Finally had my question more or less answered, I have received a inventory
list for Snailbeach, dated December 1884, thanks to Steve Holding for this.
The engine is indeed recorded as having an unequal beam, having a stroke of
10ft in the Cylinder and 9ft in the shaft (pumps), pump size was in general
stated as 9 inch, although the top two lifts were were 8.5 inch, almost
certainly for a supply to the engines at Lordshill. The bottom 9 inch lift
was a bucket lift. The pump rods were 12inch square at the surface,
reducing to 9 inch, lower down the shaft the mains rods extended fom the
surface to 342 yards below adit or day level.
Thanks for everyone's help on this, I will be down to Snailbeach again soon
to take proper measurements, and draw a plan.
Still hoping to find a manufacturer of this equipment if possible!
Thanks again,
Paul
On 6 April 2014 14:11, Paul Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> During a visit last year, I downloaded an article on a surface tour of the
> above mine.
>
> On reading I was particularly interested in the description of the
> Lordshill 60 inch pumping engine, which gave a stroke in the pumps of 9ft
> and in the engine of 6ft, this seemed strange to me for two reasons:
>
> The engine stroke is very short for a 60 inch engine
> Pump stokes are usually equal to or shorter than the engine stroke.
>
> Not having measuring equipment with me I decided to do a rough measurement
> of the beam lengths to ascertain the approximate stroke in the engine and
> pumps, pacing out the distance from centre of the bob wall to the centre of
> the cylinder and the centre of the bob wall to the balance slot at the
> shaft. These distances were approximately equal, giving equal stroke in
> pumps and engine, (in fact if anything the distance to the balance slot
> from bob wall was the shorter which gives a shorter stroke in the pump).
> This confirmed my suspicion that information I read might be incorrect.
>
> I have since read and article in a PDMHS bulletin on lead mining at
> Pontesford which mentions this engine and gives a stroke in the engine of
> 10ft and in the pumps of 9ft which would tend to confirm that I am right.
>
> I am now looking forward to another visit to the Shropshire lead mines
> this year with equipment to measure the engine house properly and have a
> wander around as many more sites as I can in a week!!
>
> A couple of other points about this pumping engine is the size of the
> pumps which at 6 inches seem rather small for a mine of this size and
> indeed this engine, (in fact the are quoted as 9.5 inch bore pumps in the
> PDMHS article), the other is the cylinder size which is sometimes quoted
> as 60 inch and other times 61 inch. If the size was indeed 61 inch, then
> the engine is almost certainly a rebored second hand engine.
>
> If anyone as plans of this engine house I would love a copy to study, I
> would also be very happy if someone had information on the origins of this
> engine (foundry, where it worked before Snailbeach etc) and also more
> information on engine and pump stroke.
>
> Thanks in anticipation.
>
> Paul
>
> If you need to leave the list, send the following message to
> [log in to unmask] -
>
> leave mining-history
> ---------
>
If you need to leave the list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] -
leave mining-history
---------
|