best acid grade steel wire, having an actual breaking strain of 161 tons. The walling scaffold was suspended on two other ropes attached to separate capstan drums and at the time of the accident was 79 feet above the shaft bottom.

III. OCCURRENCE OF THE ACCIDENT.

At about 7 p.m. on the 28th February a round of sumping shots had been fired and so far as could be judged had done its work satisfactorily. From that time onwards the work of filling out the ground broken by the shots proceeded in the ordinary way and the pump, which had been raised the usual 18-20 feet while the shots were fired and afterwards lowered into the normal position, worked smoothly and without intermission. The amount of water to be dealt with at this time averaged from 12 to 15,000 gallons per hour. The pump was lowered a further few inches from time to time as the bottom was cleared of debris, the last lowering before the accident being at about 1.30 a.m. on the 1st March. There were 21 men working in the shaft and at about 2 a.m. they began to go to the surface in relays for their "snap." When the third batch of men, five including the pump attendant, left the shaft bottom everything appeared to be in order, but before they had reached the top the pump "jacked (began to draw air) and on

a signal from the bottom the electric current was shut off at the surface. Having arrived at the top the pumpman decided to go back to restart the pump and proceeded down in the hoppit along with a load of men who had snapped." The hoppit had been lowered to the "steady," i.e., the point about 18 feet from the bottom where it is stopped until a further signal is given before it is lowered right on to the bottom, when the men on the surface heard a crash, and the greater part of the rising main (from the surface to a point 169 yards down the shaft) collapsed into the bottom of the sinking. Simultaneously the electric cable drum was jerked from its foundation and pulled over towards the shaft, the cable itself being damaged some 150 to 160 yards down the shaft. but not broken. The pump suspension rope was undamaged. The engineman felt a jerk on the winding rope and tried to raise the hoppit but found that it was held down by the debris.

IV. RESCUE AND RECOVERY WORK.

The hoppit being held at the bottom, the winding rope was cut at the surface, recapped, and a new hoppit fitted. This was lowered part way down the shaft until it came to the lower part of the rising main which it was found, although still standing, was leaning across the shaft so as to prevent any further lowering. As shouts could be heard from the shaft bottom another rope was procured and lowered from the hoppit with a safety belt on the

end.

278

A 2

There were three men still alive at the bottom, Frederick Williams, George Edward Chappell and John Smith. When the accident occurred the former, who was on the pump ladder, was struck by falling material and lost his foothold, but managed to hold on to the ladder with his hands and eventually get to shelter behind the pump. The other two men were both in the hoppit which had been lowered to the "steady" as previously stated.

After the debris had ceased to fall, Williams got to this hoppit, which was at the side of the pump, and found that Smith and Chappell were alive but were both injured. Chappell was able, with his assistance, to get up the ladder to the walling scaffold. Smith, however, was quite disabled and, to prevent him from falling into the shaft bottom where the water was rising, Williams, having got him on to the pump landing, tied him with a muffler and handkerchief to a part of the pump. During the hours which elapsed before the three could be rescued Williams went up and down the ladder, shouting for help from the top and endeavouring to soothe Smith at the bottom, and when the safety belt eventually came down to them he and Chappell put it round Smith (against his will for he was reluctant in his terror to be taken from the pump), guided him up through the scaffold and sent him first to safety.

Shortly afterwards two more ropes were lowered and both Chappell and Williams were drawn to the surface.

The sustained courage and presence of mind displayed by Williams during the whole period of eight hours whilst rescue was awaited deserve high commendation. Chappell also is to be commended.

Williams had examined the other men in the hoppit but found that they were all dead, and he being satisfied that no living person remained below (he stated in evidence that all the men other than Chappell, Smith and himself were dead within two minutes of the accident occurring) it was decided after a careful inspection by the Agent (Mr. N. D. Todd), the Manager (Mr. L. T. Linley), Mr. J. R. Felton and Mr. W. E. T. Hartley, H.M. Divisional and Senior Inspectors of Mines respectively, and Mr. A. Gee, Contractor, and Mr. J. T. Brown, the Master Sinker, to proceed by dismantling the lower part of the rising main which was preventing a free passage down the shaft.

This work was completed at about 3 a.m. on 2nd March and when the walling scaffold was reached the body of John Robinson (Sinker) was recovered. Access to the other bodies was delayed by the rising of the water in the bottom of the shaft and the necessity of replacing the rings and backing sheets all of which, with the exception of four rings immediately below the scaffold, were found to have been knocked out.

The water in the shaft was lowered to within 33 feet of the bottom by means of a large water barrel but, owing to obstructions,

this barrel could not be further used. In order to reduce the feeder of water coming into the shaft to enable a small barrel to cope with it, 26 tons of cement were injected into the last length of the shaft walling with the result that the feeder was reduced. to 3,000 gallons per hour. Thereafter steady progress was made, the rings and backing sheets being replaced, the debris removed and the remaining 13 bodies recovered, the last on 15th March.

V. POSSIBLE CAUSES OF THE ACCIDENT.

There would appear to be four possible causes of the accident :(1) A broken clamp on the rising main.

(2) A defective joint in the rising main.

:

(3) A fall from the side of the shaft striking the rising main or the pump.

(4) The grounding of the suction pipe on the bottom of the shaft.

Of a broken clamp or a defective joint there is no evidence, nor is there any evidence of a fall from the shaft side. On the contrary, had there been a fall from the shaft side Frederick Williams. would have been able to bear witness. His account of the position immediately prior to the accident in his own words is as follows:

Q. Now Mr. Williams just tell us what did happen at that point? A. Something came from above, struck me on the back of the head and the shoulders, and took my feet off the ladder, from under me, but I happened to have a good hold with my hands, and I scrambled out as best I could.

Q. It is rather important for us to know what did happen. Did you hear a noise at all?-A. The noise came with the crash. It all came at the same moment.

Q. Did the pump swing at all at that time?-A. As the crash came she swung; but she was perfectly still before.

Q. Can you give us any idea how long this crashing was going on?-A. Well the main crash did not last long, but the stuff was falling up to the time I came from there. That was from the sides around. But the main crash itself did not last very many minutes.

Q. Was that main crash (as you call it) above you or below you?-A. It came from above me.

Q. Did you, before that, hear anything below?-A. Everything was as quiet as could be. Because they were all quiet owing to waiting for me to shout for the chargeman to start the pump.

Q. The men in the bottom were not working, were they?A. Every man was stood, keeping quiet, until the signal.

Q. So that the shaft at that time was particularly quiet?— A. Yes.

Q. If there had been any movement in the bottom would you have heard it, do you think?-A. Oh yes, at that time, because the pump was not working. It was as quiet as the grave, as you might say.

It may be that the blow which stunned Williams was the result of a clamp breaking high up on the rising main, but this seems to be improbable in view of the evidence of Professor S. M. Dixon, Professor of Civil Engineering, City and Guilds (Engineering) College, London, who examined the equipment on my behalf. Professor Dixon said :

"I tested the clamps both singly and afterwards in sets of clamps bolted together in the exact way they are used in the shaft, to see what force is required to break the end piece of the clamp that was holding the rope in position. I tested clamps sent from Bilsthorpe-clamps that were made of oakclamps sent from Ollerton which were made of pitch pine, and clamps that I made in the laboratory, of pitch pine. They gave as consistent results as one can expect with timber, but they were very strong and very good. The material was excellent. There was no doubt in my mind that if all the clamps were the same as those tested, the origin of the accident could not have come from the clamps. I think the experiments show that (in my opinion) conclusively.

Q. That is, if all were up to the standard of those you tested?-A. If all were up to the standard of those I tested. It was impossible to say, because a great number were broken. But the actual load that it took to break the clamps was between four and seven tons, and there could not be anything like that pressure on the clamp, from the small twist on the rope, considering they were merely put on by a couple of men working them round.

Q. The effect of that is you are satisfied that the clamps as used were in order?-A. Perfectly.

Q. And were suited to the work they had to do?-A. Yes. Professor F. C. Lea, Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Sheffield University, was in entire agreement with Professor Dixon on this point.

It remains now to consider the fourth possible cause. Dealing first with the shift in which the accident occurred; the pump, as already stated, was last lowered at about 1.30 a.m. or a little more than an hour prior to the accident. Evidence was given by several witnesses who were in the shaft bottom when these lowerings took place, and all were agreed that at no time during the shift had the suction grounded on the bottom.

Reference must now be made to certain happenings of Sunday, 27th February, some 34 hours preceding the accident, concerning which evidence was given by Norman Mason, brother of one of the deceased men and himself employed as a sinker. He stated that, following the firing of a round of shots on the afternoon shift of that day, the pump was lowered too far causing the suction to bump heavily on the bottom and the lower part of the pump to swing over and lean against the shaft side. After he and two others had liberated the suction by clearing away debris from the sump, the pump righted itself but the stalk (suction pipe) was bent.

A number of witnesses were examined concerning these allegations. The chargeman (Thomas Morris), strenuously denied that the suction had been on the bottom, but admitted that (while at the surface for snap" shortly after this lowering) he was sent back by the 12 hours master sinker to make an examination, Horace Hunt (pump fitter) having complained that a joint was leaking and the suction resting on the bottom. Hunt went down with Morris, and both stated in evidence that they found the suction clear and the rising main in order. The stalk was bent and they straightened it, but Morris said in evidence that it was bent, not by the bumping of the suction on the bottom, but by the firing of the shots already referred to.

Hunt's complaint was founded on the fact of a small quantity of water, which he assumed had come from a leak in the pipes, having fallen upon him while he was on the pump landing, and to his having noticed the stalk bent.

Subsequent evidence showed that some water had fallen owing to a pipe newly put on at the surface not having been made tight. Whether the pump actually grounded on this occasion I am, in view of the conflicting nature of the evidence, unable to say, but that no breakage of a joint in the rising main took place is evident. from the fact that the pump continued to work satisfactorily on the following day without any leakage of water, and without anything occurring to arouse suspicion on the part of officials or workmen employed in the shaft.

There was evidence to the effect that the suction had at times rested on the bottom, though knowledge of such a happening was denied by other witnesses, but when it is remembered that the suction bottom (strainer) cannot normally be seen and its exact position when lowering can only be ascertained by feeling-the usual plan being to use a shovel underneath; that debris may fall into the sump while lowering is taking place; and that accurate co-ordination between the capstan man and the signal man at the bottom is almost impossible; the possibility of such grounding occurring can be easily understood.

What could have been the effect of such a grounding? That rone in itself sufficiently serious to break a joint occurred appears