Sorry about the misinformation regarding CC. It of course floods more often than 12 years, more like every 3. My mistake. Very interesting topic this one. Has an redundant relief channel ever been blocked before to preserve the environment?

Thanks BE for the thesis information, makes interesting reading. Incidently have you done anymore about Oxclose/Snickers sough?

I looked at the Countryfile programme again, just to refresh my memory as I remembered part of the film had been shewn in an earlier edition, when the rainbow trout in the R. Lathkill were being rescued with the river water diminishing earlier in the year. I found fault with the interviewer when she was at Mandale describing the drawing of lead up the shaft as "it being ferried up from down below". Also when the the dye resurged after twelve hours it made no reference to it flowing out of Magpie sough, only springs lower down the river.

The driving of the soughs greatly altered the water table of the whole of the Derbyshire lead field, but this didn't happen until the middle of the seventeenth century onwards (Longhead sough Cromford being the first to be driven in 1640, and Alport sough being the first to be draining mines in that area in 1718), so if it was possible to find records concerning weather pre that time and compare drought years with records of the R. Lathkill running dry, this might help. Isn't Lathkill Dale or part of it owned by the Duke of Rutland? Are there any relevant records at Belvoir Castle? When Isaac Walton was fishing in 1670, this was the start of sough driving and therefore the water table would hardly have been affected at that date. No mention was made in the Countryfile programme of the dates of driving Magpie sough, which was commenced being driven from the river Wye in 1873, entering Magpie main drawing shaft in 1881, which is very late in the lead mining industry, with it going into decline in the middle of the nineteenth century or earlier. Magpie was the last big sough to be driven. Anyone who has explored the sough knows that the main water supply (i.e. two springs enter from fissures one each side of the sough) is a fair way up the sough before the Blende Vein workings, sadly I don't know the date when these springs were encountered so it can only have made a difference from the late 1870's onwards. We tried blasting the spring in the left hand fissure on Christmas Day, 1961 and it made no difference to the flow whatsoever. When Op Mole first explored the sough in the late 1950's, the local villagers whom we spoke to told us that when Magpie sough was driven, the river Lathkill ran dry, and it wasn't just in Sheldon but Monyash too, it was common heresay in the area. For more information on Magpie sough see the Forum topic "Side Passage Magpie Sough (photo)" started by "ttxela" on 18/10/11, I included a list of many articles concerning Magpie mine on it for anyone interested in reading it's history further.

One cannot compare Magpie sough to the Hillcarr sough, Hillcarr is much longer and has many branches dewatering many mines, it is a much earlier sough, having commenced driving in 1766, and much of it is now collapsing, the evidence of which can be seen in the surrouding countryside. it was an engineering feat having been driven beneath Stanton Moor, through to Mawstone Mine at Youlgreave, it's Derbyshire's longest sough at approximately four mile long. I have a map shewing it's location and branches, (this map can also be viewed at the Derbyshire Record Office, Matlock). Magpie has no branches, the present main source of the water being these two springs - it must have been a sight however when it was used as a pumpway.

Ironically the river Lathkill water was used to dewater the Alport mines. Nellie Kirkham's talk to the Newcomen Society (of which she was a member) in February, 1961 entitled "The Drainage of the Alport Lead Mines, Derbyshire" (incidently this can be downloaded for a fee from the Newcomen Society's website) said that Guy Shaft, Alport in 1841 used water from the river Lathkill just above Alport bridge, it was carried via iron pipes on a wooden aqueduct via a drift level sited on the hillside, south of the village. She also mentions that 1842 was a very dry summer saying " in the summer work was held up by a prolonged drought during which there was not enough surface water to work the engines at sufficient power". The mining company had contracted to draw a certain amount of water from the river because of other users, and lack of water for the engines was one of the reasons for the later closure of the mines in the area, apart from the falling price of lead. This was all before the driving of Magpie sough! This is an interesting article and gives dates and details of the first soughs in the Alport, Harthill area. Incidently for those on AN who were interested in the Dakeyne disc engine (Forum topic started by "toadstone" on 25/09/11) the partners at Blyth mine when their original engine failed, seriously considered ordering a Dakeyne engine but because of the long delay in getting it into anything like effectual working order the partners rejected it.

Magpie sough tail collapsed early 1963 and the sough water blew out of the air shaft just above the tail in mid 1966, ripping trees down and excavating a deep gully/chasm. We were living in Hampshire then but made regular trips to Magpie, and I can remember walking along the river path from the Coates Bobbin mill, upstream to the sough tail, and seeing many, many springs of water seeping out of the hillside of Great Shacklow woods, we also climbed up to the air shaft uphill from the collapsed tail and seeing the water right up to the rim of the shaft. There must have been that much pressure behind that hillside that something had to give, sooner or later. and the front rim of the shaft collar happened to be the weak point. I just cannot visulise blocking Magpie sough it would be an impossible task. Remembering Magpie sough blowing out of the hillside and the devastation it left behind, is what made several of my caving friends and myself pay visits to the Imperial Rooms at Matlock when Sainsbury's had their plans on display for the building of their Supermarket in Megdale quarry, Matlock, because we wanted to alert them to the fact they were proposing to construct it over the line of Seven Rakes sough, and we didn't want a similar situation to arise as what had happened to Magpie sough.

Finally in 1881 the river Bradford (which joins the river Lathkill at Alport) disappeared down a mineshaft which opened up, and a few hours later flooding was reported at Matlock bridge, because Hillcarr sough must have drained it out to the river Derwent. I can't put my hands on this particular information to give the full facts at present, but apparently eventally the villagers of Youlgreave were able to tip mine debris down the shaft and block it and seal the river bed again and get the Bradford to rejoin the Lathkill.

They were Brown Trout in the Countryfile programme. No Rainbow Trout, or Grayling exist above Alport weir, one of the natural tufa barrages. She was in the Lathkill Sough, below Batemans House and not in Mandale. Once the water enters Lathkill Dale below Cowgate, none of it is lost to Magpie, therefore no reference was made to signify a link. The Lathkill is owned by The Melbourne Estate and the Haddon Estate. The Duke of Rutland at Belvior has no longer any interest in Haddon, it belongs to his younger brother Lord Edward Manners, and all archives now rest at Haddon Hall. There are no levels entering Hill Carr below the blockage, which is below the union with the big Thornhill level that links to Wheels Rake and is the cause of the wetted ground upstream and downstream of Bowers Hall. In this regard it would be similar to a blocked Magpie sealed below main ingress.

I appreciate the point you make about a water driven pump in Alport and there not being enough in the river to allow for the abstraction to drive that pump. You suggest the river was too low to allow the abstraction before the Magpie Sough was built. Just how much water is needed to drive an engine? Someone may know but I can’t imagine in a normal/dry summer, there would be enough water at the Congreave Bridge, let alone Alport, to allow for the fishing to continue through Alport and for the engine be driven. Much the same now with the new hydro at Alport Mill, that I understand hasn’t turned a blade since March.

When you mention the Magpie blockage, you are referring to an obstruction with 230 feet of pressure at its tail. A proposed blockage at its tail would be futile and dangerous and that is not what is being proposed. I understand that during the blockage, properties in Sheldon became wet; another consequence of blocking the tail. Any potential project to turn water back into the Lathkill will need to take place just below the side veins, which I believe is in Basalt and is very hard stone, a perfect blocking place.
Who owns Magpie Sough? Chatsworth? How can anyone say ‘over my dead body’ when they have no legal or equitable right of access.

Finally the Bradford. It did open up just above the climbing rock and a dog was lost down it that later appeared in Hill Carr tail. I don’t believe a small river like the Bradford would be capable of flooding Matlock and I think you will find you are mistaken. You are right about it being blocked up. I found a note about it and it documented that soft wood trees eventually caused enough of a blockage to hold spoil so that it could be filled. The river was by this time running back in its course.

Nice to chat. Thanks. Very interesting subject.

Here's what I hope won't be seen as a heretical suggestion. Maybe I'm being naive, but I think that this is a situation where a bit of wait and see might be in order (despite my tongue in cheek suggestions above). Previous technical assesments, together with the current one by John Gunn are likely to be well considered, but like any scientific study are open to peer review. No one will be spending significant sums of money unless they are confident that the outcome will be cost-effective. I'm not sure that a forum like this is the place to 'dig in' (no pun intended) against a body that owns the mineral rights across quite a lot of the Peak and who, dare I say, might be more amenable to mine exploration if a more cooperative stance were taken.

Who owns Magpie Sough? Chatsworth? How can anyone say ‘over my dead body’ when they have no legal or equitable right of access.

Yes, but I would have said that something similar applies equally to anyone who is keen to see the blockage put in place who equally may have no legal or equitable right of access.

A domestic parallel might be someone objecting to a development by raising concerns through their local planning department. 'Over my dead body' is just an expression of a strength of feeling. I fear there is a serious risk of polarisation here, where better understanding of the problem and its proposed solution might be something worth pursuing?

It seems clear to me that quite a few people are not appreciating what is being suggested for Magpie sough. Maybe it needs explaining in simple and easily understood terms, and equally the science that has resulted in the suggestion.

The idea seems highly ambitious and potentially unaffordable with a serious risk of unknown issues complicating what might as first sight seem a simple idea.

Having visited Lathkilldale a few times in the last decade I have seen it dry and wet, and can appreciate the problem, and agree it would be great to see the river flowing more consistently.

However, what I spotted on the program was the statement that the problem is getting increasingly worse, and that this was attributed to more extremes in rainfall patterns. Diverting the source of the Magpie sough water isn't going to make a jot of difference to the climate by making it rain more often.

Peter Burgess - Diverting the source of the Magpie sough water isn't going to make a jot of difference to the climate by making it rain more often.

It will make a massive difference to the SSSI/cSAC and Nation Nature Reserve that is the Lathkill, with thousands of annual visitors each year and some whopping commercial interests such as fishing and HP.

Let's wait and see.

Peter Burgess - Diverting the source of the Magpie sough water isn't going to make a jot of difference to the climate by making it rain more often.

It will make a massive difference to the SSSI/cSAC and Nation Nature Reserve that is the Lathkill, with thousands of annual visitors each year and some whopping commercial interests such as fishing and HP.

Let's wait and see.

Agreed - but I do wonder if the best time to propose a solution is in the middle of a severe (by UK standards) drought. And can you be certain that the whole area isn't too much like a giant collender presenting as yet unknown issues as far as where groundwater might end up?

I don't know why we have to be pedantic about fish species (on a mines forum). With the man-made nature of the Lathkill and it's sporting use fish will have been distributed, over the years, by natural migration and by stocking by man - I have certainly seen Rainbow Trout at Conksbury Bridge. Another thought - what if someone wanted all that water in the Wye, where it goes now, rather than it going by the Lathkill route and re-joining lower downstream?
On a rivers theme, the Haddon Fisheries Keeper is doing a good job of restoring the rivers in his charge to a natural state, with beneficial results.
And for a fishy argument, I have seen Rainbow Trout in the River Dove making a migratory, spawning, run (over a weir) but they (officially) do not breed in that river.

The theme of that part of the programe was drought, dry river beds and redirected flows. No better time to talk about these issues than when the depleted river is running at Q95 or less because that is when the flow deprived from the Lathkill is most needed and the harm is most evident. The driest part of a year represents a bottleneck for the wildlife that rely upon flow.

The Bradford in the next door valley is as dry as a bone through its upper and middle reaches and has been for 13 weeks. Bloody miners! Everything Ive seen made from the 19thC is made to last, including it seems, their soughs!

I have certainly seen Rainbow Trout at Conksbury Bridge. Another thought - what if someone wanted all that water in the Wye, where it goes now, rather than it going by the Lathkill route and re-joining lower downstream?

They cannot pass the natural tufa barrage at Alport Mill, although records suggests the wild rainbow trout of the Wye are living throughout the lower and middle Lathkill below the barrage. The lack of provision for a fish pass at the Alport Hydro indicates the continued wish for the trout above Alport to remain distinct. The 'reddest and best trouts', and often mistaken for rainbows, especially off high bridges.

Attempts have been made to narrow the channel width of the Lathkill below Conksbury Bridge to compensate for the lost water, although I also know that during a recent proposal to install a hydro turbine at Victoria Mill in Bakewell, it was noted by the Engineer that the water at Bakewell was unnaturally high, and couldn't be relied upon in the long term. He made reference to Magpie and the Banks/Gunn reports claiming Lathkill water is coming to Bakewell and one day might be taken home.

But wouldn't the case be better made when despite normal rainfall patterns the river remained stubbornly dry or with seriously depleted flow? As it is, there will be those who will say that a dry river is only to be expected when little rain falls. Yes, politically a good time, and it makes a good TV slot, but at the moment, from a purely logical point of view, one important factor (drought) is fudging the issue. A good scientist eliminates as many factors as possible to make the best evidential case for a technical solution.

I am sure that there is a lot more good scientific evidence that most here are not privvy to - hence my earlier comment about how valuable it would be to see the case presented in easily understood terms. Otherwise, sure as rivers dry up in a drought, there will be those who will not be won over to the idea.

By the way, if anyone can help, when was the photo of the fishing party taken? It's the trout season of course and I hae other photos of the day showing masses of water. I'll try and scan them later for your interest.

The Lathkill was made (yes made in a new channel) slightly before the Magpie Sough was constructed. The channel width is generally assumed to be overwide by 50% for most flow conditions. The Magpie entitlement would fill the Lathkill exactly.

The Lathkill does run with a seriously depleted flow from May until November.

A few hectic days at work and evening engagements have kept me from posting much for a few days, but there's been a fair bit of comment since Sunday....

Peter Burgess has already pointed out that my "over my dead body" comment was a figure of speech and I admit it's one that I wouldn't normally use on an open forum, but one that I posted in anger immediately after the broadcast. What made me angry? Two things: firstly, the impression the general viewer will have taken away is that blocking Magpie sough is the solution to all Lathkill Dale's water woes, when the evidence that this definitely will make a major difference is still to be presented. Secondly, I was left with the impression that in spite of assurances given to me earlier this year by Natural England that no decision had been taken and there would be full consulation with interested parties prior to any action being decided on, the blocking of Magpie sough was going ahead.

I don't claim any rights over Magpie Sough, but I'd be failing in my PDMHS duties if I didn't mount a robust challenge to a proposal to completely close off an important site the society has devoted so much time and effort to in the past. I will be using more considered phrases to voice that opposition from now on, but in return, can we drop the emotive talk of the Lathkill having rights and entitlements? It is a river, not a person, and it has legal protections as befits its status, but I very much doubt any of the deeds covering the land it flows through say anything about a legal right to the water under Flagg, Monyash and Sheldon.

Regarding some of the other issues mentioned, I don't have a date for Carter's Mill ceasing operation, but one factor which must be considered is that farmers in the peak pretty much abandoned arable production in the later 19th century as they found dairy production more profitable and cheap imported grain depressed domestic prices, resulting in a loss of the mill's custom. I suspect a definitive answer on what finished it off will be in the archives of either Melbourne or Haddon.

As for the miner's effect on drainage, we should remember that miners were just as concerned with keeping water from getting into their workings as they were with taking it out of them, Odin Sitch being an example. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the London Lead Company had done work to ensure water from the Lathkill went onto their pumping waterwheels instead of into their workings. Then there's the hydraulic engines, I can't remember figures offhand but I seem to recall they're pretty thirsty, and John Taylor had much cause to bemoan the summer droughts in the Lathkill stopping the Alport hydraulic engines, while at the same time what he reckoned was the greatest inflow of water he'd ever come across was flooding the mines to the level of Hillcarr sough.

I can think of one example of a redundant mine drainage level being dammed up to try and influence the flow of a river on the surface, and it's not far from a recently-filmed place underground!

---

Sougher - regarding, "The driving of the soughs greatly altered the water table of the whole of the Derbyshire lead field, but this didn't happen until the middle of the seventeenth century onwards (Longhead sough Cromford being the first to be driven in 1640, and Alport sough being the first to be draining mines in that area in 1718), so if it was possible to find records concerning weather pre that time and compare drought years with records of the R. Lathkill running dry, this might help".

I can see where this would be of interest but I don't think you will find records going back that far. The best one could hope for would be a personal diary giving general conditions such as wet, draught, etc. I don't know of one off the top of my head but will look into it.

Regarding the current situation last year was very dry as can be seen by the attached map. I don't know if this is of interest.

---

What made me angry?
Two things: firstly, the impression the general viewer will have taken away is that blocking Magpie sough is the solution to all Lathkill Dale's water woes, when the evidence that this definitely will make a major difference is still to be presented.

Secondly, I was left with the impression that in spite of assurances given to me earlier this year by Natural England that no decision had been taken and there would be full consulation with interested parties prior to any action being decided on, the blocking of Magpie sough was going ahead.

This is what was said in the programe on Sunday;

‘The Lathkill is suffering further up from a completely different sough; The Magpie Sough. We have got a double whammy, one sough is taking the upper flow and what little bit is left is being captured by this sough (Lathkill Sough)’.

Are you disputing this?

No decision has been made, I can save you the call.

I don't claim any rights over Magpie Sough, but I'd be failing in my PDMHS duties if I didn't mount a robust challenge to a proposal to completely close off an important site the society has devoted so much time and effort to in the past.

How about if the tail up to any potential obstruction was left open, like Hill Carr? There would be little water in this section and no mobilisation of silt to upset the fishermen. You don't have access now, perhaps a potential blockage further up could be an advantage to you?

, can we drop the emotive talk of the Lathkill having rights and entitlements? It is a river, not a person, and it has legal protections as befits its status,

I think the word 'entitlement' is a good word that recognises that the Lathkill is impoverished by a negative factor. The river ran for millions of years with its natural quota, its natural entitlement, but only over the last 100 or so has it had to do without. The legal status for water comes with the Water Framework Directive and The Water Act 2003.

I can think of one example of a redundant mine drainage level being dammed up to try and influence the flow of a river on the surface, and it's not far from a recently-filmed place underground!

Of course! Turn left at Batemans 😉

... that farmers in the peak pretty much abandoned arable production in the later 19th century as they found dairy production more profitable and cheap imported grain depressed domestic prices, resulting in a loss of the mill's custom. I suspect a definitive answer on what finished it off will be in the archives of either Melbourne or Haddon.

According to one of those silver boxes that you wind up on the newly opened Monsal Trail, the new railway caused the shift to dairy because they could shift the stuff much quicker and get it to the towns nice and fresh. Carters Mill is off Melbourne and Haddon land and is owned by a farmer called Ian Marsden.