| Disasters - Names |
|
Disasters - Names | ||
 |
 |
|||
| Date: | 11th December 1905 |
| Colliery: | North Walbottle |
| Company: | North Walbottle Coal Co., Ltd. |
| Cause: | Explosion |
| Lives Lost: | 1 |
| Category: | Explosions of Fire-damp or Coal Dust |
 |
 |
| Description | |
|
|
North Walbottle Colliery Explosion.
This explosion or ignition occurred about 7 a.m. on the 11th December, 1905, in a longwall district in the Engine or Beaumont seam lying nearly flat and 1,150 yards to the east of the shafts, the depth from the surface being about 90 fathoms. The district, as shown on Plates III. and IV., was being opened out from a single road through a pillar of coal left to protect the haulage and return air roads and was at the time of the explosion depending on bratticed air.
Two hewers, Thomas Bryan (deceased) and Robert Mitchell, were working in the district using candles after the places had been inspected and found safe by the deputy. Mitchell worked in the straight on place and deceased in the first and only gateway to the right, Deceased had kyrved to a limited extent in the bottom of the seam which is 3 feet 6 inches thick and he then drilled a shot hole 3 feet 6 inches deep near the right side of the part kyrved but nearly at right angles to the face and practically into solid coal. The hole started 15 inches from the roof and inclined slightly upwards. He charged it, according to a statement he made to the deputy, with two cartridges of two bobbins each of compressed gunpowder which would weigh 2/5 lb. What material he used as stemming is not known ; clay is provided at the flat for the purpose.
After drawing the pricker he inserted a squib and lit it with his candle and then, according to Mitchell's evidence, retired down the gateway and a few yards along the single road so that the canvas brattice was between him and the shot.
When the shot exploded it blew out, Mitchell in the straight on place was not burned but he said there was an "illumination" and he could tell by the sound it was a blown out shot and there was more smoke than usual. Mitchell was not alarmed and he continued his work until deceased called to him that he was burned. Mitchell found him in the dark in the single road and assisted him to put on his clothes but deceased went outbye alone and saw the deputy at the flat and said at first he had been burned by gas but afterwards that he had had his hole on the fast and he was not sure if it was gas or stemming from the hole that had burned him. The deputy bandaged one of his hands and then he went outbye alone. According to the evidence of a nurse deceased was burned on both arms, on the face and back of the neck, and on the legs above and below the knees.
After the explosion about six yards of the canvas brattice, which was nailed to running crowntrees supported by props, was found displaced about 30 yards from its termination at the right hand pack wall of deceased's place. Mitchell said it was blown on to the tram way but the deputy, who went to the place immediately after seeing deceased, stated it was more as though it had dropped or been shaken down. The deputy thought the smoke left when he came in smelt stronger than gunpowder smoke only. He examined the hole and observed no gas.
The manager did not report the matter to me at the time and it was not until the 22nd December, the day after the man's death, that I became aware of it on which day I inspected the district ; the gateway in which the shot had been fired had not been worked since the accident as the manager had proposed taking some action against deceased for firing a shot drilled into the solid ; the district, however, no longer depended on bratticed air as a second holing had been made through the pillar.
I found the shot hole as described and on the floor below it was small coal formed in drilling the hole. No gas was observed. The place was dry but not markedly dusty and the roads leading to it were wet, On the 22nd December, about 3 p.m., a hygrometer in the place registered 59° F. dry bulb and 57½° F. wet bulb. No trace of fire or coked coal dust was observed.
A curved sooty back had been passed through near the hole and possibly the hole may have passed through another. The roof was unbroken except where top canches had been shot down in the gateways.
The fact of the shot having blown out was clear and there was no evidence in the shape of particles of clay about the hole or of clay having been blown out from the hole on to the partially built pack wall near it, that clay had been used for stemming and I think the hole had not been stemmed with clay but with small coal and coal dust, possibly some of the borings had been used, and that this stemming had extended the flame of the gunpowder, but even assuming this to have occurred it is still difficult to account for the flame reaching deceased had he been in the position already described when the shot exploded ; there is the possibility that he had retired down the rib side and into the intake side of the single road when it was quite probable that he would be burned and that afterwards he had pulled the brattice down at the point where it was deranged, this view, however, was not corroborated by the evidence.
I do not think gas was present, deceased and Mitchell had worked for about 3 hours with candles and there was no evidence as to gas except deceased's statement to the deputy which he afterwards repeated to the nurse.
The Local Inspectors reported as follows :—
"We have visited and inspected carefully the place where Thomas Bryan was injured by a shot blowing out, and we are of opinion that he had erred in his judgment when starting the hole and in addition to this, owing either to a blunt drill or a slack coupling the hole had taken a course not intended causing the shot which must have been too light to blow out and ignite dust as we found the place dry and favourable to dusty conditions."
At first sight I thought it would be my duty to report the case with a view to a prosecution against the manager for not reporting the accident within 24 hours of its occurrence.
His reason for not reporting was that he did not think it a case of "serious personal injury" and considering that deceased had gone out of the pit alone this was perhaps a reasonable conclusion but if the accident came under the class described in Section 35 (1) (i) of the Act then "any personal injury whatever" fell to be reported. These accidents are those due to "any explosion of gas, or of any explosive, or of any steam boiler." I could not say the accident was due to an explosion of gas or to the explosion of the gunpowder alone, but rather to coal dust being ignited by the flame of the gunpowder. I think words to cover this class of accident, which it is most important should he reported at once, should he added to any future Act.*
* This is provided for in the "Notice of Accidents" Bill, where the words used are "any explosion of gas or coal dust, or any explosive."
| Source: | 1905 Mines Inspectors Report (Cd 2910) Where to find this report |
|
|
| Fatalities | |
|
|
 | Bryan, Thomas (died: 21 Dec 1905) , aged 39, Hewer, explosion |
All names found | |
Those names marked with |
Return
Return to Top
Contains public sector information licensed under the 
