask.What we really want to see in qualtiy detail would be on sheet 203.15. Which has not been published