Lathkilldale Sough

[pwhole]

Me and Christine Wilson dropped Bateman's House shaft today and went downstream in the sough, following a suggestion from Tim Nixon - we went a long way. A previous survey trip me, Wayne and John Gunn did in dry, settled weather was about 110m from the shaft base - today it was more like 300m, though guessing. Lowest airspace was about 30cm, but mostly 'comfortable' height, though in chest or neck-deep water throughout. We found a crosscut about 200m downstream, to the left (north), that was blind after about 10m. Eventually we smelled the 'sump' before we reached it, at an obvious step-down in the floor, with a large shaft rising to the right. It's more likely that rubble from the shaft has raised the floor here, rather than the gradient changing significantly. Even with 4mm wetsuits and oversuits we were pretty cold by the time we got back to the shaft - coming upstream was pretty tiring by the end, but well worth seeing.

The abseil down Bateman's really, really needs rope-protection. A deviation anchor further out on the wall would make even more sense.

 

[Brains]

Was the bottom of the upper gated adit-and-shaft accessible? If so, how far down was that - vaguely recall rumours of a through trip being possible but not tried it myself

 

[pwhole]

Yes, we looked up it - about 50m downstream. And sorry, above I meant an obvious step-down in the roof, but didn't notice until after the edit period.

 

[AR]

I've long wondered if the shaft by the sump point is the grilled one up in the woods - it's on the line of the vein, IIRC, but a quick guestimate on Google Earth suggests it's over 400m from Batemans. Might see if I can get a better estimate off lidar imaging.

 

[FabianE]

I suppose rope management wise you would use the railing or ladder as anchor points?

I've always wanted to descend the shaft but wasn't aware of any bolts.
I suppose a small traverse out and a Y hand would make sense?

 

[pwhole]

Definitely don't use the railings, but the main ladder down the shaft would probably be heavy-duty enough as an anchor, but really unfair on any tourists who came down, and would probably risk tampering. There are three spits on the left wall, one for a backup on the outside of the railings, and two more for a Y-hang - and one defunct one - the one that's heavily-recessed. The problem is, the bedrock ledge a couple of metres below projects out much further than the spits, and there's some horrible rub. Either a rebelay on the rock below, or a deviation anchor on the west wall a metre further out would fix it, though to be honest, much of the rock below is a bit thinly-bedded and quite loose in places - a lump fell off today when I put my foot on it.

AR - I think I photographed that grilled shaft on our ground survey last year when we were heading back downslope toward the mill. Is it the same one that staffordshirechina posted on AditNow, being dug in 1972? Choked at 90ft?

 

[wellyjen]

The couple of times I've been down there we did it the old fashioned way. Used the spits and a rope protector on the rub point.
First time was helping out DCA when the lights were installed back in the twenty naughties and the sough was invisible underwater. Second time was a couple of summers ago, when the water level was low enough to enter the sough. Unfortunately, this was a spur of the moment thing, so we were in furries, rather than wet suits and didn't get far before the neck deep water forced a return.

 

[AR]

AR - I think I photographed that grilled shaft on our ground survey last year when we were heading back downslope toward the mill. Is it the same one that staffordshirechina posted on AditNow, being dug in 1972? Choked at 90ft?

I think so, looking at the photos on AN. If it's blocked at 90ft then there's either a lot of fill or possibly a dog-leg.

 

[pwhole]

The shaft was completely open as far as we could see upwards, and quite large diameter, maybe 2m - there was a long timber beam, maybe 3m long, leaning against the shaft wall that looked like it had fallen down it. The shaft 'base' is up on a ledge about 2m above the sough (south side), but it didn't look plumb vertical from where we were looking.

 

[AR]

The shaft was completely open as far as we could see upwards, and quite large diameter, maybe 2m - there was a long timber beam, maybe 3m long, leaning against the shaft wall that looked like it had fallen down it. The shaft 'base' is up on a ledge about 2m above the sough (south side), but it didn't look plumb vertical from where we were looking.

It's possible that the raise from the sough was put up into stopes on the vein near to an existing shaft for ventilation purposes, but if that was the case then they wouldn't need to meet exactly.

 

[pwhole]

That was one thing I was goingto mention actually - there are no accessible stopes above the sough at all, for the entire length we travelled. That said, the vein was pretty crappy there, and the crosscut, although heavily mineralised with calcite stringers, had nothing of value. That part was definitely in the 'blackstone'. Jim R's Lathkill Dale book states that the rich part of the vein was further upstream, near to where Sideway Vein meets it, so well beyond the blocking wall. That said, even the section up to that from Bateman's House is more promising ore-wise than downstream, and the geology is decidedly more funky there too.

 

[AR]

The other thought that's come to me is that the sough may have been driven in multiple sections - that mention of a step-down at the sump makes me wonder if the shaft from surface was put down so they could drive two sections at once on the vein, but the levelling wasn't as good as it could have been and when the outer section cut through, they found they were lower.

 

[pwhole]

That is possible - we certainly saw shotholes driven toward the tail at some points. I got the impression that a few parts had been enlarged too, probably at a later date, as we saw shotholes of differing sizes in the same area. It does seem odd that they'd change the gradient so much deliberately. But making a detailed archaeological inspection when you're up to your tits in freezing water and not much headroom is quite difficult! I was most concerned about the air quality, as I knew it had to sump eventually, but we kept checking each other, and it really was fine, until about 30m from the sump, when we got that slightly oily, slightly shitty smell appearing, and bits of foam on top - then we saw the plastic bottles and glowsticks (and an asthma inhaler top) floating about, and knew we were there, but it didn't really feel 'high CO2', and we certainly weren't panting - maybe the shaft still vents enough to keep it clean. Sadly we had no bags with us to take the plastic out, and we definitely needed both hands to get back upstream. A dry bag or a tough small binliner would do it.

 

[pwhole]

An update on this - John Gunn has calculated, based on his previous survey (with a 50m measuring tape) in another drought many years ago, that we likely traversed around 400m downstream, which is amazing really, and probably does tally up with the shaft above. Below is a photo taken by John of Nigel Ball at the step-down in the sough, and it does look like a genuine surveying error, if the sough was blasted downstream to meet an earlier drivage. We did see plenty of shothole pointing downstream as well as upstream. On our visit last Saturday the water level was roughly at the first line above Nigel's head, in the brief period before it clouded over from our disturbance. The second shot is the shaft top. On that survey day, I remember we did Bateman's House first, then went back uphill as we went back to the Sough Mill, so it must be the same one.

 

[pwhole]

Ah, I've just been informed that this shaft is 623m from Bateman's House, so it can't be that particular sough shaft - though still likely to be on the sough.