Thanks Andy, I now have your article about the Snailbeach machinery, and find your argument compelling about the year of installation of the 60 inch engine, it makes a lot of sense, I am hoping to visit Snailbeach again in May/June time, equipped with measuring instruments, I now have the information I need to estimate the strokes from measurements of the engine house cylinder loading and balance bob slot. But the 10ft indoor, 9ft outdoor stroke seems most likely, as the pumps were in the main shaft 9ft pump stroke is probably correct as stated, it is the engine stroke which seems to be recorded wrongly, 6ft stroke for a 60 inch engine seems very small. The 10ft stroke mentioned in the PDMHS journal is probably the correct measurement.
Measuring the approx half length of the beam seems the best way to prove this. The indoor half of the beam would have to be very short for a 6 foot engine stroke! (Only about 10ft from beam from centre gudgeon to the cylinder end gudgeon). Whereas 9ft stroke equates to approx 15ft from centre to pump rod gudgeon. Even allowing for different positions of the centre gudgeon on the bob wall, the measurements of the engine house should be accurate enough to estimate both engine and pump strokes. Certainly to prove which stroke is the longer, engine or pump.
It would be good to know who manufactured this engine, but by the sound of it the records of this time are very incomplete.
Anyway thanks for a very interesting and informative article on Snailbeach.
If you need to leave the list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] -
leave mining-history
---------
|