Paul,
I think you'll have to except that historical facts gleaned from a number of sources can be a bit like Chinese whispers.
Most of the reports are based on translations of:
"Truitement de la Galene au Four Gallois; Notice sur les Usines a Plomb de Pontesford pres Shrewsbury. Shropshire; et Note sur Fabrication du Minium a l’usine de Shrewsbury. Par M.L.Moissenet, Ingenieur des Mines. Paris: Dunod, Quai des Augustins.", 1862 (or "Moissenet", as it is often called - published 4 years after the engine was commissioned.)
See:
1. PDMHS Bulletin Volume 11, No.6, Winter 1992, “Lead Smelting in Welsh Furnaces at Pontesford, Shropshire”, Hazel M.Martell and Michael C.Gill
and
2. “The Mining and Smelting Magazine, Vol. II, Nov. 1862 – Lead Mining and Smelting in the Snailbeach District, Shropshire”, p289-292.
Both accounts differ slightly:
“There are three steam engines. The first is a 60 inch Cornish pumping engine, with a 10 foot stroke. The diameter of the pumps is 9.5 inches and their stroke 9 feet. There is very little water.” [1]
“There are three steam-engines on the mine. A 60” Cornish pumping-engine, 6’ stroke in cylinder and 9’ in shaft, with 6.5” pumps, which shows that the water is not abundant.” [2]
I suspect other accounts, such as:
3. “Mining Remains in South West Shropshire” SCMC Account 18, T.Davies, M.Newton, A.Pearce, Shropshire Caving & Mining Club, 1993.
and
4. “A Brief Account of the Geology, History and Mechanisation of the Snailbeach Mine, Shropshire”, Davis, R.V., 1968 Memoirs The Northern Cavern & Mine Research Society, pp52-62.
Also make use of translations of Moissenet, but they have the added advantage of having spoken to Alfred Hewitt the last driver of the pumping engine, who was able to provide them with details of the engine operation and the mine day work book for 1862-64:
“The pumping engine worked on the expansive principle, steam was cut-off at one third of the working stroke for greater efficiency." [3]
“In 1858 this system was replaced by a 61” dia. Steam engine of the Cornish type, with a 6½” dia. Pump. It was a double acting engine with a cataract valve at the base. The 36’ long beam had an uneven action; the cylinder stroke being 6’, and the pump stroke 9’. The working pressure was 50lb./sq.”, and worked without a condenser in later years, at a rate of five strokes per minute.” [4]
“ .... it worked at 5,200 gallons per hour.” [4]
“To drain the mine for 24 hours in summer took 5 hours pumping, against 7 hours in winter.” [4]
“The daywork book for 1862-64 has many references to the engine which needed regular greasing and the piston rod stuffing box attending to. Canvas packing for the piston was purchased from Messr. J.A.Pumphrey of Birmingham for the cost of £2.15.1½ d” [3] (I believe the daywork book is now in the Shropshire Record Office).
You'll notice that the 61" dimension has appeared in Ref. [4] This might mean that the engine was re-bored during it's working life at the mine, rather than it being a second-hand re-bored engine, or it could just be a typo!
Both Alfred Hewitt and John Caufield (a miner who worked on the lowest levels of the mine) stated that it was a "dry mine".
While accurate measurement of the engine house remains will help, the exact position of the pumps is hard to pin down, and can only be guestimated, so there will always be an error bar on the outside beam measurements.
Unless a reference can be found in the surviving mine papers (either at Shrewsbury or Longleat), I doubt we will learn the source/makers of the engine.
On a different point, just because an engine has an 'odd' cylinder size it doesn't mean that it has been re-bored. There was no 'standard' size. A quick check of preserved beam engines reveals a wide range of cylinder diameters.
Kelvin Lake
Publications and Newsletter Officer
Shropshire Caving & Mining Club
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^o^
Visit us on the web: www.shropshirecmc.org.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: mining-history [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of M J Shaw
Sent: 08 April 2014 10:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Snailbeach
There is debate as to which dimension is correct, but as several contemporary sources including Moissonet and The Kinnaired Report quote 60", this presumably is what it was. I have never seen a suggestion as to its builder or possible pre 1848 history.
Mike Shaw
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Smith" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [mining-history] Snailbeach
Thanks David, I will follow up those leads, accurate plans would go a long
way to working the length of the beam either side of centre and hence work
out the length of the stroke of the engine and pumps.
A good friend of mine (Kenneth Brown) published a booklet through an Irish
Mining History Society, which is still available i think, I am trying to
obtain a copy, as Ken cannot lay is hands on any of his to loan me. If the
engine was manufactured in Cornwall this should give quite accurate results,
if not the results will still be good as his methods hold true for all beam
engines.
What I would really like to know as well is them origin of the Snailbeach
engine, I have always assumed it to be second hand due to its often quoted
size of 61 inch, which points to a rebore at sometime, as engines were
generally built to set sizes (60", 40", 80", 36" etc), odd inches is often a
clue to a used engine.
If you or anyone as further information I would be very grateful!!
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
---------
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
If you need to leave the list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] -
leave mining-history
---------
|
