462

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

February 27, 1914

smoke-helmet apparatus as a means of exploring the
mine, not as a means of combating fire. He did not
think it was impracticable to use liquid air for
practice at the mine. With regard to Gadder, he
admitted that Sir Henry Gunynghame reported that:
“ I do not think it is the least likely that a rescue
brigade would have saved the lives of any of those who
perished.” But, said witness, there was a loss of time in
the knowledge of the existence of the fire reaching the
surface. Had the knowledge of the fire reached the
surface a little earlier the provision of self-contained
breathing apparatus would probably have saved some
lives.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis at this point referred
to the circular letter from Sir Edward Troup, and
suggested that it conveyed the impression that smoke
helmets had failed and that self-contained apparatus had
been successful, whereas smoke helmets were never tried at
all at Gadder. The only man rescued alive was rescued
by a man who had not got any apparatus at all. He sug-
gested that this letter was not a fair representation of what
took place at Gadder. Sir Thomas also referred to a question
raised in Parliament by Mr. Adamson about the Gadder
Mine on August 12, 1913. Sir Arthur Markham asked
if the Home Secretary was aware that Dr. Haldane had
condemned all such appliances as dangerous to the
people wearing them. The Home Secretary said : “ He
was going to appoint a committee on that point. It
was a technical matter. The enquiry which he had
ordered would be an expert one. The existence of the
dispute whether the smoke helmet was sufficient did not
justify the owners in doing nothing.” Mr. Redmayne
admitted that that committee had not been appointed,
and he could not say if it was ever going to be
appointed. They were waiting for Dr. Haldane’s report,
which had just recently appeared, before they proceeded
further in the matter. He looked upon that report as
fulfilling the work of the committee. It was a very
admirable report and, in his opinion, it supported the view
of the Home Office. It covered the whole ground that
they would require the committee to investigate.

Mr. Redmayne said Regulation 140 (d) allowed of
the practices being either underground or above ground
so long as it was at the mine—i( mine ” covered surface
. and underground.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis pointed out that
Regulation 140 referred to breathing apparatus ” and
Regulation 142 to “ portable breathing apparatus.”
Witness said that was the very indefiniteness which
they sought to correct. As to Regulation 143—“There
shall be kept and maintained in every central rescue
station not less than 15 complete suits of breathing
apparatus”—it was intended that they should all be
self-contained.

Dr. John Cadman, professor of mining in the
University of Birmingham and president of the South
Staffordshire and Warwickshire Institute of Mining
Engineers, was the next witness called by the Home
Office. He said he thought it a desirable thing that the
use of this self-contained apparatus should be made
obligatory. He acted as chairman of the committee
appointed by the South Midland coalowners to conduct
an enquiry into the various types of apparatus then in
use in 1911. In the report a number of defects in the
apparatus were pointed out and a specification of a
suitable apparatus was drawn up. 7\n apparatus had
now been made carrying out the suggestions. This the
witness produced. The advantage was that it was more
comfortable—the weight was more evenly'distributed,
and the apparatus was very simple. The breathing
arrangement was a bag, and the circulation was going
on the whole time. It was an apparatus that was less
likely to get out of order, and it was easily cleaned.
Incidentally, witness said that “ rescue apparatus ” was ■
a bad name. A “self-contained breathing apparatus ”
was a better expression. The occasions were very rare
when an apparatus of that sort could be used for
rescuing people. Indirectly it would save life. A large
number of accidents had occurred in which men had
gone into atmospheres which were poisonous and bad
succumbed. Under those conditions men might go with
safety and without that risk which previously was
undertaken. He took as a case in point the explosion
which occurred at Norton, in North Staffordshire. To
have reopened that mine, which was a very fiery mine,
by re-ventilation would in all probability have jeopar-
dised the lives of the people in the mine. To have done
it by smoke helmets was absolutely impossible. After
the explosion the tops of the shafts were sealed. First
of all, to make the examination, the top had to be taken
off one shaft, and a descent had to be made into the
shaft some 300 yards or so deep, and a passage made
into the workings to ascertain where the explosion had
occurred. It was absolutely impossible to have gone
into that mine with smoke helmets. The difficulty with
regard to smoke helmets was that the man had either
got to take hold of the pipe and pull it with him or
make it into a ring wrapped up on his arm and let it
down as he went in. The pipe, in round figures, weighed
about 6’3 oz. to the foot; 601b. of hose was about 163
yards ; 60 lb. was about what a man could conveniently
carry. Dr. Cadman next took the case of the
reopening of the Jamage Colliery. In that case the
mines were sealed. One shaft was uncovered, the object
being to go in without disturbing the ventilation. Self-
contained rescue apparatus was used, and a successful
attempt was made. The places were located and the
stoppings were built, and the district was sealed up
without accident. Again, it would have been a very
dangerous operation to have undertaken that work by
any other means,

The Referee observed that the witness appeared to
present the view that these apparatus were desirable not
so much for the purpose of rescuing lives that were in
peril as for the purpose of protecting lives that might
be put into peril. That was not what he called rescue
at all.

Witness said that, so far as his own experience went, he
had not come across a single case in which mine rescue
apparatus had been used and in which life had been
saved. He could picture a case in which it might be so.
Take, for instance, a fire in a downcast shaft at the
bottom in which a number of men were working. By
quickly going in with rescue apparatus it was possible
to open the door and short-circuit the smoke, and so on.
Personally, he had come acioss two cases in which such
a thing might have been done, but was not done. One
was a case at Hamstead. The second case was the fire
at Hednesford, in which a fire occurred in the shaft
bottom between two pits. It was rather the impression
that the men would have opened the doors and they
should find them alive inbye.

Dr. Cadman, continuing, said the first objection to
the smoke helmet was that the head was covered with
an apparatus which confined the vision. Another point
was that the ears were closed. The second great objec-
tion was that they were limited to a distance dependent
upon the weight of hose that they could carry, or
dependent upon the weight of hose that they could
draw, and that limit he put down to about 50 yards
(150 ft.). Then, again, another objection was the fact
that a man had trailing behind a flexible tube, which
was liable to be intercepted by something. In passing
round corners the tube was liable to be pinched. They
were using an apparatus which was liable to be damaged,
and an apparatus in which they were dependent upon a
person outside blowing the bellows. These objections
could not be removed. They were objections which were
inherent to the particular type of apparatus. With
regard to the objections to the self-contained breathing
apparatus, they were as follow :—The use of an appa-
ratus was limited to the period through which the supply
of oxygen would last. On the other hand, the rate at
which they could do work was limited in accordance
with the amount of oxygen which was supplied.
Furthermore, the caustic soda which was used for the
absorption of GO2, again limited the rate, having regard
to the heat produced by chemical action inside the
apparatus. Those were the chief objections to a self-
contained apparatus, and they might be guarded against
by proper training and by insisting upon the people
realising and understanding the limits of the apparatus.
Undoubtedly there were cases where the work was of
such a kind that this self-contained apparatus was not
sufficient. No doubt, improvements would take place
which would enable them to extend beyond the present
limits, but they were points which only investigation in
the future could decide. As to the suggestion that
practice with smoke helmets would fit men for assuming
and wearing liquid-air apparatus when the occasion
arose, witness’s opinion was that the breathing in a
liquid-air self-contained apparatus was different from
what they found in a smoke helmet.

In answer to the Referee, Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-
Ellis said they maintained that practice with a smoke
helmet would be sufficient to qualify a man to work
with a liquid-air apparatus. He would not say it would
apply to an oxygen apparatus.

Dr. Cadman said the liquid-air apparatus had certain
characteristics which rendered it very important that
very careful training should be given. A man putting
on a liquid-air apparatus for the first time usually went
ahead very well for the first 20 minutes or so. He had
not seen the very latest form of liquid-air apparatus,
but the ones he experimented with certainly did not
permit of very active exertion for periods over 20
minutes.

In answer to'the Referee, Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-
Ellis explained that in Northumberland and Durham,
where the liquid-air apparatus was in use, and probably
the very latest up-to-date apparatus, they could not
practise at the mine with liquid air, as they could not
train the number of men who had to be trained in
accordance with the regulations. He added that there
was no obligation whatever in the Act of Parliament or
regulations to use these things down below. The
obligation was to have it ready for use. There was
nothing whatever which obliged them to be used.

The Referee : All I can say is, if that is the state
of the regulation, it ought to be altered, because a
regulation which says that you must be prepared with
appliances, but does not say that in case of need you
must use them, is nonsense.

Dr. Cadman was next cross-examined by Sir Thomas
Ratcliffe-Ellis, who put it that in building off more
than double the quantity of work could be done by
men protected with a smoke helmet than could be done
by men working in self-contained apparatus. Witness
said he should say probably three times the amount.
There were circumstances, he admitted, in which a smoke
helmet would be better than a self-contained apparatus.
He thought the smoke helmet was an admirable thing
under certain circumstances, and did not wish to
belittle it.

Witness said he regarded the training regulations as
impracticable, and made a representation to the Home
Office, who, he believed, had them under consideration.
As to the apparatus, he did not think there was a perfect
apparatus at the present time. Referring to Dr.
Haldane’s report, he said Dr. Haldane had pointed out
that in hot atmospheres and under certain conditions
these apparatus were highly defective. Witness’s view
still was that that was so, and Dr. Haldane’s researches
had thrown a good deal of light on the physiological
points of this work which they did not touch, but at the
same time that did not affect his opinion regarding the
work which could be done with the self-contained
breathing apparatus, providing they limited their
exertions within the limits of the particular apparatus.
The apparatus must be used by very highly trained
men before it was safe to go very far afield in an
irrespirable atmosphere. That was one of the reasons
why he approached the Home Office with regard to the
training regulations.

The Referee asked if there was any person con-
nected with the working of the mine to whom it would
be wise to leave the question as to whether the work
required to be done would be better and more safely
done by men with the smoke helmets or by men with
the self-contained apparatus.

Witness said it could certainly be left to the
manager.

The Referee suggested that if there were occasions
when the use of smoke helmets would be desirable, he
would say in the interests of business, because it would
enable them to do necessary work more expeditiously
than if they had these heavy things upon their heads
and backs, he thought the rule ought to provide that in
proper cases such apparatus should be used.

Mr. Hugh Johnstone, H.M. inspector of mines for
the Midland and Southern Division and a member of
the Joint Committee of the South Midland Coalowners,
said there might quite conceivably be many cases in
which a smoke helmet was quite applicable. In all
those cases the self-contained apparatus was equally
applicable so far as the possibility of doing the work
was concerned. From the commercial aspect, he quite
agreed the work could be done quicker with the smoke
helmet. On the other hand, there were circumstances
in which the self-contained apparatus could be used
effectively when the use of the smoke helmet would be
absolutely impossible. There was a difficulty which had
not been mentioned by previous witnesses. In dealing
with underground fires, the timbers supporting the roof,
of course, were being burnt, and falls of roof occurred.
If those men, in order to protect themselves, had props
set in the middle of the road, and if they came out on a
different side of the centre prop from which they went
in, their hose became entangled round the prop. The
smoke helmet was thrown off his head or the man was
brought down, and before he could recover he might be
dead.

The Referee said he could not imagine a man
running round a pile and getting tied up in that way,
and Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said it was impos-
sible. He would work himself back with the rope.

Witness next mentioned a case at a Warwickshire
colliery, where a fire broke out on a road which circu-
lated from the main engine plane for a distance of more
than 350 yards. The only place to put the fire dams
was 300 yards from the seat of the fire. The manager
built them hurriedly, and the question then was how he
was to recover the colliery—by restoring the ventilation
in the ordinary way, Owing to the steepness of the
measures, he could not have the air strictly under
control; it might possibly have resuscitated the fire.
Under those circumstances, he put in men wearing
self-contained apparatus, who travelled a distance of
some 300 yards without the slightest difficulty, opened
doors at that point, and thereby short-circuited the air.
They erected temporary stopping on the inbye side.
That being done, they took out the fire dams and
restored the ventilation where those doors were. That
brought the position of the men within 50 yards of the
fire. They passed through the canvas stoppings,
carrying the apparatus with them, and they found the
fire was still raging furiously. They recovered the
mine without any risk to themselves or to anyone else.

In answer to Mr. Pope, witness said he would not care
to authorise a man who had only been trained with a
smoke helmet to go into an irrespirable atmosphere and
engage in rescue work with a self-contained apparatus.
He did not say that the liquid-air apparatus had any
more resemblance to the smoke helmet than the other
self-contained apparatus, except this, that in the liquid-
air apparatus there were no valves. But its use at the
same time was subject to certain conditions which might
very likely affect the safety of the man. The enquiry
was then adjourned.

The enquiry was resumed on Wednesday.

Mr. C. L. Robinson, H.M. inspector of mines, said he
had worked 40 minutes in a high temperature wearing a
self-contained apparatus, and slackened his exertions
when he was breathing too hard. Smoke helmets were
no good at all for rescue work. To his mind, the chief
use of apparatus for rescue work was for exploring.
After an explosion one went to the mine, and the first
thing to do was to decide what was to be done. That
information could only be got by the use of the respira-
tory apparatus. Walking was the hardest work a man
could do while wearing the apparatus. The limit of safe
working with a smoke helmet was 30 yards.

Lord Mersey : Yesterday I was told that the limit
was 50 yards. Then later on somebody said it was 70
to 80 yards. Now you say 30 yards. I shall have
somebody tell me soon that it is 30 inches.

Sir T. R. Ratcliffe-Ellis : It only shows, my lord,
that the whole thing is in an experimental stage.

At the conclusion of the witness’s evidence Sir T. R.
R/atcliffe-Ellis asked for a short adjournment to
confer, as he believed they might be able to shorten the
proceedings.

On the resumption, Sir Thomas made the following
statement:—My lord, we have come to an arrangement,
I think, if your lordship does not object to it. I will tell
your lordship shortly what it is. I will explain to your
lordship what arrangement we have come to with the
Home Office. There are two methods in the country in
various districts in which this rescue brigade arrange-
ment is worked. In some cases they have at the rescue
stations a permanent staff of men who are always
engaged there night and day, like a fire brigade, and
necessarily they are more highly trained than men who
only attend from time to time to receive their training,
and in other cases they have not a permanent staff at
the rescue station, which is merely used for the purposes
of instruction, but they have at the different collieries
where that system prevails brigades, and the apparatus
and the practising at the collieries. Now, my lord, we
have come to this arrangement with the Home Office—
that in the cases where there is a permanent brigade