NA TURE 



{^Nov. 4, 1 886 



raised by the shot be ignited so readily and carry on the 

 flame so rapidly that it may produce explosive effects of 

 a similar character to those caused by a gas explosion. 

 The flame as it rushes along, if fed by freshly raised dust, 

 may extend under these circumstances to very consider- 

 able distances, with results resembling, in their disastrous 

 nature, those of explosions originating with, and mainly 

 due to, fire-damp. This conclusion is very greatly 

 strengthened by the evidence which the Messrs. Atkinson 

 ha\e brought together in the book before us. Their work 

 indeed constitutes the most formidable indictment against 

 coal-dust as a cause of colliery explosions which has yet 

 been drawn up. In their capacity of Inspectors they 

 have investigated with the most patient care the circum- 

 stances connected with what we may call six typical 

 explosions. These were — 



jC^Q Name of colliery Deaths 



Sept. 8 Seaham 164 



I • Seams affected 



2.20 a.m. Maudlin and 

 Hutton 



2.30 p.m. Harvey 



1.15 a.m. Brockvvell 



l.o a. in. Basty 



II. 15 p.m. Main Band 



Fell. i5 Ti'imdon Grange 



April 18 Tudhoe 



April 19 West Stanley 



April 25 Whitehaven 



1^35 



March 2 Usworth 42 8. 58 p.m. Maudlin 



All the explosions with the exception of that at White- 

 haven were in the county of Durham. It would be quite 

 impossible in the space at our disposal to follow the suc- 

 cessive steps in the minute analysis to which the authors 

 have subjected each of these explosions. We should 

 require, moreover, many of the numerous plans of the 

 colliery workings with which the book is illustrated were 

 we to attempt such a task. All that can now be done is 

 to point out the characteristic features of the several 

 explosions, and to indicate the general conclusions which 

 the authors draw from the consideration of the various 

 circumstances connected with them. We are conscious 

 that in some respects this method of treating their work 

 hardly does justice to the authors. It fails to convey any 

 idea of the thoroughly scientific manner in which the 

 Messrs. Atkinson's investigations have been conducted ; 

 of the minute and painstaking mode of their observation ; 

 or of the care and skill with which their deductions have 

 been made. The authors, even in the earlier pages of 

 the book, make their position in regard to the question 

 of Gas versus Dust perfectly clear, but not even the most 

 prejudiced opponent of the dust hypothesis can complain 

 of the manner in which the evidence is presented. 



The Durham explosions presented many features in 

 common. In the first place no accumulations of gas 

 were known to exist in quantity sufficient to cause the 

 widespread destruction which happened, nor were such 

 accumulations considered possible. In all these explo- 

 sions the downcast shafts were more or less damaged. 

 At Trimdon Grange, Tudhoe, West Stanley, and Usworth 

 the explosions did not cross the downcast shafts ; these 

 were wet, and the roadways near them were damp. At 

 Seaham the shaft was dry, and the explosion crossed it 

 and extended far beyond it. In all cases the violence 

 and arae of the explosions were confined to roads on 

 which there was much coal-dust. The explosions were 

 most violent in the intake and haulage roads, or between 

 the downcast shafts and lamp-stations, /.<>. in places where 



practically no gas was to be expected, and where naked 

 lights were in constant use. The path of the explosion 

 was in all cases that of the fresh air traversing the pit : 

 in no case did it extend by means of the return air-way 

 The return air-ways carry oft' the gases evolved in the pit, 

 but are practically free from dust. In certain of the 

 intake air-ways at Seaham and Usworth no coals were 

 led, and they were consequently comparatively free from 

 coal-dust : no traces of the explosions were observed in 

 these roads. The explosions were in many cases arrested 

 where the haulage roads were wet. In no instance did 

 the explosion ascend or descend vertically through staples 

 or shafts communicating with other planes of workings. 

 If the explosions were due to gas, their extension would 

 not be influenced by the direction of a communicating 

 passage ; on the other hand, very little coal-dust collects 

 in vertical passages. In almost every case of an explosion 

 which could with certainty be attributed to fire-damp, 

 there is evidence that men have been alarmed and have 

 attempted to escape from the workings before the actual 

 occurrence of the disaster : in all the five Durham ex- 

 plosions there was no indication that any movements had 

 taken place amongst the men suggestive of alarm ; their 

 bodies were found in the places where their work required 

 them to be, close to their tools and lamps. 



At Seaham, Tudhoe, West Stanley, and Usworth the 

 explosions were simultaneous with the firing of shots in 

 stone ; in these cases the explosions occurred when the 

 pits were occupied by stonemen and repairers and at the 

 only time when the operations of the mines allowed the 

 firing of shots. At Seaham, Tudhoe, and Usworth the 

 shots were fired on a main intake air-road and at points 

 where currents of air of between 20,000 and 30,000 cubic 

 feet per minute were passing. At West Stanley the shof 

 was fired, in stone, at a working place by a naked flame, 

 and the air in the vicinity w'ould probably contain a small 

 quantity of fire-damp, but not sufficient in amount to show 

 its presence in the safety-lamp or by itself to be explosive. 

 In the other cases it is almost impossible to conceive that 

 the air could contain any sensible quantity of gas. At 

 Seaham it would be necessary to assume that the gas 

 came down the shaft, or that there were three separate 

 and simultaneous outbursts of it on the three main roads 

 diverging from the shaft. At Tudhoe, where the air came 

 direct from the surface by two shafts, it would be necessary 

 to assume two separate and simultaneous outbursts. At 

 Usworth the air had passed no working place, and could 

 hardly have contained even a trace of fire-damp. At 

 West Stanley no appreciable quantity of gas could be 

 present in the main intakes, although a small quantity 

 might be contained in the air near the place where the 

 shot was fired. 



There remains the Trimdon Grange explosion, which, 

 was unconnected with shot-firing. There was distinct 

 evidence that it originated with the ignition of gas at the 

 light of a boy engaged at a pump in connection with some 

 drowned workings from which gas was found to issue 

 and that it extended with great force to parts of the pit 

 more than a mile distant from its origin along the main 

 intake air-ways. 



Now all the circumstances connected with the Durham 

 disasters make it almost certain that the main agent in 

 the propagation of the explosion was dust, and in three 



