MASSON BOILERHOUSE AND ENGINE
Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 07:28
MASSON BOILERHOUSE AND ENGINE
CONSOLIDATED DOCUMENT 18 May 2008.
In June 2004 as we near completion of the erection of the Yates engine at Masson Mill it is time to have a look at the boiler house and decide how this resource can be used. The basic intention is to use the existing plant to provide steam and a closed circuit condenser cooling system for the running of the engine. It is over ten years (24th January 1994) since I looked in detail at the boiler house. At some future point it would be a good idea if I did another survey when we have identified specific questions about re-commissioning.
History of the existing plant.
I have been looking into the history of steam power at Masson Mill and, whilst information is thin on the ground, I have some preliminary findings.
On an old view of the mill taken from a letter heading there is a boiler house shown on the North end of the mill as it existed in the late 19th century. The chimney for this boiler is built into the end of the mill. There are vague references to a 100 hp engine by Marshall of Gainsborough and named ‘Rebecca’ being installed at this end of the mill c.1888. If this is correct I find it strange because two years later they were commissioning an entirely new plant, the present engine house. An RCHM report on Masson states that the present sprinkler pump by George Mills and Co. of Radcliffe was originally installed at the North end but moved to its present location c. 1897. An article in Draper’s Record dated 18/09/1897 at the time when Masson was bought by ESC refers to the power source for the mill being ‘two huge waterwheels aggregating 300 hp. There is also a steam engine to augment the smaller wheel.’.
We get onto firmer ground with the present Stott installation. In Holden’s book on Stott and Sons there is one mention of Masson which states that Stotts started the design work for the new complex in 1890. There is a report in the High Peak News dated 08/09/1900 stating that ‘The Masson chimney, new engine house, East/West wing modelled for a new gassing house and yard covered in to a plan by Stott and Sons, 5 Cross Street Manchester, is nearing completion.’ Yvonne Daykin told me that there is a reference in ‘Derwent Valley Mills and their Communities’, published 2001, that the Stott chimney dates from 1900. Doreen Buxton told me that she has an article from a local paper dated May 1900 which describes the 36 ton boiler and economiser being delivered at Masson by Robinson’s of Sheffield by traction engine.
When I first started to look at this problem I trawled my archive of the Universal Metallic Packing Company order books and found a reference to an order dated March 17th 1911. Order number 2457 placed by Messrs. J and E Wood of Victoria Foundry Bolton re. Sir William Arkwright and Company, Masson Mills, Matlock bath for two complete metallic packings, for rods 4” diameter, numbers 7946 and 7947.
At first I thought this was for the original engine build but when I consulted with Geoff Shackleton he told me that he had a record of J&E Wood making two replacement cylinders for the Masson Engine in that year. So, it looks as though an engine, maker unknown, was installed 1899/1900 at the time of the Stott build of the engine and boiler houses but 11 years later it needed two new cylinders, the most likely reason would be to enlarge the engine and get more power but this is conjecture. As to who made this engine, it’s worth remembering that Masson was an outlier and this is probably the reason why Marshall’s provided the original engine at the North end. The involvement of Stotts leads me to think that their involvement in the project could have resulted in advice to go to an established Lancashire engine maker for the 1900(?) engine. There is also the coincidence that exists in the provision of the new facility and the involvement of the ESC. It may well be that they had some input as well. If my dates are correct they took over in the middle of the design period and before construction started.
The existing boiler house and plant will be a later construction coinciding with the re-boilering of the mill on removal of the reciprocating engine and its replacement by a steam turbine. You will have the dates for this.
Despite the absence of any direct evidence I think we can be sure that the 1900 installation was coal-fired. I have seen no evidence of clinker or flue dust on the site but this is not surprising, especially in a limestone district like Matlock. The clinker and ashes would be a valuable resource for local builders who would grind them with burnt lime to make ash lime mortar. There might even have been a mortar pan on site driven by the mill shafting. This was a very common arrangement as the operator of the pan had easily accessible rotative power. Examination of the original mortar used in buildings in an area to ascertain when ash-lime mortar was first used is often the best clue we have to when the first steam boilers, and therefore engines and rotative power for the pans, were introduced to the district.
We know of course that the existing installation was fired by Heavy Fuel Oil, the original storage tanks are still on site in the boiler house.
Water resource for the early steam plant at Masson.
In the late 19th century there were virtually no restrictions on the extraction of water or its subsequent disposal. As the Masson site is on the river bank and below road level we can be reasonably sure that all water extraction for the steam plant was from the River Derwent and all waste water drained back into the river. The remainders of the old pipe runs support this. There are some concrete tanks on the river bank which may have been used to intercept boiler blow-down water or other waste. There are existing water intakes from the turbine race that were used for extraction. In the light of what was seen as environmentally acceptable at the time it is doubtful whether these outflows of contaminated water to a river as large as the Derwent were seen as any problem. It’s worth remembering that the towns upstream would also be using the river as a handy open sewer and so any additional pollution from Masson Mill would be a small proportion of the whole.
What was water extracted from the River Derwent used for in the boiler plant?
Fire fighting.
Though strictly not part of the plant, but located near the boilers, one important use was as top-up water for the tank on the roof which supplied the sprinkler system. This is the purpose of the steam driven Mill’s pump next to the engine house with its 12” suction from the Turbine race. If a fire broke out this pump was set on to replenish the sprinkler tank and provide a constant supply for the sprinkler system. It would not normally be used for anything else but some mills used them for boiler filling after annual maintenance.
Boiler and engine water.
The steam boilers and engine used water for two main purposes, boiler feed water and cooling water for the condenser on the engine.
Boiler feed water.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A steam boiler produces steam and as this passes off it has to be replaced by the same weight of clean feed or make-up water.
The perfect boiler feed water is pure distilled water containing no dissolved solids or sediment. In practice the only source for anything approaching this quality of water was the condensate returned from steam heating circuits. We have no such systems at Masson now and so this source can be disregarded.
Mains water can be used and is the best source of make-up as it is relatively pure. However, there is a cost to this and for this reason we shall rule it out under normal circumstances.
Our cheapest and most accessible source of water is from the River Derwent and under all normal flow conditions the turbine race will yield acceptable make-up water. It is worthwhile noting that in conditions of spate when levels of suspended solids in the water are high mains water should be used for make-up. Therefore provision should be made for the feed pumps to draw off either the mains or untreated river water.
As the boiler is accepting water with both dissolved solids and some suspended matter and is only passing off pure water in the form of steam there is a gradual build-up of solids in the boiler. Just as in a kettle, these solids collect on the internal heated surfaces in the form of scale or as sediment in the boiler bottom. Up to a sixteenth of an inch of scale is acceptable in a Lancashire boiler as the drop in heat transfer efficiency is offset by the protection the scale affords to the boiler plates. The strategy used to restrict this scale build-up to a reasonable figure is by treating the water in the boiler with chemicals which dissolve some of the scale and precipitate it as sediment in the boiler bottom.
When the boiler is making steam the water inside it circulates vigorously and the precipitated sediment mixes with the water. Left to its own devices the water in the boiler would gradually accumulate more and more solids and eventually reach a point where the level was dangerous. The strategy for dealing with this is to test the boiler water frequently by hydrometer, the sample being taken from the water gauge cocks while the boiler is firing. A judgement can then be made as to whether sediment needs to be removed from the boiler to make it safe and efficient. This removal is effected by opening the blow-down cock at the front of the boiler while it is at rest, usually first thing in the morning before starting the day’s firing. Because of the slope at which the boiler is installed, the sediment tends to collect at the front when the boiler is still and a short burst through the blow down will remove a quantity of sediment accompanied by some superheated water.
The frequency of blow-down depends on the quality of the original feed water and the amount of steam the boiler is generating. As a guide, a Lancashire boiler using lodge water for feed and working heavily with proper water treatment might need a 15 second blow down three times a week to maintain a reasonable solids figure. In the case we are considering here; firing the boiler say two days a week from cold to give one day’s steaming, and at a very low steam production rate, it would be quite possible to steam for a matter of weeks before blow-down was deemed necessary.
The only test for the strategies used and the type of water treatment adopted is the internal condition of the boiler when opened up for annual inspection. Experience and a good routine giving stable operating conditions will eventually give a good guide to the correct regime. If you have any old purchase records, examine them and identify what water treatment was being used when the boiler plant was stopped, this will give you a good indication in deciding what treatment to use. All manufacturers of water treatment chemicals will give a free survey and analysis of feed water, recommend a product and provide the necessary testing equipment and training. They will also make periodic inspections and analysis as a check against your internal records. This is very cheap and well worth the initial investment.
The initial filling of the empty boiler should be done from the turbine race whilst the river is running as clear as possible. This water should be given an initial dose of treatment chemicals through the top lid before the boiler is closed up for running. The suppliers will give an estimate of how much chemical will be required and subsequent testing will enable the chemical content to be stabilised on the basis of water quality.
Disposal of blown down boiler water.
I have seen no evidence on site that the original plant did anything except follow normal practice in old plants of this type, that is, the blow down and even boiler emptying was done by discharging the water into a large drain where it flashed off into steam and emptied direct into the river. As a matter of interest, though not recommended practice, Bancroft and Ellenroad still operate in this way. There is little doubt that if the current regulations were strictly applied, this would be illegal.
Best practice today is to employ a blow-down receiver where the superheated water flashes off steam in a controlled manner, the steam is vented to atmosphere and the remaining liquid is discharged into the public drainage system. The regulations governing this, and more important, the attitude of the local Environmental Authority can only be reliably ascertained by going to the local council on an informal basis and asking for guidance. When doing this it should be pointed out that hot blow-down discharge will be minimal and probably non-existent as the boiler can be blown down or emptied for annual maintenance whilst cold due to the fact that it is not constantly in steam. Under these operating conditions it is quite probable that the local authority will take a very relaxed view of the situation.
This planned cold discharge does not mean that the plant can be run without an approved blow down vessel as worst case analysis could indicate an emergency situation where the boiler had to be blown down whilst in steam. However, with efficient supervision it is doubtful whether this occasion would ever arise.
Conclusions and recommendations as regards water management for the boiler plant used for occasional exhibition steaming.
A suitable blow down vessel should be installed and advice taken from the local authority as to the method of disposal of the waste water. John Ingoe or Terry Gissing could advise on this, supply and fit such a vessel.
River water to be used for annual boiler filling and make-up water. This to be extracted from the turbine race when flow conditions give reasonably clear water. Provision to be made for make-up to be taken from the mains supply if the river is in spate and the water unsuitable.
Advice should be taken from a reputable water treatment supply company. PROWATER LIMITED. 10 Bishopdale Drive, Ridgeway Heights, Mosborough, Sheffield S20 5 PH. Telephone & Fax: 0114 248 1411 is such a company. I have no experience of them having used Nalfloc in the recent past but can find no trace of this old ICI company still being in business. They will test to raw water, recommend suitable treatment and advise on in-house and occasional check testing. My only reason for selecting this company is that they are locally based. Another route to a supplier would be to identify a local firm using a steam boiler and ask who they use.
Cooling water for the condenser on the engine.
The Masson Plant as installed in 1900 was ideally situated as regards condensing arrangements for the engine. There was an unlimited supply of cold water from the River Derwent and once used, the tail water from the air pump was discharged straight back to the river. We cannot do this now as there is a possibility of trace oil being carried over in the exhaust.
If we were running the engine at anything like its full power we would be in serious trouble with condenser cooling. However, at the powers we intend to run at this is not a serious problem and we are lucky in that we have a comparable set-up running at Bancroft in Barnoldswick on a completely enclosed system. This is what we have agreed on for Masson as it is a complete answer to any worries about waste oil getting into the river and can be easily demonstrated to be so to the environmental authorities.
Basically, what they do at Bancroft is restrict the amount of cooling water to the condenser to the bare minimum necessary for running and return the tail water from the air pump to a heat sink, in the case of Bancroft, the old 9ft Lancashire boiler.
My proposal is that we do exactly the same thing at Masson and use either the spare Lancashire boiler or the old fuel tanks. Terry Gissing should be encouraged to look at the set-up at Bancroft before we decide on pump type and pipe sizes. If we copy what they have done it will save us a lot of trouble.
One word of explanation here. I keep banging on about using the old fuel tanks. My reason for this is that they have no other purpose and ideally would be the best solution. I recognise the problem with oil pollution but have a proposal for you to consider.
The one thing we can be certain of is that whatever oil there is in the old fuel tanks will be either stuck to the bottom and the internal surfaces or, if the water encourages it to float, as it will do, it will not mix with the water but rise to the top. This means that the half way level in the tanks will be oil free apart from the occasional globule rising to the top. Suppose we stabbed into the tanks at mid height in the centre at both ends. It is worth mentioning that as these stab-ins would be made into an explosive atmosphere they would have to be done cold, either by chain drilling or by trepanning. At the front we insert a six inch balance pipe connecting the two tanks. (I’m going for six inch so that we are absolutely sure there is a sufficient capacity in the pipe to maintain equal level by gravity) At the back we connect the feed from the return pump bringing the warm water up from the condenser into one tank and take the feed back to the condenser out of the other tank. It’s a long pipe run so I suggest we go for a larger size than Bancroft on the return to the condenser as it is operating under gravity and a low head. The feed from the air pump to the heat sink can be smaller as this is pumped.
I can’t see any reason why this arrangement will pick up oil as the inlet and outlet are at mid height. Any turbulence due to pumping will be minimal and confined to the first tank, the second will be still as it is only being balanced by gravity through a large pipe. Another long term benefit is that this arrangement will encourage anything that wants to float to rise to the surface from where it can be gulped/fished off if necessary. I realise this is a more complex solution but I am advocating it for two reasons. First, it is the best solution if it will work as it means we are not damaging the integrity of the second, and spare, Lancashire boiler. Second, there is one crucial difference between our set-up and the one at Bancroft. Our spare Lancashire boiler is in the same setting as the one that will be firing and so there is going to be heat transfer from the hot boiler to the spare. I don’t think that this will be a problem but it’s worth bearing in mind that to get efficient firing on the hot boiler we will have to make sure the dampers on the cold boiler are shut and sealed. This means that we will have no cooling at all on it from air passage through the flues.
There is one other course which we ought to consider. When Neston Tank came to try to clean the oil out they were looking at cold oil. Suppose we filled the tanks with water to whatever was a convenient level and steamed the coils while we had the mobile boiler there. The vast bulk of the oil and floatable debris would rise to the top and a competent tank cleaning firm could remove this for us. We aren’t bothered about getting them completely clean, just shifting the bulk of the rubbish out of them.
I know this is more trouble and expense but it is the right thing to do and when someone comes to question how we have attacked the problems and managed the installation this will be excellent PR. Apart from anything else, the presence of that waste oil on the site, even though contained in the two old boilers, will have to be addressed at some time in the future. Adopting the approach I have outlined will ease any final solution. We have no idea what regulations will be imposed in the future, suppose there was an accident with a redundant fuel tank somewhere and we found we had a statutory duty to deal with the waste oil? This is not outside the bounds of probability.
There is one more point to take into consideration. It surprises me that ESC were allowed to use that fuel installation without the tanks being contained in a bund capable of holding their maximum capacity. I suspect that under any harsh definition of the existing regulations you could be forced to build such a bund even though the tanks are redundant.
If our eventual solution is to use the spare Lancashire boiler and we find we are running into trouble with excess heat build-up we will have to look at adding to the cooling by installing a cooling tower outside the boiler house. I think the possibility of this being needed is remote but flag this up to show that if it does, we have a solution.
[I have run this scenario past John Ingoe and intend to do the same with Terry when I can get hold of him. John thinks that the proposal is sound and that it would almost certainly work without any cleaning. He thinks that the idea of steaming the tanks while the mobile boiler is there and getting Neston Tank or some other competent firm involved to clear the surface oil is a good idea and will work. He agrees with me absolutely about the point I made about the possibility of future legislation on redundant oil storage tanks. Terry’s opinion is basically the same as John’s. However he did add one further possibility. Second hand tanks are very cheap and in any assessment of how we provide the heat sink capacity for the condenser we should not fail to take into consideration installing a suitable sized tank adjacent to the engine house and using it as a stand alone installation without the necessity of pipe runs to the boiler house. It occurs to me that using this concept we could get away with a far smaller tank by simply pumping water from the turbine race through a coil in the tank, thus increasing the cooling capacity.]
Fuel for the Masson Boilers.
I don’t intend to explore every possible fuel that could be used to produce steam for the engine but will concentrate on wood. However, it is as well to point out that should the need arise, gas or oil fuel could be used to fire the boilers.
The first thing to mention is that by wood I am referring to clean, untreated natural wood with no preservatives, paint, glue or other contaminants. Even plywood and chipboard are unacceptable. This is necessary because burning anything but natural wood produces contaminated flue gas and will attract a much higher level of regulation, gas treatment and monitoring.
There are two ways in which wood could be used as fuel at Masson. The first and most complicated, but giving the highest steam output, is to reduce the wood to chips in a hammer mill, store the product in a hopper and fire it automatically into the boiler through special burner equipment. This will give the highest output from the boiler and requires the least labour but the highest investment and level of maintenance.
The second way, and I think the route which you are favouring, is to fit the boiler with firebars and flue doors exactly as it would have been if fired by coal but fire wood manually. The only waste product from this would be wood ash which as far as I am aware is not regarded as a hazardous waste. Indeed, it could be used as fertilizer for gardens. This firing would be done by volunteers and the only equipment they would need would be a suitable saw bench outside for reducing the wood waste to an acceptable size and stout gloves.
Bancroft fires by this method in a single flue Cornish Boiler and has no problem in making enough steam to run the engine for demonstration. Therefore I have no doubt that once steam is raised there will be no problem in producing sufficient steam for the engine.
Other considerations associated with wood firing.
The first thing to say is that a good primary source for information would be a visit to Tom Nuttall at Markham Nurseries near Doncaster. He fires for greenhouse heating and his exhibition steam engines using a very sophisticated system where the wood is chipped and mechanically fired in two large boilers. We have an open invitation from him to visit at any time, preferably on a Wednesday which is his steaming day. He is very strictly controlled because he is using wood on a large scale. His flue gas monitoring system alone cost £25,000 and was installed by Land Instruments International of Dronfield, near Sheffield. The technical salesman is Ian Watson and his direct line is 01246-417691. Extension 416. They do all his certification and preventative maintenance.
Tom thinks that you would not attract this level of regulation and his opinion is that the position regarding regulation, particularly at the local level, is so complicated and fluid that your best course once you have decided what you want to do is to seek informal advice from your local environmental officer. This sounds like good advice to me, I attempted a search on the web and made a few phone calls and the universal advice was to contact the local officer and see how much discretion he had.
A consideration not noted above.
When the insurance inspection is requested by you for the boiler we intend to use you should insist that it be tested and insured for its original working pressure. This will be far more than you need but in any future inspection where by reason of age or corrosion the insurance company enforces a lower working pressure you are far better suffering a small reduction from the original pressure than from an insured lower working pressure. This will ensure that in the light of present regulation, your boiler will be good for at least fifty years and quite possibly longer.
Conclusion.
I have attempted to cover every consideration but even so, we need to sit down and talk this through because there are many details omitted from this paper to keep it to a reasonable length. The bottom line is that there are no insuperable difficulties and I have no doubt we can fully comply with the environmental restrictions on the site. My recommendations are based on giving us a workable installation at reasonable cost but not cutting any corners which could leave us with a problem in later years.
SCG/16 June 2004
MASSON MILL ENGINE
Research as of 28 March 2004
ENGINE AT MASSON (2)
Ann Andrews told me in March 2004. Report in the High Peak News of 08/09/1900 that the Masson chimney, new engine house, east-west wing modelled for a new gassing house, yard covered in to a plan by Stott and Sons, 5 Cross Street, Manchester nearing completion. There is a reference in Holden’s book on Stott and Sons which states that Stotts started design work in 1890. In March 2004, Yvonne Daykin told me: In ‘Derwent Valley Mills and their Communities’ Pub. 2001 there is a statement that the Stott chimney dates from 1900. An article in the Drapers Record of 18/09/1897 when Masson was bought by ESC describes ‘two huge waterwheels giving an aggregate of 300 hp. There is also a steam engine to supplement the smaller water wheel.’ There was a drawing with this article which may give clues. There is an RCHM report on Masson dated 1991 but from what Yvonne tells me it isn’t very helpful in this matter. They seem to be guessing. However, the report does say that the present sprinkler pump is the original originally installed at the north end, made by Mills of Radcliffe.
MASSON MILL ENGINE. (1)
Info From Doreen Buxton, March 2004. The 1900 alterations at Masson Mill included the installation of a ’36 ton boiler and an economiser’. The boiler was delivered in May and brought to Matlock by Robinson’s of Sheffield traction engine and staff. Reported by local paper as ‘largest boiler known’. References to an engine called ‘Rebecca’ seem to refer to a Marshall engine, Gainsborough, installed in the north end of the original Arkwright mill in 1888. It was noted as being 100 hp. and must have had a boiler. On the old views of the mill there is a chimney on the north end built into the mill. The EH report on the mill mentions a sprinkler pump made by George Mills and Co, Radcliffe, probably installed in the 1890s and according to Doreen, before 1897. There is a sprinkler pump there now and I have an idea it is the same one. Ann Andrews, who runs the Matlock Bath web site says that Benjamin Bryan, in a book published in 1903 mentions the Stott chimney as being built after 1897.
In May 2008 during research into another matter I has occasion to trawl through a list of early engines built by John Petrie, Whitehall Foundry, Rochdale and found an entry dated January 13th 1890 which recorded an order for a 40 nominal horse power tandem compound engine placed by ‘The Arkwright Spinning Company’. In reality, at a reasonable boiler pressure of 80psi from a contemporary boiler this could be a 200/250hp engine. This could possibly be the original engine at Masson that was re-cylindered by J&E Wood in 1911.
When I first started to look at this problem I trawled my archive of the Universal Metallic Packing Company order books and found a reference to an order dated March 17th 1911. Order number 2457 placed by Messrs. J and E Wood of Victoria Foundry Bolton re. Sir William Arkwright and Company, Masson Mills, Matlock bath for two complete metallic packings, for rods 4” diameter, numbers 7946 and 7947.
At first I thought this was for the original engine build but when I consulted with Geoff Shackleton he told me that he had a record of J&E Wood making two replacement cylinders for the Masson Engine in that year. So, it looks as though an engine, maker unknown, was installed 1899/1900 at the time of the Stott build of the engine and boiler houses but 11 years later it needed two new cylinders, the most likely reason would be to enlarge the engine and get more power but this is conjecture. As to who made this engine, it’s worth remembering that Masson was an outlier and this is probably the reason why Marshall’s provided the original engine at the North end. The involvement of Stotts leads me to think that their involvement in the project could have resulted in advice to go to an established Lancashire engine maker for the 1900(?) engine. There is also the coincidence that exists in the provision of the new facility and the involvement of the ESC. It may well be that they had some input as well. If my dates are correct they took over in the middle of the design period and before construction started.
None of this is conclusive but the dates and sizes could fit. We have no definite details for the first engine and at the very least, this is a candidate.
[In the Petrie weigh book there is another entry dated October 30th 1886. Order number 313 from the Arkwright Spinning Company for a pair of 100nominal horse power tandem compound engines with rope drive.]
I consulted with Geoff Shackleton about these entries and here is his reply:
Stanley,
Forget the 1890 Petrie HTC, this was supplied to the Arkwright Spinning Company, Arkwright Mill, Hamer, Rochdale. This mill also had a double tandem engine by Petrie in 1886 and another double tandem engine by them in 1901. I've looked at the J & E Wood records again for the work in 1911 and they say 'new cylinders, compounding 17 + 32 x 42 for 75psig'. This is sometimes written this way for the supply of replacement cylinders to an existing compound but could be the supply of two new cylinders whilst compounding an existing single cylinder engine (Marshall 100hp?)
Geoff
So we must bow to superior knowledge……..
SCG/18 May 2008 revision.
CONSOLIDATED DOCUMENT 18 May 2008.
In June 2004 as we near completion of the erection of the Yates engine at Masson Mill it is time to have a look at the boiler house and decide how this resource can be used. The basic intention is to use the existing plant to provide steam and a closed circuit condenser cooling system for the running of the engine. It is over ten years (24th January 1994) since I looked in detail at the boiler house. At some future point it would be a good idea if I did another survey when we have identified specific questions about re-commissioning.
History of the existing plant.
I have been looking into the history of steam power at Masson Mill and, whilst information is thin on the ground, I have some preliminary findings.
On an old view of the mill taken from a letter heading there is a boiler house shown on the North end of the mill as it existed in the late 19th century. The chimney for this boiler is built into the end of the mill. There are vague references to a 100 hp engine by Marshall of Gainsborough and named ‘Rebecca’ being installed at this end of the mill c.1888. If this is correct I find it strange because two years later they were commissioning an entirely new plant, the present engine house. An RCHM report on Masson states that the present sprinkler pump by George Mills and Co. of Radcliffe was originally installed at the North end but moved to its present location c. 1897. An article in Draper’s Record dated 18/09/1897 at the time when Masson was bought by ESC refers to the power source for the mill being ‘two huge waterwheels aggregating 300 hp. There is also a steam engine to augment the smaller wheel.’.
We get onto firmer ground with the present Stott installation. In Holden’s book on Stott and Sons there is one mention of Masson which states that Stotts started the design work for the new complex in 1890. There is a report in the High Peak News dated 08/09/1900 stating that ‘The Masson chimney, new engine house, East/West wing modelled for a new gassing house and yard covered in to a plan by Stott and Sons, 5 Cross Street Manchester, is nearing completion.’ Yvonne Daykin told me that there is a reference in ‘Derwent Valley Mills and their Communities’, published 2001, that the Stott chimney dates from 1900. Doreen Buxton told me that she has an article from a local paper dated May 1900 which describes the 36 ton boiler and economiser being delivered at Masson by Robinson’s of Sheffield by traction engine.
When I first started to look at this problem I trawled my archive of the Universal Metallic Packing Company order books and found a reference to an order dated March 17th 1911. Order number 2457 placed by Messrs. J and E Wood of Victoria Foundry Bolton re. Sir William Arkwright and Company, Masson Mills, Matlock bath for two complete metallic packings, for rods 4” diameter, numbers 7946 and 7947.
At first I thought this was for the original engine build but when I consulted with Geoff Shackleton he told me that he had a record of J&E Wood making two replacement cylinders for the Masson Engine in that year. So, it looks as though an engine, maker unknown, was installed 1899/1900 at the time of the Stott build of the engine and boiler houses but 11 years later it needed two new cylinders, the most likely reason would be to enlarge the engine and get more power but this is conjecture. As to who made this engine, it’s worth remembering that Masson was an outlier and this is probably the reason why Marshall’s provided the original engine at the North end. The involvement of Stotts leads me to think that their involvement in the project could have resulted in advice to go to an established Lancashire engine maker for the 1900(?) engine. There is also the coincidence that exists in the provision of the new facility and the involvement of the ESC. It may well be that they had some input as well. If my dates are correct they took over in the middle of the design period and before construction started.
The existing boiler house and plant will be a later construction coinciding with the re-boilering of the mill on removal of the reciprocating engine and its replacement by a steam turbine. You will have the dates for this.
Despite the absence of any direct evidence I think we can be sure that the 1900 installation was coal-fired. I have seen no evidence of clinker or flue dust on the site but this is not surprising, especially in a limestone district like Matlock. The clinker and ashes would be a valuable resource for local builders who would grind them with burnt lime to make ash lime mortar. There might even have been a mortar pan on site driven by the mill shafting. This was a very common arrangement as the operator of the pan had easily accessible rotative power. Examination of the original mortar used in buildings in an area to ascertain when ash-lime mortar was first used is often the best clue we have to when the first steam boilers, and therefore engines and rotative power for the pans, were introduced to the district.
We know of course that the existing installation was fired by Heavy Fuel Oil, the original storage tanks are still on site in the boiler house.
Water resource for the early steam plant at Masson.
In the late 19th century there were virtually no restrictions on the extraction of water or its subsequent disposal. As the Masson site is on the river bank and below road level we can be reasonably sure that all water extraction for the steam plant was from the River Derwent and all waste water drained back into the river. The remainders of the old pipe runs support this. There are some concrete tanks on the river bank which may have been used to intercept boiler blow-down water or other waste. There are existing water intakes from the turbine race that were used for extraction. In the light of what was seen as environmentally acceptable at the time it is doubtful whether these outflows of contaminated water to a river as large as the Derwent were seen as any problem. It’s worth remembering that the towns upstream would also be using the river as a handy open sewer and so any additional pollution from Masson Mill would be a small proportion of the whole.
What was water extracted from the River Derwent used for in the boiler plant?
Fire fighting.
Though strictly not part of the plant, but located near the boilers, one important use was as top-up water for the tank on the roof which supplied the sprinkler system. This is the purpose of the steam driven Mill’s pump next to the engine house with its 12” suction from the Turbine race. If a fire broke out this pump was set on to replenish the sprinkler tank and provide a constant supply for the sprinkler system. It would not normally be used for anything else but some mills used them for boiler filling after annual maintenance.
Boiler and engine water.
The steam boilers and engine used water for two main purposes, boiler feed water and cooling water for the condenser on the engine.
Boiler feed water.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A steam boiler produces steam and as this passes off it has to be replaced by the same weight of clean feed or make-up water.
The perfect boiler feed water is pure distilled water containing no dissolved solids or sediment. In practice the only source for anything approaching this quality of water was the condensate returned from steam heating circuits. We have no such systems at Masson now and so this source can be disregarded.
Mains water can be used and is the best source of make-up as it is relatively pure. However, there is a cost to this and for this reason we shall rule it out under normal circumstances.
Our cheapest and most accessible source of water is from the River Derwent and under all normal flow conditions the turbine race will yield acceptable make-up water. It is worthwhile noting that in conditions of spate when levels of suspended solids in the water are high mains water should be used for make-up. Therefore provision should be made for the feed pumps to draw off either the mains or untreated river water.
As the boiler is accepting water with both dissolved solids and some suspended matter and is only passing off pure water in the form of steam there is a gradual build-up of solids in the boiler. Just as in a kettle, these solids collect on the internal heated surfaces in the form of scale or as sediment in the boiler bottom. Up to a sixteenth of an inch of scale is acceptable in a Lancashire boiler as the drop in heat transfer efficiency is offset by the protection the scale affords to the boiler plates. The strategy used to restrict this scale build-up to a reasonable figure is by treating the water in the boiler with chemicals which dissolve some of the scale and precipitate it as sediment in the boiler bottom.
When the boiler is making steam the water inside it circulates vigorously and the precipitated sediment mixes with the water. Left to its own devices the water in the boiler would gradually accumulate more and more solids and eventually reach a point where the level was dangerous. The strategy for dealing with this is to test the boiler water frequently by hydrometer, the sample being taken from the water gauge cocks while the boiler is firing. A judgement can then be made as to whether sediment needs to be removed from the boiler to make it safe and efficient. This removal is effected by opening the blow-down cock at the front of the boiler while it is at rest, usually first thing in the morning before starting the day’s firing. Because of the slope at which the boiler is installed, the sediment tends to collect at the front when the boiler is still and a short burst through the blow down will remove a quantity of sediment accompanied by some superheated water.
The frequency of blow-down depends on the quality of the original feed water and the amount of steam the boiler is generating. As a guide, a Lancashire boiler using lodge water for feed and working heavily with proper water treatment might need a 15 second blow down three times a week to maintain a reasonable solids figure. In the case we are considering here; firing the boiler say two days a week from cold to give one day’s steaming, and at a very low steam production rate, it would be quite possible to steam for a matter of weeks before blow-down was deemed necessary.
The only test for the strategies used and the type of water treatment adopted is the internal condition of the boiler when opened up for annual inspection. Experience and a good routine giving stable operating conditions will eventually give a good guide to the correct regime. If you have any old purchase records, examine them and identify what water treatment was being used when the boiler plant was stopped, this will give you a good indication in deciding what treatment to use. All manufacturers of water treatment chemicals will give a free survey and analysis of feed water, recommend a product and provide the necessary testing equipment and training. They will also make periodic inspections and analysis as a check against your internal records. This is very cheap and well worth the initial investment.
The initial filling of the empty boiler should be done from the turbine race whilst the river is running as clear as possible. This water should be given an initial dose of treatment chemicals through the top lid before the boiler is closed up for running. The suppliers will give an estimate of how much chemical will be required and subsequent testing will enable the chemical content to be stabilised on the basis of water quality.
Disposal of blown down boiler water.
I have seen no evidence on site that the original plant did anything except follow normal practice in old plants of this type, that is, the blow down and even boiler emptying was done by discharging the water into a large drain where it flashed off into steam and emptied direct into the river. As a matter of interest, though not recommended practice, Bancroft and Ellenroad still operate in this way. There is little doubt that if the current regulations were strictly applied, this would be illegal.
Best practice today is to employ a blow-down receiver where the superheated water flashes off steam in a controlled manner, the steam is vented to atmosphere and the remaining liquid is discharged into the public drainage system. The regulations governing this, and more important, the attitude of the local Environmental Authority can only be reliably ascertained by going to the local council on an informal basis and asking for guidance. When doing this it should be pointed out that hot blow-down discharge will be minimal and probably non-existent as the boiler can be blown down or emptied for annual maintenance whilst cold due to the fact that it is not constantly in steam. Under these operating conditions it is quite probable that the local authority will take a very relaxed view of the situation.
This planned cold discharge does not mean that the plant can be run without an approved blow down vessel as worst case analysis could indicate an emergency situation where the boiler had to be blown down whilst in steam. However, with efficient supervision it is doubtful whether this occasion would ever arise.
Conclusions and recommendations as regards water management for the boiler plant used for occasional exhibition steaming.
A suitable blow down vessel should be installed and advice taken from the local authority as to the method of disposal of the waste water. John Ingoe or Terry Gissing could advise on this, supply and fit such a vessel.
River water to be used for annual boiler filling and make-up water. This to be extracted from the turbine race when flow conditions give reasonably clear water. Provision to be made for make-up to be taken from the mains supply if the river is in spate and the water unsuitable.
Advice should be taken from a reputable water treatment supply company. PROWATER LIMITED. 10 Bishopdale Drive, Ridgeway Heights, Mosborough, Sheffield S20 5 PH. Telephone & Fax: 0114 248 1411 is such a company. I have no experience of them having used Nalfloc in the recent past but can find no trace of this old ICI company still being in business. They will test to raw water, recommend suitable treatment and advise on in-house and occasional check testing. My only reason for selecting this company is that they are locally based. Another route to a supplier would be to identify a local firm using a steam boiler and ask who they use.
Cooling water for the condenser on the engine.
The Masson Plant as installed in 1900 was ideally situated as regards condensing arrangements for the engine. There was an unlimited supply of cold water from the River Derwent and once used, the tail water from the air pump was discharged straight back to the river. We cannot do this now as there is a possibility of trace oil being carried over in the exhaust.
If we were running the engine at anything like its full power we would be in serious trouble with condenser cooling. However, at the powers we intend to run at this is not a serious problem and we are lucky in that we have a comparable set-up running at Bancroft in Barnoldswick on a completely enclosed system. This is what we have agreed on for Masson as it is a complete answer to any worries about waste oil getting into the river and can be easily demonstrated to be so to the environmental authorities.
Basically, what they do at Bancroft is restrict the amount of cooling water to the condenser to the bare minimum necessary for running and return the tail water from the air pump to a heat sink, in the case of Bancroft, the old 9ft Lancashire boiler.
My proposal is that we do exactly the same thing at Masson and use either the spare Lancashire boiler or the old fuel tanks. Terry Gissing should be encouraged to look at the set-up at Bancroft before we decide on pump type and pipe sizes. If we copy what they have done it will save us a lot of trouble.
One word of explanation here. I keep banging on about using the old fuel tanks. My reason for this is that they have no other purpose and ideally would be the best solution. I recognise the problem with oil pollution but have a proposal for you to consider.
The one thing we can be certain of is that whatever oil there is in the old fuel tanks will be either stuck to the bottom and the internal surfaces or, if the water encourages it to float, as it will do, it will not mix with the water but rise to the top. This means that the half way level in the tanks will be oil free apart from the occasional globule rising to the top. Suppose we stabbed into the tanks at mid height in the centre at both ends. It is worth mentioning that as these stab-ins would be made into an explosive atmosphere they would have to be done cold, either by chain drilling or by trepanning. At the front we insert a six inch balance pipe connecting the two tanks. (I’m going for six inch so that we are absolutely sure there is a sufficient capacity in the pipe to maintain equal level by gravity) At the back we connect the feed from the return pump bringing the warm water up from the condenser into one tank and take the feed back to the condenser out of the other tank. It’s a long pipe run so I suggest we go for a larger size than Bancroft on the return to the condenser as it is operating under gravity and a low head. The feed from the air pump to the heat sink can be smaller as this is pumped.
I can’t see any reason why this arrangement will pick up oil as the inlet and outlet are at mid height. Any turbulence due to pumping will be minimal and confined to the first tank, the second will be still as it is only being balanced by gravity through a large pipe. Another long term benefit is that this arrangement will encourage anything that wants to float to rise to the surface from where it can be gulped/fished off if necessary. I realise this is a more complex solution but I am advocating it for two reasons. First, it is the best solution if it will work as it means we are not damaging the integrity of the second, and spare, Lancashire boiler. Second, there is one crucial difference between our set-up and the one at Bancroft. Our spare Lancashire boiler is in the same setting as the one that will be firing and so there is going to be heat transfer from the hot boiler to the spare. I don’t think that this will be a problem but it’s worth bearing in mind that to get efficient firing on the hot boiler we will have to make sure the dampers on the cold boiler are shut and sealed. This means that we will have no cooling at all on it from air passage through the flues.
There is one other course which we ought to consider. When Neston Tank came to try to clean the oil out they were looking at cold oil. Suppose we filled the tanks with water to whatever was a convenient level and steamed the coils while we had the mobile boiler there. The vast bulk of the oil and floatable debris would rise to the top and a competent tank cleaning firm could remove this for us. We aren’t bothered about getting them completely clean, just shifting the bulk of the rubbish out of them.
I know this is more trouble and expense but it is the right thing to do and when someone comes to question how we have attacked the problems and managed the installation this will be excellent PR. Apart from anything else, the presence of that waste oil on the site, even though contained in the two old boilers, will have to be addressed at some time in the future. Adopting the approach I have outlined will ease any final solution. We have no idea what regulations will be imposed in the future, suppose there was an accident with a redundant fuel tank somewhere and we found we had a statutory duty to deal with the waste oil? This is not outside the bounds of probability.
There is one more point to take into consideration. It surprises me that ESC were allowed to use that fuel installation without the tanks being contained in a bund capable of holding their maximum capacity. I suspect that under any harsh definition of the existing regulations you could be forced to build such a bund even though the tanks are redundant.
If our eventual solution is to use the spare Lancashire boiler and we find we are running into trouble with excess heat build-up we will have to look at adding to the cooling by installing a cooling tower outside the boiler house. I think the possibility of this being needed is remote but flag this up to show that if it does, we have a solution.
[I have run this scenario past John Ingoe and intend to do the same with Terry when I can get hold of him. John thinks that the proposal is sound and that it would almost certainly work without any cleaning. He thinks that the idea of steaming the tanks while the mobile boiler is there and getting Neston Tank or some other competent firm involved to clear the surface oil is a good idea and will work. He agrees with me absolutely about the point I made about the possibility of future legislation on redundant oil storage tanks. Terry’s opinion is basically the same as John’s. However he did add one further possibility. Second hand tanks are very cheap and in any assessment of how we provide the heat sink capacity for the condenser we should not fail to take into consideration installing a suitable sized tank adjacent to the engine house and using it as a stand alone installation without the necessity of pipe runs to the boiler house. It occurs to me that using this concept we could get away with a far smaller tank by simply pumping water from the turbine race through a coil in the tank, thus increasing the cooling capacity.]
Fuel for the Masson Boilers.
I don’t intend to explore every possible fuel that could be used to produce steam for the engine but will concentrate on wood. However, it is as well to point out that should the need arise, gas or oil fuel could be used to fire the boilers.
The first thing to mention is that by wood I am referring to clean, untreated natural wood with no preservatives, paint, glue or other contaminants. Even plywood and chipboard are unacceptable. This is necessary because burning anything but natural wood produces contaminated flue gas and will attract a much higher level of regulation, gas treatment and monitoring.
There are two ways in which wood could be used as fuel at Masson. The first and most complicated, but giving the highest steam output, is to reduce the wood to chips in a hammer mill, store the product in a hopper and fire it automatically into the boiler through special burner equipment. This will give the highest output from the boiler and requires the least labour but the highest investment and level of maintenance.
The second way, and I think the route which you are favouring, is to fit the boiler with firebars and flue doors exactly as it would have been if fired by coal but fire wood manually. The only waste product from this would be wood ash which as far as I am aware is not regarded as a hazardous waste. Indeed, it could be used as fertilizer for gardens. This firing would be done by volunteers and the only equipment they would need would be a suitable saw bench outside for reducing the wood waste to an acceptable size and stout gloves.
Bancroft fires by this method in a single flue Cornish Boiler and has no problem in making enough steam to run the engine for demonstration. Therefore I have no doubt that once steam is raised there will be no problem in producing sufficient steam for the engine.
Other considerations associated with wood firing.
The first thing to say is that a good primary source for information would be a visit to Tom Nuttall at Markham Nurseries near Doncaster. He fires for greenhouse heating and his exhibition steam engines using a very sophisticated system where the wood is chipped and mechanically fired in two large boilers. We have an open invitation from him to visit at any time, preferably on a Wednesday which is his steaming day. He is very strictly controlled because he is using wood on a large scale. His flue gas monitoring system alone cost £25,000 and was installed by Land Instruments International of Dronfield, near Sheffield. The technical salesman is Ian Watson and his direct line is 01246-417691. Extension 416. They do all his certification and preventative maintenance.
Tom thinks that you would not attract this level of regulation and his opinion is that the position regarding regulation, particularly at the local level, is so complicated and fluid that your best course once you have decided what you want to do is to seek informal advice from your local environmental officer. This sounds like good advice to me, I attempted a search on the web and made a few phone calls and the universal advice was to contact the local officer and see how much discretion he had.
A consideration not noted above.
When the insurance inspection is requested by you for the boiler we intend to use you should insist that it be tested and insured for its original working pressure. This will be far more than you need but in any future inspection where by reason of age or corrosion the insurance company enforces a lower working pressure you are far better suffering a small reduction from the original pressure than from an insured lower working pressure. This will ensure that in the light of present regulation, your boiler will be good for at least fifty years and quite possibly longer.
Conclusion.
I have attempted to cover every consideration but even so, we need to sit down and talk this through because there are many details omitted from this paper to keep it to a reasonable length. The bottom line is that there are no insuperable difficulties and I have no doubt we can fully comply with the environmental restrictions on the site. My recommendations are based on giving us a workable installation at reasonable cost but not cutting any corners which could leave us with a problem in later years.
SCG/16 June 2004
MASSON MILL ENGINE
Research as of 28 March 2004
ENGINE AT MASSON (2)
Ann Andrews told me in March 2004. Report in the High Peak News of 08/09/1900 that the Masson chimney, new engine house, east-west wing modelled for a new gassing house, yard covered in to a plan by Stott and Sons, 5 Cross Street, Manchester nearing completion. There is a reference in Holden’s book on Stott and Sons which states that Stotts started design work in 1890. In March 2004, Yvonne Daykin told me: In ‘Derwent Valley Mills and their Communities’ Pub. 2001 there is a statement that the Stott chimney dates from 1900. An article in the Drapers Record of 18/09/1897 when Masson was bought by ESC describes ‘two huge waterwheels giving an aggregate of 300 hp. There is also a steam engine to supplement the smaller water wheel.’ There was a drawing with this article which may give clues. There is an RCHM report on Masson dated 1991 but from what Yvonne tells me it isn’t very helpful in this matter. They seem to be guessing. However, the report does say that the present sprinkler pump is the original originally installed at the north end, made by Mills of Radcliffe.
MASSON MILL ENGINE. (1)
Info From Doreen Buxton, March 2004. The 1900 alterations at Masson Mill included the installation of a ’36 ton boiler and an economiser’. The boiler was delivered in May and brought to Matlock by Robinson’s of Sheffield traction engine and staff. Reported by local paper as ‘largest boiler known’. References to an engine called ‘Rebecca’ seem to refer to a Marshall engine, Gainsborough, installed in the north end of the original Arkwright mill in 1888. It was noted as being 100 hp. and must have had a boiler. On the old views of the mill there is a chimney on the north end built into the mill. The EH report on the mill mentions a sprinkler pump made by George Mills and Co, Radcliffe, probably installed in the 1890s and according to Doreen, before 1897. There is a sprinkler pump there now and I have an idea it is the same one. Ann Andrews, who runs the Matlock Bath web site says that Benjamin Bryan, in a book published in 1903 mentions the Stott chimney as being built after 1897.
In May 2008 during research into another matter I has occasion to trawl through a list of early engines built by John Petrie, Whitehall Foundry, Rochdale and found an entry dated January 13th 1890 which recorded an order for a 40 nominal horse power tandem compound engine placed by ‘The Arkwright Spinning Company’. In reality, at a reasonable boiler pressure of 80psi from a contemporary boiler this could be a 200/250hp engine. This could possibly be the original engine at Masson that was re-cylindered by J&E Wood in 1911.
When I first started to look at this problem I trawled my archive of the Universal Metallic Packing Company order books and found a reference to an order dated March 17th 1911. Order number 2457 placed by Messrs. J and E Wood of Victoria Foundry Bolton re. Sir William Arkwright and Company, Masson Mills, Matlock bath for two complete metallic packings, for rods 4” diameter, numbers 7946 and 7947.
At first I thought this was for the original engine build but when I consulted with Geoff Shackleton he told me that he had a record of J&E Wood making two replacement cylinders for the Masson Engine in that year. So, it looks as though an engine, maker unknown, was installed 1899/1900 at the time of the Stott build of the engine and boiler houses but 11 years later it needed two new cylinders, the most likely reason would be to enlarge the engine and get more power but this is conjecture. As to who made this engine, it’s worth remembering that Masson was an outlier and this is probably the reason why Marshall’s provided the original engine at the North end. The involvement of Stotts leads me to think that their involvement in the project could have resulted in advice to go to an established Lancashire engine maker for the 1900(?) engine. There is also the coincidence that exists in the provision of the new facility and the involvement of the ESC. It may well be that they had some input as well. If my dates are correct they took over in the middle of the design period and before construction started.
None of this is conclusive but the dates and sizes could fit. We have no definite details for the first engine and at the very least, this is a candidate.
[In the Petrie weigh book there is another entry dated October 30th 1886. Order number 313 from the Arkwright Spinning Company for a pair of 100nominal horse power tandem compound engines with rope drive.]
I consulted with Geoff Shackleton about these entries and here is his reply:
Stanley,
Forget the 1890 Petrie HTC, this was supplied to the Arkwright Spinning Company, Arkwright Mill, Hamer, Rochdale. This mill also had a double tandem engine by Petrie in 1886 and another double tandem engine by them in 1901. I've looked at the J & E Wood records again for the work in 1911 and they say 'new cylinders, compounding 17 + 32 x 42 for 75psig'. This is sometimes written this way for the supply of replacement cylinders to an existing compound but could be the supply of two new cylinders whilst compounding an existing single cylinder engine (Marshall 100hp?)
Geoff
So we must bow to superior knowledge……..
SCG/18 May 2008 revision.