Coal Mining in East Leeds

The Parksider · Post by **The Parksider** » Fri 17 Dec, 2010 10:36 am

chameleon wrote: This story is full of never ending revelations, hard to recall how simple it was when we first started Parkie I'm pulling all the notes together and writing out a chronological story of the local iron industry. Due to your sterling work and the breathtaking research by GT, and other help this paper would of course be credited to "Secret Leeds".I'm just keeping this thread alive to double check the concensus of opinion (sometimes though just bowing to GT's expertise).For the water power section I would summarise that the Wyke beck was used for power and a dam at Ellers Close by the goat's milk farm was constructed to ensure a stong supply whenever the original mill was at work on the banks of the Wyke beck.A move to the corn mill led to water supply problems. There was a mill pond fed from the beck at seacroft but it wasn't enough. There is evidence of an ambitious project to cut a watercourse from higher up the Wyke near the original dam but that seems to have failed albeit the watercourse appeared on maps for some years after.Mr. Smeaton is then asked to help and additional water was sourced for the mill pond from mine drainage soughs. In addition a second mill pond was dug to increase capacity.This was still not enough, so a cut was made from Rossgill and a shorter watercourse was run around "Moresdale" to the back of the mill for a direct feed onto the leat of the wheel.Does that seem a fair summary of our conclusions?

Post by **chameleon** » Fri 17 Dec, 2010 11:23 am

The Parksider wrote: chameleon wrote: This story is full of never ending revelations, hard to recall how simple it was when we first started Parkie I'm pulling all the notes together and writing out a chronological story of the local iron industry. Due to your sterling work and the breathtaking research by GT, and other help this paper would of course be credited to "Secret Leeds".I'm just keeping this thread alive to double check the concensus of opinion (sometimes though just bowing to GT's expertise).For the water power section I would summarise that the Wyke beck was used for power and a dam at Ellers Close by the goat's milk farm was constructed to ensure a stong supply whenever the original mill was at work on the banks of the Wyke beck.A move to the corn mill led to water supply problems. There was a mill pond fed from the beck at seacroft but it wasn't enough. There is evidence of an ambitious project to cut a watercourse from higher up the Wyke near the original dam but that seems to have failed albeit the watercourse appeared on maps for some years after.Mr. Smeaton is then asked to help and additional water was sourced for the mill pond from mine drainage soughs. In addition a second mill pond was dug to increase capacity.This was still not enough, so a cut was made from Rossgill and a shorter watercourse was run around "Moresdale" to the back of the mill for a direct feed onto the leat of the wheel.Does that seem a fair summary of our conclusions? Yes.

Post by **chameleon** » Fri 17 Dec, 2010 11:29 am

A one word answer to months of deliberation doesn't seem much Parkie But seriously, yes that constitutes what I would consider to be a perfect Abstract for a major article. Please keep in touch with progress, and of course float any thoughts - deeply interested in watching the progress.

The Parksider · Post by **The Parksider** » Fri 17 Dec, 2010 3:29 pm

chameleon wrote: A one word answer to months of deliberation doesn't seem much Parkie But seriously, yes that constitutes what I would consider to be a perfect Abstract for a major article. Please keep in touch with progress, and of course float any thoughts - deeply interested in watching the progress. I can EMail you what I write easily enough.There will be other questions.There is evidence of medieval bloomeries and dates of 1295, and 1356 with a second bloomery in operation 1357.We have a dam built at Ellers Close in 1577.We have a 1603 reference to water powered mills in the wyke beck valley. I assume one is the Iron Mill and one the Corn Mill.We have a 1725 reference to there being a commencement of foundry operations at the Corn Mill.We have Smeaton assisting in 1779 to "erect an engine and bellows for an iron furnace erected at seacroft on the site of an old corn mill". We have a failure of the foundry in 1822 and a sale of the mill as a corn mill.The questions this raises is 1. What did the bloomeries consist of structurally, and when would a Mill building have been built on the Wyke by the Cynder Hills. I can only take a chance and assume that a larger capacity than a bloomery "modern for the time" Iron Mill was constructed at the same time as the dam 1577 and the local bloomeries abandoned? I'm after some logic for that as there's nothing physical or historical to go on.2. I wonder when before 1603 was the corn mill built. There's a water corn mill in Barnsley that dates back well before that. I would like to know or estimate when the Windmill was built and did this replace or add to production at the corn mill. 3. There's a 1725 start to iron founding at the corn mill - did this mean that corn milling switched to the Windmill and the iron foundry was built inside the existing corn mill?4. 1779 refers to the "SITE of an old corn mill" 1822 has the mill of that time sold as a corn mill?? So was the corn mill re-built in 1725 and was the equioment retained and put into the foundry mill for sale as a corn mill again. Plus why would anyone want to buy a corn mill if the Windmill had exclusivity to the local grain milling business?There's some questions!!!And thanks to Grumpytramp for some superbly researched information above........

The Parksider · Post by **The Parksider** » Fri 17 Dec, 2010 3:46 pm

chameleon wrote: float any thoughts - deeply interested in watching the progress. It's also a wild guess that the wyke beck had an undershot waterwheel and an overshot wheel was required for better production, which was not possible in the beck, but was alrady in place at the corn mill being fed by the first pond above.I can see a paper full of "It is likely that's"

Post by **chameleon** » Fri 17 Dec, 2010 3:49 pm

Remember to support the hypotheses with reasoned argument - deduction one way or the other will follow. Might even stimulate new thought (or even evidence!) from readers.

The Parksider · Post by **The Parksider** » Sat 18 Dec, 2010 9:55 am

chameleon wrote: I found this, not much but more than we have so I'll add it Can we use this for illustration?

Post by **chameleon** » Sat 18 Dec, 2010 4:51 pm

The Parksider wrote: chameleon wrote: I found this, not much but more than we have so I'll add it Can we use this for illustration? Probably, but I'd like to refresh my memory as to what it was and there are 11 pages here. Help, clue, not much of this year left.....

The Parksider · Post by **The Parksider** » Sat 18 Dec, 2010 5:55 pm

chameleon wrote: The Parksider wrote: chameleon wrote: I found this, not much but more than we have so I'll add it Can we use this for illustration? Probably, but I'd like to refresh my memory as to what it was and there are 11 pages here. Help, clue, not much of this year left..... Sorry the piccy didn't appear when I quoted your post. It's on page 9 and it refers to being of Foundry Lane, however i suspect the road is off foundry lane.....

Post by **chameleon** » Sat 18 Dec, 2010 8:31 pm

The Parksider wrote: chameleon wrote: The Parksider wrote: chameleon wrote: I found this, not much but more than we have so I'll add it Can we use this for illustration? Probably, but I'd like to refresh my memory as to what it was and there are 11 pages here. Help, clue, not much of this year left..... Sorry the piccy didn't appear when I quoted your post. It's on page 9 and it refers to being of Foundry Lane, however i suspect the road is off foundry lane..... I think it is the best we've found upto now. I can rescan and save in a more usable format if you wish. Given the date, it is prbably out of copyright but a credit to rtist and press origin would not go amiss of course.