Coal Mining in East Leeds

[BramleyFettler]

What is this forum like! Just spent about 20 mins to find this thread again.....grrr.Just wondering if anyone has ever been to the Coal Board at Mansfield to look at abandonment plans?Thinking of going down one day if I'm passing but would have no idea what to ask for or expect.

[grumpytramp]

BramleyFettler wrote: Just wondering if anyone has ever been to the Coal Board at Mansfield to look at abandonment plans? Thinking of going down one day if I'm passing but would have no idea what to ask for or expect. I have not been to the new Coal Authority records office in Mansfield; but over the years made extensive use of the record plans when they were based at Bretby near Burton-on-Trent.The archive of abandonment plans is absolutely vast. When I used the archive the first problem was understanding the catalogue, which was based on a system developed since the introduction of the 1872 The Coal Mines Regulation Act and Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act required mine owners to deposit abandonment plans. Once you get your head around the system it was quite easy to get going.All that I understand has changed and all the plans have been digitised and viewed from dedicated terminalsIn someways that is a shame as the actual plans are sometimes works of astonishing beauty and penmanship while others are much more workmanlike ......... I suppose it is a good thing as it will help preserve them for future generations.Abandonment plans themselves can be very difficult to interpret without a background in coal mining and often are not correlated to either the national grid or surface features (everything being measured relative to shafts and underground bench marks)My advice would be only visit if you have a specific objective to understand be it to examine the records of an individual colliery or of a (probably very) specific area; otherwise you will just become completely over whelmed by the volume of information. If you go as a member of the public with a specific and targeted enquiry; the staff will from my experience, be overwhelmingly helpful.See http://www.coal.gov.uk/services/history/index.cfm The Parksider wrote: I still await your considered opinions on the claypit in Hunslet. Not so much our conjecture on position but how the heck did they dig such big open holes and then fill them in??? ParkieI haven’t forgotten about this but time is my enemy again tonight ......... promise I will come back to this, and I think you had asked something about fireclays, brickclays etc, at the weekend.Just a quick thought on the issue of cinders on Woodhouse Moor; could this have something to do with the dumping of either domestic rubbish (which would have been predominately cinders and ash) in general or the dumping of ash from industrial boilers to form playing surfaces (Glasgow and Lanarkshire still has a multitude of council sports grounds constructed from red shales won from colliery spoil tips that had suffered spontaneous combustion cooking the shale an orange red ....... known here as red blaes). You would be astonished at the number of sports grounds whose old terraces are constructed from colliery spoil and blaes (the old Hamden and Celtic Park immediately come to mind)CheersG

[grumpytramp]

I know ........ I just won't let it die ........ back to Foundry Mill!I was having a nosey around the reference section of the local library and came across a reprint of a really interesting book entitled “Treatise on the Steam Engine” published in 1827 by John Farey (Jr). This work was apparently regarded as one of the finest contemporary accounts of industrial revolution technology. He was a consulting engineer of some renown, and was the son of John Farey (Sr) who was an eminent geologist (with some association with John Smeaton) and remembered for his mathematical analysis now know as the Farey Series [see http://www.cut-the-knot.org/blue/Farey.shtml to be as bamboozled as me!]Any way he provides an extensive account of Smeaton’s work at Foundry Mill under the title A small Fire-engine and Blowing Machine for an Iron Furnace, 1779.Much of the information is technical and specific to the design of the wheel but there are a number of snippets of real interest to the tale of Foundry Mill and the use of the engine/water wheel in the iron foundry. Quote: Mr. Smeaton designed a small fire-engine and blowing machine for an iron furnace, which was erected at Seacroft, in Yorkshire, in 1779- There was an old corn-mill, on the site of the works, which had a small supply of water in the winter, but in dry seasons and in summer the water failed in great part. Quote: The engine and machine which were erected upon this recommendation were as follows : cylinder 30 inches diameter, 6 feet stroke; the pump 21 inches diameter; the proportions of the parts, according to Mr. Smeaton's table, p. 183. The water-wheel was 30 feet diameter, with four blowing cylinders 54 inches diameter, 4.5 feet stroke, which were worked by four cranks formed on a cast-iron axis, placed in the line of the axis of the water-wheel and connected therewith; the waterwheel usually made 4.5 times per minute, so that about 18 strokes of the cylinders were given, and each containing 71.5 cubic feet, the whole quantity of air which was blown by the machine was 1286 cubic feet per minute, without considering the effect of the compression of the air; the nose-pipe was 4 inches diameter. The water was raised 34 feet by the pump, and the quantity being 182 cubic feet per minute would be 11- 7 horse-power, which is a much less allowance for one furnace than that at Carron before stated.This engine and machine performed very well. The author has a sketch which was taken by his father, who saw it at work in 1782 ; but the work was not successful, for owing to a bad quality in the coals and iron ore, they could never make good iron, until they procured coals from another district. The works were carried on for some years with coals brought from a distance of 100 miles, but the expense proved so great, that it was at length given up. This suggests to me that not only the coal but the ore was being imported from non-local sources (? Black Bed Coals in the area all but exhausted – the combination of Black Bed Iron ores and coals were notable for their quality and suitability for iron working)So we now know this it was originally a corn mill, that iron was smelted with the assistance of Smeaton’s engine from 1779 and that the workings failed sometime later.Well we also know that it had reverted to its original purpose by 1822 as the Foundry Mill is advertised for let in the Leeds Mercury (7th September 1822 edition): Quote: FOUNDRY MILL, AT SEACROFT, NEAR LEEDSAll that WATER CORN MILL, called the Foundry Mill containing Three Pairs of Grinding Stones and one Pair of Dressing Stones; and also a DWELLING HOUSE, Cottage, Stable and other Outbuildings ; and Ten Acres of Meadow and Pasture LAND immediately adjoining No mention of the foundry or engineI should add for anyone interested I have subsequently discovered the Farey work on Google Books [which includes some interesting stuff on Benjamin Gott’s works at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bfvN ... q=&f=false ]

[grumpytramp]

A copy of the Leeds Mercury advert

[chameleon]

The genius that was Smeaton brought this topic too us, then there was the man of our own time - Grumpytramp. I really don't know how you manage to find so much to offer us, but long may it reign sir

[The Parksider]

grumpytramp wrote: I know ........ I just won't let it die ........ back to Foundry Mill! A big thank you for your excellent efforts.It is believed that the ore of the "Ironhills" and the woods of the wyke valley provided the fuel and basic material for a certain quality of iron that "did" for the medieval industrial & domestic market at the time.The idea that due to cheaper modes of transporting quality materials and a demand therefore for better iron from Seacroft figures as does the eventual demise of the Mill which seemingly struggled to produce the sort of Iron people wanted and could get from elsewhere.I assume ( and await your thoughts on this and more) that seacroft ironstone had too many impurities?? and that the local coals didn't burn as hard and bright???.Would it have been the canals opening up the competition Foundry Mill could not hack?Was most of the ironstone used in Leeds in the 1800's imported then?

[grumpytramp]

ParkieI suspect its decline was a combination of market forces and production problems.In the first instance at the beginning of the true industrial revolution with the expansion and industrialisation of the woollen industry obviously created a huge demand for quality wrought iron. This corresponded with the rapid expansion of the other West Yorkshire iron works probably most notably the Low Moor works on the south side of Bradford around 1790. These works were blessed with the same Black Band Ironstone and workable thickness of Better Bed Coal as Seacroft. Works such as Seacroft were at a commercial disadvantage by comparison, they didn't have the copious reserves of Better Bed coal (more of which in a moment), nor the ready supply of Gannisters for furnace sands or ready access by canal to Carboniferous Limestone (from the Craven districts via the Leeds - Liverpool & Bradford Canals to Low Moor). The expanding South Yorkshire iron industry must have also been very commercially competitive not least as it relied on the same another black band Ironstone the Tankersley Ironstone where the nodules of iron laid amongst shell rich shales making the iron rich in Calcium Carbonate and therefore self-fluxing.The ready availability of Better Bed coals was also an important factor. It was unique for its very low sulphur content which for complex metallurgical reason ensured that it was particularly strong and workable. Iron produced with the Better Bed coal and Black Band Ironstone in the Leeds/Bradford ironworks was regarded as one of the best wrought iron available.Its conjecture but I now suspect that the predominance of the easily won Beeston and Middleton Coals and virtual absence of production from the much thinner Better Bed in local coal production was at the source of Seacroft’s decline. I also suspect the use of the local Jurassic Limestone as a flux to produce pig iron would not be as efficient as the use of the purer Carboniferous Limestone from the Craven District. There should have been no shortage of suitable Gannisters (the quarries in Meanwood for example) for foundry sand and definately no shortage of fireclay for molds!On a mere hunch, I dusted down my copy of Hudson’s “The Aberford Railway and the History of the Garforth Collieries” and came across a little supporting evidence. In referring to Seacroft Colliery’s accounts for 1781 we find: Quote: An item in the colliery accounts for 1781 refers to £9 17s 6d paid, evidently in bribes, ”to Coal Leaders and to the Cinder Burners at the Foundry to encourage the Sale of Coals”. This was the Seacroft Foundry, a mile west of the pits on the outcrop of the Black Band Ironstone In referring to Cinder Burners, he is referring to the production of Coke probably with a method adopted from the traditional production of charcoal (basically destructive distillation of low-ash, low-sulphur bituminous coals to drive off the volatile gas, tars etc). The coal being mined at Seacroft was the Beeston Coal which is an excellent quality household and steam coal, but probably was not ideal for metallurgical use (and I am not sure would have been traditionally regarding as a 'coking coal'). Interestingly he also confirms that the Foundry began operations in 1725.After the failure of Seacroft, it wasn’t until the mid nineteenth century that the Black Band and Better Beds were significantly exploited again in the Leeds area when works were begin in Beeston, Farnley and Hunslet to meet the demand for wrought iron. West Yorkshire iron production peaked in 1875, and went into terminal decline with the rapid expansion of the Northamptonshire & Lincolnshire iron industry and the rapid expansion of Steel production rendering wrought iron relatively unwanted.

[The Parksider]

grumpytramp wrote: ParkieI suspect its decline was a combination of market forces and production problems.In the first instance at the beginning of the true industrial revolution with the expansion and industrialisation of the woollen industry obviously created a huge demand for quality wrought iron. This corresponded with the rapid expansion of the other West Yorkshire iron works probably most notably the Low Moor works on the south side of Bradford around 1790. These works were blessed with the same Black Band Ironstone and workable thickness of Better Bed Coal as Seacroft. Works such as Seacroft were at a commercial disadvantage by comparison, they didn't have the copious reserves of Better Bed coal (more of which in a moment), nor the ready supply of Gannisters for furnace sands or ready access by canal to Carboniferous Limestone (from the Craven districts via the Leeds - Liverpool & Bradford Canals to Low Moor). The expanding South Yorkshire iron industry must have also been very commercially competitive not least as it relied on the same another black band Ironstone the Tankersley Ironstone where the nodules of iron laid amongst shell rich shales making the iron rich in Calcium Carbonate and therefore self-fluxing.The ready availability of Better Bed coals was also an important factor. It was unique for its very low sulphur content which for complex metallurgical reason ensured that it was particularly strong and workable. Iron produced with the Better Bed coal and Black Band Ironstone in the Leeds/Bradford ironworks was regarded as one of the best wrought iron available.Its conjecture but I now suspect that the predominance of the easily won Beeston and Middleton Coals and virtual absence of production from the much thinner Better Bed in local coal production was at the source of Seacroft’s decline. I also suspect the use of the local Jurassic Limestone as a flux to produce pig iron would not be as efficient as the use of the purer Carboniferous Limestone from the Craven District. There should have been no shortage of suitable Gannisters (the quarries in Meanwood for example) for foundry sand and definately no shortage of fireclay for molds!On a mere hunch, I dusted down my copy of Hudson’s “The Aberford Railway and the History of the Garforth Collieries” and came across a little supporting evidence. In referring to Seacroft Colliery’s accounts for 1781 we find: Quote: An item in the colliery accounts for 1781 refers to £9 17s 6d paid, evidently in bribes, ”to Coal Leaders and to the Cinder Burners at the Foundry to encourage the Sale of Coals”. This was the Seacroft Foundry, a mile west of the pits on the outcrop of the Black Band Ironstone In referring to Cinder Burners, he is referring to the production of Coke probably with a method adopted from the traditional production of charcoal (basically destructive distillation of low-ash, low-sulphur bituminous coals to drive off the volatile gas, tars etc). The coal being mined at Seacroft was the Beeston Coal which is an excellent quality household and steam coal, but probably was not ideal for metallurgical use (and I am not sure would have been traditionally regarding as a 'coking coal'). Interestingly he also confirms that the Foundry began operations in 1725.After the failure of Seacroft, it wasn’t until the mid nineteenth century that the Black Band and Better Beds were significantly exploited again in the Leeds area when works were begin in Beeston, Farnley and Hunslet to meet the demand for wrought iron. West Yorkshire iron production peaked in 1875, and went into terminal decline with the rapid expansion of the Northamptonshire & Lincolnshire iron industry and the rapid expansion of Steel production rendering wrought iron relatively unwanted. That was just fantastic - I can't thank you enough!!!

[grumpytramp]

I reread this thread a few nights ago and in particular Parkie’s description of his wee archaeological expedition down Wyke Beck described at http://www.secretleeds.com/forum/Messag ... essage=175 [24/11/09]The straightened course described was exactly as I remembered this section of the beck the last time I wandered down there on my way to my Dad’s allotment nearly 30 years ago!The more I think about this, the more I convince myself that this straightening of the beck could have only been to serve some sort of mill by increasing the velocity of the water flow by effectively steepening the gradient (by removing all the meanders). So I have a wee root around the library at Grumpy Towers and uncovered an intriguing little “vignette” on the subject.There is a very interesting paper written in one of the Publications of the Thoresby Society [Miscellany Volume 15, Part 2; 1971] entiltled “Kirkstall Forge and monkish iron-making” by RA Mott. It describes in considerable detail the Cistercian abbeys history of involvement in iron production (with plenty of references to their interests in Seacroft).Of relevance to this tale is an early reference in a charter [“Croucher Book” 127 (Charter no.CLXXV)]: Quote: grant of William de Somerville of all the land with appurtenances which I have between the township of Seacroft and the grange of Roundhay, and in my great wood of Seacroft and wood of Roundhay as far as Wynmoor with rights to mine ironstone [cum mineria ferri effodienda] A later footnote to the charter by the Duchy of Lancaster reads: Quote: Ther is a more detailed grant of mineral rights by this William de Somerville in a charter copied by Dodworth (VIII, 58 ). By it he gives the monks the ironstone in all of this demesnes ... on condition in every year in which they got the ironstone they should provide him and his men of Seacroft with iron for their ploughs, and also that they should fill up the pits from which the stone was taken During the late 13th Century the Kirkstall monks had gotten themselves into something of a fiscal blackhole requiring them to petition Edward I for help in dealing with their debts [apparently in 1284 debts were £5,248. 15s. 7d. and 5 sacks of wool]. The Earl of Lincoln stepped on his own behalf and agreed to advance the abbey £350 to avoid default on two sums of 500 marks owed to a cardinal and a jew. In return the abbey transfered lands in Roundhay, Seacroft and Shadwell (which generated rents of £41. 7s. 9d) to the Earl of Lincoln for which the Earl agreed to pay 80 marks (£53) in annual rent in perpetuity. The estates of the Earl of Lincoln passed to the Duchy of Lancaster by marriage.This is important as the Duchy papers and accounts in the late 13th and early 14th Century are extensive and some remain. They show: Quote: The Duchy of Lancaster accounts shown that a bloomery (forgio combrendo) in the former territory of the monks at Roundhay was working in 1295/96 for seven weeks at a high rent of 9s. 0d. per week, a rate which can be taken to imply that it was waterwheel operated and produced a bigger bloom (perhaps 100lb instead of the 30lb bloomeries with foot operated bellows In 1322 Thomas of Lancaster was executed at Pontefract after leading a rebel army against Edward II at the Battle of Boroughbridge and his estates passed to the crown for five years. As a consequence: Quote: in 1322 the records of Roundhay bloomery appear in the royal accounts; it was in operation for 20 weeks at the same rent as in 1295/96. In 1356, a bloomery worked at Roundhay for 12 weeks at a rent of 10s. 6d. per week up to Christmas and in the next year tow bloomeries worked there for 35 ½ weeks at the same rent Two things strike me as important here; firstly the reference to water powered bellows in 1295/96 and the constant reference to Roundhay rather than Seacroft .............. is this because the medieval bloomeries (furnaces) were located near the best local source of water, Wyke Beck in Roundhay township rather than Seacroft township? To me it seems entirely logical that the best location for a medieval bloomery would be beneath the principal mineral resources and adjacent to a watercourse. The location below the former Fox Wood Farm by Parkies cinder heaps and at the end of the artificial course of Wyke Beck appears perfect. Another potential clue is on the shown on the 1851 OS 1:10,560 map [ http://www.old-maps.co.uk/ ] a footpath leading directly from Seacroft township directly to the end of the artificial course of the Wyke Beck ....... the direct route to work?

[The Parksider]

grumpytramp wrote: Two things strike me as important here; firstly the reference to water powered bellows in 1295/96 and the constant reference to Roundhay rather than Seacroft .............. is this because the medieval bloomeries (furnaces) were located near the best local source of water, Wyke Beck in Roundhay township rather than Seacroft township? To me it seems entirely logical that the best location for a medieval bloomery would be beneath the principal mineral resources and adjacent to a watercourse. The location below the former Fox Wood Farm by Parkies cinder heaps and at the end of the artificial course of Wyke Beck appears perfect. Another potential clue is on the shown on the 1851 OS 1:10,560 map [ http://www.old-maps.co.uk/ ] a footpath leading directly from Seacroft township directly to the end of the artificial course of the Wyke Beck ....... the direct route to work? Always a pleasure to hear from you!! I await your thesis on how they dug the fireclay pits then filled them in again and built on them, If I can be so over bold as to trouble you for your opinions!The Roundhay estate today is just a portion of the original estate. It is the northern bit left after Samuel Elam sold his central and southern parts all off in bits, whilst Nicholson kept his part and made it the modern park.So the areas of Dib Lane, Oakwood, and of course Foxwood farm and cynder hills were all fairly and squarely in Roundhay hunting Park.Records for the Park show a relationship between people at seacroft and the Roundhay Hunting Park in terms of the hire of people to work in the park making and repairing fences, people to work on the hunting lodge, people to cart hay into the park for the deer (coming from Stanks).......and I assume as you do people to walk down just into the park on the wyke beck to work at the bloomery. Records for the park also refer to an "Iron myne" which is the bit that fascinates me because we have the Ironhills above the bloomery in seacroft that extensively supplied the ironstone for some years, where in the park they may have mined Iron I don't know AFAIK no coal was ever mined in Roundhay, but with your deep knowledge of the strata maybe you can predict this?