Finally, what could be considered the strongest piece of evidence to support waterpower being used at the mill is the working water wheel, which can be seen. The Mill has obviously been built to house the water wheel and almost certainly proves that waterpower has been used at the mill. Linking to the water wheel, two disused wheel axels can be seen on the site of Quarry Bank Mill. One of these is at the base of the Mill which is likely to have once been used in the Mill itself and one at the top of the hill. It is hard to say whether the one at the top of the hill was used at Styal or came from another Mill as we cannot say with confidence what the logistics of placing the axel there involved.
From all of this evidence I can say quite confidently that waterpower was once used to power the mill. I still cannot be completely sure though as unforeseen circumstances or advances in technology may have meant that the system built around the mill was never used. This seems unlikely though as waterpower would have been one of the best and most reliable sources of power at the time.
Steam Power
There is some evidence at Quarry Bank Mill that would suggest that steam power was once used to power the Mill. On examining visible evidence on the outside of the Styal Mill it is evident that a chimney has been used in conjunction with a boiler. We can see that this chimney has been built in front of windows, which would indicate that it was not built when the Mill was first erected and is an addition.
Furthermore at the Mill there is what appears to be a coal store. One half of it is very worn and looks very old with the date 1880, it would be sensible to say that this was built when the chimney was built. However there also looks to be an extension to the coal store, which looks a lot newer and has the date of 1997 on it. The reason for extending the coal store could have been because a larger boiler or a new engine was installed meaning the demand for coal increased.
When researching inside of the Styal Mill more evidence is revealed. A horizontal steam engine can be found, which was one of the latest steam engines to be developed. What can also be seen throughout are grooves in the floor which the engine does not match in places, indicating that it is not the original.
Another engine can also be viewed however is it a beam engine. The beam engine was the first type of steam engine to be developed and the owners of the mill would have replaced their engine as advances in technology were made. Due to this I do not believe that this beam engine was originally from Styal Mill and has been put in for museum purposes.
Near the two steam engines is a large boiler with the date 1880 I believe this was original because it would have matched the horizontal engine at the time. I believe there is sufficient evidence to say that steam power was used to power the mill but it was not the initial source of power when the Mill opened.
Gas
After viewing the Mill some evidence became apparent that suggested gas power was used at one time.
The circular structure that was thought to possibly be a horse gin is more likely to be a gasometer. Gas would have been stored here at a safe distance from the mill, in case of some form of accident. The possible gasometer is located at the bottom of a hill, and when exploring the outer reaches of the Styal Mills land I found a small man-made pond at the top of the hill. It is likely that this pond would have been used as a fire pond to combat any accidents that could have occurred in the gasometer’s lifetime.
Next to the circular structure is a long stable like building, it is possible that this building was used to control the gas.
Another piece of evidence that supports the use of gas around the mill is the fact that there are gaslights, these would not have been installed without the intention of using them, and so we can assume that there was a gas system installed in and around the building.
The only evidence we have to support gas power actually being used to power the mills machinery is in the form of a gas turbine engine. This does not however provide sufficient evidence as we cannot see it in its working environment and it does not appear to be installed. It is more likely that it was brought to the mill to be used as an exhibit for demonstrating forms of power more advanced than the steam engine.
Although there are many facilities, which would suggest horses to be present at Quarry Bank Mill I believe it is unlikely that they were used to power the Mill.
Styal Mill seems to be built with the intention of using water as a source of power.
Evidence that I have gathered indicates to me that only waterpower and steam power were used at Quarry Bank Mill with waterpower preceding steam. Documented evidence will assist me to find out the sources of power which were used, and the dates in which they were brought in.
Questions that I would ask
- How did power develop at Quarry Bank Mill?
- Were horses used to power at the Mill?
- How many different water wheels were there at Styal Mill?
- Was the circular structure a horse gin or gasometer?
- Was gas ever used to power the Mill?
Other evidence
I have numerous types of other evidence that tells me about power at Quarry Bank Mill.
For example I have a document named “Motive Power at Styal Mill”. This is an extract from a book called “Water Power” by N Nixon and J Hill, which was published by the Quarry Bank Mill trust. As it is published by the trust it is quite likely that this is reliable information as the authors will have had special access to personal documents such as bills of sale and Gregg's personal family documents. Furthermore this to me indicates that the publication is authentic.
This document explains how Samuel Gregg founded the Mill next to the river Bollin because it was “a natural choice of site”. It goes on to explain how “it had a good fall of water” and “a large volume if water”. This overall shows that Styal Mill was made specifically for waterpower originally. Further evidence of this is how it explains that the Mill had an overshot wheel. This was a main feature of waterpower systems.
A map done by an ordinance survey provides evidence, this means that the map is done by the government therefore it will be an accurate and reliable document. The map states that there is a gasometer and a weir in the vicinity of the Mill. This tells me that the earlier debate of whether the circular pit is a horse gin or gasometer is now concluded due to the gasometer being stated on the map. This also tells me that it is a lot less likely that horsepower was used. Overall there is clear evidence on the use of gas; however, I still believe it is unlikely that gas was used for anything else other than powering lights.
The map also identifies the weir. This backs up previous visible evidence on the Mill having a weir and using it. Although the map is fairly reliable, it isn’t very precise. For example the boundaries are quite vague and this could hamper how precise the information is.
As well as that, I have a document, which states the progression in the Mills construction course. For example it states in 1784 the Mill was built with one single wheel and one tailrace. This shows that the Mill was built for waterpower. Also, it shows the progression of an extra wheel but also the addition of steam backup and a chimney. This tells me that in 1800, they began to use steam, which is also the second power source in Quarry Bank Mill’s history.
This document is very reliable because the Gregg family has passed it down. Along with these documents, I also have one, which is a power summary of the Mill. This document is again reliable due to the fact that it is likely to have been passed down the Gregg family.
The document is mainly explained in three sections. The first phase, second phase and third phase. The first phase is the basic Mill, which it first started. This included a water wheel and a long headrace. This tells me that the Mill was made specifically for waterpower and that it was the first source of power used. The date stated for this phase was 1784.
The second phase however, is when steam power was introduced to the mill. This document states, “ The 10hp engine of 1810 was placed with its boiler and machinery”. This line gives us a date where steam power was first used. As well as that, the document also states that Peter Ewart installed an additional wheel in 1796 and a weir gave water an extra 5m-drop, therefore a short headrace. Overall this section emphasises the increase in demand for power at the Mill and obviously the success that it is gaining. We can also now have a date as to when steam was introduced. The document goes on to explain the addition of a great iron wheel in 1818/20 and an extra beam engine. This new wheel was an extra 90hp compared to the original wheel so therefore this tells us that the mill has developed greatly and is producing a lot more in the 19th century. Also, the extra beam engine shows that steam power is becoming more popular.
However, the transition from water to steam wasn’t as smooth as first thought. For example it states “steam power at Quarry bank Mill in the 19th century came in fits and starts”. This shows that they may have had some difficulties in the development of power at the mill. As well as that, I have a plan of Quarry bank Mill from a file dated 1855. The main focus on this is the building development. For example, such wording as “Old mill” and “New boiler” shows us that different sections of the buildings were built at different times. In other words, if it states” new” then it is likely to have been built around 1855 (the time the document was written).
On the other hand, this isn’t as specific as the other due to the lack of dates on the plan. This makes it a bit vague and therefore less reliable.
Finally the sixth document that I am looking at is a leaflet titled ‘The Development of Power’. Styal Mill published this leaflet in 1996 and all the information contained in it are from the archives in the Manchester Reference Library. Because the leaflet was published in 1996 I have to question the reliability of it, as the information is from archives though I will trust it and see what I can infer from it. The leaflet confirms what the other documents have said saying that water power was introduced into the Mill in 1784, the leaflet says the second water wheel was installed in 1801 and that steam power was first brought in with a first engine in the year 1810. So this document also confirms that the first power source at the mill was indeed waterpower.
How useful is visible evidence?
It’s useful to a certain extent. For example, it shows the main sources of power. Water wheels, sleuce gates and a weir show us that waterpower was present and used therefore it was useful. As well as that, we saw evidence from steam power such as engines and the boiler room.
Visible evidence is also useful because we could see that water was the first source of power and steam was an addition to Styal. I could tell this because firstly, there was the river Bollin which Styal is situated next too. This meant that Gregg’s must have chosen this land with the intention of using waterpower.
As well as that, we could see that steam power was an add on and therefore a later power source than water. For instance, a prime example of how we could see this from visible evidence was from the chimney and how it was built. The chimney was built in front of windows at the Mill. Builders of the Mill wouldn’t have done this originally at the time. Overall this tells us that the chimney was added later than the original build, and that steam was a later power source.
Also, visible evidence shows us how the steam engines actually worked. This gave us a greater insight by looking at the chimney, boiler house and the beam engines. This increases the usefulness of visible evidence.
Finally, visible evidence gave us an insight to what the Mill was like to be apart of. By physically being there I got a greater understanding of the size and scale of the Mill and its machines.
On the other hand, however, visible evidence doesn’t give us precise dates. This can make it challenging to understand the precise dates of machines, water wheels, when new powers were brought in and certain parts of the structure. This makes visible evidence less useful and unreliable.
As well as that, it can be misleading. For example, the debate about the circular structure. From visible evidence it was hard to deduce whether the pit was a horse gin or a gasometer. I needed further evidence such as the OS map to confirm its use.
So overall, visible evidence can be useful, giving a greater insight into physical features and basic information.
How reliable is visible evidence?
Visible evidence can be reliable because of the large amount of evidence it can offer us. For example, in waterpower alone I saw multiple things that showed me waterpower was used. For instance, I saw headraces, axles, millponds etc. and all these come together to give me a reliable prediction that waterpower was used at Quarry Bank Mill.
Also, visible evidence is reliable because it shows me additional builds such as chimneys. As explained before, this gives me a greater insight about what powers came first at the Mill and how the mill has expanded and progressed through the years.
As well as that, visible evidence allows me to investigate for myself. For example, I could suggest if horsepower was used by looking at the Mill’s layout and if there was such things as the horse gin etc. I could also see how brickwork portrays the expansion of the Mill through the years.
By investigating myself, I can give a non-biased study and one, which because of this, is reliable.
On the other hand, however, visible evidence sometimes isn’t reliable. For example, the Mill is a museum. This means that certain things may have been added for educational reasons or decorative. This may include the random axle located in the car park or how the engines are only replicas.
Also, this means that certain things may have been renovated. For example, the stables have been altered so the ticket office can now operate there. And certain parts of the mill are now shops or café. Overall this means that evidence has been tampered with. Another prime example of something being renovated is the coalhouse. Marked clearly on a plaque are two dates. One being 1990 and the other being earlier. This shows that the Mill has renovated and repaired this building in order to give the customers a clearer more educational understanding of this part of the steam power system. Ultimately this shows that visible evidence can be unreliable.
Another unreliable attribute of visible evidence is that it’s misleading. For instance, the confusion about the gassometer and the horse gin. Also, how stables were installed at the Mill even though they didn’t use horsepower. All of this is misleading and can present incorrect statements.
Strengths and weaknesses
Strengths
There are many different strengths and weaknesses of visible evidence.
Firstly looking at the strengths of visible evidence.
Visible evidence in an investigation is very useful if you want first-hand unbiased data. For example, you can physically see it. Whilst at Styal mill I witnessed a whole water core system including water wheels, Head races, Sleuce gates etc. The evidence is there and I can judge its authenticity and I’m not relying on an interpretation from possibly a person with biased opinions about the evidence.
As well as that, I can investigate things for myself. A prime example of this is in the dilemma if why one tail exit was different from the other. For instance, as explained before, I noticed that one tail exit had different brickwork. I came to the conclusion that this may have been for reinforcement purposes due to the steam engine being above. From visible evidence I can tell that years of the steam engine working, had weakened the main structure this is the idea that I highlighted. This scenario highlights how visible evidence led me to investigate dubious things at the scene, therefore showing its strengths.
Also, visible evidence gave me an insight to what the mill was like to walk in. By physically being there I got a greater understanding of the size and scale of the mill and its machines.
Overall, these strengths can all be backed up by the fact that I can check background evidence to clarify things. For example, the debate about whether the circular pit was a gassometer or horse gin. I could look at other evidence such as OS maps to give me a precise answer of what it was.
Weaknesses
Now looking at the weaknesses of visible evidence. The main problem with visible evidence is that it can often be misleading to someone looking at it. The viewer can draw their conclusions about what they are looking at, but because the evidence is in a museum, some of the evidence might have been moved. A good example of this is the axle in the car park. This was obviously not an accurate and genuine feature to the mill because there was no evidence of any water wheels within its perimeters. Therefore, the axle must have been either moved up from the main building or taken from a completely different mill as a scrap part. The museum chooses to do this for such reasons as decorative display etc. and this makes it misleading.
The fact that the mill is a museum also highlights such things as renovation. For example, in order to build shops at Styal, owners have renovated the stables. This shows another weakness of visible evidence as in this process evidence is altered. It made my debate of whether horsepower was used more difficult, as I couldn’t see inside the stables or previous buildings that may have been related to horsepower. Another example of this is how the waterwheel at Styal Mill was a restored model but I would have had no way of concluding this if I had been using visible evidence alone.
Overall, visible evidence has as much strength as it does weaknesses and on the whole I feel that background evidence is crucial in order to get precise information. Where as visible evidence lets me get right there for an in depth look at things, the overshadowing fact that Styal is a museum tells me that changes have been made and this makes it somewhat unreliable.
