The Story of Barnbow Pit (1924-1930) Part 2
Back to the Main Historical Society page
Back to the Barwicker Contents page
Back to the Part 1 of the article
The Story of Barnbow Pit (1924-1930)
PART 2 THE DISASTER
from The Barwicker No. 59
When the afternoon shift on Thursday,
April 21st., 1927, settled in to work, all seemed
well at Barnbow. At approximately 4pm in a
heading about 400 yds. north of the two shafts
and towards the outcrop of the Beeston seam in
the highest working point of the pit (the coal
seam dipped south), an Arkwell boring machine was
being used. A Kippax man was operating the
machine along with two assistants and the jib
penetrated about six inches into the face when it
bored into old workings. There was a huge inrush
of water which came from an old gallery of a pit
over 100 years old.
The alarm was given and in a few minutes
the deputy, who by chance was in the heading, had
the men rushing for safety. There were 48 men
working in the pit at this time and due to the
deputy having full control of the situation all
the men got away from the inrush before the mine
was flooded out. The nine ponies working
underground were also rescued, though during the
time they were being lifted to the surface, the
men at the bottom of the shaft were waist deep in
water, but all men and ponies got out safely.
Water from the old workings flooded into
Barnbow Pit at the rate of some 500 gallons per
minute so the entire pit was soon flooded out.
The cages were "middled" but were soon covered in
the flood water. A report from the Yorkshire
Evening Post wrote:
"Standing by the gate at the
top of the shaft at noon today (Friday 22nd), I
could hear far below the swish of water as it
lapped against the beams and girders of the
shaft. On the surface men were making
preliminary preparations for the installation of
the new pumps, those at present in existence
being insufficient to cope with the huge volume
of water."
In this incident 150 men were put out of
work at Barnbow Pit, although Garforth Collieries
Ltd. found employment for about half that number
in the Trench Pit, Garforth.
Colliery officials after surveying the
scene thought that there would be "no great
difficulties in getting the pit back to work",
but estimated that it would take some weeks.
The pit had its own pumping plant which could
only lift water at rate of 150 gallons per minute
and, as the pit was all electrically powered,
these pumps could not be used. It was impossible
to lift any water until new pumping plant could
be installed and this work started in the week
after the inrush. First a concrete foundation
was laid in readiness for the installation of a
steam winch which lowered a high capacity
electric pump down Number 2 Shaft along with all
the necessary pipes and cables.
The submersible pump was made by
Pulsometer Engineering Co. Ltd. and was normally
used in sinking operations. It was working in
the shaft by Friday 25th. April and the water
from the pumping operations was piped to the Cock
Beck. The pump had a tendency to overheat and
had to be switched off at intervals to cool down.
Engineers were lowered down the shaft in a hobbit
(a large iron bucket, also known as a bowk) by
the steam winch to inspect the pump and make
repairs.
Barnbow pit remained flooded until June
9th. when the last of the water was lifted and
four days later an investigation was started into
the cause of the flooding. Plans to get the pit
back to work were put into operations. All
roadways and workings had to be inspected,
damaged or missing pit props were replaced as
the inrush washed some out of place, and the
workings had slurry removed and were made safe.
Electrical and mechanical equipment was brought
to the surface to be cleaned, refurbished and
re-installed. When all this work and safety
checks by HM Inspector of Mines had been carried
out, the pit returned to normal working later in
the summer.
Charges were brought against Garforth
Collieries Ltd; C D Wardle, the manager, and
Albert Mellor, agent, by Mr James Edward Wing for
the Director of Public Prosecutions. They were
summoned to appear at the Leeds West Riding Court
on 18th. October 1927. The case was a complex
one and would take some time to hear. The
Magistrates therefore agreed to adjourn the
hearing until November.
The defendants appeared before the Leeds
West Riding Court on Friday 11th, November 1927
to answer charges for an alleged breach of the
Coal Mines Act, 1911. The action was taken under
Section 68 which provides that where any working
had approached to within 40 yards of a place
containing, or likely to contain, an
accumulation of water, or of old workings not
ascertained to be free of water, there should be
an advanced bore-hole and flanking bore holes.
Mr J E Wing of Sheffield appeared for the
Director of Public Prosecutions and Mr W Stewart,
instructed by Messrs. Scatchard, Hopkins and
Brighouse, for the defendants.
Mr Wing first described the inrush of
water and the way the men and ponies were got out
of the pit without injury. He spoke of the
investigation party: Mr H M Hudspeth, Divisional
Inspector of Mines; Mr G Cook, Inspector of
Mines, and Sir Richard Redmaine for the
defendants, who made a close inspection of the
plans and went into the pit on the 13th. June.
At the point of the inrush the party found the
thickness of coal between the old and new
workings to be from 9 to 13 inches. The party
was able to travel 98yds. westwards along an old level but they were
stopped by black damp. Along another one they
were stopped by a fall some 12yds. along.
It was found that no boring had taken
place at all in spite of the fact that between
the Barcelona outcrop and the Cock Beck, old pits
were shown on the map and there was evidence on
the surface that coal had been mined there. The
defendants, Mr Wing submitted, "Could easily have
proved the existence of those old coal workings
in the vicinity and where the shafts actually
were. They could have explored one of the shafts
and then known whether they went into the
Barcelona seam or, as they undoubtedly did, into
the Beeston seam."
Mr Wing continued by saying that the
defendants stated that the old shafts were
assumed to have been sunk to work the Barcelona
seam and not the Beeston, and, on that
assumption, no attempt was made to find plans.
Careful consideration was given to all the plans
and data of the area available before Barnbow was
sunk and, on the plan, the whole of the coal was
shown to be solid to within 30 yds. of the
outcrop.
The case for the prosecution rested on the
theory that some of the pits went down to the
Beeston seam and that, noting their position on
the survey, the defendants should have suspected
old workings in the Beeston seam and caused bore
holes to be made as directed by Section 68 or, in
default of the latter, should have ascertained
the depth of the pits.
The defendants submitted:
- 1. That the coalfields of which their
area formed a part had been worked by the
vendor's family (Col Gascoigne) for many
generations and that he and his immediate
predecessors had themselves worked the Beeston
seam to the boundary of the Barnbow area.
- 2. That with a view to working it
themselves, the vendor in 1911 had a plan made
for the whole of the Barnbow area.
- 3. That this plan was accepted by
Garforth Collieries as showing the limits of
their purchase and that upon it the Beeston seam
is marked as "solid coal". (This plan was
produced in Court and was referred to by counsel
on both sides and the bench.)
- 4. That in view of the vendors intimate
knowledge of the coalfields, they were justified
in accepting his statement as to the solidity of
the Beeston seam in the area they had purchased
and in regarding the "old pits" as bell pits
which penetrated no lower than the Barcelona
seam.
The Magistrate summed up the case:
"The
existence of old workings in the Beeston seam was
merely surmised from appearances on the surface.
We have examined a number of the pits and are
satisfied that they are all bell pits of the type
commonly found in the outcrops of the West
Yorkshire seams and we found no evidence to
suggest that any of them had been to the depth of
the Beeston seam. In our opinion the evidence
presented by the prosecution fails to show that
the defendants had reason to suspect the
existence of water or of old workings in the
Beeston seam within the area required and we
therefore find that they have not infringed the
provision of Section 68 of the Mines Act of
1911."
Mr Stewart for the defendants applied for
costs and the bench awarded 100 guineas.
In the 1927 reports of H M Inspector of
Mines, Yorkshire Division, Mr H M Hudspeth,
Divisional Inspector of Mines, wrote of the
Barnbow inrush: "Although it was well known that
sooner or later old workings must be encountered,
no boring operations were carried out . . . . .
Joining several of the old coal pits there was
clearly shown on the 6in. geological plan a
'supposed water level' which at its eastern
extremity overlapped for distance of 300 yds. the
western extremity of an old road shown on the
working plan in the colliery office and known to
be in the Beeston seam joining up a line of old
coal pits extending farther eastwards Although
this 'supposed water level' was shown on the 6in.
geological plan as south of the calculated
outcrop of the Barcelona, it is clearly in the
Beeston seam and should not have been assumed as
existing in the Barcelona."
Mr Hudseth wrote later in the report;
" It
is difficult to postulate, as a result of going
over the surface, as to which seam has been
worked to any particular shaft, and that the
safety of workmen should not depend merely on
unconfirmed opinion, particularly when the means
of confirmation is readily available".
The next incident at Barnbow Pit happened
on the 11th. March, 1928, when the cage was over
wound. Two men had been cleaning out the shaft
sump, the overwinding gear had been disengaged to
allow the cage down in to the sump and had not
been re-engaged by the winding engineman when the
two men wanted to return to the surface. The
winding engineman started the electric winder in
the wrong direction and he did not notice what he
had done until the surface cage had been wound
45ft. and was suspended in the headgear with the
hook detached. He then realised his mistake and
stopped the motor. The engineman was later
reprimanded by the colliery managers.
Back to the top
Back to the Main Historical Society page
Back to the Part 1 of the article