Another Hecla Shaft
The mine known as Hecla consisted of 8 shafts. Shafts 1-5 lined up along Mine street from Red Jacket Road south to Agent Street (Swedetown Road). From here Mine Street moved slightly to the west and continued on down south towards Osceola. It was along this part of Mine Street that shafts 6-8 were located. The shafts continued on past No. 8 for another four shafts but were then on referred to as “South Hecla” for reasons I’m not sure of. Yesterday we started off at the begining - No. 6. Today we continue on down Mine Street where we come across the No. 7, looking very similar to her sisters.

The No. 7 was an almost identical twin to No. 6. Both shared the same design and therefore the same ruin footprint. The four foundation walls? Check. The pile of bricks were the middle walls should of been? Check. Rear wall with threaded posts? Check. The slanted concrete slab? Different spot, but check. It was so repetitious is was a little boring. But there were a few interesting parts to note here.

Already mentioned was the odd location for the slanted concrete slab. Instead of sitting along the front side of the ruin - as it was at No. 6 - this slab was to the north side of the building. I assume that this has something to do with the shared hoist, but I’m not sure. Incidentally this slab was also at the No. 8 further down the road in this same position, so the No. 6 seems to be the odd man out here.
The large pile of bricks was just as prevalent here as it was at the No. 6, but in this case it was a little more apparent where the wall once was. This looks to be the bottom of such a wall, the rest of it most likely fallen over or knocked down over the years.

A little different then at No. 6, the rear wall of the No. 7 was much more prominent. This was a rather large foundation, built a good foot up from the ground and littered along the top with more threaded rods. Check out the big picture to get a better look.

Some one was kind enough to mark this ruin as the No. 7. I wish all ruins were marked as clearly.

The No. 7 was joined by a second smaller building foundation just to its south, which you can see here. It was half buried in poor rock, but it appeared to be roughly rectangular in shape with only about 20 feet on the long ends and less then 10 feet on the short ends. It sat up against one of the 2 rail lines that ran under the structure so my guess what it had something to do with that. Just a guess though.

Before moving on, I’ll leave you with this interesting piece of graffiti. Its hard to see in this photo, but it says “Made By H.B” with a date. What is interesting is the date, which could either be July 20th of 1997, 1977, 1947 or 1917. The third number is hard to read, and I didn’t pay much attention to it when I took the picture. I know that sounds stupid, but I had just thought it was graffiti (which we find a lot) and assumed the date was modern. After getting home, however, I took another look and realized that this wasn’t graffiti. It was written into the concrete itself, probably as it was drying. So it was done when the foundation was poured. If this is the case, the date might actually be 1917. When I get back out to the site I’ll check it again and let everyone know exactly what it says.
Moving on…
To Be Continued…
Your “big picture” link for the #7 rear wall foundation is producing an “Error 404″. FYI, Dale
Dale Beitz | June 6, 2007
Sorry Dale, its fixed now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
explorer | June 6, 2007
The angled block is probably for the batter brace. Most head frames batter braces are inline with the shaft, since the hoist is inline with the shaft, but the shared infrastructure at Hecla would require a batter brace along an azimuth perpendicular to the azimuth of the shaft as that was the location of the hoist house. Because of this layout the head frames had to have deflection sheaves as well as the production sheaves, which I can imagine would complicate the design of the building significantly!
Joe Dase | June 6, 2007
Joe - I found the blocks on the No. 6 (where they sit at the front of the building), the No. 7 (seen here) and the No. 8 (at the same spot as this one). I could not find one at the No.9/10 and hadn’t gotten to No. 11 yet. I guess the question is where the hoist was in relation to these shafts. I’ll have to do some digging on that one.
explorer | June 6, 2007
Ok, I did some more checking on the old back brace thing. Looking at old photos of the area here it looks as if these shafts were fed by a hoist building somewhere near where the current BK now sits. The hoist lines ran a good distance in front of No. 6 while ran almost right up along the front of No. 7 and No. 8. This might explain why the batter braces were on the sides of No. 7 and No. 8 but in front of No. 6.
explorer | June 6, 2007
They may have been foundations for the defelction sheaves as well, now that I look at Paul’s picture
Joe Dase | June 6, 2007
Joe - That would make sense, but I would think there would be more hardware along it if that was the case. (we did find two large bolts sticking out of the short side of the block at No.
We found an even bigger version of these that I’ll feature later in the series which might help us figure it out.
explorer | June 7, 2007