1402

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

June 27, 1913.

discharges at one end of the face are used, the arranging
of the faces in echelon has the advantage of providing
a road in advance of each conveyor face except the
leading one. The arrangement is illustrated by fig. 14.
As the faces advance the buildings shown shaded on the
plan are taken down and rebuilt behind the conveyors.
Some roofs will not permit the method, but in several
seams it has been adopted with very satisfactory results.

Fig. 15 illustrates systematic conveying as practised
at Langley Park Colliery, and fig. 16 shows the same
arrangement applied to advancing longwall.

Conveying in South Wales.

Until a few years ago it was considered that there
were conditions peculiar to South Wales which excluded
coal-cutters from the district. The objections were that
the roofs were too soft to permit the use of machines,
and that the coal was too easily got to require under-
cutting. That these objections in their general appli-
cation were ill-founded has been proved by experience
and by the rapid increase in the number of machines at
the collieries of some of the progressive companies.
Coal-cutters are in fact operating regularly, satis-
factorily, and profitably in South Wales under roofs
that can only be described as exceptionally bad. In
some easily got seams in this district, where the pro-
portions of large and small coal were respectively
25 per cent, and 75 per cent., the use of coal-cutters has
reversed these proportions.

Fig. 14.

^b.Y^ROS.---

‘’.O'







Figs. 15 and 16.

Now, with regard to conveyors, it is objected—not
that the roofs are too soft, but that they are too strong.
In many cases the roofs are extremely difficult, and
from some seams conveyors are certainly excluded. It
must be admitted that means of combatting the special
difficulties, which are not peculiar to South Wales, have
not yet been discovered.

Having said this, one may still be permitted to
doubt whether the roofs in South Wales have a general
character which differentiates them from roofs elsewhere
at similar depths, and whether methods which have
often proved effective elsewhere might not also be
effective in many seams in South Wales. The custom
of the district is to leave back-timber standing : to what
extent is the breaking down of the roof at the coal head
due to failure to withdraw back-timber ?

Again, is the building of solid packs in the goaf
practised in this district as elsewhere, and to what
extent does the absence of such packs for the steadying
of the roof account for the very heavy and erratic
breaks which occur ? Where the seam does not
contain dirt bands, and the ripping of gate roads is
abolished, the absence of packing material and the cost

of conveying it from elsewhere to the face may, of
course, render conveying impracticable.

The special difficulties to which reference has been
made are accentuated where the endeavour is made to
jointly operate coal-cutters and conveyors, especially
where the conditions require, as they sometimes do, an
undercut 6 ft. deep; the distance from the solid coal,
after the machine has crossed the face, to the props or
pillars is 13 or 14 feet, and this is more than many
roofs will stand. The troubles associated with floor
ripping where the pressures are heavy also militate
against conveying.

Another factor in conveyor failures is the tendency to
introduce conveyors, not because the conditions are
favourable to them, but because of the exceptionally
high cost of maintaining gate-roads, and the same con-
ditions which involved the high previous costs have con-
tinued to operate adversely to the conveyors, and with
even more damaging effect.

While it may be accepted that the physical conditions
exclude conveyors from many of the South Wales coal-
seams, this explanation does not suffice in many of the
cases in which conveyors have been used and withdrawn.
Conveying has been abandoned after its introduction
into seams where the physical conditions were entirely
favourable. All the well-known types have been used,
but the proportion of failures is - probably greater than
in any other district.

Conclusion.

Face conveying is still in the evolutionary stage, and
the place in longwall mining which will be taken by the
face-conveyor cannot yet be defined. Despite many
failures the system has amply demonstrated its advan-
tages, and at a large and increasing number of collieries
it is profitably practised and firmly established. These
standing examples of technical and commercial success
under diverse conditions, and the increment of
experience, must inevitably lead to extension of the
system.

An encouraging feature of the development of face-
conveying is the renewed essays after initial failure at
individual collieries. This indicates the belief of those
concerned that lack of success was not inherent in the
system, but was due to some remediable feature of the
plant used or of the method of applying it.

An endeavour has here been made to plainly state the
causes of failure and the essentials to success. It is to
the interest of all concerned in face-conveying that
these should be freely discussed; understanding of
them may for a time restrict the number of conveyors
introduced, but will much increase the proportion of
successful applications and will accelerate the real
progress of the system.

It has been possible to touch only lightly, and quite
inadequately, some of the important branches of the
subject, but the purpose has been to bring under review
the principal factors of the problem and to focus them
in a single paper; the overlapping and repetition which
have in some degree resulted from subdivision into
numerous correlated sections and paragraphs are
concessions to clearness of statement.

The writer is unable to refer individually to those
who have kindly assisted him in the preparation of this
paper, but he wishes to make general acknowledgment
of his indebtedness to many friends experienced in
conveying, and also to the authors of previous papers,
to the institutions and to the technical journals.

Shaleminers and the Home Office. — Considerable dis-
satisfaction has arisen in shalemining circles over the
recent decision of the Home Secretary in refusing to grant
the two petitions forwarded by the Scottish Shale Miners’
Association, which sought to gain exemption for all shale-
mines from the use of safety lamps and from the operation
of the Explosives Order contained in the Coal Mines Act.
The shaleminers’ agent, Mr. Robert Small, has now
forwarded a reply to Mr. McKenna expressing disappoint-
ment with the decision. With regard to the safety lamp
question, the reply states that the men’s officials feel that
as the law stands at present it will be necessary for
them to accept the decision in the hope that the promise
to give “the fullest consideration to the needs and
circumstances of the oil shale mines” may meet the
case until such time as the law can be altered. Regarding
the Explosives Order, the association point out that the
Home Office can exercise discretionary powers, and they feel
that the fullest consideration has not been given to the case
of shaleminers in this connection. No reasons had been
given by the Home Secretary for his adverse decision, and
the association strongly urge the advisability of recon-
sidering the position. The effect of the Explosives Order is
that the miners are not allowed to leave quantities of
unused explosives in the mine overnight as they have been
in the habit of doing. They contend that, with the absence
of inflammable dust such as prevails in coalmines, there is
no danger in leaving explosives in the shalemines, whereas
the extra handling of explosives necessary in removing
them every day would be an added risk and danger.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

KING’S BENCH DIVISION.

Local By-laws and the Sale of Coal.

Before Mr. Justice Ridley, Pickford and Lush.

Hunting y. Worcester Corporation.—This was an appeal
of Mr. Hunting, a Worcester coal merchant, from a decision
of the Recorder of Worcester, who had dismissed an appeal
made by him from a conviction recorded against him by
the Worcester justices. The offence with which appellant
was charged was for carrying coal for sale in quantities of
less than 2 cwt. without having on his cart adequate scales
and weights, in contravention of a by-law of the Worcester
Corporation.

Mr. Matthews, who appeared for the appellant, said the
Weights and Measures Act of 1889 gave the local authori-
ties power to pass by-laws regarding the sale of coal in
small quantities, and the by-law passed by the Worcester
Corporation was to the effect that no coal should be
“ carried for sale ” in quantities of less than 2 cwt. without
there being weights and scales on the wagon. It appeared
that two customers ordered 5 cwt. of coal-and the appellant
despatched a man with the coal in 1 cwt. bags in a cart.
Three of the sacks were delivered, and the man was about
to deliver the other two when he was stopped by the
inspector. He (counsel) contended that there had been no
offence under the by-law, because the coal was not being
‘ carried for sale,” but for delivery. Had the man been
asked to sell the coal to anybody else on his way he would
have refused.

For the respondent it was argued that there had been no
appropriation of the coal to the separate customers, and
until that appropriation took place there was a “ carrying
for sale.”

The Court allowed the appeal, with costs. Mr. Justice
Ridley said they had decided that what the appellant had
done did not amount to a carrying of coal for sale within
the meaning of the Statute. The decision of the Recorder
was set aside, and the appellant’s conviction quashed.

May 1.

Before Mr. Justice Ecrutton.

Readiness to Load: A Surplus of Coal.

London Traders Shipping Company Limited y. General
Mercantile Shipping Company Limited.—In this action
the plaintiffs claimed damages for breach of a charter-
party.

Mr. Justice Scrutton, in his judgment, said that the plain-
tiffs, who were the owners of the steamship “ Transport,’>
sued the defendants for damages for refusing to load her.
The charter-party was dated April 10, 1912, and it provided
that the “ Transport ” should, after discharge of her inward
cargo, proceed as ordered by the charters to certain loading
ports in the River Parana, and there load a cargo which she
was to carry to Europe. Lay days were not to commence
before June 1, 1912, and should the steamer not be ready to
load by 6 p.m. on June 30, 1912, the charterers were to have
the option of cancelling the charter-party. The “Transport ”
took coal on her outward cargo to discharge at Bahia, and
owing to weather and lighterage difficulties the discharge of
that cargo proceeded very slowly, and it became a question
whether the vessel would save her cancelling date. That
she should do so was of great importance to the shipowners,
and that she should not do so was of great importance to
the charterers, because freights had fallen very considerably,
and whether or not she saved her cancelling date meant a
loss of between .£2,500 and £3,000 to someone. Each side
thereupon tried to save that sum. The coal being discharged
very slowly at Bahia, the shipowners bought from the
consignees at Bahia the cargo of coal then remaining in the
ship. They were not able to sell any portion of the coal,
and they threw some of it—probably about 100 tons—over-
board as they went up the river, and then they presented
the ship as ready for loading with the space between her
bulwarks and the raised hatch coamings filled with coal.
At that time no doubt they intended to use that coal,
if they could not sell it, as bunkers, and that was what
they actually did with it. There was enough on board
to take the steamer home to Europe with about four
days to spare. To have a supply of coal for two or
three days extra was a not unusual precaution for
1 shipowners to take; and he therefore found that this was a
reasonable amount of coal to take for her voyage. The
charterers said that with the coal on deck the “ Transport,’*
when tendered on June 30, was not ready to load. Reports
of Lloyd’s agent and others who examined the vessel,
however, stated that she was then ready to carry any class
of merchandise, and did not say that by reason of the coal
on deck she was not ready to load. Witnesses had been
called by the plaintiffs, who said that to carry bunker coals
on deck was not an unusual thing, and no one had been
called by the defendants to say that to have coal on deck to
the height which it was on the “ Transport ” rendered a
ship unfit to load a cargo of maize. The result was that he
found that the vessel was ready to load by 6 p.m. on
June 30, and consequently there would be judgment
for the plaintiffs for an amount to be settled between
the parties.