| Disasters - Names |
|
Disasters - Names | ||
 |
 |
|||
| Date: | 17th February 1899 |
| Colliery: | Walbottle |
| Company: | Walbottle Coal and Firebrick Co., Ltd. |
| Cause: | Explosion of firedamp |
| Lives Lost: | 1 |
| Category: |
 |
 |
| Description | |
|
|
No. 75. — This, the most serious accident of the year, occurred at Walbottle Colliery, near Lemington-on-Tyne, Northumberland, on February 17th, when 3 men, including a deputy, were burnt, one succumbing to his injuries on March 15th.
Samuel Wigham, the deputy, (cautioned by the Coroner), in his evidence at the inquest, stated in reply to the Coroner, Mr. H. T. Rutherford, and Mr. J. L. Hedley, H.M. Inspector of Mines, that the deceased, Roger Smith, and John Brown, two hewers, were working in adjoining places (see plan) in the middle flat of the Low Main Seam. About 6.15 a.m. he was asked to fire Brown's shots, and went to the place for that purpose. Brown stemmed the first hole and then retired, leaving him to examine the place and to light the shot. After this had gone off they returned to the face, and Brown then stemmed the second hole, again leaving him to fire the shot. Previous to doing this he (the witness) examined the place again and found it clear as in the first instance. He then went into Smith's bord, leaving Brown a few yards below the turn and found the former stemming a hole in the bottom of the seam at the low side. The stemming was clay off the bottom, and was damp. He examined the place and found a little gas collected at the high side near to the face.
He cleared it out by waving his waistcoat, and after examination found it clear. He then lighted deceased's squib, and both came out to the turn beside Brown. He heard the squib run and then what sounded like another squib fizzing, but there was no report such as he would have expected if the shot had gone off in the ordinary way. He lost consciousness for a short time, and on recovering found Brown lying beside him, but deceased had gone.
In further reply to Mr. Hedley, witness stated that he did not think it necessary to have the brattice cloth nearer to the face, and it was for him to decide when more was required. There was plenty of canvas at the "flat" but none near the place. Had not suggested that some might be got in.
He saw gas in the same place on the previous morning, February 16th (report book produced).
Brushing gas away with a waistcoat was not the regular way of getting rid of gas, and if the brattice had been closer up to the face there would have been no necessity for adopting that method.
He saw no flame or sparks after lighting Smith's squib, his back being turned to the face ; nor could he see any reek, but there was a peculiar smell.
By the Coroner. — When he found a little gas he took off his waistcoat as he could clear it out by that means, and he considered it to be a satisfactory method. If there had been a large accumulation he would have stopped the place and reported it.
By Mr. M. Dodd (Managing Owner). — He thought the quantity so small that he did not consider it dangerous. It was about 30 yards from the face of the bord to where they were sitting.
John Brown was also examined to a certain extent, but he was in too nervous and dazed a condition to render what evidence he gave of any value. So far as it went, however, it confirmed the deputy's evidence as to the course adopted when firing the shot.
William Stoker Robson, one of the workmen's local inspectors, heard of the accident about 8 a.m., and immediately went to the place, but found that the men had been removed. He could not get into the face as the brattice was blown down from the old bord up to where the canvas door had been. On that occasion he saw no gas, but there was a strong smell, and he therefore considered it inadvisable to go further. Did not know the smell of after-damp. About 1 p.m. on the same day he went into the face of both places, and in the bord found that the coal had not been blown and that part of the stemming was in the shot hole. Could not say that the shot had been fired. The brattice had then been renewed to the extent it was in prior to accident. There was then a trifle of gas at the high side of the bord.
As the result of an inspection made by myself on February 18th, the day after the explosion, I found that all the indications pointed to the fact that an explosion of some kind had occurred either in Brown's or Smith's place, and a closer examination convinced me that it had originated in the place where the deceased had worked. A close scrutiny was made of all timber, brattice cloth, &c. with the view of ascertaining whether coal dust had been instrumental in causing or developing the explosion, but the indications of coking were very slight, indeed it could hardly be called coking at all. The general surroundings were all more or less damp, and, in fact, in some places saturated with moisture.
The question then was as to the presence of fire-damp, and after the evidence of the deputy we cannot do otherwise than assume that there must have been an accumulation in the bord at the time the shot was fired, and inasmuch as the safety lamps were found uninjured after the explosion a little below the turn by Robson, it is evident that they could not have ignited the mixture. On an examination of the shot hole, it was found that the greater part of the stemming still remained in, but as the coal sounded drummy the charge had apparently done part of its work, and, in my opinion, at the back of the kirving, which is done at the top of the seam.
Up the fissures thus formed a certain amount of flame must have passed and thus ignited any fire-damp which had not been dislodged getting rid of it.
Had the brattice been closer up, as it should have been, there would have been no explosion, as the ventilation was quite sufficient to carry away any gas that might be exuding from the coal.
The jury returned a verdict "That Roger Smith lost his life through burns received by an explosion of gas at Walbottle Colliery, and strongly recommend that in future more care be taken in having the brattice cloth kept closer to the face."
Four points arise in connection with this accident —
(a.) As to the ventilation (Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887).
(b.) The use of bottom clay for stemming (Coal Mines Regulation Act 1896).
(c.) Was the Coal Mines Order complied with ?
(I.) Owing to the quantity of gas.
(II.) The prevalence of dust.
(a.) On this point I have already touched. The total quantity of air was sufficient, but care had not been taken in every case to carry it near enough to the face.
(b.) The only stemming used in this seam was bottom clay, which it was contended was of a non-inflammable nature. This I was not prepared to controvert, but it has been decided to send clay down from the surface in future.
(c.) (I.) This raises the most important question alluded to, and yet it is one on which a decision is left to individual opinion, namely, as to the quantity of gas which may be said to be indicative of danger.
The question so far as the Walbottle Colliery is concerned has been settled in an unmistakable but withal unfortunate manner, and all the regulations of the "Order" have been strictly carried out since the explosion.
The question was naturally raised as to whether proper regulations were in force previous to this occurrence. It was admitted that gas had been seen in the bord on the previous day but only to a small extent, so the deputy stated. He, however, considered it necessary in the discharge of his duties, to record its presence in his report book.
Now who is to decide as to whether the quantity so recorded is "indicative of danger" ? The deputy who alone saw the gas thought it was not, but as deputies like other people are not infallible in their judgments, it would be more satisfactory if some definite rule were laid down as to what constitutes such quantity as to be "indicative of danger."
(II.) With reference to the existence of dust in this seam, I have little hesitation in saying that it would be exempt from the terms of the "Order."
On my first investigation into this case it appeared to me that it would be my duty to report the matter to you with a view to proceedings being taken against the responsible persons in charge of the colliery. However, after full consideration of all the facts, I came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to obtain a conviction, as one witness was quite incapable of giving evidence, and the second could refuse on the ground that he might incriminate himself.
| Source: | 1899 Mines Inspectors Report (Cd 134), Newcastle District (No. 3) by J. L. Hedley, H.M. Inspector of Mines, Page: 11 Where to find this report |
|
|
| Fatalities | |
|
|
 | Smith, Roger (died: 15 Mar 1899) , aged 34, Hewer, explosion of fire damp [Inspection made & inquest attended] |
All names found | |
Those names marked with |
Return
Return to Top
Contains public sector information licensed under the 
