Castle Aching

[Edwardian]

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Wot, you mean like priests and sex?

 

I know a particularly fine after dinner joke about that, but now is neither the time nor the place.

 

However, as an Anglican, Rev. Denny was allowed to marry, and he did, and with issue, so I don't think he was educationally disadvantaged in the way you suggest!

[ianathompson]

2 hours ago, wagonman said:

I wonder how much coal they used at Fakenham?

 

I cannot tell you the answer to this but it might be possible to find out.

I don't know if you quoted Fakenham deliberately but it has the only gas works museum in Britain.

They might have kept the ledgers.

 

I must admit that I have never visited the museum but we used to go into a pub across the road sometimes, after playing cricket.

 

Ian T

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, wagonman said:

 

I wonder how much coal they used at Fakenham?

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

 

I cannot tell you the answer to this but it might be possible to find out.

I don't know if you quoted Fakenham deliberately but it has the only gas works museum in Britain.

They might have kept the ledgers.

 

 

Indeed, after all, Achingham is, well, sort of Fakenham.

 

Good points

[wagonman]

7 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

 

I cannot tell you the answer to this but it might be possible to find out.

I don't know if you quoted Fakenham deliberately but it has the only gas works museum in Britain.

They might have kept the ledgers.

 

I must admit that I have never visited the museum but we used to go into a pub across the road sometimes, after playing cricket.

 

Ian T

 

 Yes Ian I did mention Fakenham deliberately. I have even visited it, but not searched for any records. I do know the coal was brought from the railway station (GER presumably) by horse and cart. Thanks for the link.

[wagonman]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Below is reproduced a short article from the Teesdale Mercury by Tony Seward.  Enjoy at your leisure, but the point of bringing it up here is that the article does give an indication of the volume of coal consumption by what must be a roughly comparable small town works  (utilising two gasholders at any one time), which might help us determine the likely volume of coal needed at Achingham.

 

"3,052 tons of coal were consumed in the ten years to 1849. In 1845, just over 222 tons produced 372,200 cubic feet of gas, but this ratio greatly improved as the plant became more efficient over the years".  So, in 1905 we are looking at a more efficient process, so the 1840s only really set an upper figure that we should be somewhere south of.  Now, that, if my maths are not awry, gives a weekly average coal consumption of 5.869 tones. Assuming even relatively modest increased efficiencies, and that suggests that a small town gasworks in the early 1900s might require half a 10-ton wagon load of coal a week!  Hardly time to start running block trains on the WNR then!

 

On the other hand, the gasworks at that time (see article) may only have been supplying street lamps.

 

Note also the presence of an ammonium sulphate plant for converting the ammonia by-product into fertiliser for local farmers, as a further by-product to coke.  Both could be sold to offset the cost of gas production.

 

How much coal might a NE collier brig land at Wolfringham Staithe?

 

According to this, such a vessel was typically 250-300 tons.  I am sure that our Maritime Parishioners can confirm, but my shaky understanding that a vessel's given tonnage general refers to its cargo-carrying capacity, not the weight of a ship, which might seem helpful until one realises that maritime tonnage is a volume, not weight, measurement.  At least I think I have that right.

 

Of course, that is not the end of it, because there is a physical limit to the weight a ship can carry, regardless of the cargo volume  available (deadweight tonnage, I think this would be).  I understand that deadweight tonnage was at least measured in imperial of long tines (not nassty little tonnes), so I suppose if I knew the deadweight tonnage of a collier brig, I might be closer to knowing the weight of coal she carried?

  

Unfortunately, one commonly only sees references to the (volume) tonnage of a vessel. So, what a vessel's tonnage (volume) means in terms of a railway wagon's capacity expressed as laden weight for the chosen commodity (coal) is anyone's guess.  

 

Well, this site claims, on what authority I do not know, that "A typical collier brig [17th-18th C] could carry about 300–400 tons of coal"

 

So, ere, at least 30-40 WNR wagons' worth, if that's true.  I suspect many of the older WNR would be more like 6-8 ton capacity. 

 

 

 

 

That's really useful. I am assuming that coal for the towns and villages generally comes from colliery, coal factor or local coal merchant wagons.

 

But, yes, logically anyone without the need of specialist coal, e.g. the maltings, could partake of the seaborne 'house coal'.

 

 

The Port Books for the Glaven Ports (Blakeney and Cley) – a passable analogue for Wolfringham – only go up to 1780 but they do give an idea of the tonnages of coal brought into these creeks. Average loads were between 20 and 40 chalders, occasionally as much as 90. A typical example was the 80 ton sloop Wallington, Thomas Hooke Master, which arrived from Newcastle on 15 June 1770 with 28 chalders of coal. A Newcastle chalder was 53cwt so the load was 68.9 tons (TNA ref E190/575/4). The weight given for ship was of course volumetric as they had no way of measuring deadweight and calculated by a formula (which changed subtly over the years) which was explained in a letter to the local Customs House in the 1720s (TNA ref: CUST96/152):

 

"length from the....of the main post to the outer part of the stern, and the breadth from outside to outside then take of 3/5ths of the breadth from the length for the rake before and that giving the main length of the keel..., multiply the breadth by the length and the half breadth for the depth and the product of that divide by 94 to give tonnage.

eg 72’ long, 20’ wide. Take off 3/5th breadth gives length 60’ x 20’ x 10’ = 127 62/94 tons"

                                                                                                              94

 

Most of the ships (brigs, schooners, and sloops) owned and registered in the Glaven Ports, even in the C19, were around the 100 ton mark. In June 1770 26 ships brought in 1380 tons of coal – the summer months were busier than winter for weather related reasons. By the late C19 these tonnages were probably reduced by competition from the railways.

 

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, wagonman said:

By the late C19 these tonnages were probably reduced by competition from the railways.

 

But demand would be way up - I can imagine that the tonnage coming in by sea might have increased, even if it had fallen dramatically as a proportion of the total imported into the area. I'm not sure that it would necessarily have been uncompetitive compared to rail?

Edited September 10, 2021 by Compound2632

[wagonman]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But demand would be way up - I can imagine that the tonnage coming in by sea might have increased, even if it had fallen dramatically as a proportion of the total imported into the area.

 

I'm not convinced, Stephen. One of the other problems was that ships were getting bigger while the creeks were getting smaller through silting. Trade in and out of the Glaven ports, like all the other creeks along this coast, had ceased by 1914, though Wells carried on into the late C20.

 

The Blakeney Harbour Co records might throw some moe light on this but they're in the local History Centre. I do have a key but I've no idea where they are kept!

 

[Compound2632]

17 minutes ago, wagonman said:

I'm not convinced, Stephen. One of the other problems was that ships were getting bigger while the creeks were getting smaller through silting. Trade in and out of the Glaven ports, like all the other creeks along this coast, had ceased by 1914, though Wells carried on into the late C20.

 

Yes, I see that. Those 26 ships in June 1770 brought in under 200 wagon's worth of coal. The Gas Light & Coal Co.'s fleet isn't really a good point of reference - they were able to use much larger ships, for which the economics were better. Even so, they seem to have lost some wreaked in storms. As I recall, the rate of loss of Tyne colliers in the 18th century was inhumanely high.

 

But I suspect the other factor in favour of rail was that it opened up access to coalfields much closer at hand.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

49 minutes ago, wagonman said:

 

The Port Books for the Glaven Ports (Blakeney and Cley) – a passable analogue for Wolfringham – only go up to 1780 but they do give an idea of the tonnages of coal brought into these creeks. Average loads were between 20 and 40 chalders, occasionally as much as 90. A typical example was the 80 ton sloop Wallington, Thomas Hooke Master, which arrived from Newcastle on 15 June 1770 with 28 chalders of coal. A Newcastle chalder was 53cwt so the load was 68.9 tons (TNA ref E190/575/4). The weight given for ship was of course volumetric as they had no way of measuring deadweight and calculated by a formula (which changed subtly over the years) which was explained in a letter to the local Customs House in the 1720s (TNA ref: CUST96/152):

 

"length from the....of the main post to the outer part of the stern, and the breadth from outside to outside then take of 3/5ths of the breadth from the length for the rake before and that giving the main length of the keel..., multiply the breadth by the length and the half breadth for the depth and the product of that divide by 94 to give tonnage.

eg 72’ long, 20’ wide. Take off 3/5th breadth gives length 60’ x 20’ x 10’ = 127 62/94 tons"

                                                                                                              94

 

Most of the ships (brigs, schooners, and sloops) owned and registered in the Glaven Ports, even in the C19, were around the 100 ton mark. In June 1770 26 ships brought in 1380 tons of coal – the summer months were busier than winter for weather related reasons. By the late C19 these tonnages were probably reduced by competition from the railways.

 

 

I will study this; very helpful.

 

My immediate reaction, however, is that this makes much more sense than the '300-400 tons' carried that the web source gave; because your figures suggest to me that you could probably half those figures in relation to the likely dead weight of the typical cargo.  I do wonder if the author confused ship's tonnage with the weight of the coal cargo. 

 

On the other hand, your example is a sloop with a tonnage of 80, whereas the other claim seen on the web, for Nineteenth Century collier brigs, was for tonnages of 250-300, but, again, your information concerning typical tonnages of 100 may throw doubt on that.

 

Fascinating stiff.  

[Edwardian]

47 minutes ago, wagonman said:

 

I'm not convinced, Stephen. One of the other problems was that ships were getting bigger while the creeks were getting smaller through silting. Trade in and out of the Glaven ports, like all the other creeks along this coast, had ceased by 1914, though Wells carried on into the late C20.

 

This was certainly true of Burnham Overy Staithe, which is why Birchoverham Staithe is given a similar history and in 1905 sees only wooden, relatively small/shallow draft, sailing coasters; no steamers there, unlike Blakeney/Fakeney.

 

 

 

47 minutes ago, wagonman said:

The Blakeney Harbour Co records might throw some moe light on this but they're in the local History Centre. I do have a key but I've no idea where they are kept!

 

 

A good example/source

Edited September 10, 2021 by Edwardian
Picture

[ianathompson]

1 hour ago, wagonman said:

Yes Ian I did mention Fakenham deliberately. I have even visited it, but not searched for any records. I do know the coal was brought from the railway station (GER presumably) by horse and cart.

 

Again I am guessing but I would have thought that the M&GN station would have been a better bet as it is only just round the corner.

One of the platforms from this station has been preserved, just outside the Jewson warehouse, and can be seen on Google Earth.

 

The Great Eastern station, across town, has been obliterated, although it is commemorated in a street name.

This station, as I recall, was unusual in that it only had one through platform face.

Passenger trains that had to cross either ran through the station and revesed into the bay or they ran into the bay and reversed out.

The path of the GE can be traced by diused bridges at the north end of the town but there is now little trace of the M&GN.

 

 

Ian T

[CKPR]

On 10/09/2021 at 11:34, Edwardian said:

Often NE coal is described, I think, as 'house coal', whether this makes good gas coal, or, I suppose, coking coal (as gas appears to be a by-product of coking, or the other way around, depending on what you're into)  is a point I hadn't considered. 

 

However, as the Stainmore line owed its existence to the wish to take coke from the Bishop Auckland and Crook area to the steel furnaces in Cumberland, one might suppose a supply of coking coal in the Durham fields

Indeed there was and the need for different types of of coal explains the seemingly contradictory movements , many of which are reminiscent of the proverbial 'coals to Newcastle' . The Cumberland coal field seems to have latterly yielded primarily steam  or coking coal and it was the establishment of local coking facilities that led to a reduction in the importation of coal and coke from Durham.  Coal was still brought into West Cumberland  from the north east and I suspect that this was primarily soft 'house coal' for domestic use  - I think this accounts for why Mealsgate, which was adjacent to Brayton pit, had a coal merchant, one Thomas Blacklock,  with his own wagons for bringing  in coal for local domestic  usage [ There is a 4mm r-t-r model available from https://candmmodels.co.uk/cm-limited-editions/ ]. The output of Brayton pit, latterly owned by the Allerdale Coal Co., seems to have gone straight to Maryport for either export via the docks or use in the local iron and steel industry

 

Update - I looked up Allhallows colliery on the Durham Mining Museum site and it's production is listed as steam, coking, gas and household.

Edited September 12, 2021 by CKPR

[wagonman]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

I will study this; very helpful.

 

My immediate reaction, however, is that this makes much more sense than the '300-400 tons' carried that the web source gave; because your figures suggest to me that you could probably half those figures in relation to the likely dead weight of the typical cargo.  I do wonder if the author confused ship's tonnage with the weight of the coal cargo. 

 

On the other hand, your example is a sloop with a tonnage of 80, whereas the other claim seen on the web, for Nineteenth Century collier brigs, was for tonnages of 250-300, but, again, your information concerning typical tonnages of 100 may throw doubt on that.

 

Fascinating stiff.  

 

The ships trading to the bigger cities – especially London – would have been commensurately larger than those threading their way up narrow creeks. 250-300 tons is quite likely the size of the ships going to the Smoke.

 

[wagonman]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

This was certainly true of Burnham Overy Staithe, which is why Birchoverham Staithe is given a similar history and in 1905 sees only wooden, relatively small/shallow draft, sailing coasters; no steamers there, unlike Blakeney/Fakeney.

 

 

 

 

A good example/source

 

Ah yes, The SS Taffy, probably the only steamship to trade at Blakeney (and that because it was owned by Page & Turner, Blakeney merchants) though there were a couple of steam tugs, believe it or not.

[Edwardian]

19 minutes ago, wagonman said:

 

Ah yes, The SS Taffy, probably the only steamship to trade at Blakeney (and that because it was owned by Page & Turner, Blakeney merchants) though there were a couple of steam tugs, believe it or not.

 

Yes, the last word in modernity for Blakeney in 1905, so a bit of an outlier, but Lynn would have seem plenty of steam vessels and, I guess Wells would have seen some?

[Donw]

6 hours ago, wagonman said:

 

How often did the ship arrive at Kingswear? It's something I need to look into. Torquay Gas did not have their own wagons as they would have stood idle, possibly incurring siding rent, between ships. Renwick Wilton had the contract for many years pre-WW2.

 

 

 

There was an article on the coal deliveries for Torquay in MRJ issue by Trevor Pott. I know the gentleman and chatted about the line with him while operating a garden railway. I forget which issue at the moment.

 

Don 

[Annie]

2 hours ago, ianathompson said:

The Great Eastern station, across town, has been obliterated, although it is commemorated in a street name.

This station, as I recall, was unusual in that it only had one through platform face.

Passenger trains that had to cross either ran through the station and revesed into the bay or they ran into the bay and reversed out.

The path of the GE can be traced by diused bridges at the north end of the town but there is now little trace of the M&GN.

[Adam88]

Robin Hood's Bay gasworks

 

Gasworks: I can just about remember the RHB gasworks from family holidays in the village but cannot remember any details, however this link leads to an interesting article which quotes local author Leo Walmsley on the subject.  Where I grew up the gasworks operated on a much more industrial scale and the main by-products were used by the nearby dyestuffs and creosote factories.  Large lorries brought the coke, like dusty, silver-grey pumice, to our school for the boilers.  It was always said that any idiot will simply burn coal yet there are so many much more valuable products which can be obtained from it with a bit of knowledge and ingenuity.

[Andy Hayter]

Dimitri Mendeleev (of periodic table fame) said much the same of oil being pulled out of the Caucuses - too valuable resource of many chemicals to be simply burnt.   Mind you, that was the mid 1800s and I think he would have had no idea how big the resource would be.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Andy Hayter

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, Adam88 said:

Robin Hood's Bay gasworks

 

Gasworks: I can just about remember the RHB gasworks from family holidays in the village but cannot remember any details, however this link leads to an interesting article which quotes local author Leo Walmsley on the subject.  Where I grew up the gasworks operated on a much more industrial scale and the main by-products were used by the nearby dyestuffs and creosote factories.  Large lorries brought the coke, like dusty, silver-grey pumice, to our school for the boilers.  It was always said that any idiot will simply burn coal yet there are so many much more valuable products which can be obtained from it with a bit of knowledge and ingenuity.

 

 

Fascinating.  I particularly liked the old photograph of unloading coal from a beached collier.

 

A similar, earlier, scene captured in oils:

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

Dimitri Mendeleev (of periodic table fame) said much the same of oil being pulled out of the Caucuses - too valuable resource of many chemicals to be simply burnt.   Mind you, that was the mid 1800s and I think he would have had no idea how big the resource would be.

 

Before anything is pulled out of the caucuses you might want a general anaesthetic.

 

No mention of the periodic table can, I feel, pass without

 

 

[Compound2632]

23 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

Dimitri Mendeleev (of periodic table fame) said much the same of oil being pulled out of the Caucuses - too valuable resource of many chemicals to be simply burnt.   Mind you, that was the mid 1800s and I think he would have had no idea how big the resource would be.

 

He wasn't foreseeing injection-moulded wagon kits.

[wagonman]

19 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Back to the Taffy for a moment, and a totally irrelevant aside. The painting was one of series of "pier-head" paintings of local ships done by Patrick Kearney in the 1950s. A long way from his usual style but I can't remember if he said they were copies or pastiches. http://www.patrickkearney.co.uk/artist.html. The house he lived in, still occupied by his younger daughter, was named 'Umtata' after one of the ships of the Bullard & King line which sailed between London and Durban often captained by Master Mariners from Cley. So the tradition lived on.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by wagonman

[uax6]

8 hours ago, wagonman said:

 

 Yes Ian I did mention Fakenham deliberately. I have even visited it, but not searched for any records. I do know the coal was brought from the railway station (GER presumably) by horse and cart. Thanks for the link.

 

I went round the museum with school, and it was really quite interesting. Being the sort of bloke that lives and works at the trialing edge of technology, it was right up my boulevard. 

Anyway, I'm not sure how much gas would have been produced there a day (I'm sure we were told, but its 25 years ago... But the gas holder is quite small on the site, and the number of retorts quite small (around ten or twelve from memory), so probably didn't need much coal, which is bourne out by them taking deliveries by horse and cart from the station yard, if it was a big demand they would have had a siding.

 

Andy G 

[Schooner]

Hullo, sorry, bit slow off the mark. No answers, but perhaps of interest are:

• A bit on Kingswear and coal
• A nice little reference for (modern) maritime tonnages

If it helps visualise, I think of a narrowboat as taking 30 tons of coal; a large barge or lighter <100t; a sailing coaster c.200t and collier brig <500t. No sources for that I'm afraid. Possibly next week though, if still of any use?

 

Another avenue of investigation follows the info in the Lloyd's Register Heritage and Education Centre's digitised records. Follow for a quick example.

 

Fascinating stuff as ever, enjoyed the catch up. Cheers all!

[Nick Holliday]

9 hours ago, uax6 said:

 

I went round the museum with school, and it was really quite interesting. Being the sort of bloke that lives and works at the trailing edge of technology, it was right up my boulevard. 

Anyway, I'm not sure how much gas would have been produced there a day (I'm sure we were told, but its 25 years ago... But the gas holder is quite small on the site, and the number of retorts quite small (around ten or twelve from memory), so probably didn't need much coal, which is borne out by them taking deliveries by horse and cart from the station yard, if it was a big demand they would have had a siding.

 

Andy G 

I did a little research on the gas works within the LBSCR area, and over two-thirds of them had no direct rail connection! Major works such as at Sutton and Mitcham were some distance from the nearest railway yard, and presumably there were fleets of horse drawn carts, and later steam and diesel lorries, to transport the coal and coke through the neighbouring high streets.

At places like Bognor, the practice of receiving coal from beached sailing boats persisted well into the twentieth century.