TYNYBEDW. Pentre, Glamorganshire. 9th. September, 1895.

The colliery was the property of Messrs. Cory Brothers and Company, Limited. The colliery was opened about twenty years previous and consisted of two shafts each of 15 feet in diameter and 20 yards apart. The shaft accident which claimed the lives of six men.

The colliery was opened about twenty years before the accident and consisted of two shafts, each of 15 feet in diameter and 20 yards apart. The winding shaft, which was also the downcast, was fitted with cages which ran in wire rope guides, three guides to each cage. The upcast shaft had no cage in it but there was a haulage engine at the surface which could wind a barrel or bowk to raise men or water on occasions. The shafts were 240 yards deep to the Nine Feet landing, 318 yards to et Seven Feet landing and 330 yards to the bottom of the sump.

The ventilation was produced by a Waddle fan, 35 feet in diameter, placed at the surface of the upcast shaft. There were steam boilers, underground, near the Nine Feet seam landing and the smoke from the boiler furnaces and exhaust steam from the engines which were used for haulage, mixed with the return air and wen up the upcast shaft.

About 11.30 a.m. on the day of the accident one of the guide ropes broke while the cages were running with coal in the downcast shaft. The cages collided and one of the winding ropes broke at the capping and both cages and guides were so damaged as to make them useless. At the time there were 288 men underground including the manager and steps had to be taken to get them, out of the pit. The scheme was left to the man at the surface as the manager was not there and it was decided to repair the broken winding rope by recapping it and use both ropes in the winding shaft by attaching a bowk to each instead of using the single bowk that was available in the upcast shaft. Another reason for coming to this conclusion was that the upcast shaft could be used to raise water and the danger of flooding the bottom of the downcast shaft would be averted.

About 3 p.m. a bowk about 2 feet 10 inches in diameter at the top and 2 feet 3 inches at the bottom and about 2 feet 9 inches high was attached to the rope and a barrel, rather larger than the bowk, to the other rope and the work of raising men began. One man rode as a “conductor” in charge of the bowk, the men riding inside and the conductor of the edge. For some hours, loads of four, five or six men and lads depending on whether they were large or small were raised safely to the surface. About 8 p.m. when the bowk, containing six men in addition to the conductor was being raised, it caught at a byat supporting the landing of the Nine Feet mine and capsized sending the six men to the bottom of the shaft, a distance of 73 yards. The conductor clung to the bridle chains and was eventually brought to the surface and escaped with slight injuries.

The men who died were all colliers:

  • Ebenezer Morris aged 20 years,
  • Edward Willey aged 24 years,
  • Richard Humfrey aged 31 years,
  • Rees Williams aged 24 years,
  • Thomas Jones aged 28 years,
  • Richard Morris aged 21 years.

At the inquest, Daniel Jones, the conductor told what had happened in the shaft. He said:

I am foreman at the surface at Tynybedw. I was riding on the edge of the bowk. I was standing on the north side. The men scrambled in. I did not say there was room for one more. There was room for six. We had taken six up before. I began to ride about 5 p.m. I think. After the men got in we were lifted up to “the steady.” It steadied the bowk by the guide, the north corner one. I did steady it. William Davies, the hitcher, asked me if I was right and I said, “You can see as well as I.” The signal was given and the bowk started. The bowk did not turn before it started. I did not notice anything wrong until it touched. The bowk turned but did not sway. We were going at the same rate as far as I could see. It touched the south side bean of the Nine Feet landing. The men began to jump and the bowk went flying and I lost my footing. The bowk struck a second time, I cannot say whether the wall or the beams by the sheaves. I did not notice anything wrong before we struck the first time. The bowk was well balanced by having the heaviest man before men. there was no shifting about in the bowk before striking. I am accustomed to riding in bowks. I have not been sinking but a collier. I was then the banksman The bowk was turning round fairly sharply. The men were all inside the bowk. There was no difference in the other rides.

Mr. Robson commented:

In this mode of ascent, where the bowk is not kept in position by guides, it is essential that the bowk should be properly steadied before the start and the evidence of the banksman, the engineman and a fireman who was superintending the sending away of the bowk with men as well as that of two colliers who were eye-witnesses all went to show that this was done. Another collier, whose son was one of the deceased, gave evidence that he was not satisfied as to the steadiness of the bowk when it was dispatched but he was eight or nine yards back from the edge of the shaft at that moment and therefore could not see what took place as well as those who were close to the shaft.

As to how this particular bowk came to oscillate so much as to come into contact with the beam, which was a distance of two feet eleven and a half inches from the edge of the bowk when suspended plumb in the shaft, there is no evidence. If was properly steadied before staring, the oscillation could only have taken place due to the men moving.

The Inspector did not think that there had been a contravention of the Act but at the same time pointed out that it was desirable that all shafts exceeding 100 yards in depth should be fitted in order to avoid the danger of raising underground workmen and boys in bowks

Mr. Robson concluded his report:

With respect to want of guides in the winding shaft and a cover overhead to the bowks used for raising the men when this unfortunate fatality occurred, it seems to me that the most that can be said is that probably a technical contravention was committed but that under the special circumstances of the case this was unavoidable.

 

REFERENCES
The Mines Inspectors Report, 1895. Mr. Robson.
The Colliery Guardian, 13th September 1895, p.499.

Information supplied by Ian Winstanley and the Coal Mining History Resource Centre.

Return to previous page