The following is one of a series of very detailed, informative and fascinating articles (this one written prior the severe flooding during the winter of 2013-2014) and talks by Iain Miles on a unique feature of . He is President of the Engine Trust and Pumping Station Museum who gave a version of his talks to the W&YDMES meeting in November 2016.

LOUIS’ LEGACY Eric Louis Kelting, and Somerset’s Steam Heritage

Cometh The Hour, Cometh The Man.

Eric Louis Kelting, O.B.E. C.Eng., F.I.C.E., J.P., was a well-respected figure in the history of the County of Somerset for almost half of the 20thc. He brought flood relief to large areas of the County. He was a very persuasive individual and, like many people in history, was the right person in the right place at the right time. He was unusual in that as well as being a qualified engineer he was also a Barrister-at-law. What I find amazing about him, was that he combined his work with a strong interest in history, both natural and man- made, and a busy public life. He had joined the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society in 1940, serving on the Council of that Society, then as Hon Sec., and following that as President in 1968/9. Latterly he was a Trustee until his death on 28th. December 1978. He was also a member of the Newcomen Society. Surprisingly another aspect of his public work was Chairmanship of 4 hospital management Committees and also the Magistrates Court. He certainly had more energy than most! (1)

He came to Somerset in 1921, after education at Dulwich College, to be an articled pupil of the Engineer to the Somerset Drainage Commissioners. It was clearly at this point that he became interested in the county and its history. (1)

In 1924 he left to become a Senior Engineering Assistant at . Whilst there, he was responsible for the reconstruction of what is now the A38 from Highbridge to Taunton, and both the and Crowcombe (in West Somerset) by-passes. He then moved out of the County, going to Norfolk as Senior Engineering Assistant (with Land Drainage duties), and Cheshire as Chief Engineer to the Cheshire Rivers Catchment Board. All this gave him a unique background in Rivers, Drainage and Flood Prevention. He certainly had a good c.v. and interviewed well for the post of Chief Engineer, as he was successful despite being relatively unknown and a youthful 28 years of age. (2)

Louis was appointed as Chief Engineer to the Somerset Rivers Catchment Board in 1938 and it’s from this date that we begin to see his influence on the County. He had been employed at Somerset County Council in 1929 when the major flood disaster occurred which flooded much of central Somerset. This had rendered approx 200 families homeless also closing the GWR main line. A National Relief Fund was set up to which £30,000 was subscribed. (3)

Since 1881, when they were formed, the Drainage Commissioners had done their best with little cash available. There were no Government Grants to draw on so all income came from rating the lands which directly benefitted. Work which had to be undertaken was helped to some extent by loans, but these had to be repaid. The period from 1900 to the late ‘20s involved little expenditure and administrative matters concerning other authorities. Maintenance work was done on a low cost basis. (4)

1

The severe 1929 flood helped to bring about the 1930 Land Drainage Act and formation of the Somerset Rivers Catchment Board, which allowed rating of land throughout the whole catchment area of the main rivers. Everyone got excited at the idea that now the flood problem could be dealt with. The previous 100 years or so had produced many reports and ideas from different bodies but in the economic depression of the 1930’s there was no hope of putting anything into Photo from Somerset Rivers Catchment Board report action. Louis Kelting pointing out items of interest to members of the River Authority. The maintenance plant which had been acquired left a lot to be desired! In the 1880’s, the Drainage Commissioners had looked into various ways of improving things. Mr Frederick Lowry, their first full time engineer, who had come from Great Grimsby used his knowledge from the Fens. Following reports by him and Mr W.H. Wheeler of Boston, he experimented with moveable scouring dams, pontoon mounted steam grabs, and various types of dredger. He then came up with the most successful, to a point, an eroding boat. (5)

Pioneer was basically a steam launch with steam driven monitors fore and aft. She was built by W & F Wills of Bridgwater, who hired her to the Commissioners as and when needed. She operated on the rivers Parrett and Tone from the early 1890’s until the 1st World War when labour became difficult. (6) The idea was sound, but whether it was worth the money is open to conjecture. The water jets blasted the silt away from the self-acting ‘clyse’ doors and bridge holes to be taken out to sea on a falling tide. Unfortunately, returning on the next! For those of you not familiar with the situation regarding our wonderful Parrett, immense quantities of silt go up and down river on each tide. Examples of deposition recorded in one summer drought are 7 feet at Bleadon Clyse, 8 feet at Highbridge and 14 feet at Dunball. (7)

When the SRCB came about, most of their plant seemed to consist of a couple of early draglines and hand tools. They probably hired labour as and when required, but in the 1930’s the idea of eroding came up again with the construction of the ‘Persevere’, an oil engine version of the Pioneer which seems to have lasted until the 1950’s when it was taken to Watchet Harbour, finally dying there in the early 1970’s

On his appointment in 1938, Louis Kelting found that the Board, as it had become, was fed up with report after report and no action. Some of these grandiose schemes had seemed to do little more than invoke strenuous opposition from other authorities, so his diplomacy was needed to get the different boards to agree on what was a good plan if the money was available. One of the many problems faced at this time, was a reluctance by Government to see Somerset as anything other than a county of dairy farmers and not worth the expenditure to eradicate annual flooding. (I may point out here that the method was to accept winter flooding, but try to dry the land out early in the spring for summer pasture, rather than all-year drainage for arable crops. Let us not forget that the name “Somerset” comes from the Anglo Saxon, “land of the summer people “ or “dwellers by the sea lake”).

However, in 1939 a start was approved on widening and deepening the Kings Drain as part of a scheme to improve all the main rivers. History then intervened in the shape of WW2 and everyone thought the scheme would languish once more. However, because of it work continued apace.

2

Huntspill River, Keltings Cut.

In early October 1939 Louis was asked to provide

4 ½ million gallons per day for an Ordnance Factory to be built at on the South side of the Brue Valley. This was no problem in winter conditions, but would have left thousands of acres very short in summertime.

Earlier in the year he had been looking at a possible plan to provide a flood relief channel for the Brue Valley, based on a 19thc proposal. A lot of this area’s Photo from Somerset Rivers Catchment Board report flooding was created by a 5 mile wide coastal clay belt which prevented water from inland flowing out Construction of the Huntspill Cut, 1940. Party of to the sea. The Brue channel was insufficient to dignitaries visiting from Westminster, Kelting on the allow this water to gravitate to sea except at low right. It is believed that the gentleman beside him was tide, and both the North and South Drains the Deputy Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, who was discharged into the Brue to the landward side of this known to have been included in the group. belt, rendering them ineffective, so some other way was needed.

Kelting therefore proposed that a channel be dug from Gold Corner on the old Glastonbury Canal (South Drain) through the belt to the near . This would be of a pumped storage nature, with sea doors (or a clyse) at the west end, and a major pumping station at the east end. It would solve the summertime water shortage by providing a reservoir for the nearby factory and fulfil a land drainage function as well, which had the further spin-off of allowing greater food production for the War effort, so it killed 3 birds with one stone. The work had to be completed within 3 years (obviously they wanted it finished before the War ended!), so an immediate start was needed with problems being solved as they arose.

Cutting commenced on the 12th Jan 1940 by direct labour as Louis’ previous experience with Somerset’s clay had taught him to be cautious about the ground to be excavated, and indeed this did prove to be a problem. The nature of the clay was such that at the designed batter the weight of the deposited material caused the bed to well up and the bank to slump. Consequently the cut had to be wider and shallower than at first thought, and the excavated material needed to be deposited further back than planned. Gold Corner PS therefore needed larger pumps than at first thought, as the lift from the South Drain was higher. A certain amount of double handling had to be resorted to as the draglines did not have the reach to dump the spoil far enough back from the cut – a 30 foot berm being arrived at to prevent problems. As in the later M5 construction, large earth movers were also tried, but the caterpillar tractors got bogged down in the conditions. Louis also tried steam ploughing engines with dredging buckets, but even at this date it was difficult to get enough men who understood steam, so they were passed on as soon as draglines became available. Some of the excavated spoil was trammed up to the factory site and dumped for use around the explosive buildings. I have been informed that a narrow gauge railway using approximately 30 locomotives was in use for this. (8)

3

The major structures on the cut were carried out by contract labour. At Gold Corner Pumping Station, the brick upper part of the building was designed by the Somerset County Architect of the time. The plant installation was a combination. Hathorn Davey & Co were the main contractors, installing Sultzer screw pumps driven by twin cylinder Crossley engines.

The railway bridge was designed by the GWR, Photo: Iain Miles and then, because of the ground conditions, re-

designed! A temporary diversion was required Gold Corner Pumping Station, 2008. This rear view, on the and it took 18 months until Nov 1943 to restore intake side, shows the later addition of a weed-clearing the line completely. apparatus

A major problem arose from a lack of labour as brick-layers were hard to find. Louis had to make representations to the Ministry to make them see the problem, telling them that no way would it be finished on time. As a result, he got his bricklayers! The other bridges were not so much of a problem - one was steel and the others re-enforced concrete though needing to be piled, some down to 83 feet. Luckily, the outfall sluice didn’t present too much of a problem, as there was a bed of shale that it Photo: Iain Miles could be set on and was ready in October 1943. The total cost was £411,594. The Huntspill Cut Railway bridge, with steam special, 1985

I must however point out that in all schemes, as we all know, the boss gets the credit. There was a team working under him in difficult wartime conditions. Louis Keltings deputy engineer from 1941 to 1947, Mr J.M. Hitchen and his assistants, also the men on the ground with no thoughts of health and safety, should be remembered. I think he would have been quite a taskmaster at times!

Although the Huntspill Cut was most important, the King’s Sedgemoor Drain was deemed a useful back-up as a reservoir, and so widening work was resumed for this. A new outfall clyse was built at Dunball in 1941, but the railway bridge was left until the Huntspill bridge had been finished, so as not to cause too many traffic delays. (3)

4

The Pumping Stations.

Following on from the Huntspill and Kings Sedgemoor Drain works, the Agricultural Executive Committee requested that serious consideration be given to improving drainage in other areas including Northmoor and West Sedgemoor for increased food production in 1940/1.

Northmoor and its smaller neighbour Saltmoor, were still drained by steam at this date. These were engines which had worked well since the 1860’s and had successfully cleared the moor of water for the dairy farming then employed. At Northmoor, two horizontal 66hp Ruston diesel engines were installed in a new house, each driving a 27” centrifugal pump, (both still used- 2012). At Saltmoor, a slightly smaller engine and pump was put in the original house. Sadly the 2 steam pumps were scrapped as part of the Photo: Iain Miles wartime scrap drive, but it was the loss of these two which made Louis determined to try to save Northmoor Pumping Station, 2012. The original the others. cottage and station of 1868 are to the right, beside The West Sedgemoor area, a catchment of about the truncated chimney. On the left is the 1941 13,000 acres (5265ha) was not pumped and station containing Ruston oil engines. To the right, relied on gravity drainage into the Parrett. but out of view is the later electric station. Consequently a new pumping station was built with two 42” pumps, each driven by a twin cylinder 132hp horizontal Ruston engine. One of these is now awaiting re-erection at Westonzoyland, as the station has been electrified. Ironically, West Sedgemoor is mostly now a nature reserve, so water management is far more important than extreme drainage! (3)

Following the War, he was able to turn attention to other major schemes whilst catching up on a backlog of more mundane works, including sea walls. New river works were undertaken in the Northern levels near Clevedon and Congresbury, and new pumping stations built to either replace the surviving steam pumps or to pump areas where gravity was insufficient. One of the more major schemes was a new channel to relieve the River Parrett, diverting excess water from below Langport to join the enlarged King’s Sedgemoor Drain, which rejoins the Parrett below Bridgwater.

It is interesting in that his time as Chief Engineer saw the transition from steam to diesel and then to electricity. It also saw the Board take under its wing responsibility for the main pumping stations. The North Drain PS was opened in 1959 with great ceremony, and could be classed as one of the last of its type. Then, in the 1950’s, horizontals gave way to vertical high speed engines and the next generation of pumps were to be housed in 1960’s style, concrete and glass. In many ways, the new stations at Langport and Huish Episcopi, were the last of their type, provided with an overhead crane and all the facilities an attendant would need. Since then, with loss of real local control, the drive has been towards automation and remote monitoring. Some of the stations have had electric pumps installed for general everyday use, or dry weather flow, retaining diesel pumps for back up and use in extreme conditions. The maintenance must be a bit of a problem as the older engines could rightfully be described as museum exhibits!

5

The Conservation Years

Louis’ work concerning conservation is what most of us would probably remember and thank him for. He was responsible for the creation of the National Nature Reserve, using his influence as a member of SANHS to elicit their support, and utilising large areas of the foreshore over which he had control. He wanted to do this because he realised he had deprived large numbers of duck and geese of their winter habitat. He rescued the records of the SDC, Commissioners of Sewers, and later Rivers Board, and deposited them in the then County Records Office, and, of course he managed to save 5 of the 8 steam pumping engines. (9)

Responsibility for the Pumping Stations gradually moved to the River Board. Westonzoyland was one of the last, the Board assuming control from 1st April 1962 (All Fools Day!). (10) He saw the destruction of both the Northmoor and Saltmoor engines and bitterly regretted their loss. Clearly by his subsequent writings in the 1950’s he was determined that the others should be saved. Sadly he could not prevent the loss of the engine in 1950, (doubly sad as this was the one which had been compounded and we don’t know how successful this was). The Westonzoyland machine, and the one at Southlake, had been under the control of the same internal drainage board. Westonzoyland had been replaced by a General Motors diesel in 1950 (originally as a back-up) and Southlake was on standby from 1948, having also been replaced with a small diesel set. He persuaded the Board to leave both engines in place.

Like the Southlake engine, the Stanmoor engine is believed to be a unique survivor. Why it was built as a double diagonal is not known. Suggestions have been put forward that together with the Southlake engine, with its horizontal spindle pump, and the more modern features incorporated in the Allermoor engine that they were the work of Anderson who joined with Easton in the mid 1860’s. (11) It went out of use in 1948, but was luckily left in situ. It was subsequently moved for display at his museum at Allermoor of which more later. It is now awaiting re-erection at Westonzoyland .

The steam engines at Currymoor and Allermoor were the only two still in regular work in 1952, but both were planned to be superseded. Currymoor was to be replaced by diesel, but at Allermoor the reason was that the work carried out on the King’s Sedgemoor Drain and imminent construction of the Parrett Relief Channel would mean the Allermoor area itself would now drain by gravity. He made plans to leave the Allermoor engine in place, and with help from the County Architects Dept. designed a new building to be built over the Currymoor engine. It was arranged so that the machine was capable of rotation by electricity, and so be available for interested visitors. Before the machine was finally taken out of use, he was able to carry out tests to compare it with the new plant alongside. It was found that in terms of water horsepower hour (that is, per unit of useful work done), the coal cost about one shilling. The corresponding cost of fuel oil would be 1 ½ d. (1951). (12) The station at Currymoor has always had a problem with settlement and the records show constant need to work on the buildings. In fact the original engine house was replaced with a lighter timber construction. There was also the slightly farcical situation of the coal stock. After having been unloaded onto the bank in 1876, it was found to be unsatisfactory. Whilst an argument raged with the supplier over the quality, the 1877 floods washed most of it into the Tone! The matter was still being contested in 1878. (13)

6

Sadly the Allermoor engine and house is now owned privately as about 10 years ago the National Rivers Authority, in their wisdom, decided to sell off redundant items. Allermoor had had an extended life since Louis had created a museum on the site in 1961. As it was no longer operational, he decided that the engine be left in its last running condition, the coal store be cleaned up and both Southlake and Stanmoor engines moved in beside the boiler. All this was to be looked after by the last Allermoor engine driver, Wallace Musgrave, who would continue to have use of the cottage as long as he needed. Wallace had a fund of knowledge and interest in drainage history, so this was the ideal site with an enthusiastic person to act as caretaker/guide. (14) Photo: Iain Miles

On Wallace leaving the site to live with his family some Trust members, mindful of the threat, approached the NRA suggesting they take care of the buildings and engines. Their Estates Section declined, clearly already thinking on the financial gains to be had from the site. However, the Trust were able to secure the removal of both the Stanmoor and Southlake engines – already removed from their original sites, and more easily portable. Both of these now await re-erection at Westonzoyland. Also, the large cast iron hand- pump with the red flywheel came to us. This he apparently rescued from Hams and in my opinion is the oldest exhibit that we have. (14) The Allermoor engine was left in situ, and sold as part of the house. The current access arrangements are unclear, with the building now a house and owned by the neighbouring haulage yard. (The haulage yard owner had been quite sympathetic and interested in drainage history, but sadly died in 2011).

Louis did not just confine himself to drainage engines. He is credited with saving various other Somerset

engines. In fact, there would be very little stationary steam surviving here if it hadn’t been for him. In spite of the County Museum’s policy to once again minimize our Industrial Heritage, the first item you see on entering the re-vamped Somerset Museum at Taunton Castle is the engine from Pearsall’s Silk Mill whose removal and re-erection in 1955 was personally overseen by him. He was also involved in the rescue of three other small steam engines from Somerset , two from Starkey’s Bridgwater brewery and one from a farm near Street. These are now in store in the County Heritage Section, but whether we shall see them on display again I do not know. Louis is also credited with saving the Bridgwater Docks scraper boat, supposedly built to Brunel’s design in 1841 – a similar design to the one built for Bristol. After a long spell at Exeter Maritime Museum, this is now in private hands somewhere on the East Coast, and, of course the Wills engine, displayed at Westonzoyland was also saved by him. It was built by Bridgwater firm W & F Wills, who had done some maintenance work and alterations on the steam drainage engines, and is unique in being the only known example having their patent poppet valves. When it was taken out of the brick and tile works where we were told it had spent its life, Louis heard about it and saw to it that it spent a quiet, reclusive retirement in the corner of one of the pumping stations! It is a pity that because he was somewhat cautious about various aspects of how he had moved and stored these items, we are not 100% sure where this engine did work.

7

In his retirement, he was known to have been researching the history of the Easton family, the local side of the Easton & Amos engineering firm, but sadly his notes disappeared after his death. Looking back over what he achieved, I think it is truly remarkable. He had the interest, the knowledge, the enthusiasm and the courage. He persuaded farmers, politicians and manufacturers to be public spirited. He undoubtedly had a wide network of associates and acquaintance, on which he used his negotiating skills and personality to attain the best possible outcomes. He had taken the post of Chief Engineer from that of a subordinate employee to someone so trusted that what he said went. It had not been all plain sailing though. He had his knuckles rapped early in the War. When work had started on the Huntspill scheme a visitation came down from Westminster, which included the Deputy Prime Minister of Yugoslavia.(3) This the local paper got hold of and revelled in it. He was clearly well and truly told off for letting the story out, as a month later, when reporting the meeting of the SRCB, a letter was read from the Min. of Ag. prohibiting press reports about drainage schemes and it received no more publicity!(15) His reputation had apparently reached as far as the hallowed corridors of Whitehall! When work was needed on the Northern Levels he started before getting Official approval from MAFF. It is clear from the mandarin’s memos what they thought of it and him but nevertheless accepted that was how he worked! (14)

An illustration of his persuasive ways was the way he saved the Allermoor engine in 1956. The engine had been out of use for some time, as it was no longer needed. He arranged with Wallace Musgrave, the redundant driver now employed on other work, to raise steam for the last time. Wallace took little persuasion, and duly raised steam for the appointed day – the annual tour of sites for the Board members. With boyish enthusiasm he took them in, showed it in action, and had no trouble getting approval to create the Museum! (Doubtless it had been timed well after a liberal lunch!) You would have trouble trying to do something like that today!! (14)

When I first became interested in our land drainage history, in the 1960’s, most people thought that the problems had been solved by him and that major flooding would be a thing of the past. Yes to point, but he could only do what was sensible and economic for the time. He knew the problems and having an interest in the history could see possible answers. He realised the Parrett channel was too small, so he increased the size of the relief channel. Who knows what else he would have done given time and money? No one then thought of “Global warming” or the amount of extra run-off that modern building has created. What would he make of today’s situation?

The only time I met Louis at Westonzoyland was just before he died, and just after the Westonzoyland Engine Trust had started work. He looked at the enthusiastic volunteers and said to us, “Well, all the problems were well worthwhile!”

8

Acknowledgements.

I prepared this article as one of the presentations, on behalf of SIAS, to the Southwest and Wales Regional Industrial Archaeological Societies Annual Conference, held at Cheddar in March 2012, SIAS’s 40th anniversary. The references are drawn from many sources including personal memories, his Obituary and Presidential Address published in the Proceedings of SANHS, River Authority Annual Reports and past research by myself, Mary and Stephen on deposited archives in the Somerset Heritage Centre (SHC) and the Public Record Office at Kew.

Iain Miles.

References (1)Proc. SANHS vol. 123 (1979), 145 -146. (Obit.). (2)SHC, D\RA/6/7/9 (3)E L Kelting “An Outline of the Development of Land Drainage in Somerset” in River Board Association Annual Conference 1958. (4)For an in-depth view of the state of things at this date see Michael Williams “The Draining of the ” Cambridge University Press 1970, 229-233. (5)E L Kelting “The Dredging plant of the Somersetshire Drainage Commissioners and the Somerset Rivers Catchment Board”, Fourth Annual Report (1954-5), 15-18. (7)Michael Williams “The Draining of the Somerset Levels” C U P 1970, 11 (6)Mary Miles “Eroding Boats” SIAS Bulletins, Issues No 61, 63, 66. (8)R Hawkins, personal memory as a driver. (9)Proc. SANHS vol. 112 (1967/8), 12-20. (ELK Pres. Address). (10)Somerset River Board, 13th. Ann. Report. 27. (11)George Watkins “The Steam Engine in Industry, Vol.1”, 97-98. (12)Somerset River Board, 2nd. Ann. Report. 22. (13)SHC, D\RA4/3/1, 1877. (14)L W Musgrave, personal memories as custodian to the Allermoor Pumping Station. (15)The Bridgwater Mercury, 28/10/1941, 25/11/1941.

Postscript, February 2014.

I prepared this article for inclusion in the Bulletin in the autumn of 2013, obviously unaware of what the winter ahead would bring! The floods of 2012/13 were bad, but 2014 has proved to be the worst since 1929 (please see paragraph 4) and have certainly shown history to repeat itself, even down to the Politicians arguing amongst themselves! What will happen now?

Arguments as to what is wrong and who or what is to blame will go on for a long time. I believe that Louis Kelting would certainly have had an answer which would have required more cash. He would have certainly kept up dredging and maintenance, but whether or not that would be enough we may not know. What is clear is that the Brue valley is comparatively free of problems, thanks to the Huntspill Cut. History is still in the making.

9