June 1, 1917. THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN. 1031 Considerable care would have to be taken when burying the 150 ft. terminal. A dummy standard was now in use to steady the carrying rope, and would gradually raise the height of the bing above the normal height given by the original level of the carrying rope. The President said Mr. Thorneycroft’s contribution to the discussion was especially valuable for its cost figures, and would be very useful in considering Mr. White’s paper. Mr. Edward Dawson (Cardiff) said they all knew it was practically impossible to get two ropeways alike, owing to the varying conditions of site, etc., but Mr. White’s paper would be additionally useful if he could see his way to embody in it some approximately com- parative figures of ropeways he had erected. A good deal of cost must be buried in these high standards— lost for all time. At New Tredegar and Merthyr Vale dumping frames had been adopted, so arranged that they rose vertically with the rise of the dump. These did away with the loss due to the burying of towers. Aerial ropeways unquestionably effected a great saving in the disposal of rubbish. One item of outlay upon which he should like Mr. White to give them informa- tion, was the total cost per ton per mile. Mr. W. Cleaver (Port Talbot) asked Mr. White if he had designed, or thought of, a system of grabbing the material to load the ropeway. Mr. W. Johnson (Ffaldau) suggested the advisa- bility of putting in large storage hoppers, where the practice at the colliery was to raise the rubbish during the night, and running it off on the ropeway during the day. He calculated this would be at least 25 per cent, cheaper than tipping by tram. Mr. D. L. Thomas (Morriston) wrote that during the last few years the subject of transport by aerial wire ropeways had attracted much attention, as a practical means of saving labour; and with the shortage of labour due to the war the subject would become increasingly important. The part of the paper with which he was mostly concerned was that referring to the bi-cable, or double-rope system ; and having had some years’ experience of that method, he should have liked Mr. White to deal more fully with the structural strengths of the units comprising the system under varying conditions, and the means he had adopted for obviating or surmounting the difficulties which naturally presented themselves in working. He would also like to know the limit as regards the weight and number of loads, also the number of spans up to which Mr. White considered tension weights could be used, and what other means he would adopt with or without varying limits. In regard to supports, or saddles, for the carrying ropes, he (Mr. Thomas) had found that the smaller the rope the greater the tendency for wires breaking at the points of contact with the ends of the saddles. Did the pivoted saddle referred to in the paper obviate this, and was the saddle a factor taken into consideration in determining the size of the carrying ropes for any given duty ? Mr. White referred to a variety of gripper attachments, many of which were complicated in action, delicate in design, and therefore unsuitable for rough usage, and requiring skilled attention for keeping in efficient order. Which of the many forms referred to did Mr. White consider the best for ordinary working conditions ? The use of dumping standards was an effective means of increasing the dumping space. In regard to using short lengths of cast iron winding ropes as carrying ropes, stretching from one standard to another in single spans, it did not appear to him to possess great advantage. The standards would have to be much more substantially built than with carrying ropes in one length ; consequently, they would be more costly. Instead of only two clamping arrangements for the two ropes at the end terminal, four additional clamping arrangements would be required at the end of each span, or each standard. These clamping appliances were costly, especially for heavy ropes, besides requiring considerable time for fixing. Should a breakage occur between two standards of one or both ropes, the ropes on the other side of the standards being in tension would cause the latter to topple over, or, perhaps, cause them to be twisted out of line. Again, to renew or replace any length of rope in any particular span meant the slackening of all the carrying ropes throughout the system, unless some special means were adopted to prevent the straining or bending of those standards on each side of the gap formed by the broken rope or ropes to be replaced. Perhaps Mr. White would be able to give comparative costs of installa- tions; with sectional and one-length carrying ropes, and also explain how any length of rope might be replaced without interfering with others. Some eight years ago, Messrs. R. White and Sons, Widnes, installed a double rope system at the colliery with which he was connected, and had given highly satisfactory working results, fully justifying the expenditure involved. During the period the ropeway had been in operation nearly 200,000 tons of pit rubbish had been dealt with. For the 12 months ending December 12, 1916, the total quantity of rubbish dealt with was 24,784 tons, or an average of approximately 85 tons per day. The cost worked out slightly less than 3d. per ton, which included the handling of the rubbish, together with the maintenance and repair charges. At the close of the discussion, Mr. White said, with the permission of the president, he would forward his full reply in writing, as it would take up too much time at that meeting to deal with all the points raised. He had been furnished with the costs of the installation and working of aerial ropeways at a number of collieries, details of which he would incorporate in his written reply. They varied a good deal, because, as Mr. Dawson had said, no two ropeways were working under identical conditions. Dr. P. Collins has been appointed certifying surgeon under the Factory and Workshop Acts for Rathmore dis- trict, Kerry. A vacancy exists at Chew Magna, Somerset. THE CANAL PROBLEM. The recent assumption of the control of canals by the Government, and the successful employment of mechanical propulsion to coal barges, has led to con- siderable discussion on the prospects of waterborne traffic in this country. The Royal Commission appointed in 1906 to enquire into the conditions of our canals, recommended the formation of a Central Waterway Board to review the facts and information collected and present a scheme to Parliament for the improvement of the main water- way routes. The Commission also recommended the amalgamation and improvement of the waterways forming what is known as the “ Cross ” connecting the Thames with the Mersey and the Severn with the Humber—that is, the canals radiating from Birming- ham—as the first step in any comprehensive scheme of waterway development. Route 1 consists of the present Grand Junction Canal, a portion of the Oxford Canal, the Warwick and Napton Canal, and the Warwick and Birmingham Canal. Route 2 consists of the River Trent, the Lough- borough Navigation, the Leicester Navigation, and the Leicester branch of the Grand Junction Canal to Norton Junction, where it meets Route 1. Route 3 is the main route from the Mersey and the Manchester Ship Canal to Birmingham by the Weaver Navigation, the Trent, and Mersey Canal to Fradley Junction, parts of the Coventry and Birmingham canals, and the Birmingham and Warwick Junction Canal. Route 4 connects Birmingham with the Severn estuary by way of the Worcester and Birmingham Canal. It has also a branch from Worcester by the Severn Navigation and the Staffordshire and Worces- tershire Canal to Wolverhampton, there joining a branch of Route 3, and so connecting the Severn with the Mersey. Sir John Wolfe Barry calculated, for the Royal Commission, that the cost of improving these routes, hull ^HEFFIELC£ WNLEY DERBY® D OXFORD. ^SHARPNESS LONDON BRENTROfu NORTON JUKI 7/ON L «NORTHAMPTON -80RDT5LEY JUN. BIRMINGHAM sF A