|
CWMAMMAN.
GARNANT COLLIERY ACCIDENT. -On Tuesday Dr Rowlands, Carmarthen,
coroner for the district, resumed the inquest at Cwmamman on
the bodies of six of the ten persons killed at the Garnant Company's
Colliery by the breaking of a wire cage rope on the 16th ult.,viz.,
John Evan Jones, Daniel Rees (boy), Thomas Mitchell*,
Thomas Beavan**, John David James,
and William Lake. Mr J. E. Wales, Government inspector, was
present, Mr W. Simons (Merthyr) represented the colliery company,
Mr Linton (Cardiff) was for Elliot & Co , and Mr W. Howells
(Llanelly) was for Thomas Michael, who has been charged with
meddling with the apparatus and causing the accident.-John Davies,
overman, repeated the evidence given by him at the opening of
the inquest, and then said that the cage, after the accident,
was crumpled up. The top had been torn off by the men to remove
the dead bodies. It was not specially his work to examine the
rope of the cage. -To Mr W. Howell: I have never seen or heard
of any difficulty in the working of the "keeps" which
supported the cage at the pit's mouth. Since the accident something
has been done to improve the "keeps." A small piece
of the wood has been cut away. By rule 37 he (witness) was bound
to be at the colliery before the men began work. On the morning
of the accident the men had agreed to begin work at 4 a.m.,
so as to finish three hours earlier to go to a funeral near
by. Witness was at the pit at four o'clock, but after the accident
had taken place.-Dr H. Rees, surgeon to the colliery, was called
to speak to the condition of the bodies of the deceased after
they were brought up.-John Hay, manager to the Garnant Colliery
Company, of Cambrian place, Swansea, said he lived at Brynamman,
and had managed the collieries at Garnant since July, 1882.
He had had experience as manager for the last ten years. -The
Coroner here formally warned the witness that any evidence which
he gave might be used against him. -Witness was a certificated
manager, and all the men and officials at the colliery were
under his control. The duty of the banksman was to attend to
the top of the pit-to land the coal and the men. It was his
duty to see to the men going up and down the pit. In the absence
of the overman, the fireman had control of the men. The cage
was lowered by the engineman, under the direction of the banksman.
As long as the keeps were clear the cage would go down, and
it was the duty of the banksman to keep them clear till the
cage went down. If kept properly back, there was no fear of
the keeps hitching against any part of the cage. There was twenty-four
feet from the top of the cage, when on the keeps, to the top
of the sheaves where the strain came, and seventy-two feet from
the top of the sheaves to the coil of the drum. The rope was
purchased on September 14th, 1882, and was 70 fathoms, or 420
feet, long. He produced Messrs Elliot's table, on which the
breaking strain of such a rope was calculated at 33 tons, and
the ordinary load at 4 tons 2 cwt. The maximum at which it was
worked at the colliery was 2 tons 10 cwt. He considered it quite
safe to use it daily for sixteen months without special examination.
He had carefully examined the broken ends of the rope. The fracture
was not across, but the strands were broken as if by a pull.
He examined the broken wires, and they had the appearance of
being worn. The greatest wear of the rope was from the sheave
to the drum, and it broke about where there was the greatest
wear and tear. Considering the worn condition of the wire, it
was his opinion that it was sufficient for the work unless there
was a special strain. Two of the ten persons killed were in
the cage contrary to rule. The banksman was responsible for
ten men going into the cage, together with the people themselves.
-To Mr Wales: David Bevan, the engineman, should examine the
rope. He accounted for the breakage by supposing that a sudden
jerk occurred.-To Mr Simons: I have never known of a rope breaking
without a fracture occurring beforehand. There was no reason
to account for the fracture except from ill-usage. -Mr James
May, manager to Messrs. Elliot and Company, wire-rope manufacturers,
Cardiff, said he believed the rope which broke was supplied
by his firm. It was well made, and seemed to have had fair play
at the colliery, for the machinery was perfect. It would need
a very close examination to condemn it. He had found the wires
worn and corroded inside. Under certain conditions it would
be injurious to expose the rope to warm air, but if not exposed
outside, it would be an advantage. Generally speaking it was
in very fair condition. Speaking after the event, of course
it ought to have been condemned; but from observation before
the event, he should have said that it was strong enough to
bear 2½ tons weight. -The Coroner: Assuming that a ton
and a half fell six feet, would the rope bear that strain? -Witness:
That would be about 30 tons, and the rope would not bear it.
It was impossible to calculate the drop in this case. -Thomas
Hopkin Osgood, consulting mechanical engineer, said he first
examined the rope at the colliery; the piece that seemed to
have been next to the drum. He found one broken wire, otherwise
it seemed a good, serviceable rope. He carefully examined the
wires of the broken part of the rope, separately, at the fractured
ends, and found some of them worn very much, and very much reduced
in size. Other wires seemed to have suffered but little. With
the aid of a glass he found that, with the exception of three
or four of the wires, the fractures seemed to have been quite
fresh -a clean fracture. It was quite equal to lifting and lowering
two tons and a half: The fracture was caused by excessive strain
-strain caused by a jerk or any extraordinary sharp pull of
the engine, or a fall in the shaft. The jerk must have been
a heavy one before it would have given way. If a ton and a half
fell suddenly down the shaft a distance of six feet, it would
be sufficient to snap the rope. Its momentum at a fall of six
feet would be 29 tons 12 cwt. That momentum would be almost
sufficient to break a new rope of that character. -To Mr Howell:
The lever was easy to work, and came to its place by giving
a sharp pull. It should be held back till the cage passed out
of sight, but it was let loose on this occasion. -The landlord
of the Raven Inn here intimated to the coroner that closing
time had been reached. -The Coroner said he had nothing to do
with that. His court had nothing to do with the public-house
or with the sale of intoxicating drinks. -P.S. Evans suggested
that the public who were not interested might be requested to
leave. -The Coroner said the court was an open one, and they
could not tell who was interested. -Mr Howell said they were
clearly liable to be fined for being on the premises, and had
not the shadow of a defence. He had no objection, however, to
being fined in the company of the coroner. -The Coroner said
he would take the responsibility. -The court sat till 10.15
p.m. -The inquiry was resumed at 10 o'clock on Wednesday. -David
Jenkins, the banksman, recalled, in reply to the coroner, said
there had been no repairs to the keeps where the accident occurred.
-To Mr Simons: He had never allowed more than eight men to go
down. He had been warned by the manager and overman to prevent
more than eight going down, and to report if more than eight
came up. He had never had occasion to report. The men were pushing
into the cage on the 16th, and he told them to be quiet. He
did not pull the handle back after Michael let it loose. -Thomas
Bartlett, haulier, said he saw the men go into the cage which
fell. Thomas Michael gave the signal, and drew the lever. The
cage went down level to the surface, and the top caught in something
-the keeps he thought. Thomas Michael was by the lever the whole
time. David Jenkins gave the knock to stop; there was a smash,
and the carriage disappeared. -To Mr Simons; Witness heard David
Jenkins tell Aubrey Rees that he opened the keeps, and he contradicted
him. -Thomas Thomas, labourer, corroborated as to Thomas Michael
being at the lever. Michael had only been in the employ of the
company a week before the accident. -Mr T. H. Osgood, recalled,
said that a weight of 30 cwt. falling 3 feet clear would be
equal to a strain of 20 tons 16cwt. That would be sufficient
to snap a rope worn like that. -Mr T. H. Wales, inspector of
mines, said the result of two examinations of the rope was that
not a single wire was broken except where the fracture took
place. That morning he examined the "fangs" or keeps,
and found that if they were closed after the bottom passed the
top would not catch the fangs. He was of opinion that the cage
did not catch the fangs on that morning, and that the breakage
of the rope was due to its being too weak at the point of fracture
to carry the weight it had to carry, and not to any jerk or
fall. -Mr Hay, the manager, recalled, in answer to Mr Howell,
said that if the cross-bar had not been on the cage it could
not have caught, but if the keeps were properly worked it could
not catch even with the bar. -The coroner's summing up occupied
an hour and a half, and the jury took an equal time to consider
their verdict. Eventually twelve of the thirteen jurors agreed
as follows:-"The accident took place by the breakage of
the rope caused by a jerk, the jerk of the cage having caught
the fangs (or keeps) in consequence of the mismanagement of
the lever working them. We consider the conduct of Thomas Michael
reprehensible, but not culpable." -The Coroner said that
was a verdict tantamount to accidental death. -Mr Simons thanked
the coroner for the great care, ability, and courtesy with which
he had conducted the enquiry, and the jury for the attention
which they had paid.
|