June 9, 1916.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

1091

for the purpose of disposing of the work. There shall
be a central executive committee consisting of the Coal
Exporters' Executive Committee and an equal number
of coal owners, to which central executive committee
the ship owners shall be invited to appoint representa-
tives equal in number to either those of the coal owners
or exporters. In order to ensure uniformity of action
this central executive committee will frame standing
orders for the conduct of the business of the local com-
mittees. The .members from each district of the
executive committee will ex officio be members of their
respective local committee.

9. Subject to the application of Article 4 as regards
remuneration, existing methods will so far as consistent
with the general purposes of this scheme be continued in
the case of (1) French houses with houses in this
country and/or steamers of their own or tonnage fixed
prior to May 25, 1916; (2) British houses or collieries
exporting to their own establishments in France; and
(3) French houses with buying agents in this country;
also that French buyers who buy from various exporters
or from one only may indicate to the French Committee
the exporters from whom'they have been in the habit of
receiving their supplies and to whom they wish their
present order to be entrusted.

Particulars are published iu the Official Journal of the
prices at which coal is to be sold in France under the
new scheme of maximum prices and freights. The
following are examples of prices at which, it is stated,
the different qualities are to be sold at Havre :—

Anthracite. — Large sifted, 15 fr. (11s. 3d.); fine
cobbles, 85 fr. (63s. 9d.); duffs, 70 fr. (52s. 6d.).

Half-Coking Coal. — Sifted, 135 fr. (101s. 3d.) ; not
sifted, 126 fr. (94s. 6d.); small cobbles (82s. 6d.).

Coking Coal.—Large sifted, 145 fr. (108s. 9d.); not
sifted, 120 fr. (90s.) ; small cobbles, 110 fr. (82s. 6d.).

Forge Coal. — Nut brown, 130 fr. (97s. 6d.); fine,
120 fin (90s.).

Briquettes.—Manufactured in French ports, 115 fr.
(86s. 3d.); imported, 130 fr. (87s. 6d.).

NEW BUTTERLEY PIT TUBS.

Under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, all pit trams, tubs,
or corves used in any mine which is not naturally wet
throughout must, after December 31 next, be so con-
structed that the sides, floor, and endis shall be, as far
as possible, dust-proof. Now, whilst compliance with
this entails little difficulty as regards the sides, floor, and
front end of the trams,' the case is different with regard
to the back end. The tram bodies are frequently made
wholly of steel, which gives a greater carrying capacity,
with reduced wear and tear in comparison with wooden
bodies; and repairs are facilitated by the steel plates
being made to standard sizes and supplied ready for
fixing. In other cases the beds and front ends of the
trams are of steel plate, the sides being of woo:1. grooved

Butterley Tubs, showing End Closed and Open.

■w

■

*

.... . ■fJ-.-A



on the edges, and provided with inserted iron strips;
whilst the bottom plates may be turned up at the sides,
or angle irons may be fitted inside to form dust-proof
joints between the sides and bed.

On the other hand, it has been found very difficult to
provide the back end of the tram with a fast end, so that
the tram can be loaded at the end in a benk where the
stall is too low to allow of loading over the sides.
Under the new conditions created by the Act the old
hinged end door, with wide spaces at the sides and
bottom, will no longer be permissible.

The Butterley Company Limited have been for some
time past experimenting at their large pit tram and
wagon works, with a view to meeting the requirements
of the Act and providing a suitable fitting for the back
end of the tram so that this end can be effectively closed
when the tram is being hauled in the mine, but can be
opened, when the tram is in the stall, to allow the coal
to be loaded through the end as before. These experi-
ments have led to the design illustrated in the accom-
panying photograph, which shows the Butterley patent
tram end open and closed.

This type of tram is being used in very thin seams,
the roof in many cases., nearly touching the top of the
tram. Where there is a clearance of only' about 6 in.
between roof and top of tram the end shutter does not
come quite flush with the top, and thus, when the
shutter has been closed the miner can load a few more
cobbles into the tram. The same construction is desir-
able where overhead endless rope haulage is used, other-
wise the rope would press on the shutter and strain it.

The Butterley Company Limited have already a great
many of these trams in use, and intend to fit the whole
of their trams in the same way, since the inspectors of
mines have seen the trams at work and have expressed
themselves as satisfied that they comply with the Act.

Many different designs were tried by the makers
before finally deciding on the foregoing, and although it
was found possible to make hinged doors with fairly
tight joints, the chief difficulty was to get room for open-
ing the door,.owing to the narrowness of the benk and
low height, since in many seams the roof only just clears
the top of the tram, so that any device embodying a
hinged door opening upwards is very awkward to handle,
and really impracticable. The new tram end can be
easily attached to existing trams.

NORTH OF ENGLAND INSTITUTE
OF MINING AND MECHANICAL
ENGINEERS.

In the absence of the president (Mr. T. Y. Greener),
Prof. Henry Louis presided over last Saturday after-
noon’s meeting of members of the North of England
Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers, held in
the lecture theatre of the Wood Memorial Hall, West-
gate-road , Newcasfle-on-Tyne.

Lieut.-Col. W. H. Ritson, V.D., colliery owner,
Springwell Hall, Durham, was elected as a member;
Mr. Jolm Stoker, colliery under-manager, 1, Office-
street, Wheatley Hill, County Durham, as an associate;
and the Hardy Patent Pick Company Limited, Heeley,
Sheffield, as subscribers.

Modern American Coal Mining Methods.

Mr. Samuel Dean wrote with reference to further dis-
cussion on his paper on “ Modern American Coal
Mining Methods, with Some Comparisons.”* He
stated that, in taking the photograph to which Mr.
Samuel Hare had referred, he had not selected an
abnormal place, and he could, if necessary, have a dozen
or more photographs taken showing timbered machine
fapes. At least 75 per cent, of the shortwall machines
in use were moved between the working places by the
aid of the trailing cable, and not through power derived
from a bare trolley wire. The machines could be moved
quickly by means of an insulated cable, if the mine work-
ings were so planned as to facilitate quick movement.
Mr. Hare had not described how his “ failure ” machine
was moved, nor had he described the machine—except
to say that it was a bord-and-pillar or heading machine,
which might have been the old-fashioned breast machine.
It would appear desirable to settle one controversy at a
time, and, therefore, he would suggest that the thick

seams of Great Britain, where the pitches were not
heavy, might be dealt with, and their output compared
with similar seams in America, where electricity was not
used for coal-cutting. The controversy had now reached
the stage where he had to put the following proposition
to Mr. Hare :—If the output per employee in the
American six-foot seam, where electricity was not used
for coal-cutting, was not double the output per employee
in the Hutton seam, the writer would give .£10 to a war
fund, provided that Mr. Hare was prepared to do the
same, in the event that the Hutton seam output, for all
employed in the workings of that seam, was not found to
be less than half the output in the American six-foot
seam. The writer wished it to be understood that he
had not intended to infer that British mining engineers
were lacking in skill, as Mr. Greener appeared to sug-
gest. Later on, he would be prepared to go into the
question of output in thin seams with difficult pitches
and. bad roofs. Such seams were being worked in
America. He knew of one seam, 4-J- ft. thick, pitching
38degs., which was being worked on the longwall panel
method, where the output per man at the face was 7-43
long tons per shift of eight hours, and coal-cutting
machines were not used. The roof was very bad, and
had to be timbered with collars and legs right up to the
face. Airways had to be driven in the rock, as they
would not stand in the coal. He had referred to Bentley
Colliery because the coal there was as easy to break

* Colliery Guardian, Oct. 15, 1915, pp. 776-78; Dec. 17,

1915,	pp. 1233-34; Feb. 18, 1916, pp. 313-14; and Apr. 14,

1916,	pp. 716-17.

down as many seams that were undermined by machines
—and there, was no necessity to use electricity in a mine
of that description to increase the output per man.

The Hirsch Portable Electric Lamp.

Mr. Hiram H. Hirsch-(Philadelphia, U.S.A.) wrote
replying to Mr. Percy L. Wood’s remarks—reported in
the Colliery Guardian, Apr. 14, p. 175—■with reference
to “ The Hirsch Portable Electric Lamp ” (described
in our columns on Feb. 18, p. 327). Mr. Hirsch stated
he was quite confident that, upon investigation, it
would be found that the lamp was the first portable
battery cap lamp for use iu mines, the first outfit having
been installed and successfully operated about seven
years ago. Since then, the lamp had been developed
and improved upon in order to give absolute satisfaction
in regard to efficiency, practicability, and durability.
The lamps were in use in a number of the largest coal
mines in the United States. As to withstanding abuse,
a number of collieries who had large installations of the
lamps, all testified as to their strength and durability.
He quite appreciated the fact that an increase in the size
of the battery would result in a lamp of higher efficiency
and give greater illumination. That was very easily
accomplished by increasing the size and weight of the
battery, say, 25 or 50 per cent., which would permit of
the use of a higher candle-power lamp.

Standardising- Trams and Tracks.

The discussion on Mr. John Gibson’s paper on ‘‘ The
Logic of Trams ” was continued. (This paper was sum-
marised in our columns on Feb. 18, pp. 314-15. The
earlier discussion was reported in that issue on p. 313,
in the following issue on pp. 373-74, and in the issue of
Apr. 14, on pp. 715-16.)

Mr. I. C. Parfitt (Jerome, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.)
wrote stating that he agreed with the conclusions
arrived at by Mr. Gibson.with regard to standardisation,
although he differed as to the particular features of the
tram that required standardising so as to render it
capable of national adoption. In the States, trams
seemed to have received more attention with respect to
their construction and the reduction of friction than to
standardisation, either with respect to the dimensions
of the body of the car or of the wheel base. The ten-
dency there had been to adopt the. maximum of carry-
ing capacity under any and all conditions, owing to the
almost universal adoption of electric haulage, which, for
its successful economic operation, required strength in
construction of rolling stock, which strength could be
more easily attained in trams of large capacity, when
the cost of construction formed an important factor, as
it necessarily did. There was, however, one very pro-
minent objection to the use of maximum-sized trams in
electric haulage, viz., the limitation in speed and size
of trips by the gradients of the haulage roads, the present
general construction of mine electric motors being such
as to give a maximum of efficiency for power consumed
on gradients varying from a level of one not exceeding
3 per cent, against the loads. An attempt had been
made to adapt the successful operation of the electric
locomotive on heavy grades by the adoption of ‘ ‘ the
rack-rail motor,” in which a sprocket wheel, situated in
the middle of the machine, acted upon a sprocket rail
laid in the middle of the track, thus enabling the
machine to climb heavy grades regardless of frictional
assistance. That machine, however, had not yet come
into general use. The weight of cars of large capacity
had imposed an increased burden of labour upon the
miner, where the ears had to be man-handled in rooms
opened on an ascending grade, that amounted to practi-
cally 50 per cent, of the labour required in blasting and
loading the coal. Where the grade dipped to the work-
ing face, the motors, with reel ropes, could haul the
loads to the entry. Animal haulage was sometimes
employed to overcome the former condition, but the use
of animals in conjunction with electricity was not to be
recommended. It appeared to him that the standardisa-
tion of trams under conditions such as, he was informed,
existed in Great Britain, where several seams of coal
were developed from the same shaft, and these seams
differed materially in height and in the composition of
the contiguous strata, would result in all the advantages
and benefits claimed by Mr. Gibson. It was stated in
the paper that, other considerations apart, the greater the
distance, the larger the tram should be. That was incon-
trovertible theoretically. If the distance or length of
roadway over -which the tram was to be man-handled was
regarded as a factor in the size, then the size must be
definite. In most mines and collieries that distance
was fixed, in room-and-pillar work, by the length of the
rooms and the distances between cut-throughs on
entries, since that was the distance through which cars
had generally to be man-handled. He supposed that,
in longwall work, the advancing faces would be cut off
at stated intervals by “ cross gates.” If the distance
the tram was to be hauled from the point of delivery at
the main haul were taken as the factor, the size of the
car would then, upon the preceding hypothesis, be deter-
mined only by the greatest length of haul. Again, it
was stated that ‘‘in thin seams a predetermined
minimum height and width of gate road is set up by
the size of the tram.” If such were the case, it
appeared to the writer that such a method was practi-
cally the reverse of what was generally adopted to deter-
mine the tram size. If he understood the sentence
correctly, the author meant that the size of the tram
was fixed" or determined before the seam was developed
to such an extent as to reveal the conditions under
which the tram was to be used. In such a ease, the
dimensions of the tram were not made to conform to
the natural conditions — the natural conditions were
made to conform to the arbitrary conditions. Such a