Coal Mining in East Leeds

[The Parksider]

grumpytramp wrote: 1. Where was that drain from?2. I am not even sure even which is Ross Gill? 1. Moving up from the wyke valley along foundry lane you are heading towards crossgates and the Mary Pit was at an elevation such that it could have drained to the Mill Ponds???2. Tributaries to Wyke beck 1, Stream that runs to the beck from roundhay grange along easterly road, 2. Stream that runs out of the rein, 3 stream that runs out of Foxwood and 4, The stream that ran down to the mill ponds.On maps 1854, 1893, 1894 (just google old-maps) plus others Ross Gill runs out of foxwood then oddly follows the hillside around to the Mill Ponds.

[chameleon]

The Parksider wrote: grumpytramp wrote: 1. Where was that drain from?2. I am not even sure even which is Ross Gill? 1. Moving up from the wyke valley along foundry lane you are heading towards crossgates and the Mary Pit was at an elevation such that it could have drained to the Mill Ponds???2. Tributaries to Wyke beck 1, Stream that runs to the beck from roundhay grange along easterly road, 2. Stream that runs out of the rein, 3 stream that runs out of Foxwood and 4, The stream that ran down to the mill ponds.On maps 1854, 1893, 1894 (just google old-maps) plus others Ross Gill runs out of foxwood then oddly follows the hillside around to the Mill Ponds. Not sure at all where the Mary Pit workings ran but my inclination is that this may have more probably drained to the south or southwest towards lower reaches of Wykebeck. In addition to the the shafts identified around what is Dufton Approach, Brian pit was also nearby and seems alikely contender together with the shallow workings around the Melbourne/Foundry Lane area.Godfrey (218.04)shows what I think is a cutting(?) in the rea of Dufton Approach/Sandway, north of York Road with a field boundary running west towards the Mill along the line of Morsedale Lane. At a point probably a little lower than the Ironwood Approach junction with Foundry Lane there is (this time?) a short embankment running north/south and at the end of this, the boundary line appears to be two lines with a third line below these all running towards the Ponds. At least one of these must be a feed. (Point to note: On the basis that water always finds its own route - and in times of plenty, these routes are often seen to be the surface routes which man has tried to bury underground - there is significant flooding at the bottom of Sandway as the water tries to flow to what was once the watercourse over the York Road).On the IGS map the stream running out of the grounds of Foxwood splits as you say, the southerly flowing section is then shown to fork left and right at about Brooklands Avenue to run either side of where the houses where built. Both tributaries run the short distance to South Parway,the left (wetern) branch joins a stream which seems to originate behind the 'Seacroft Park' at the top of the hill and down to Wykebeck. 'Old shallow pits' are noted towards the top of the hill.The right (eastern) branch also runs towards the strem but does appear to continue south, (almost as thouh it goes over it!), before disappearing under South Parkway, but the line is clearly towards the Mill and through the 'Shallow Ionstone Workings'Rather wordy I'm afraid, hope you can follow it - a case of a picture would paint a thousand words I think.

[chameleon]

A very quick picture to depict roughly what the map shows. The red square is where the stream seems to go 'over' the oher! I wonder if this was a man made cutting? (click on image to enlarge).

[The Parksider]

chameleon wrote: Brian pit was also nearby and seems alikely contender together with the shallow workings around the Melbourne/Foundry Lane area.Godfrey (218.04)shows what I think is a cutting(?) in the rea of Dufton Approach/Sandway, north of York Road with a field boundary running west towards the Mill along the line of Morsedale Lane. At a point probably a little lower than the Ironwood Approach junction with Foundry Lane there is (this time?) a short embankment running north/south and at the end of this, the boundary line appears to be two lines with a third line below these all running towards the Ponds. At least one of these must be a feed. On the IGS map the stream running out of the grounds of Foxwood splits as you say, the southerly flowing section is then shown to fork left and right at about Brooklands Avenue.Both tributaries run the short distance to South Parway,the left (wetern) branch joins a stream which seems to originate behind the 'Seacroft Park' at the top of the hill and down to Wykebeck. 'Old shallow pits' are noted towards the top of the hill.The right (eastern) branch also runs towards the strem but does appear to continue south, (almost as thouh it goes over it!), before disappearing under South Parkway, but the line is clearly towards the Mill and through the 'Shallow Ionstone Workings' Godfrey 218.04 indeed covers part of Foundry Mill area. I was too busy moaning that Godfrey has ommitted publishing 203.15 which remains a "hole" in his Leeds mapping. I wrote to suggest it would be a good one to publish a few years ago and they said they could only do one at a time, and have since given us Rodley instead!But 218.04 is more instructive in that it shows the field boundaries and by the use of braces shows non field boundaries in with the field thus in field 106 the two lines are as you say watercourses into the pond both "in the same field" as per the braces.Now do they emanate from the short cutting or (embankment) in that field? the northern field boundaries of fields 85 and 84 give aline back to what I think is a clear stream running between fields 83 and 109. This runs through an uncultivated strip with field boundaries either side.And as you say there is again a cutting or embankment that is at the bottom of th natural line of the stream as it hits York Road. There's also something on the other side of York Road a double line through the trees depicting maybe another channel alongside a boundary wall/hedge/fence.It's those earthworks as you say that maybe point to some enginering of the water flow and could they in any way be spoil from digging into workings below Brian pit (fields 82 & 83) and workings on Foundry Lane near Bower cottage??In both cases the earthworks run down from a hillside onto the same line of the field boundary between 107/85 and 108/84.there is also an area of trees/rough ground at the juncture of all four fields with a pair of lines covered by a brace again one of these lines is not a boundary. Is it water?If the boundaries between 85/107 and 84/108 are a stream then this is the feed for the mill ponds as you indicate??? And this may have been augmented by the soughs that may be those earthworks???If Smeaton felt that the main body of water was from soughs he may simply have ommitted to mention that they fed the local stream and was incomplete in his statement which could have read."The water comes from two mine drains (soughs) that feed the small stream that runs into the mill ponds?".I'm happier at that - seems to fit.But mystified as to why Ross Gill runs around a hillside???

[The Parksider]

chameleon wrote: A very quick picture to depict roughly what the map shows. The red square is where the stream seems to go 'over' the oher! I wonder if this was a man made cutting? (click on image to enlarge). The 1851 OS map on old-maps.co.uk is fascinating.POINT ONEIt seems the cartographer has drawn the line of the stream into the mill ponds from seacroft park in heavier ink to ensure it stands out as a watercourse/stream but that line we think may be the feed is not drawn heavily in field 84.Look at field 84. The stream stops at it's eastern end where the earthwork is. Then at it's western end it appears again in the triangle of rough ground!!! It is as though it is culverted through field 84. Check that with Godfrey and it's the same!!POINT TWOYou have found yet another stream coming down south parkway, and a look at your line on the 1851 may shows the carographer thickening the line with his pen to seemingly accentuate a stream or watercourse as opposed to field boundary.If he did indeed mark streams and watercourses thus then the line of the watercourse from Dibb lane is clear and yes indeed we have a "crossroads" of two streams which is most unatural pointing to water engineering????Iwill be facinated and intrigued (and instructed) at your thoughts!!

[The Parksider]

grumpytramp wrote: 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,i]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 Can it be in 1779 the mill ponds AND feed stream were to be augmented by colliery drains as we may see in Chameleons earhworks, but as admitted by the great man himself it would probably not be enough?The cost of fuelling an "engine" to pump in extra water (excuse me if I lose the engineering & economic logic plot) may have become prohibitive and more expensive than cutting further watercourses from the north of the one Smeaton was using at the time.1779 into the 1800's is a long time and economics may have changed thus an investment in cutting extra watercourses saves the cost of the fuel pumping in water.Was Smeatons calculation correct in the end - or were the mill ponds drying up too much?? Was there a cost to maintaining an underground colliery drain? One collapse underground and the water stops flowing??I point to the phrasing "OLD mill ponds" in the 1800's and suggest that the original water feed did not work as envisaged and was too expensive to maintain/augment by engine, so a switch to other watercourses is logical??Or am I out of mi depth with you guys??? Apologies if I have missed something obvious.

[chameleon]

'Godfrey 218.04 indeed covers part of Foundry Mill area. I was too busy moaning that Godfrey has ommitted publishing 203.15 which remains a "hole" in his Leeds mapping.....'Yes you amplify my thoughts in this message and much of our assumption may well remain just that, but we seem to agree and I think grumpytramp's valued input would support these feelings too.On another map, the line running west to east through the clump of trees between the embankments IS marked with an arrow confirming it to be a stream. The 'something going on' at the other side of York Road is to where I refer as flooding in heavy rain - the map contours show this to be a shallow valley too, with some mounds both slightly north and south of the line. I'm thinking back to very early years - I can just remember the latter stages of house building here between York Road/Crossgates Road but, it's very foggy - certianly to the north of York Road there and down Foundry Lane, the land fell away down small embnkments, and there most definately was a stream running the course, partly vissible, partly culverted.As a side-issue, when the York Road was reconstructed and the large roundabout (preceding the present maze of coloured lights!) was built, the ground works involved the extraction of much narrow guage track and old small trucks and water pumping. Wish I'd borrowed the family Kodak 127 now! Your second email:On my google map picture, I showed the strem splitting below Brooklands Avenue. Have you noticed that the 1850 Old Map shows only what I refer to as the right hand branch? This is the one which goes towards the Parklands Estate. Yes, it is definately a stream running down South Parkway so 'ours' does indeed seem to cross over it, almost at rightangles which must surely confirm man's intervention. Just where this strem starts is unclear, it could well emanate at the apex of the 250' contour at the old workings or possibly have some input from higher up behind Laburnum Farm, just not sure about that and I don't remember any signs of anything that high up. (Though a thought occurs that there was a culvert entry/exit in a ditch running parallel to Bailey's Lane from York Road and The Green was dug up and drained in recent timesto relieve the water-logging).I see too there was a wll in the corner of what is the Cricketters car park ajacent to the road raund The Green at the corner nearest The Grange and possibly a small pond behind the Church, but no out flow showing.Time for a breakLater:I've been going over the old maps agin back from 1851 to 1938 and I am in no doubt know that the feed into the ponds from the east along Foundry Lane/Moresdale Lane does originate from the pond and area at Seacroft Hall in the old village. I do wonder if whnculerted, it was diverted - that would account for my remembering a part-surface stream leaving and entering pipes along the edgs of York Road and Foundry Lane (If it wasn't, there are a lot of houses built over the original line!).Have to remember too that York Road in this area is now slightly NW of its original path. Probably unrelated but I remember an entrance being uncovered from time-to-time to what was described to me as an air raid shelter, though now I am dubious of that desription and wonder if there was some conection with the culverted waterway. It was as I recall, on the incline abouttwo thirds of the way between York Road and the relatively new houses of Fairfax Court roughly on the line of the original stream.

[chameleon]

Whilst looking over this on Saturday I exercised the plastic and ordered a print out of the 1851 map. You can probably imagine my feelings when the day after I was given a full size print of the 1885 edition, which just includes the Mill, by a neighbourWell not entirely, the 1851 does show more detail and this from an earlier time of course.The bench mark adjacent to the Mill is definitely 162.7 ft which must confirm that the course we see running west from the mill is an outflow. This joins the stream running down South Parkway close to Wike Beck.        The feed for the eastern pond does originate from the area below the pond at the Hall in Seacroft and the western pond is fed from the stream originating at Ramshead Approach (and it does 'cross' the one mentioned above!).I can see nothing to suggest water is drawn from Wike Beck, flowing by gravity or forced, to feed the mill.

[The Parksider]

chameleon wrote: The bench mark adjacent to the Mill is definitely 162.7 ft which must confirm that the course we see running west from the mill is an outflow. This joins the stream running down South Parkway close to Wike Beck.        The feed for the eastern pond does originate from the area below the pond at the Hall in Seacroft and the western pond is fed from the stream originating at Ramshead Approach (and it does 'cross' the one mentioned above!).I can see nothing to suggest water is drawn from Wike Beck, flowing by gravity or forced, to feed the mill. Well that's another point - 2 mill ponds so an indication that the water feed was not set in stone for the life of the mill?Was the first mill pond and feed from seacroft augmented from underground colliery drains later replaced by the Ross Gill watercourse around the hillside to a second pond built for this??Thorpes 1819 map marks the Ross Gill feed to the second pond but nothing leading to the first pond. Smeatons plans may just not have worked out and a watercourse cut to Ross Gill. Does your new map show the stream from seacroft running all the way, because the 1851 map seems to show it dissapearing after it gets down to the first earthworks which may be the seacroft colliery/Brian pit drain?Whose to say it didn't fail, so they drove a second drain at foundry lane into other workings??Then once that failed to provide enough water they switched to cutting a watercourse across from Ross Gill building a second collection pond.At 162.7 O.D could there have been a watercourse cut from a dam at Ellers close/Dib lane pre-smeaton?? Is that around 200 O.D. and is it enough for a drop to the pond?? At 200 OD as Grumpytramp says a weir has been marked - was that to speed the force of the water to make the slow descent to the pond. Does your new map mark any dam or weir at Dibb Lane and a consequent watercourse along the valley side??Over a long time five different main sources could have been used for the water supply.... seacroft pond, Brian Pit Drain, Foundry lane pit drain, watercourse from Dibb Lane and watercourse from Ross Gill.Methinks they could have built the mill in a better place, or rebuilt the mill but instead they always altered the water feeds???We on the same lines before Grumpytramp sweeps in again!!

[chameleon]

I'll look again tomorrow and try to answer your points - I think a comparison with later maps is indicated too.Grumpytramp always sees something we've missed, I'm sure he'll be back soon.(btw, I decided that the search for, 'Why does it run round the hill?' might probably become your life's ambition )