Talk:Pendleton Colliery

Preece source reliability
I am a little concerned about the reliability of the cited Preece source. For example, Nadin and contemporary local press reports both seem to think that Fitzgerald began working in the late 1820s but Preece apparently says 1820 itself. Similarly the 1843 Morning Post source talks of "the mines, of which there are three in number, the six-feet, the five-feet and the three-feet ..." which seems to belie Preece's reference to just two mines, the Albert and Crombouke. I've no idea yet which of those three might constitute the Albert and the Crombouke, nor whether the Rams mine would be the third one mentioned. However, it seems unlikely that a contemporary source could predict that the Rams would be sunk in the 1850s (and the newspaper also says that the shaft was already deeper than the alleged deepening done in the 1850s).

I'll do some more digging (sic) but alarm bells are beginning to ring. - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * To make matters worse, Manchester Coalfield lists various mines, from which it seems that the Albert and Crombouke are synonymous, although we're showing Preece making a distinction between them. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And the Manchester Times report of the re-opening in 1847 refers to the Albert and the six-foot seams as being those on which working had recommenced. Again, making the big assumption that Manchester Coalfield has it right, the six-foot seam would appear to be Rams. - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As for the 1820 vs late 1820s thing, this authoritative source prefers the latter. I'll be incorporating that one but I really do think that we need to bin Preece now. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Sitush, nice to see someone else taking an interest in collieries. I think I used Preece, he was, I think, curator of Salford's mining museum before it closed. I'm not at home where I do have more books so I'll look into it. The Rams mine was called the Six Foot at Tyldesley. It's probably me not Preece (blush). I'll be home Monday. J3Mrs (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No probs and no rush. I've just found this also. Bearing in mind that the advert for sale of the lease in early 1852 says that the Seven Foot was already been worked, the statement that Knowles took it down to the Rams mine again seems odd. So, it isn't just the disparity of depth but also of location. According to an advert for the sale of the winding engine, Knowles had begun operating the colliery by April of that year and were indeed going deeper (hence the need to replace the engine), but where to is another matter. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Lot to digest here. Sitush you really have made me think, so a couple of things. Preece did say late 1820s (blush), so that's ok. The coal seams of the Manchester coalfield are very complicated. I extracted information for the main seams from two books, one of which I have lent to someone. The seams sometimes had different names in different collieries so I've looked at the older online source again and find that the Crombouke at Worsley is not the Crombouke at Pendleton which is called the Albert and the Crombouke at Pendleton is found below it! I will clarify that at the coalfield article. The Six foot seam is not the Rams which wasn't reached until the shaft was deepened. The sequence of coal seams was known in the 1850s so it was possible to predict the presence of lower coal seams. All the seams dipped in parallel so the deepest part of the Albert and Crombouke workings would eventually be lower than the shaft bottom for the Rams that is why there is a disparity there. There is more info in the Preece book which seems to have been a source for anything written after it was published so I think it's sound (which is more than can be said about me).  By the way it's my impression that steam engines for pumping were located at the top of the shaft, not the bottom. I've got another book which I'll dig out too. I'll add some more later as I have to make some jam :( J3Mrs (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strawberry, perhaps? I'll give you my address! Yes, seam names changed from one place to another and they shifted in depth also, following the general topography. What would be really handy is a chart similar to the one in the engine house at Astley Green, which shows the shaft for that colliery and the various seams which it broke through. I wonder if someone on the Geology wikiproject (do we have one?) might know of a source or be able to devise a diagram from a cross-sectional geological map of the Whit Lane area. I think that, one way or another, we need to resolve the names before I move on to expanding the Knowles era.


 * There may be some confusion in the sources vis-a-vis "steam engine" and what we nowadays refer to as a furnace, ventilation for the use of. It definitely says 40 hp steam engine at the bottom of the shaft, though, and I think a similar thing is said of the 1863 flooding, when they had to shut down the "steam engine" at the bottom of the shaft. - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Rhubarb and ginger, somebody left a bundle of rhubarb on the back step! The three mines would have been the Worsley four foot, the Albert and the Crombourke. A shaft diagram would be ideal but I haven't seen one for Pendleton. Ventilation furnaces and steam engines are two very different things. There wouldn't be enough fresh air at the shaft bottom for a boiler and ventilation furnace in an 8 foot shaft to a deep mine. I'm sure the pumping engines were on top like the Cornish mines. Preece, another book by Townley et al. all say Knowles sank the Rams shaft. Bit of pov here, I'm sure the colliery wouldn't have been in financial difficulties if it had accessed the Rams mine before 1848. J3Mrs (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added what was in Preece, now I'll find the other book. J3Mrs (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, ta. Crombourke or Crombouke? I'm going to recheck the news things - we have an apparent inconsistency with depths, with Knowles deepening to 1545 ft when it was already 1590. I think the news items used yards and I converted. I'm fairly reliably informed (by a Cornishman) that the building in the picture is the type used to house a Cornish engine. That's not jam, it's poison ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My jam is in great demand in these parts I'll have you know. I've added some more from Townley who has a whole page of refs at the end of each chapter so that should be ok. J3Mrs (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ... and with a deft bit of fingerwork from J3Mrs, the depth anomaly is resolved! Excellent. I think we're really making some good progress here. I may add some stuff about 1863 shortly but it will be a while before I hit 1925. I've recently gained access to the British Newspaper Archive but there are an awful lot of hits for this place, so it is slow going.
 * There is a stone gatepost at Whit Lane, btw, that I feel is almost certainly a lingering remnant of the pit. I base the surmise on an aerial view at britainfromabove but, obviously, I'm not going to include a photo of a lump of stone that may or may not be relevant. I'm not even sure I'd want to get out of my car to take a pic, given the extremely peculiar people who were hanging around there yesterday. I don't think an offer of rhubarb and ginger jam would appease them; a pint of meths might. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's all from Townley. Would you mind if I changed the Harvard refs to sfn sometime? J3Mrs (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ps How do you access to the British Newspaper Archive? J3Mrs (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See BNA/Available_newspapers, although the offer is now oversubscribed by about 35 people. You may still be able to your name to the list - I know that the BNA are very pleased with what I've been doing & if others do the same then they may release more subscriptions. - Sitush (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, I forgot to respond to your other point - early morning rush. I've no objection to you changing the citation style to whatever it may be that you prefer. We seem to be using two here anyway. - Sitush (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)