April 11, 1913.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

761

clivvy, he said, was quite satisfactory for the purpose,
and he considered the design could not have been formed in
a better way to give greater strength from the material
used.

Alfred Thompson, agent for the Dinnington Main Colliery,
also deposed that he had not seen better appliances, and he
had had considerable experience. He did not consider
automatic appliances ought to be used in sinking operations
until they were more perfected.

Mr. J. P. Houfton, the managing director of the Bolsover
Colliery Company, was called, on the resumption of the
enquiry on the following day. Relating in detail the
history of the sinking operations, Mr. Houfton said they
found a great deal of water, and accordingly put in tubbing.
They first dealt with the water by means of pumping until
they got to a depth of 120 yards, and then by suction
barrels. The greatest quantity of water they had to deal
with at any one time was 1,600 gallons per minute, and if
they had had to deal with the whole quantity at one time,
taking into account the quantity they had stopped. by
tubbing, they would have had nearly 5,000 gallons per
minute, or 7,000,000 gallons per day. They had now
finished tubbing, and the shaft was perfectly dry. They
were within two rings of the last length of tubbing when
the accident happened. To deal with the 300 gallons per
minute at the time of the accident meant raising the
suction barrel once every three minutes. He did not think
there was any danger to be anticipated from hurry. There
was no time to spare, but there was no extreme hurry.
Where they had to change quickly from water barrels to
sending down tubbing there was a loss of time in changing
on a I) link. He quite agreed in the light of this accident
that the clivvy is the weak point of the tackle. The clivvy
had been almost universally used, and he had never seen
anything stronger in proportion to the load than this one.
He was surprised, on test, to find the margin of safety so
low. He thought, in the light of this accident, the design
of divvies should be considered, and if possible some sub-
stitute should be found, which would enable the change to
be made as rapidly as with a clivvy. Witness did not agree
with Sir Arthur Markham that ladders in this instance
might have saved some of the men. The danger that might
have arisen in this case, with rope ladders, was that if
there were four ladders for 18 men they would have had
five or six, or possibly eight or ten men scrambling for one
of the ladders. It was only by accident that there were
not 23 or 24 men in the shaft, instead of 18. A few
happened to be on the top at the time. Ladders, Mr.
Houfton added, might be useful for the escape of men in
case of a temporary stoppage of water raising. As to the
system of lighting, Mr. Houfton saw no reason why three
or four cables should not be provided for a number of
separate portable lamps, but in either case there would be
the danger of damage by any falling body, and he did not
think the question of light made the slightest difference.

Asked for his views on automatic controllers, Mr. Houfton
said in the light of what had happened he favoured their
adoption in sinking operations, but he would prefer a
steadier control. With the controller now in use, and in
fact with the majority of these controllers, a sudden cutting
off of the steam and putting on of the whole weight of the
steam brake was a source of danger.

Mr. Francis Coulson, of Durham, said he had visited
Rufford Pit and was pleased with the set-out, which he
described as excellent. Asked if he had any criticism to
offer as to the details, he said that he did not like the hook
or clivvy because he did not consider the design a good one.
The results of tests showed it had a very low breaking
strain. There must be something wrong with it, seeing the
quantity of material in it and the strain at which it broke.
He always allowed 8 to 1 as a safety factor on hooks, and
10 to 1 on chains. In his opinion it would have been an
advantage if a controller had been in operation, and he
thought it might have prevented the accident. He strongly
favoured an emergency engine being provided in times of
pit sinking. Questioned about the advisability of adopting
rope ladders, he said that in many cases they would be an
advantage. It was not likely that more than one or two of
the men in this particular instance would have been able to
make use of such ladders, but there was just a chance that
the men in the water might have found them an advantage.

Mr. William Petrie, engineer at the Hickleton Main
Colliery, said that he was the patentee of the controller in
use at the Rufford Colliery, and he gave a description of
how it worked.

Mr. T. H. Mottram, Doncaster, divisional inspector of
mines for the Yorkshire and North Midland division, said
the clivvy appeared to be on the light side as compared with
14 other divvies used at other collieries which he had since
examined. The safety factor of the material used in the
tackle at Rufford he found to be 4 3, which was light as
compared with the average, which was from 8 to 10 in most
cases. He thought a controller should be used, and preferred
the D link to the clivvy. As to the provision of rope
ladders, Mr. Mottram regarded that suggestion by Sir
Arthur Markham, M.P., as an exceedingly good one, but he
was in favour of the provision of ladders only where there
was water. He did not think it desirable that the shaft
should have been visited by an inspector more than twice
in six months.

COLLIERY ACCIDENTS.

Mansfield.

The Home Office enquiry into the shaft accident at the
Rufford Pit on the night of February 7, when 14 men
were killed and four injured, was opened at the Mans-
field County Court on the 3rd inst. by Mr. W. Walker.

At the outset Mr. Walter J. Preston, certificated
manager, gave a description of the models. At the time of
the accident, he said, water was being drawn out of the
shaft by means of a suction water barrel, and down the
shaft was a movable platform suspended on chains which
could be raised and lowered, and on this on the night of
the accident 18 men were at work. At the time of the
accident there was water at the bottom of the shaft to the
depth of 18 yards, and water was coming in at the rate of
about 300 gallons per minute.

John Hollingsworth, colliery engine winder, said that up
to the time of the accident the engine was working well.
It was he who in the first instance put up a canopy of laths
over the winding chair. Two laths were nailed to the chair
with 1^ in. cut nails, and to these he fixed cross laths and
covered them with a brattice cloth. As the latter did not
satisfactorily answer the purpose intended, namely, to
prevent the wet coming through, he substituted for the
brattice cloth a horse rug.

Sidney Brown, who was in charge of the engine at the
time of the disaster, stated that the board fell between the
levers, so that he could not work them, and consequently
he could not stop the barrel. Later he stated that an
automatic contrivance for use in case of overwinding had
been attached to the engine since the accident, and had
proved satisfactory.

The enginewright, Joseph Hopwell, said he made daily
examinations of all gear and attachments. The barrel in
use was of the latest pattern. He thought the lug gave
way; it would very likely hit the top of the headgear and
swing the barrel, so that the weight of the barrel would be
on one chain. The sudden falling body of weight on one
side of the barrel would cause the lug to be torn away.

The master sinker, William Cook, who went down the
shaft in the hoppit after the accident, said he did not think
ladders would have been any good in saving the men.

Mr. J. Bingley, mining engineer and agent of the Ruff ord
Colliery, stated that the results of his experiments showed
that the weaker portion of the tackle, provided the barrel
was swinging, was the first two rivets on each “ lug.”
Assuming that the barrel was jerked up 9 ft. through over-
winding, the strain of a falling barrel on the lug would be
45 tons, and the weight which struck the scaffold on which
the men were working down the shaft would be about
2,230 tons. Given the tackle they had, no reasonable fore-
sight could have prevented the accident. The reason the
automatic device was not at work was because dirt might
have been precipitated down the shaft when the hoppit was
in use in case of a sudden stoppage in the shaft. It was his
intention to ask the inspector of the district for exemption
of the automatic device during sinking operations. Even if
the automatic apparatus had been in use there would still
have been considerable momentum, although perhaps not in
the same degree, which would have caused the strain, and
therefore the accident. Regarding rope ladders, witness
admitted there were instances where they would be useful,
and it was his intention if they had any increased weight of
water, to fix ropes from the scaffold to the men at the
bottom to facilitate matters in case of anything going
wrong with the winding engines. This, of course, applied
to normal working. Mr. Bingley added that if those
proceedings resulted in the introduction of an automatic
appliance which could be applied steadily in the shaft and
which would gradually bring the engine to a standstill, the
company would be very grateful.

Sir Arthur Markham, addressing the court at the end of
the day's proceedings, said he was strongly of opinion that
the majority of the men would have been saved if rope
ladders had been installed. The cost of 200 yards of double
length rope would be about .£12, and the last 50 yards
ought to be arranged with staves to enable men in case of
accident to keep out of the way of water or to seek refuge.
In the case of a shaft being “ tubbed ” there was nothing
for a man to get hold of in the event of an accident. Rope
ladders had been used in the Rhondda Valley in Wales, at
the Cadeby Colliery, and he had adopted them himself since
the accident in the sinking of the Markham Steam Coal
Colliery in South Wales. Commenting upon the lighting
of the shaft, Sir Arthur said the system was one which he
had discarded, because if anything struck the cable the
light was inevitably extinguished and lives were at once
endangered. He had substituted large electric safety
lamps hung in such a way that in case one or two were
carried away the place would still be illuminated. He also
spoke in favour of the D " link as against the “ clivvy,” a
point of difference between the representative of the Miners'
Federation and the colliery manager. However, for
colliery managers he had a word of sympathy. Numerous
obligations were thrown upon them without the details
of the merits of any particular link or hook or chain
being left to them to decide, and it was necessary that
a general standard should be laid down where possible.

Mr. S. Law deposed to having made a general inspection
of the appliances and tackle in use at the colliery. The

In addressing the jury, Mr. Herbert Smith said the
enquiry had taught many valuable lessons even to men of
30 years’ experience or more. First, there should be every
possible provision for the protection and safety of the
enginemen, who had such a difficult and responsible task;
secondly, the desirability of some automatic controlling
apparatus being installed. He had visited the pit that
morning, and, generally speaking, was highly satisfied with
the protection afforded. He hoped that the inspector had
been impressed by Sir Arthur Markham's statement that
not one mine was managed in strict conformity with the
Mines Regulation Act. He was not prepared to agree that
that was so in respect of Yorkshire. It showed the difficulty
of mine management, and the difficulties were equally great
for the workmen, and there were plenty of convictions
against them. In the light of that admission he would
strongly urge that there should be more frequent inspections
and more inspectors appointed for the work, because he was
satisfied that the more inspectors they had the fewer would
be the accidents.

The inspector, in closing the enquiry, thanked Mr.
Houfton for all the trouble he had taken.

Dudley.

An inquest was held at Gornal Wood on the 6th inst. by
Mr. T. A. Stokes (coroner) on John Dubbs (60) and Alfred
Phillips (44), sinkers, who were killed at the Causeway Pit,
Himley Colliery, belonging to the Earl of Dudley.

William J. Davies, sinker, said the men were working
in a shaft that was being stripped. On April 3, after the
firing of three shots simultaneously, they returned to the
scaffold in the shaft on which they were working to remove
the dirt. A “ bowk” load of dirt was sent up, and about an
hour after the firing of the shots those on the surface in the
immediate vicinity of the pit heard an unusual noise in the
shaft. Signals were given, but there was no response.
Witness and another sinker named Arthur Wise descended,
and found that the scaffold on which the * men had been
working had disappeared, and that they had been precipi-
tated to the bottom of the shaft, a distance of about 40
yards. Tne scaffold was a double one, and about 10 ft.
below it was a “ catch ” scaffold. Each scaffold was supported
by a pair of oak byatts. After the accident it was found
that one of the byatts of the double scaffold had been
broken, and when the platform fell it carried with it the
catch scaffold. A byatt < f each scaffold remained in the
shaft, but only one of the two that fell to the bottom had
been found. The double scaffolding was erected by Phillips
about two hours prior to the accident. Probably 30 cwt. of
dirt fell on the scaffold after the firing of the shots, for
which purpose gelignite was used.

Mr. Pelton, H.M. inspector of mines, said he should like
to have seen the missing byatt. There appeared to be little
doubt that the collapse of the double scaffold was due to the
breaking of a byatt, but he was unable to state what caused
the breakage.—The jury returned a verdict of “ Accidental
death.”

Dunfermline.

An enquiry was held at Dunfermline recently relating to-
the death of Henry Gray, miner, Kelty, who died in the
Fife Coal Company's Lassodie Mill Colliery, as the result of
injuries sustained by a burst of coal from a working face.
The burst, it was stated, was due to an accumulation of
water behind the coal. The jury added to their formal
verdict a rider to the effect that there ought to have been a
bore at the bottom of the face, that the props had not been
kept far enough in advance, that a pump was stopped
longer than was necessary, and that after the stoppage the
matter should have been reported immediately and the men
withdrawn from the section.

Eastwood.

An inquest was held at Eastwood on the 9th inst. by Mr.
Whittingham on the body of Alfred Naylor, of the Breach,
who was electrocuted at New London Colliery on Monday.

John Henry Fox, of Old Basford, deputy, said deceased
was going to the switchbox to switch off the current working
the conveyor when he stumbled over a rail and fell head-
long across the wire. He must have pulled out one of the
wires and received the force of the current.

James E. Dawson, chief electrician at the colliery, said
he examined the apparatus after the accident, and found a
live wire had come out of the coal-cutter switchbox, but
everything else was in order. Witness also found the earth
wire disconnected, and thought deceased broke it in falling.
The head of deceased took the full current—450 volts.
Witness admitted that after the accident he found three of
the eight screws fastening the terminals missing, but could
not account for their absence. His brother carried out the
examination on Friday. He thought it possible for the
screws to have come out between Friday and Monday. He
admitted that the regulations affecting earth wires were
not carried out, but the company were having the necessary
appliances made. Had the earth wire not broken there
would have been no danger. Witness further admitted
that he superintended the erection of the apparatus a month
ago and carried out a test, but there was no entry in the
log book to that effect.

George E. Dawson, assistant electrician, spoke to
examining the apparatus on Friday previous to the acci-
dent, and found it satisfactory and no screws missing. He
saw the place after the accident, and described the earth-
wire as having broken off near the fastening.

Mr. Whyte, the manager, said the company were at the
present time carrying out alterations in conformity with the
report of Mr. Fraser, H M. inspector, but were having diffi-
culty in getting the material delivered. The present instal-
lation was strong, but he admitted that the earth wire
would not have broken (unless defective) with a man's
weight leaning on it.

The jury returned a verdict of “ Accidentally killed,” and
added that the colliery company should take steps to cover
or provide better protection for the wires.