Day Hole Miggy Colliery

Places to explore
grumpytramp
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon 24 Sep, 2007 6:28 pm

Postby grumpytramp » Tue 07 Dec, 2010 1:16 am

Jim

Well done the quotes from the Middleton Railway books are really fascinating and have given me some real food for thought (but I am not likely to accept the authors interpration).

I will reserve comment for another time when I have more time on my hands (another day of travel hell and evening spent clearing yet another foot of snow dumped on my wee cottage) except to point out that Castle Pit that is located at this coordinate is definately not the Gosforth Pit. The Castle Pit was ultimately sunk 620 feet to the Beeston Coal by J and J Charlesworth Ltd as part of their Robin Hood Colliery complex

I have however thanks to you and Parkie, as I have had a great hour spent revisiting the fantastic Leeds Tithe Map project website (a superb resource that I haven't visited since we had so much fun with Smeaton's furnace :-) )

Jim, I am afraid I do not agree with your interprations of the Tithe Map .......... STOP PRESS ........ Jim I am afraid I do not agree with all of your interprations of the Tithe Map

jim wrote:
I think the Gosforth ventilation shaft/s could well have been in the tiny plot 191 near the south-east corner of the Middleton Sheet.


Plot 191 according to the Tithe Appointments was owned by the Reverend Richard Lucus, was occupied by James Deacon and was a Homestead and Yard. Plots 189/190/192/193/194 and 195 are fields owned and occupied by the same. If you look at the 1856 OS map and trace the same tithe boundaries with the field boundaries shown on OS sheet this tallies with the house called Middleton House.

jim wrote:
If you find Westland Road on the present day map and then compare it with the Tithe Map, I believe plot 469, containing a building and a pond, is probably the site of Beeston Pit.


Sorry look very closely at the 1856 OS Sheet or more clearly on the 1892 1:2500 sheet. This is a property called Beeston Park

Plot 459 according to the Tithe Appointments was owned by curiously named Spearman William Henry Walton (perhaps a partnership?) and was occupied by James Leather [ b. 21st Jan., 1779; eldest son of George Leather of Beeston and succeeded his father in extensive colliery interests] and the plot is described as House, Homestead, Yard & Garden

jim wrote:
New Pit was almost central in Middleton Sheet plot 322, and I think the tiny clay pit could have been in the equally tiny plot 317.


I cannot pick those points out regardless the tithe map predates the New Pit sinking. I can precise about the New Pits location though which was at approximately SE 304 301 [almost exactly where the (?) Old Run Road crosses the Middleton Railway to the north of South Leeds High School] .......... Oh hang on that ties in rather nicely with Middleton plot 322 :-)

God, I love this sort of stuff ........ beats civil engineering contracting or shoveling snow!
The Parksider
Posts: 1547
Joined: Sat 10 Nov, 2007 3:55 am

Postby The Parksider » Tue 07 Dec, 2010 9:27 am

grumpytramp wrote:


I have however thanks to you and Parkie, as I have had a great hour spent revisiting the fantastic Leeds Tithe Map project website (a superb resource that I haven't visited since we had so much fun with Smeaton's furnace :-) )



Hope your snow eases up - where do you look for the "Tithe appointments"???? Looks superb info but where is it?

The Foundry Mill is on the Tithe map with a clear water feed from Ross Gill and outfall to Wyke Back, Wonder what the Tithe appointments say for that?

Leodis now has a small collection of shots of the ruins of the Mill and Smeatons wheel.
jim
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sun 17 May, 2009 10:09 am

Postby jim » Tue 07 Dec, 2010 10:21 am

Parksider. .EDIT replaced by message below    
jim
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sun 17 May, 2009 10:09 am

Postby jim » Tue 07 Dec, 2010 11:00 am

Parksider, I think the "1760"painting is seriously misattributed. One could not have looked side on to the Middleton Railway at the Leeds end and have seen any part of the ( then) town centre. Additionally, the "viaduct" was a series of relatively low arches, not more than ten feet high as an absolute maximum. There is a steam locomotive heading the train. Middleton's ( and Leeds,! ) first was 1812. Even in 1812 I would have serious doubts about such a proliferation of factory chimneys.

All in all far too many incongruous features to accept a 1760 dating - and the viaduct is more likely to have carried one of the early main line railways.

Grumpytramp, I am seriously puzzled that you are unable to find "Beeston Pit" at or near the site I stated. It shows up on every OS map in old-maps from EDIT - 1908 - END EDIT onwards, although one map of the 1890s identifies it as "Bye Pit". The others all clearly identify it as Beeston Pit or Colliery. EDIT - It is however in plot 458, not 459. There is a clearly marked "old shaft" in the near vicinity in the 1854 OS, which might suggest a possible previous pit of the same name. - END EDIT

I am pleased that you at least agree with me on the site of New Pit! I should point out that I am making no statement that my site IDs are contemporaneous with the maps, merely that the pits were on that site at some point in time.

As to Gosforth shaft, I was saying that the site I pointed out COULD have been its position, based on distance, direction, and the described location in my reference. As I stated above, I am not claiming that such a feature remained at the date of the Tithe map - it could have been removed or altered in the intervening period. There are, of course, other possible sites, that one appeared to be the one that most closely fitted the published details.

When it comes to seams and other geological features I would bow to your statements every time - I have absolutely no knowledge or experience of such things! My observations are based on knowledge of local terrain, an obsession with old maps and industrial archaeology, and a working life in mechanical engineering, with electrical and civil experience on the side.

And I still think that the Dayhole/s at Conyers Spring ran in a generally southerly direction, but will be happy to admit defeat if it proves otherwise!




    

jim
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sun 17 May, 2009 10:09 am

Postby jim » Tue 07 Dec, 2010 5:23 pm

I must apologise for starting a wild goose chase by mentioning plot 191 as my possible ID for the site of the presumed Gosforth ventilation shaft. I entered this number in good faith from my scribbled notes, and on checking find I should have posted plot 187. Note to self: double check every time, you silly old (expletive deleted).

Plot 187 would appear by it's position and size to have been "sold out" of it's original plot, number 186. It would also appear to me that this sale would have been for a specific particular purpose, and, given that there is no apparent access road or track, the use I suggest might be the reason for this state of affairs.

See also edits to previous post.    
The Parksider
Posts: 1547
Joined: Sat 10 Nov, 2007 3:55 am

Postby The Parksider » Tue 07 Dec, 2010 9:28 pm

jim wrote:


Parksider, I think the "1760"painting is seriously misattributed. One could not have looked side on to the Middleton Railway at the Leeds end and have seen any part of the ( then) town centre. Additionally, the "viaduct" was a series of relatively low arches, not more than ten feet high as an absolute maximum. There is a steam locomotive heading the train. Middleton's ( and Leeds,! ) first was 1812. Even in 1812 I would have serious doubts about such a proliferation of factory chimneys. All in all far too many incongruous features to accept a 1760 dating - and the viaduct is more likely to have carried one of the early main line railways.



1. I agree the extent of the arches is nonsensicle. (good word that)
Are the arches depicted in the 1947 leodis photos anything to do with the 1760's painting and engraving though? After all the line ran to casson close and was cut short to Kidacre Street years later.

2. The Tithe map was interesting as the original waggonway seems to swan south past DHE and Convers spring ending up at Lingwell syke on the Miggy Road/Town St junction.

The plots there confirm an "old engine" and "well pit close" so the pit/abandoned pit was certainly there at the time of the map and presumably that was the southern end of the original line.
grumpytramp
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon 24 Sep, 2007 6:28 pm

Postby grumpytramp » Tue 07 Dec, 2010 10:35 pm

jim wrote:
I must apologise for starting a wild goose chase by mentioning plot 191 as my possible ID for the site of the presumed Gosforth ventilation shaft. I entered this number in good faith from my scribbled notes, and on checking find I should have posted plot 187. Note to self: double check every time, you silly old (expletive deleted).


Jim

Please it was not a problem and apologies if I caused any offence.

I just got a little bit over enthuisiastic last night having finally gotten to understand the power of the Tithe Maps, but then there was the conflicting excitement of the test match and I never made the point I meant to make which was they are only in effect a land registry for that given moment in time!

G
jim
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sun 17 May, 2009 10:09 am

Postby jim » Tue 07 Dec, 2010 11:06 pm

Hi Parksider.I don't think that the extension past the later Great Wilson Street can possibly have been much higher than the Kidacre Street arches. I used to work from Kidacre Street, and the original extension course was our route to Leeds City Station ( usually calling at the Bridge End Cafe! ) during the 1960s and 70s.

Because of my interest in railway history I spent much time poking about both on the site and on any old map I could access. The length of line cut back cannot have exceeded a hundred yards or so, and I can think of no reason to make even the slight incline that would have been possible within that distance. Horse drawn wagons need no higher loading space than provided to load from rail born wagon bottoms than that at Kidacre Street. Any increase would only cause the coal to break up further, and there is little point in that.

The ground in that whole area is, as you pointed our in your previous post, to all intents and purposes completely level. Then there are the caveats I presented, and I feel certain that the date attributed to the painting is impossible. Indeed,it is likely that the Artist who painted it is either also mis-attributed, worked at a different set of dates, or was extremely long lived.

It should also be pointed out that the near broadside view of the "viaduct" would be even less likely to take in the town centre.

I had always thought that the possible waggonway suggested passing to the east of the Broom Pit site was a little unlikely, in view of the gradient required. In pre-locomotive rail and waggonway days a gradient of 1 in 50 or steeper would usually have been dealt with as an inclined plane. I believe that the track shown on the maps must have been steeper than that, by the observable terrain, and that is why I think the supposition unlikely.

If it was in fact a waggonway and my reasoning is faulty, I think it must have been a branch off the main waggonway up to Conyers Spring, purely on the grounds of the configuration of the various routes at the Belle Isle Village junction. It would be a very unusual waggonway which did not lay out it's turnouts to favour the major route over a mere branch.

Part of the difficulty with interpreting maps drawn prior to major railway building is that waggoways, roads, and paths are not differentiated in any way. One has to make up one's own mind, and it is easy to get things wrong - in both directions!



    

jim
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sun 17 May, 2009 10:09 am

Postby jim » Tue 07 Dec, 2010 11:23 pm

grumpytramp wrote:


Jim

Please it was not a problem and apologies if I caused any offence.

G


Hi Grumpytramp, absolutely no offence taken. I post on here on the supposition that I am taking part in friendly discussions aiming at ferreting out truths about interesting local history. I also assume that everyone else is doing the same thing.

I am also not desperate to be "right". The important thing is to try and find out the truth, and if I (as I often do ) get something wrong, I will acknowledge the fact, and be content. I will always reserve the right to disagree until a point is proven, and expect others to do the same in return.

I believe this to be in the best traditions of this great forum.

Best wishes
Jim.



The Parksider
Posts: 1547
Joined: Sat 10 Nov, 2007 3:55 am

Postby The Parksider » Wed 08 Dec, 2010 2:14 pm

jim wrote:
Hi Parksider.I don't think that the extension past

I had always thought that the possible waggonway suggested passing to the east of the Broom Pit site was a little unlikely, in view of the gradient required. In pre-locomotive rail and waggonway days a gradient of 1 in 50 or steeper would usually have been dealt with as an inclined plane. I believe that the track shown on the maps must have been steeper than that, by the observable terrain, and that is why I think the supposition unlikely.

If it was in fact a waggonway and my reasoning is faulty, I think it must have been a branch off the main waggonway up to Conyers Spring, purely on the grounds of the configuration of the various routes at the Belle Isle Village junction. It would be a very unusual waggonway which did not lay out it's turnouts to favour the major route over a mere branch.

Part of the difficulty with interpreting maps drawn prior to major railway building is that waggoways, roads, and paths are not differentiated in any way. One has to make up one's own mind, and it is easy to get things wrong - in both directions!

    


I have mastered the Tithe apportionments which show what was in each plot. However plot numbers are a bit all over the place so it;s easier to look up a ploy number and see what was there, rather than look up something there and try to find the plot - if you see what I mean.

The run from the Broom colliery up to Well Pit is marked down as a road from "old engine to day hole" so there is a day hole on Conyers spring pre-dating the 1914 one.

At 262 There's "Engine house and workshops" which is maybe the Broom Pit

169 & 288 & 299 are segments of the "old waggon road"

Few questions for you two fine gentlemen......

1. What is meant by an engine or old engine - I assume it's a winding engine??? "Old" meaning abandoned? More accurate thoughts anyone?

2. There are "Pit Hill" and "Coal Hill" wonder what the difference is there.

Also colliers cottages are named as such.

Return to





Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 4 and 0 guests