Museum
Friends of Durham Mining Museum
Events Calendar
e-Books and Books for sale
Photograph Gallery
Document Archive
Main Document Archive
Newspaper Articles
Articles by date
Articles by colliery
Personal name index
Local Record Extracts
D.M.A. Document Archive
Transactions of I.M.E.
Miners' Welfare
The Colliery Engineer
Mine & Quarry Engineering
Mining Journal
Coke and Gas
Master Name Index
Discussion Forums
What's new in the site

Mining History
Colliery Index
Colliery Maps
Company Overviews
Who's Who
Mineral Information
Managers Certificates
Educational Material
Bibliography
Statistics
Workers/Employee Lists
Notes for Family Historians

Disaster Reports
Names of those killed
Disasters in the 1700s
Disasters in the 1800s
Disasters in the 1900s
Memorials
Awards for Gallantry

Links to other sites of interest
Industrial Heritage Days Out
Former www.pitwork.net site

View our Guestbook

Index to site

Contact and address details


 Newspaper Articles Newspaper Articles 
The Times
3rd November 1951

Stone Dusting At Easington

Evidence At Inquiry Into Explosion

Evidence about the laying of stone dust in the pit to allay the danger caused by coal dust was given when the inquiry into the explosion at Easington Colliery, Durham, on May 29 was resumed at Easington yesterday by Mr. H. C. W. Roberts, Chief Inspector of Mines.

John Burnhope, who was in charge of seven dusters, said they worked round a pit in a clockwise direction, sweeping up the coal dust from the roadways and girders and laying stone dust on them. They worked in the district where the explosion took place from April 16 for a fortnight, but ran short of stone dust. They were working again in the district from May 21 for a week. The work was continued on the day before the explosion. On the day of the explosion he had to take up another man's duties. His team had gone into the district to complete their work and were all lost. Forty tons of stone dust a month was used in the mine, a quarter or a third of that in the five-quarter seam where the explosion took place.

Replying to Mr. Roberts, Burnhope said that he had not had a "bad sample" this year (one with a dangerous percentage of combustible matter) from the district in which the explosion occurred.

Thomas Kell, an electrician, said that the new west district, in the explosion area, was the only coal face in the pit where electricity was used. All equipment in the pit was required to be flame proof. That certification did not apply to adaptors made at the colliery. The only machine on which an adaptor had been put was a Duckbill motor (a loading machine used in the explosion area). Although the permission of the Inspector of Mines was required for this, it had not been obtained. It was a machine shop job and made to British standard specifications.

James Adamson, chief electrician, said that because of an oversight on his part permission had not been sought to have the adaptor fitted to the Duckbill machine. Though it was not certified as such, in his opinion it was flame proof. It should have been sent to the research station at Buxton for certification.

The inquiry was adjourned until Monday.

 


Mail:
Webmaster

Back

Home
Copyright © 1999-2008 by The Durham Mining Museum and its contributors
Registered Charity No: 1110608
Page last updated: 01 Jan 2008


Search

Print