April 25, 1913.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN

853

was on building. Depreciation and interest made up
three-fifths of the total working cost, and it would have
been very easy for Mr. Sopwith to have manipulated his
figures so as to obtain a lower cost per unit. He would
be glad if Mr. Sopwith would give them some details
as to the “Simplex” coal-cutter working at No. 3 pit,
and say whether he had had enough experience to enable
him to say what was the result of working a coal-cutter
with an alternating-current motor.

Mr. J. W. Me Trusty said that he did not wish to
enter into the comparative merits of condensing and
non-condensing steam plant or of steam versus elec-
tricity. In either case, the load factor would be the
same. The load was- chiefly a haulage load, and whether
they used electrical power or high-class steam engines,
in both cases the plant would have to work under the
same conditions as to load and power factor. It was
the power factor which was the chief element in the
power efficiency, and the most effective remedy in that
case would be rather in adopting a double shift than in
discussing the merits of electrical and of steam plant.
As far as he could see, Mr. Sopwith appeared to
anticipate working double shifts with his haulage plant.
That probably would explain one or two matters with
regard to the electrical plant. With regard to the
coal-cutter in No. 9 pit, it would be necessary, in
transferring the current to a 600 volts A.C. current, to
have a maximum voltage of 840. Therefore, he would
like to ask whether there was any difficulty there with
regard to shocks at the coal-cutter. It was rather a
high maximum voltage for a coal-cutting machine.

The President proposed that a hearty vote of thanks
be given to Mr. Sopwith for his paper, and said that it
was unfortunate that the diagrams were not available.
If the details and plans had been before them, he could
not conceive anyone suggesting the application of steam
under the difficult conditions Mr. Sopwith had to deal
with. He would, however, remark that a descriptive
paper of that character, which brought up points open
to criticism, was of the utmost value, as it tended to
bring into line the ideas of people apparently running
in different directions, to the mutual advantage of all.

Mr. Langford Ridsdale, in seconding the motion,
said he thought he was safe in expressing the opinion
that Mr. Sopwith had been very hardly used. Some of
the observations which had been made that afternoon
were not calculated to induce members to bring before
the association details as to what they were intending
to do.

The vote of thanks having been cordially adopted,

Mr. Sopwith replied. He commenced by giving on
the blackboard a rough diagram showing the distribution
system, and remarked that he was afraid the distribution
would again lead to criticism. The position of the
power station, for instance, might be considered by some
unsuitable, but there was a reason for having it there.
Mr. Brindley, to begin with, criticised the cost per
unit as compared with the |d. per unit which was being
charged elsewhere. There was once in embryo a certain
power company which was going to put down a power
plant in the neighbourhood of Cannock Chase. The
promoters tried to get a guarantee from the various
collieries as to the amount of current they would take ;
but his firm was the only one which would give a
guarantee, and the power company never came into being.
But if the scheme had come into operation the current
would not have been supplied at so low a rate as |d. per
unit. They wanted a guarantee for 200 kw. and a 30 per
cent, load factor, and the current would then have been
supplied at Id. per unit, and there was a graduated
scale which worked down to Jd. for a full, or 100 per
cent, load factor. The present load factor at Cannock
Chase was very low, and consequently the cost of the
current was comparatively high; but if they could
improve their load factors by putting on a night load,
having a second shift, the cost per unit would work out
very much more favourably. That would reduce the
percentage not only of the actual working charges, but
also of the depreciation and interest charges. The plant
was comparatively large for its present load, and that
naturally made the current cost appear unnecessarily
high, and, considering all points, he did not think they
could expect the cost per unit to be less than Id. He
had noticed when other papers were read on colliery
plant that the cost of coal had been put very low.
He had tried to be fair about coal. Mr. Felton
had remarked that in one district in the north of
England producer gas, or rather waste gas from coke
furnaces, was used for generating power. He (Mr.
Sopwith) wished that they could do that, but they
would not be able to do it unless Dr. Cadman’s
prognostications as to the future were realised, which
would be to the mutual benefit of everybody producing
and making use of coal. He quite agreed with Mr.
Brindley as to the possibility in certain cases of the

improvement of the steam plant being more economical
than would be the putting down of electrical plant. If
it had been merely a question of certain engines—say
pumping engines and shaft engines—then, apart from
the objection to steam power of any sort underground,
he quite agreed that it might have been done more
cheaply with steam. But there was not merely the
saving of colliery consumption, it was a means of getting
coal—he would not say that could not have been got
otherwise, but that would have been very much more
expensive to get otherwise. Mr. Ridsdale, jun., seemed
to think that the whole lay-out might have been arranged
far better. They must remember that at the time this
plant was put down they did not engage a consulting
engineer in the matter at all. He was afraid he was
responsible largely for the efficiencies or non-efficiencies
of the plant, and so far he had had no cause to regret
anything that had been done. He believed that if he
had to put down any further plant again he would
increase the size of the transformers—putting those
which at present were above ground underground, and
superseding those on the surface by 100-kw. transformers
as a standard. He had endeavoured to lay down every-
thing as economically as possible, and to standardise
as far as possible. The plant had been developed
considerably, and as he hoped in time to get a
better load factor the cost would naturally go
down. They did start two 200-kw. sets, one as a
stand-by, but as the normal load was over 200 kw. they
put in a 500-kw. set. This was now running the whole
plant up to the time when the main load came off, when
they used one of the 200-kw. sets. The 200-kw. sets
would be very useful for the night load, and sometimes
were used for that. When the 500-kw. set came on, the
two 200-kw. sets were run in parallel, and they were
capable of 25 per cent, overload without giving any
trouble. With regard to exhaust steam turbines, they
had that question before them, but it was really a ques-
tion of the cost of condensing plant and the distance
they had to bring their water. They were advised
strongly in the first instance to use unarmoured cables
underground, and they would continue to do so until the
limit which the Government allowed was reached, when
armoured cables would automatically take their place.
But in other cases they put in armoured cables every-
where, double-armoured in one case, and single-armoured
in the case of medium pressure. They used double-wire
armour to the shaft cables, and the earthing was on the
surface and was through the armouring of the main
shaft cable. In the case of the unarmoured underground
cables, they earthed by means of old wire haulage rope.
He was glad that Mr. Thacker appreciated the point
that the depreciation was not excessive, being taken, as
it was, upon the whole of the plant. With regard to the
“ Simplex ” coal-cutter, he could only say that they had
not had a very great success with that coal-cutter. He
would not say that was the fault of the machine
itself, for he thought they had been singularly unfor-
tunate. Very good work had been done at times with
the coal-cutter, but they had not been able to depend
upon it. The cutter main shaft was not an extension of
the armature shaft, but was geared into it. That shaft
was broken three times, and they were now trying to get
something to replace it. The electrical details of the
machine they had, required considerable alteration, and
if an alternating current machine was used with a coal-
cutter, he would advise everybody not to use a slip-ring
motor. A squirrel-cage motor was by far the best in
this case. They had had one shock, but one only, in
connection with that coal-cutter. It was due to neglect.
They had the Fisher system installed, and he was under
the impression that the Fisher system was being used,
but he found that the machine had been otherwise con-
nected. With the Fisher system properly used, he did
not think there was anything to fear in that respect,
because they simply could not switch the machine in
when there was any leak to earth.

The Development of New Colliery Districts.

The President then said that the paper, “ Suggestions
on the Development of New Colliery Districts, with
special reference to Support of Surface,” by Mr. Hubert
Bradshaw, read at the last meeting, was open for
discussion, and invited the members to take part,

Mr. Alexander Smith (Birmingham) said the
suggestions of Mr. Bradshaw, although ingenious and
in many respects valuable, were mostly theoretical, and
it was very doubtful if they could be carried into
practical effect. It was questionable if so large an
amount of capital as would be required for the complete
scheme could be secured, or even for a division, as the
author suggested, into four parts, and if that were
possible there would be so many suggestions and
opinions concerned that any consistent scheme would
be difficult to develop. He did not see why, except for

water barrier purposes, the author should arrange for
leaving the mines under the buildings at all while
stating, “ Much, if not all, of this coal will be derived
from the concealed coalfields—that is, from a consider-
able depth,” consequently there would be little liability
to surface damage if the coal was well cleared out upon
the longwall system and the wastes were securely packed.
Towns had been worked under, and little or no damage
had accrued. The author suggested that the liabilities
for support should be divided in third parts between the
colliery proprietor, the royalty owner, and the owner of
the surface buildings, but why the latter should be
penalised, he (the speaker) did not know, as in common
law and all fairness he was entitled to his support. His
(the speaker’s) view was that the mineowner or lessor
should be entitled to direct whether mines should be
left for the support of buildings, and if he agreed that
they should be worked he should subscribe for half the
damage, the other half falling on the colliery owner or
lessee. He had carried this out in many leases with
satisfactory results. The author’s scheme was a very
fine one for the Government, but they would see that he
was dealing with undeveloped mines, and that whatever
value was put upon them now must be the market one,
so that in all probability quite that amount would be
collared by the Government as their share of the incre-
ment when the time came to develop them. That was
one phase of the Finance Act which was, he thought,
overlooked, for those mines on their present value
would be confiscated, or nearly so, so that there would
be no need for the Socialistic nationalisation. Again,
the author’showed that his scheme would bring about
an increased value in the surface lands, with the
resultant claims for increment. This increment was
said to be due to the work of the community, which was
not a true or fair claim, for in that case, and in others
he had actually had to deal with, it would all result from
the action of the landowners or coalowners in developing
their properties.

As no one else rose to continue the discussion, the
President declared the meeting closed.

Cruelty to Pit Ponies.—Prior to the commencement of
the criminal business of the Notts Quarter Sessions, held at
the Shire Hall on the 7th inst., under the chairmanship of
Sir L. Rolles ton, a resolution with respect to the whipping
of boys guilty of cruelty to pit ponies was considered on
the motion of Mr. L. O. Trivett. The resolution was to the
effect that certain recommendations be made for statutory
powers in cases in which boys were found guilty of gross
cruelty to pit ponies. Mr. Trivett pointed out that under
the law as it now stood a boy who was found guilty of an
extreme case of cruelty to an animal was liable to a penalty
in the aggregate of £25 or six months4 imprisonment. If
they imposed a big fine upon a pit boy he would not be
punished, but simply the parents. With regard to the
question of sending a boy to prison, as far as he could see, it
was not desirable to make gaolbirds of them. He moved
that representations be made for the extension of the
penalties of law for the punishment of boys under 16 years
of age found guilty of cruelty.—Mr. A. H. Pearson, who
seconded, thought the only way the punishment should
meet the crime was that some application of pain should be
put upon the offender.—Major Tennant said that although
there had undoubtedly been more cases of cruelty than one
could wish, there were other animals besides ponies and
other boys besides pit boys, and he considered that the
resolution should be more generally worded. He suggested
that the word “ boys 44 should be substituted for “ pit boys 44
and “ animals44 for “ ponies.44—Mr. Trivett accepted the
alterations in the resolution.—Mr. W. Carter, opposing the
resolution, said there were thousands of ponies in the pits of
the county, and in the last year there had only been five
charges. They were practically panic-stricken, he declared,
and exaggerating the situation. With all due respect to
the management of the pits in this county, said Mr. Carter,
many of the boys had to inflict corporal and other punish-
ment because the work allotted to them was such as, owing
to the exhausted condition the ponies were in, it was
impossible for the boys to carry out. If they were going to
carry this to its logical conclusion, they would not only
have to whip the boys but the managers as well. (This
opinion inspired a demonstration of applause in the public
gallery.) Continuing, Mr. Carter declared that the 1911
Act ought to be given a fair trial before any action was
taken.—Mr. J. P. Houfton (Mansfield) remarked that they
ought not to pass such a resolution without statistics before
them. He would like to know how many cases there had
been of convictions for cruelty to animals by boys between
14 and 16 in the last twelve months or two years. He also
pointed out that they were seeking powers to administer
punishment on boys up to 16 years of age which they could
uot inflict on men of 18 and 25. Why should there be
exceptional punishment given to a boy, who to a large
extent was guilty of cruelty through thoughtlessness, whilst
a man who was cruel deliberately was merely to be punished
by fining ?—Mr. F. E Seely remarked that a good deal had
been said about Nottingham pit boys which they very much
resented.—The resolution was defeated by a considerable
majority.