Disasters - Names		Disasters - Names

Date:	11th April 1891
Colliery:	Usworth
Cause:	Boiler explosion
Lives Lost:	4

The most serious accident during the year occurred on the 11th April, at the Usworth Colliery, North Durham, the property of Messrs. John Bowes and Partners, Limited, resulting in the immediate death of Joseph Armstrong, fireman, William Bell, fireman, and Thomas Mitchison, mason, and serious injuries to Joseph Greener, mason, and Thomas Tait, mason, the latter of whom subsequently succumbed.

Mr. Cuthbert Berkley was the agent of the colliery, Mr. Charles Wilson Stokoe was the manager, Mr. Robert Carr the under manager, and Mr. George Elwen the engineer.

The exploded boiler was the centre one of three Lancashire boilers placed in the Low Main Seam, for the purpose of generating steam for haulage purposes, and had been in use for about six years. The boilers were of the same dimensions, being 20 ft. long and 6 ft. 6 ins. internal diameter. The flue tubes were 2 ft. 6 ins. internal diameter. They were made of steel, and were originally of sufficient strength and in every way suited for the work required of them, but about two years before the explosion it was discovered that the centre or No. 2 boiler was leaking, and a small patch was put on. Subsequently, and at intervals, all three boilers were leaking, and on examination it was found that the Galloway tubes were pitted, necessitating the removal of some. On an examination being made by Mr. Elwen, about six months previous to the explosion, it was found that considerable corrosion had been going on at the waterline, but it does not appear that any particular care was taken to ascertain the thickness of the plates. Had this been done it is probable that the explosion would not have happened. Mr. Elwen, however, reported the state of affairs to the manager Mr. Stokoe, and they discussed the advisability of giving up the boilers underground and supplying the underground engines with steam from the surface, but the chief reason for this, as given by Mr. Stokoe in his evidence at the inquest, was that the walls of the boiler-seating were being crushed, and not on account of the state of the boilers. About a fortnight before the explosion Mr. Elwen again made an examination, and found that the plates were further deteriorated ; and from this time the leaking was incessant until the 10th April, when it was found difficult to work the boilers at all. The enginewright was engaged at the boilers during the early hours of the morning of the explosion, and reported to M. Elwen that they had had a bad night and that No. 1 boiler was off altogether, whilst the other two were leaking badly.

The deceased Bell, who was then going down the pit to attend to the boilers, was told by Mr. Elwen to see if the boilers had gone worse, and, it so, to draw the fires. Although such a bad report had been made by the enginewright, Mr. Elwen does not appear to have considered it necessary to examine the boilers for himself, but, on the other hand, placed the responsibility of working the boilers or otherwise on the shoulders of an ordinary fireman, who, from his own (Elwen’s) evidence given at the inquiry, had been suspended for allowing the water to get low in this very boiler not more than three months before.

Soon after noon the boiler exploded, with the results above stated.

As to the cause of the rapid corrosion, it transpired that the boilers were fed by water collected in the shafts, both downcast and upcast, and which, on analysis, was proved to contain a considerable quantity of acid.

That Mr. Elwen had some suspicions about the water was shown by his own evidence, for he stated that he discussed the matter with the enginewright two years before the explosion and again eighteen months later, when he found the corrosion was increasing, and when he reported the state of affairs to the manager, Mr. Stokoe. It may be asked why the latter did not take some steps for remedying such a serious state of things, but in his evidence Mr. Stokoe stated no report was made that led him to believe that the boilers were dangerous, but, on the contrary, that they would go for years.

The jury took this view of matter, as will be seen from the accompanying report on their verdict.

After stating that the deceased men had died from injuries — the same being particularised in the individual cases — caused by the explosion of the boiler, the verdict proceeded with respect to the whole. The boiler having being wasted by water containing corrosive acid, was unfit for work, and if properly inspected should have been laid off for repairs. We are of opinion — the jury added in a presentment — that the water being of such a corrosive nature, the boiler needed more than ordinary attention, which, when it was first found by the engineer and the enginewright that the boiler had deteriorated to such an extent, we consider that its condition ought to have rendered necessary a more careful inspection, and when the second examination was made, and it was found that the plate had further deteriorated, proper means ought to have been taken to ascertain what thickness of plate was remaining, which was not done ; and the boiler should have been laid off for repairs at once. We consider the engineer and the enginewright culpable, inasmuch as they did not ascertain and report to the manager the condition of the boiler, which must, in our opinion, have been unsafe at the time of the last examination. We, therefore, consider that Mr. Stokoe, the manager, is not to blame, and that George Elwen (engineer) and Robert Wraith (foreman enginewright), although not guilty of criminal culpability, have exhibited a great want of judgement and care, and we further state that we consider that there is no blame attributable to William Bell (the deceased boiler-miner), as there was no want of water at the time of the explosion.

Mr. Stokoe was, therefore, exonerated from all blame by the jury, and, perhaps on the evidence, they were justified in doing so ; but a different complexion was put on his conduct at a later period, when proceedings were taken against Elwen, by your instructions, for a breach of Special Rule 70, which is as follows :— "He shall, under the direction of the manager, have charge of the engines, boilers, and the whole of the machinery, with its appendages in and about the mine, and all erections on the surface ; and must see that they are kept in thorough and efficient repair, and, when required, securely fenced ; and he shall, as occasion requires, confer with the manager or under manager and foreman enginewright.

The case was heard at the Gateshead County Police Court on the 10th August, before J. M. Redmayne, Esq., and J. G. Hodgson, Esq., when Mr. J. A. Dixon appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State, and Mr. Edward Clark for the defendant, George Elwen.

Mr. Stokoe was called to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution, and in the course of cross-examination denied that any but verbal communications had passed between Elwen and himself, but on the draft of a letter, written by the former, being produced, he finally admitted that he had received it.

The latter was dated March 8th, or about a month before the explosion, and in it the writer drew Mr. Stokoe’s attention to the dangerous state of the boilers, owing to the corrosion caused by the use of pit water, and recommending that the water should be changed at once.

It is difficult to understand why the letter should not have been produced, or at least referred to at the inquest or Board of Trade inquiry, for such an important letter could surely not have escaped Elwen’s memory, although his explanation of its production, namely, that he had come upon it unexpectedly in a book, might be an excuse for not bringing it forward at either of the two courts referred to.

The Bench dismissed the case without any further evidence being called.

It is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that gross carelessness had been shown on the part of all those directly concerned with the management of the colliery, namely, Mr. Stokoe, the manager, Mr. Elwen, the engineer, and the enginewright, and whilst the sad accident ought to teach the two latter officials, and all who hold similar positions, that too great care cannot be exercised in the examination of boilers, it should be a reminder to all managers that the appointment of an engineer does not free them from the responsible charge of the mine and all concerned therewith.

Mr. Stokoe, was, I understand, for some time previous to the accident in a bad state of health, and it is charitable to suppose that he was not able to attend to his duties as usual, for it is difficult to believe that any colliery manager, knowing the serious position of affairs, would not have taken some steps for applying a remedy.

Compensation was paid by the owners to the relatives of the deceased men.

Source:

1891 Mines Inspectors Report (C 6625)

Photograph(s) of the memorial for this disaster are shown in the Memorials section

	Armstrong, Joseph, aged 27, Fireman, explosion of steam boiler underground [Inspection made & Inquest attended] [Sunderland Daily Echo reports: accident - 13 Apr 1891 pg 3 col 3; inquest - 22 May 1891 pg 3 col 4; inquiry - 06 Jun 1891 pg 3 col 5]
	Bell, William, aged 22, Fireman, explosion of steam boiler underground [Inspection made & Inquest attended] [Sunderland Daily Echo reports: accident - 13 Apr 1891 pg 3 col 3; inquest - 22 May 1891 pg 3 col 4; inquiry - 06 Jun 1891 pg 3 col 5]
	Mitchinson, Thomas William, aged 32, Mason, explosion of steam boiler underground [Inspection made & Inquest attended] [Sunderland Daily Echo reports: accident - 13 Apr 1891 pg 3 col 3; inquest - 22 May 1891 pg 3 col 4; inquiry - 06 Jun 1891 pg 3 col 5]
	Tate, Thomas, aged 17, Mason, explosion of steam boiler underground [Inspection made & Inquest attended] [Sunderland Daily Echo reports: accident - 13 Apr 1891 pg 3 col 3; inquest - 22 May 1891 pg 3 col 4; inquiry - 06 Jun 1891 pg 3 col 5]
	All names found

14 Apr 1891

Boiler Explosion (The Times)

 

 Return    Return to Top