April 17, 1914.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

853

MANCHESTER GEOLOGICAL AND HIKING
SOCIETY.

Deepening a Shaft by a Rise Method: Discussion on
Mr. H. B. Pilkington’s Paper.

At the meeting of the Manchester Geological and
Mining Society, held at the society’s rooms, 5, John
Dalton-street, Manchester, on April 7, a paper was read
by Mr. Hugh Brocklehurst Pilkington, of the
Clifton and Kersley Collieries, on “ Deepening a Shaft
by a Rise Method.” The paper appeared in our last
issue.

In the absence of the president (Sir Thomas H.
Holland), the chair was occupied by Mr. Charles
Pilkington.

Mr. Arthur Moore Lamb, of Birkdale, Southport,
moved a vote of thanks to Mr. Pilkington for his paper,
which, he said, had been most interesting. It seemed to
him, if one could deepen a colliery by sinking up, without
interfering with the winding operations, and allowing
the ordinary work of the colliery to go on at the same
time, there had been a most valuable addition made to
what they could do in coalmining.

The Hon. Secretary (Mr. Sydney A. Smith) said
he would specially like to second the vote of thanks to
Mr. Brocklehurst Pilkington. When he explained that
they ought to have had another paper read at this
meeting, which paper had been unavoidably postponed,
and that Mr. Pilkington kindly agreed to fill the breach,
and, after having only 10 days’ notice, had given them
such a magnificent paper, he thought the members
would appreciate it all the more.

The proposition was carried with acclamation.

The Chairman then invited discussion.

Mr. John Robinson (Haydock Collieries, St. Helens)
said he was not quite clear as to how they got rid of the
debris. He desired also to know the weight of the
hoppet. The pulleys fixed on the top scaffold would, he
assumed, be small, and therefore the hoppet must be
small, too, on account of the strain that would be put
on small pulleys. It was certainly an excellent idea,
and one, he thought, that might be copied. He would
be glad to hear if the expense was reasonable, for that
was an important consideration. It seemed to him that,
having got the borehole down, the question of bricking
and other operations was simple.

Mr. Richard Landless (Burnley) said he thought
they had all been very much interested in the paper.
It was rather too late to criticise it now the work had
been carried through so successfully. The one thing
he was wondering about was in regard to the borehole,
its size, and the method of centring the shaft. It
appeared to him the borehole would have to be fairly
large, and guaranteed perpendicular to get the centre
line down.

Mr. Leonard R. Pletcher (Woodfields, Leigh),
asked whether, while bricking, they bricked from the
bottom scaffold, and whether the box was in the way ?

Mr. Lamb said he would like to ask one question with
regard to the borehole. He had in his mind a case
where it might be possible to sink up, but not possible
to put a borehole down, and he was wondering whether
for a small scaffolding Mr. Pilkington would recom-
mend this method.

The Chairman said he would risk it, certainly.

Mr. Vincent Bramall (Pendlebury Collieries) asked
how they ensured that the borehole would be perfectly
straight. Preparations were being made for sinking
below the Ram’s Mine, Pendleton, and they had got a
borehole down 45 ft. Their intention was to work up to
it, but he could not guarantee that the borehole would
be straight. What size was the borehole in the case
described in the paper ? In the case he had in mind it
was 3 in. in diameter. It was put in for the purpose of
centring the shaft.

The Chairman said in the case described in the paper
the borehole was one of 10 in.

Mr. F. J. Dixon (Ashton-under-Lyne) said it would be
interesting to know wha-t strata were passed through in
the sinking operations. He thought if they had a bad
roof, especially one of soft shale, they would be liable to
heavy falls, and if an enormous weight fell on the
staging where would they be ? He would like to know
also the cost of the staging, and the rate of progress. As
to the remarks about the borehole being perpendicular,
he thought there would be no difficulty in securing that.
Boreholes had been driven 1,700 yards deep, and were
absolutely perpendicular. There was the case of the
great boreholes under the Hudson River, New York.
Two holes were driven from different points, and the
work was done so accurately that the holes actually met
where they were intended to do, according to the
drawing.

Mr. J. D. Paton (Manchester) asked for information
as to the actual amount of material that came down on
the scaffold, and its relation to the tensile strength and
size of the scaffold.

Mr. A. J. A. Orchard (St. Helens) said he would like
to ask by what system the borehole was put down, and

whether, when the bottom boring was finished, it was
found to be actually perpendicular from the top.

The Chairman remarked that the questioners had
hit the right points. In answer to a further question by
Mr. Lamb, he said the ventilation was by the borehole.

Mr. Brocklehurst Pilkington, before replying to
the questions, said he would like to thank the meeting
for. its appreciation of his paper. In the first place, in
regard to Mr. Robinson’s question, the dirt came on the
scaffold, and as there was no cover over the hole some
would drop in. The hoppet was, of course, a very light
one, and it only had to take up 7 or 8 hundredweight—
bricks, tools, mortar, and so on. The borehole was
10 in. in diameter, which left a margin of 5 in. each way,
and when they plumbed it they plumbed straight
through it, and the wire did not touch the walls. When
he said it was absolutely plumb he would not swear to
Jin., but should say it was pretty accurate.

In answer to Mr. Paton, he might say that when they
got to the point indicated the brick lining was put in,
and when they rose from the bottom they used small
plumb lines each time the brick lining was raised. In
answer to Mr. Fletcher, he had to say there was no
cover over the top of the box. If there had been, the
difficulty would have been to get it away, if dirt fell on
it. They had no difficulty in getting men round to the
back of the box. With regard to Mr. Lamb’s question,
he should say the ventilation would be a trouble if they
pushed their scaffold up and had no borehole. In
regard to the cost of the staging, he had to say that
part of the work was carried on in 1911, and he was
afraid the record as to time had got lost. The measures
passed through were the ordinary coal measures; four
shots were the maximum, and the amount brought down
was never more than 50 tons. That punished the
scaffold, which was accordingly strengthened.

Mr. Percy Lee Wood, the inventor of the scheme
described in the paper, added a few explanatory remarks.
A question had been asked, he said, as to how they were
sure the borehole was plumb. As a matter of fact, when
the holes that Mr. Pilkington spoke of were finished, if
they looked down they could see the wire all the way
down, and that it was not touching the side anywhere.
But he did not think there was much danger even if
they had not got it plumb. However, they took the
precaution of seeing it was quite plumb. One member
asked, Supposing it had been out of plumb, what would
they do ? Well, one had to rely upon one’s surveys. As to
another point, the door was strong enough to take what
fell upon it; but when the men were working at a place
indicated on the drawings, they had a number of loose
planks, about five or six, put across, so that there was
never sufficient space for a man to tumble through.
“ Was the borehole made by machine or not ? ” It was
put down by John Thom, of Patricroft, by machinery,
and one found his boreholes were generally plumb.
They had one at Astley, a very deep one, and that was
plumb. This was not absolutely, but quite near enough.
“ What stratification was passed through ? ” It was the
ordinary one of the coal measures. There was a danger,
someone suggested, of getting too much debris on the
scaffold. As to that, he had to say that when it was
deemed necessary they put down stays with girders
across and some tie-rods. They did not strengthen the
structure projecting on the brickwork. With reference
to the rate of progress, Mr. Wood said he really did not
remember what it was, but he thought the main thing
was, What was the cost ? The answer was that it was
quite as cheap as ordinary sinking. They could have
gone quicker had they liked, but they had not too many
men working on the scaffold, for the dirt had to be
taken away and they could not do it quickly. As to the
ventilation, that was quite simple.

Mr. Dixon asked what was the effect on the brick-
work of the falling debris, for the brickwork was fresh.
Did they use cement or the ordinary bricking, and did
it get punished ?

Mr. Wood said the brickwork was a little compressed,
but it was all the better for it.

The Chairman said there was just one thing he
would like to say to Mr. Lamb. They could get the
exact deviation of a borehole. In South Africa they
found the exact deviation of very deep boreholes.

Mr. Lamb asked if they could put down a borehole
away from the shaft.

The Chairman said it was not absolutely necessary
to bore down the shaft; they could do it elsewhere. But
he took it, in a small deepening of this shaft—40 yards
—if they had deviated slightly, a foot or so, it would not
have mattered much. With respect to ventilation,
supposing there were no borehole, as in this case,
surely it would not be very difficult to put a pipe in a
place where it would be more or less protected.

Institution of Mining Engineers : London Meetings.

The Hon. Secretary reminded members that the
dates of the London meetings of the Institution of
Mining Engineers had been changed from May 28 and 29
to June 4 and 5. There would be a banquet at the
Hotel Cecil on June 4 to celebrate the twenty-fifth
anniversary of the foundation of the institution. While
on this subject he might mention that £1,117 had been
subscribed to the special fund, which the institution was
seeking to raise, by members of the Manchester
Geological and Mining Society, and all had been paid
but £46. The society ought to raise £1,263, so they
were about £150 short. Some members had not yet

notified their intention of subscribing. He wished they
would do so at once, as all subscriptions had to be paid
in on or about May 1, and this society had arranged to
send its contribution in before that date. A sum of
£15,000 was needed in the aggregate, and £1,000 had
still to be raised.

Safety Air-doors for Coalmines.

In reference to Mr. Ashworth’s paper on this subject,
the Chairman said it was very good of Mr. Ashworth
to send them this paper, and he hoped the honorary
secretary would convey the society’s thanks to him.

Mr. Orchard said there were some accidents where
it might be an advantage for the doors to open.
Supposing there was a fire at the pit shaft, at the
bottom, it would be an advantage for the doors to open.

The Chairman said most of them thought the best
thing that could happen at a big explosion was that the
doors should be blown out. It would save no end of
lives, in spite of what Mr. Redmayne said.

Mr. Sydney Smith said it was a very ingenious
arrangement, and he thought that in the ordinary
working of a mine it would act very well. For example,
suppose a pony went through the first door—it having
been left open—when it passed through the second
door the first closed. As to all that Mr. Ashworth
claimed for the device, he doubted whether it would act
in all circumstances.

The Chairman said both doors would be removed
when an explosion came, if anywhere near the bottom
of the shaft.

IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE.

The annual meeting of the institute will be held in the
new house of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Great
George-street, Westminster, on Thursday and Friday,
May 7 and 8, 1914, commencing each day at 10 30 o’clock
a.m.

At the opening the retiring president (Mr. Arthur Cooper)
will induct into the chair the president-elect (Mr. Adolphe
Greiner). After the Bessemer gold medal for 1914 has
been presented to Mr. Edward Riley, F.I.C., the president
will deliver his inaugural address. A selection of papers
will be read and discussed. At 7 p.m. the annual dinner of
the institute will be held at the Connaught Rooms, Great
Queen-street, W.C.

On the Friday (May 8) the Andrew Carnegie gold medal
(for 1913) will be presented to Mr. Thomas Swinden, D.Met.,
and the award of research scholarships for the current
year will be announced. Further papers will be read and
discussed. The following is the list of papers that are
expected to be submitted for reading and discussion:—

J. O. Arnold, D.Met., F.R.S., and G. R. Bolsover: “The
Forms in which Sulphides may exist in Steel Ingots.”

C. Benedicks, Ph.D.; “Experiments on Allotropy of
Iron (Behaviour of Ferro-Magnetic Mixtures ; Dilatation
of Pure Iron).”

A. Bose : “ Recent Developments of the Iron and Steel
Industry in India.”

C. Chappell: “The Recrystallisation of Deformed
Iron.”

C. A. Edwards, D.Sc., and H. C. H. Carpenter, Ph.D..
“ The Hardening of Metals, with special reference to Iron
and its Alloys.”

J. N. Friend, D.Sc., and C. W. Marshall: “ Influence of
Molybdenum upon the Corrodibility of Steel.”

H. C. Greenwood, D.Sc.: “ Note on a Curious Case of
Decarburisation during the Hardening of Steel Dies.”

Sir Robert A. Hadfield, F.R.S., and B. Hopkinson,
F.R.S.: “ The Magnetic and Mechanical Properties of
Manganese Steels.”

H. L. Heathcote, B.Sc.: “ Some Improvements in Case-
hardening Practice.”

S. A. Houghton: “Failures of Heavy Boiler Shell
Plates.”

E.	Humbert and A. Hethey, B.Sc.: “Production of
Steel Direct from the Ore.”

A. McCance, B Sc.: “Theory of Hardening.”

M. Misson : “ The Colorimetric Estimation of Sulphur
in Pig Iron and Steels by Means of Paper Impregnated
with a Solution of Arsenious Anhydride in Hydrochloric
Acid.”

F.	Muller: “ The Development of Dry Cleaning in
Blastfurnace Gas Purification.”

W. Rosenhain, D.Sc., F.R.S,, and J. L Haughton,
M.Sc;: “ A New Reagent for Etching Mild Steel.”

F. Schuster, D. Ing.: “ Results of Talbot Process at
Witkowitz.”

By the kind invitation of the Comite des Forges, the autumn
meeting will be held in Paris on September 18-23, 1914.

During 1913, 21,056,955 tons of anthracite, 175,016,526
tons of bituminous coal, and 27,696,763 tons of coke were
moved over the Eastern railroads of the United States; in
1912 the totals moved were 19,486,894 tons of anthracite,
159,691,520 tons of bituminous coal, and 27,202,978 tons of
coke; In some cases the railway company’s coal is not
included; this is so with the Pennsylvania Railroad, which
in 1913 carried about 76,000,000 tons of coal and coke,
including coal received from connecting lines,