Disasters - Names		Disasters - Names

Date:	19th November 1893
Colliery:	Bigrigg, Croft Pit (Metalliferous)
Cause:	Shaft Accident
Lives Lost:	1

Four fatal accidents, or one-third of the total number, occurred in shafts, and they were all of a preventable nature, two being caused either by neglect of, or misunderstanding of, signals, one by a rail being dropped down the pit, and the fourth by the breakage of a hemp "crab" rope. This latter case once more illustrates the necessity of having some compulsory rule for the examination of the plant and appliances about the mines, for under the present Act there is no provision whatever for such inspection, although so many valuable lives depend upon the soundness and efficiency of the appliances in use. The accident in Question occurred at Croft Pit, Bigrigg, belonging to Lord Leconfield; and it will, perhaps, be desirable to give a report of the inquest held on the body of the deceased, not only to emphasise the remarks I have already made with respect to the amendment of the present Act, but with a view to drawing the attention of all those who are engaged in the management of the mines to the necessity of taking special care in the examination of one of the most important articles in use about a mine. The report of the inquest is taken from the "Whitehaven News" of November 23rd 1893.

THE INQUEST.

THE ROPE EXHIBITED, AND SHOWN TO BE ROTTEN.

THE INSPECTOR CALLS ATTENTION TO AN IMPORTANT AMENDMENT WANTED IN THE METALLIFEROUS MINES ACT.

An inquest was held on Tuesday afternoon, at the Seacote Hotel, before Mr. Gordon Falcon, coroner, and a jury, of whom Mr. John Mossop was chosen foreman.-Mr. J. L. Hedley, H.M. Inspector of Mines in charge of this district, was in attendance; and Mr. Davidson, manager of the mine, was also present. Mr. Webster represented Lord Leconfield.-The jury having viewed the body, the first witness called was Joseph Pattinson. He deposed: I work at Bigrigg iron ore mines, which belong to Lord Leconfield. I was working there on Sunday last, in company with William Jenkinson. We were working as joiners at a new shaft they are sinking, which was about 70 fathoms. We were working on Sunday in the shaft, putting a stage in for a lead ring to go round the shaft, for the purpose of collecting water. We were down at the depth of some 36 fathoms. We went down on a vat. There was a cradle, consisting of a staging supported by four chains attached to the end of the rope, from the top of the shaft. We had been on this staging for about an hour and a half, and had been raised up and lowered down several times. We were going down when the rope gave way. I seized a plank across the shaft and held on, and I had to hold on there until assistance came. The deceased fell with the cradle to the bottom of the shaft, a distance of over 30 fathoms. I could not see how much rope came down with us. I had never worked on this cradle before. We have used this rope before, but never for the same purpose. I would consider that the rope was strong enough to hold a hundred of us, if it had been sound. It was thick enough. We examined the rope as it went down the pit, and we did not notice anything wrong with it. We took it out of the joiners' shop, where it was kept, on Thursday; and Jenkinson put it on to the crab winch himself. I have since examined the place where it gave way. It is a break, not a cut. I never saw it tested with any weight, except when putting up the head-gear ; there would not be a great deal of weight on it then. I should think as great a length would then be used as was used on Thursday. I know nothing about the age of the rope, or anything of that kind. Mr. Hough, overman, was there on the Sunday. The winch was worked by hand at the top. We signalled to the surface, and they raised us or lowered us as we desired.-By Mr. Hedley: The weight of the cradle and the four chains, and us two together, would be about 4 cwt. Since this rope had been put on, on Thursday, we had no heavier weight on, and it had not been tested in any way. I did not see the rope on Thursday. I did not examine the rope myself to see what state it was in. Mr. Hough generally examined these things, and so did Jenkinson. Mr. Hough told him to be careful about the rope. There were two ropes, and Mr. Hough asked Jenkinson which he would have. Jenkinson said he would rather have the old one, as it was softer and more pliable on the crab ; when there isn't a big weight a new rope is bad to lap. The joiners' shop is a dry place, with a good draught through it. The rope had not been used since it was used for putting up the head-gearing. I had nothing to do with the examination of the rope. I trusted to Jenkinson, who was in charge of the work, and who was over me.-By the Coroner: I heard Mr. Hough tell Jenkinson to thoroughly examine the rope as he put it on to the crab.-By Mr. Webster. I believe the rope was brought in a cart, on Wednesday, from the joiners' shop. I saw the rope when it was put into the cart, but was busy at the time. I did not see it put on to the winch.-By the jury. The rope was not tested when it was put on to the winch. When we signalled the men at the top we were let down very gently. There was no fault in the lowering. We were let down by the engine to a certain point, and then got on to the staging.-John Marsh deposed : The deceased is my half-brother. His name is William Jenkinson, and his age 39. He leaves a widow and one child. Beyond identifying the body, I know nothing about the circumstances of this accident.-By Mr. Webster. He was a careful, steady, and circumspect man, and had been engaged at these mines for several years.-William Graham deposed: I live at Bigrigg. I am a banksman, and was working the crab-winch at the top of the shaft on Sunday. Postlethwaite was working with me. We let the deceased and Pattinson down. They got on to the cradle at 15 fathoms first, and they were working for about an hour and a half, and had several times eight fathoms more rope than the depth at which the rope broke. I examined the rope as it left the winch, and saw nothing ail it. It broke close up to the winch, like the snap of a gun. There was nothing to cut the rope at the place where it broke, it broke about a foot off the barrel of the winch. With the exception of them two selves, there had been nothing on the rope that morning. It looked like a new rope. I would have had no hesitation in going down on the rope. It is the usual thickness used for this purpose. Mr. Hedley:That depends on the weight it has to carry, of course. You are only speaking of this particular case, not of pits and work in general.-Witness:No, but for work of this kind. I had used the rope that broke on Sunday, with Jenkinson, several times, putting pipes in. I was working the winch, and Jenkinson was working, not with Pattinson, but Thomas Holmes as a mate. That would be about three weeks ago, last time. But they were never quite so far in as this. - The Coroner: Pattinson said the rope had never been used since it was used for putting in the head-gear?.- Witness: But he was not there. That was another job. They only used about 20 fathoms on those occasions. A man named Isaac Wilson was helping me at the winch at that job. There was no fault with the rope then. Joseph Prince also worked with me one Sunday when the rope was used for this purpose. The rope is examined every time it is put on.-By Mr. Hedley: When the rope was used on previous Sundays, it was used at that pit, not at other pits. I am very near positive it is the same rope. I think it is the same rope from its appearance. I cannot swear to it. I cannot tell whether any particular person is appointed to examine the rope. I examined the rope that morning. Before the men went down I looked at it every length as it was paid out. Anybody can see a broken strand. Could you see the rope was good, bad, or indifferent, except for broken strands, by simply looking at it?-Yes, I think I could. The rope could not catch anything. It was simply the weight of the cradle and the men on it that broke it. I examined the broken end of the rope afterwards. I don't know what I think about that. The rope was right enough; at least I think so, but I would not like to say to a thing like that, you know. I don't know much about ropes.-By Mr. Webster: I think the rope was the same that I had used on previous Sundays, but I won't swear. I did not know that the rope was kept at the joiner's shop.-James Hough deposed: I am an overman at Bigrigg Pits. I was the overman in charge on Sunday last. Jenkinson and Pattinson descended the pit under my instructions that day. The rope that was used on Sunday is kept at the joiner's shop, some distance away from the pit. I had some conversation with the deceased on the Monday before as to which rope he should use. We were talking about this job, and I asked him which rope he would have, the hard one or the soft one. We had a hard one and a soft one, and I gave him his option which he would have. He decided to take the soft rope; that was the rope they had on. The deceased had used that rope before, 12 months gone August since. That was for putting up the head-gear at the top of the shaft. It had never been used since then till now. It is not a fact that it has been used there several Sundays lately by Jenkinson and another man. We have no other soft rope that laps so easily on the winch and that the winchman might take for the same rope. The rope was used for putting up the head-gear, and was used once before that. It was there when I went there, about six years ago. It never seemed to have been much used. I gave Jenkinson instructions to examine the rope well as he put it on the winch.-By the Coroner: After a rope has been lying past for a long time like that do you never test them?-Witness: I have never seen it done.-Is there any way you do test them? Not that I am aware of.-A rope with the greatest care might deteriorate?-Yes, it might ; but I always thought if you kept a rope dry you could not do anything more.-Portions of the rope were at this point produced.-Mr. S. Graves, one of the jury, said that was where the fault was, the rope was rotten, and as he spoke he demonstrated that it was rotten by breaking loose strands of it. Perhaps its 50 years old, Mr. Graves added.-The Coroner presented a piece of the rope to witness and asked him to fray it, and asked what he thought of it?-Witness said when you got into the rope that way it was a bad rope.-The Coroner: That is rotten.-Witness said that part of the rope might have been in water.-The Government Inspector handed a portion of rope taken from the barrel, which he said would never have been in the water.-Witness said the strands should not be made in that way. He would call that a bad rope, examining it that way. That rope should have carried a ton if it had been sound.- The Coroner: Having examined the rope, can you give any other explanation than that the rope broke because it was rotten?-Witness: No, I can't, after examining it like that.-The Government Inspector frayed a piece of the rope, and showed that it would tear to pieces with the fingers easily, being quite rotten .-The Coroner questioned witness about the ropes and the length of time they were used. He replied that he did not know anything about the stores. He used what was given him. This rope should bear a good deal more than a ton and a half when it was new. The rope at the particular place it gave way must have been extremely rotten, to give way with 4 cwt.-By Mr. Hedley: It is six years since I went there, and the rope has been there the whole time. I saw the rope put away in August. It was then dry. When it was used for pumping purposes the rope was damp, but not wet. It was put on boards and properly dried before being put away. I cannot account for the rope becoming rotten. I cannot say whether it must have been damaged before I came six years ago. I am responsible for these ropes. I could not say whether I have to examine them. Nobody examines the hemp ropes except those who are going to use them, and me. I saw the rope on the winch on Sunday, but did not pull it off to examine it. -The Government Inspector: There's an old adage that what's everybody's business is nobody's business, and if nobody in particular has to examine the ropes they will never be examined. If you are responsible for the ropes, why do you leave it to the men to select their own?-Witness: The deceased had as much experience of the ropes as me. The rope that was used was much softer and not so long.- Haven't you a way of testing a hemp rope by cutting a bit off at the end to test it?-Witness: No, I never cut a bit off.-Do you know what the breaking strain of this rope would be when new?-Witness : I should say about 7 tons.-Mr. Hedley said the working strain was from 23 to 33 cwt., and the breaking strain was from 11 to 16 tons, according to Moulsworth.-Witness, replying to further questions, said if anybody said this rope had been used on previous Sundays, they were mistaken. He was satisfied that the rope produced at the place where it had broken had broken because it was rotten; he could not say anything else. There was no sign of any cut about it.-By Mr. Webster: This rope would get a certain amount of dampness in putting the pumps in. It was used for that purpose for several days. I am quite certain we dried it after that in the engine-house floor. It would be in the engine house drying, with a good through draught, for a week. It was then put away until it was used for the head-gear, when it was dried again after being used. The deceased selected the soft rope; he preferred it. He was an experienced man, and had been using ropes quite frequently, and in our pits.-By the Coroner: When I went down to the bottom of the shaft, after the breaking of the rope, I found deceased quite dead.-The Coroner: is there anybody who can speak to the age of this rope?-Mr. Webster: No, I have tried to trace it, but I cannot.-Mr. Hedley, sworn, said he visited the Bigrigg pits this morning. The pieces of rope produced were what he took from a rope shown to him as having been that used at the time of the accident. He took a piece from the fractured end, and also a piece 15 yards above. He took other four pieces haphazard from the remainder of the rope. Those were the six pieces produced. He considered the rope rotten to the core, and the fact of it having broken as it did showed that it was rotten, to break with 4 cwt. on it, when it ought to have a breaking strain of at least 10 tons. There was no difficulty in examining a rope. He did not approve of testing by weights, but a rope could be safely examined by other means, one of which was to cut off a piece of the end and fray the strands.-The Coroner: is there no provision under the Metalliferous Mines Act for the inspection of these ropes?-Mr. Hedley: Unfortunately there is not; and that is a point I should very much like to see drawn attention to more prominently. Under the Metalliferous Mines Act there is no obligation on any person whatever to examine ropes or machinery.-The Coroner: Neither ropes nor machinery?-Mr. Hedley: Neither ropes nor machinery. It is a very important point. It ought to be deputed to some competent person to examine these things daily; and until that is done it will be impossible to prevent occurrences of this kind. As I said before, what is everybody's duty is nobody's duty, and unless somebody is appointed for that particular purpose, the thing never gets properly done.-The Coroner: Under the Coal Mines Act these things have to be examined? -Mr. Hedley: Yes.-Mr. Webster: The pity is that the Coal Mines Act does not apply to metalliferous mines-Mr. Hedley: I should hope to see, before long, a still more stringent Act for metalliferous mines. There is very little doubt in my mind that the rope must have been put by at some period of its existence in a moist state. It is mildewed, there is not the slightest doubt about it. I don't doubt what the last witness has stated about drying it and putting it away in a dry state. But it may have been damper than he imagined. It might apparently be dry. The engine-house was not always dry itself. I don't dispute his word for a moment. He probably thought he did what was best under the circumstances; but he may have erred like all the rest of us do occasionally.-The Coroner said the jury had now heard all the evidence in this case. They must not do anything to prejudice any question between the relatives and the owners of this mine in regard to any question of employers' liability. That was a matter that did not come within their province and the scope of their inquiry. What they had to inquire was how, when, and by what means this man came by his death, and whether any person was culpably responsible for his death. There could not be the slightest doubt that the man had come by his death in the pit shaft, not from any undue strain upon this rope, but from the absolute rottenness of the rope. The rope was evidently thoroughly rotten, and rotten to the core. It certainly did seem to him to be a very strange thing that a rope-they did not know the age of the rope, but it was not a new rope six years ago, that was certain-after having been used once three years ago, it was never used again till 12 months last August; and it certainly did seem to him to be strange procedure, it might be what was common in mines, or not, he did not know, but it did seem an extraordinary thing when a rope was used after having been lying away all these months, that some means were not taken to test the soundness of the rope before there were entrusted to it a lot of human lives. Mr. Hedley told them there were simple means of testing the goodness or badness of a rope. However, it seemed that under the Metalliferous Mines Act it did not appear to be anybody's duty; and, although the overman considered himself responsible for the rope, he merely saw it when it was coiled on the barrel, and asked deceased to examine it before he put it on. Of course, the examination by deceased himself when putting it on the barrel, would not be such as would test the rottenness of the rope. As Mr. Hedley had said, and it really was a most important thing, there ought to be some provision in the Metalliferous Mines Act making it obligatory that some competent person should be made responsible for the examination both of the ropes and of the machinery. If, as Mr. Hedley said, there was no competent person whose special duty it was to do these sort of things, they did not get done at all, and this was the inevitable result. There was no duty cast upon the overman by the Act which he had neglected, but there was no doubt that it was while working in this shaft that the deceased met his death from the breaking of a rope, which was a rotten rope, and would not bear 4 cwt., when its breaking strain was at least 10 tons.-The jury having been left to themselves for a few minutes to consider their verdict, returned a verdict that the deceased came to his death by the breaking of a rotten rope whilst following his occupation in the shaft of a mine, and the jury wished to express their opinion that proper inspection of machinery and ropes under the Metalliferous Mines Act ought to be provided.-The Coroner said he would forward that recommendation to the Home Office.

Source:

1893 Mines Inspectors Report (C 7339)

	Jenkinson, William, aged 39, Joiner, Deceased and another man were working on a cradle in the shaft, when the crab rope, which was made of hemp, and unfit for use, broke, and deceased fell to the bottom, a distance of about 36 fathoms [Inspection made & inquest attended]
	All names found

23 Nov 1893

The Inquest, The Rope Exhibited, and shown to be rotten, The Inspector calls attention to an important amendment wanted in the Metalliferous Mines Act (Whitehaven News)

 

 Return    Return to Top