Mossdale-Black Keld

[stevejw]

The result at Cove Hole was very depressing when we realised it had never been a resurgence!
If you orientate Langcliffs overlay so the the two Norths coincide,I still contend that OldTurf Pitts is on the South side of the side track.
It sticks in my mind from years ago,that people were struggling to line up shafts correctly.
Possably because the first and most definative write up MAY have been wrong and every body has copied it since.
Hows that for a can of worms?

That is disappointing. Lots to look forward to however! The next stage has to be initial and then detailed representations to the relevant stakeholders. Should initial enquiries indicate that support could be granted it may be worth setting up an entity with charitable status with respect to funding (and to formalising) the objectives of the project.

 

[Northern caver]

How large/grand are these lost caverns meant to be? I presume the last people to set foot down there were the miners??

 

[braveduck]

It still sticks in my mind that there has been some doubt as to the exact whereabouts of Old Turf Pits
in the past.I believe when Rastrick was writing of the mines he asked Bob Leaky and friends to check out the shafts.There are hair raising stories of their exploits.They would have been very keen to have accessed the caverns.At the time there were gentlemen in Settle who were very jealous of their  cave finds(remember Lancaster Hole).It might have been in their interests to muddy the waters as to the best way to access the caverns in the hope of getting there first.So it is possable that misleading information may have been published in the past which has been slavishly followed to the present day.
Please I do not want anyone to get upset over this it is just something that should be thought through.
Because if we are lucky enough to get permission to dig and end up in the wrong shaft ,250ft is a long way to dig in the wrong hole!
Can of worms open for debate, I have my helmet on.
                                           

 

[langcliffe]

Please I do not want anyone to get upset over this it is just something that should be thought through.

Fair enough. As you say, it is something that we have to get right, so would like to suggest the following.

I have proposed a model based on work by the NMRS which probably relies on a contemporary surface plan; and definitely relies on contemporary adit surveys, and a contemporary survey of the Lost Caverns. Let us assume a worst possible case, however, where we assume that the NMRS relied on their own surface surveys and what's more, that somehow they were misled by a conspiratorial group of cavers who persuaded then to select one or more wrong shafts for the purpose, and that we have inherited that error sixty years later.

The model actually works well, and as we have seen we get a perfect match between the shafts shown on the Lost Caverns survey and the supposed equivalent shafts. Occam's razor would suggest that we would be wise to accept such a model, but we'll assume that the cavers were very clever and managed to persuade the NMRS to choose a set of shafts that also matched the rest of the data.

Your task is to create an alternative model where the adits and Lost Caverns surveys match a set of shafts where one or more are different from the ones I have proposed. When you have produced such a model, we can sensibly debate the pros and cons of each.

 

[braveduck]

I will draw some maps with measuments ,then go on the moor and do some measuing on the ground and see what that tells us.
Another point is Old Turf Pits went deep into the Limestone,the pictures shown on here seem to show just Grassington Grit on the tips,the Limestone should be on top (last out).
so that will have to be checked out as well.

 

[stevejw]

I will draw some maps with measuments ,then go on the moor and do some measuing on the ground and see what that tells us.
Another point is Old Turf Pits went deep into the Limestone,the pictures shown on here seem to show just Grassington Grit on the tips,the Limestone should be on top (last out).
so that will have to be checked out as well.

Check Google Earth. I have pictures of all the noticeable features on the ground already within the relevant area. Specify which and I will post or PM them to you. Regarding visible spoil on my pictures yes limestone isn't evident but that could be down to a range of factors.

 

[langcliffe]

Do you know anything about the Manway dig, which according to your overlay is just south of Cavern Vein?

I have been following this up, and have found an account in the NMRS 1965 Memoirs of a 1962 attempt to get into the caverns which is worth quoting:

"A careful survey was made of the ground in which the cavern lies and the mine plan oriented until the three major shafts marked on it tied up with the surface plan. The two deepest shafts, West Turf Pits, 30 fathoms, and Old Turf Pits, 40 fathoms, were found to have run in. Whim Shaft remains open to 20 fathoms but has been observed to flood quite regularly to an unknown depth. Midway between the two major shafts, a small shaft was found open. This appeared likely to have been the waygate or climbing way for the Turf Pits Vein workings. A 20 ft. descent down the walled entrance shaft, lead  to a short passage cut through millstone grit leading to a further descent of 30 ft cut out in a bed of shale. At the foot of this the passage leading off had collapsed. At the foot of the entrance shaft a hole in the wall revealed a curious chamber obviously of natural origin, and if one assumes that the waygate was sunk in a rough spiral, this chamber becomes a subsidence due to the collapse of the passage at the head of the third stage, thus making any excavation impossible."

The above description matches up more-or-less exactly with the survey you posted (from where did you get that?).

The survey associated with the NMRS account marks a "waygate" almost directly above the passages in Old Turf Pits, about 20 metres from the Old Turfs Pit shaft, at a bearing of about 250 degrees (on my overlay). This appears to match up vaguely with the survey you posted. However, this is not "midway between the two major shafts".

Also marked on the survey above Turf Pits Vein is "shaft 10 m", which is 40 metres from the OTP shaft at a bearing of 10 degrees (on my overlay). I suspect that this is the shaft that is marked on the British Mining No. 13 cross-section which may or not connect with a rise driven up from the cavern on the same vein.

Both shafts are worthy of fuller investigation. The climbing shaft could lead into the OTP mine, and the the other straight into the cavern.

 

[stevejw]

The survey was from Cave Mapper under NC Vol. 1 (BPC B6-10 Grassington Moor Turf Pits). Pretty sure I have read about this somewhere or spoken to someone recently. BPC members may be able to provide further details. The survey is accurate in respect to the features on the ground (I have checked). The Google Map overlay you posted reflects these relative positions. See my earlier Manway photo which indicates the open shaft which is covered with Railway Sleepers and is just to the side of Manway. Here are some more recent photos

Open shaft:

next to Manway:

 

[langcliffe]

I have now overlain the 1860s plan (page 76 of British Mining 46) of the Grassington mines on Google Earth, and all the main shafts on the moor (including those in the Turf Pit area) are in what I naively regard as their expected position. The main difference is that on this plan, the caverns are rotated  about 15 degrees anti-clockwise. This difference can be accounted for by magnetic deviation (which was quite high in the mid-nineteenth century).

 

[braveduck]

Having measured the underground plans the distance from WTP to OTP is 170m.
Measuring this on Google Earth ( It's a lot cheaper than driving up there).
Measured to the shaft all claim to be OTP it is 10m short at 160m.
Now is that a reasonable discrepancy or not?

 

[langcliffe]

Having had a couple of hours to spare, I have been dodging the showers on the moor with the dog, taking a few GPS readings, and making some observations. Note, it was too cold and wet to hang around too long to ensure that the GPS readings were as accurate as possible, so assume plus or minus 5 metres.

GPS Point 136: This is the sleeper-covered hole. I suspect that this hole is "Manway", probably a climbing shaft as discussed above, and the blocked shaft shown on the BPC survey is six metres to the south-east. It doesn't appear to be directly above any of the OTP or WTP levels. A pebble dropped between the sleepers falls about 20 feet.

GPS Point 137: This is what I call Old Turf Pits. The bottom is currently full of snow. Most of the surrounding tip is covered in grass, but there is plenty of limestone contained in what is exposed (photographs available).

GPS Point 138:  This is a small shaft with a pool at the bottom which may be the one marked on the cross sections as being driven down towards a rise driven up from the cavern.

GPS Point 139: This is a snow-filled shaft (possible draughting) which appears to be a climbing shaft heading off down to one of the West Turf Pit levels.

GPS Point 140: This is what I call Whim Shaft. As I am sure you will all be aware, a whim is a horse-drawn winch, and the stone which held the spindle is still there complete with hole. The shaft has been capped with stones, and hence the top stands proud of the spoil platform.

GPS Point 141: This is what I call West Turf Pits. The current bottom is flat, so it may have been capped with sleepers. There is what appears to be a blocked climbing shaft just to the west. There is a hauling track from the pit to a bouse team.

Photographs of all the above features are available.

 

[langcliffe]

Having measured the underground plans the distance from WTP to OTP is 170m.
Measuring this on Google Earth ( It's a lot cheaper than driving up there).
Measured to the shaft all claim to be OTP it is 10m short at 160m.
Now is that a reasonable discrepancy or not?

That is a good approach. I get the following figures:

1. Google Earth: 156 metres
2. A4 surface survey in BM13, page 28: 160 metres
3. A5 surface survey from original plans in BM46, page 74: 165 metres
4. Sketch plan of Lost Caverns in BM13, page 91: 175 metres
5. CPC reproduction of Raistrick's survey of the Lost Caverns from cavemapper: 164 metres

I think that you can discount No. 4 as it is obviously a sketch plan. The other four figures average 160 metres plus or minus 4 metres.

Personally, I think that's pretty consistent given that the shafts are 10 metres across, but then I am happy to be guided by wiser heads than mine.

 

[braveduck]

O wise one ,I am happy with that it just shows that every plan on this is different.
My 170m was from Pennine Orefield book.
I am happy to comitt to OTP where you have!
The hole due North with the water in is interesting if you consider all information.
Needs a poke with long "stick".

 

[braveduck]

By the way if you go onto Google Earth and click on the clock and get the scale.
Move the sliding scale to the very left you get a picture taken in 2002.
The colour is very different and some holes show up better.

 

[langcliffe]

I am happy to comitt to OTP where you have!

Good - you were absolutely right to question, though. I'm reasonably happy with what's up there, and convinced that the only options are the Mainway, OTP, and the hole with the puddle.

The hole due North with the water in is interesting if you consider all information. Needs a poke with long "stick".

Absolutely.

By the way if you go onto Google Earth and click on the clock and get the scale.
Move the sliding scale to the very left you get a picture taken in 2002.
The colour is very different and some holes show up better.

Thanks - that's very useful. One shows up the holes, and the other the spoil heaps!

Now all we need is for someone to start organising... Bags not me!

Incidentally, if you are interested in the lead mines on Grassington Moor, you may be interested in the following:

http://braemoor.co.uk/miscellaneous/meerstones/

 

[stevejw]

OK. May I suggest a meeting to discuss the next stages/a plan of action and essentially to progress things. Open invite to all interested parties. After Easter would be best for me and allow interested parties (there may be quite a few given significant previous work on this) to attend also. Hostelry or other suitable venue near Grassington. Topics for discussion 1. Securing Access 2. Confirmation of proposed site/need for further research 3. Funding.

 

[Wren]

Far be it for me to stifle discussion on this interesting topic.  BUT, if anyone cares to look I started this thread by asking about shafts / shakeholes above Scargill House.  Thanks to knucledragger (you now owe me a pint) we seem to have moved south east a bit.

The original area I investigated is around GR 990705.  Lets have two threads (&digs) and then connect them into one big master cave, 3 miles long and 700ft deep!!!!!

 

[stevejw]

Yes. Apologies for hijacking the thread. Still a coordinated plan of attack may still be a good idea given the significant resource presumably reading this thread.

 

[Wren]

I agree.

 

[stevejw]

OK. May I suggest a meeting to discuss the next stages/a plan of action and essentially to progress things. Open invite to all interested parties. After Easter would be best for me and allow interested parties (there may be quite a few given significant previous work on this) to attend also. Hostelry or other suitable venue near Gr*ssington. Topics for discussion 1. Securing Access 2. Confirmation of proposed site/need for further research 3. Funding.

As has just been pointed out to me discussion needs to be near (Dales area) not in Gr*ssington as stakeholders need approaching directly not via a 'guess what I just heard in the pub'. For that reason alternative venues (refreshment permitting) may be a better.