The importance of properly bonded rail joints has received the attention of The National Research Council, whose committee will investigate several methods now used and determine the merits of each as applied to street railways. The results of this investigation should be appreciated no less by the mining industry. Literature on the subject of bonding mine tracks agrees, as a rule, "that the work is poorly done." With present day facilities there is little excuse for inadequate track conductivity, and a job well done must be maintained in order to realize results. Many years ago The Union Pacific Coal Company installed their first haulage locomotive, and at that time used the channel pin bond for joining the rails. The system utilized 500 volts and the, relatively small current for a large amount of power, undoubtedly, contributed to the success of the system. The bonding of both rails was considered imperative in those days, while now the bonding of one, rail is considered sufficient in most instances. The recent installations utilizing 250 volts and correspondingly heavier currents required a more effective method of joining the rails for use as an electrical conductor. The company has used the arc-weld bond since its introduction in 1919. The art of electric welding found great favor for various methods of doing the work. The first arc-weld bonds were placed on the outside of they ball of the rail, but the bonds were ill-adapted to rails lighter than sixty pounds per yard, and the results were that grooved locomotive wheels or derailed cars removed the bonds. Familiarity with the process of electric welding brought forth numerous schemes for joining the rails. In one, instance the rails and splice-plates were welded together and with excellent results for a short time. Track movement and vibration finally broke the welds and the method was dis¬carded. Another scheme consisted of placing a channel pin over each end of an annealed copper wire about twenty inches long. The idea was to develop some way of using short lengths of scrap wire. The pin and wire were then welded to the base of the rail. Numerous joints made in this way are still intact, but successful welds were so exceptional that the practice was abandoned. Some of these bonds were welded to the web of the rail, with the result that practically all rails broke at the weld; however, this is our only record of broken rails with arc-welded bonds. At one time a quantity of No. 2 bare iron wire wasp available and was tried as a bond and proved very satisfactory. Two or three strands twenty inches long were used and were welded to the base of the rail. The method was cheap and effective and of some merit for light rails on temporary track. The use of iron wire was criticized because it did not give a balanced circuit; that is, one having equal carrying capacity for trolley and track circuits; and I am of the opinion that this is not always necessary. The total length of bond that is in circuit is so small that it contributes very little additional resistance to the complete circuit consisting of trolley wire, rails and bonds.
The subject of my few remarks addressed to the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, "Guessing or Knowing! Which," may perhaps suggest but little to you here today. However, I am sure you will all agree with me when I say that in the conduct of a coal mining operation there should be no choice between guessing and knowing. The value of, and the results to be obtained from this Institute, its meetings and printed transactions, as well as those of other similar educational organizations, depend very largely on the mental attitude of those who constitute, through their pronouncements, the more active portion of the membership. Perhaps the most apt criticism that is now being made of the coal industry is that, to an extent possibly exceeding any other industry of similar magnitude and importance, it depends for its conduct altogether too much on "rule of thumb" and "tradition," rather than on proven practice and actual fact. The records of our coal mining association meetings bear expression of many conflicting opinions, the majority of which are sincerely put forth by those expressing same as representing the facts; the extremes expressed, however, frequently fix the question raised as one yet located in "no man's land." There are yet too many chances taken we are still "weighing pounds on railroad track scales" and measuring yards with the proverbial "bit of string." The actual expense of conducting any one of the several operations incident to the production of coal is rarely determined, and in many instances the general cost figures, prepared some weeks after the work is complete, are of that sweeping character that very little can be abstracted therefrom. Many coal companies are now making a daily cost sheet, showing the cost of labor and material in detail, as used in the several related operations,, and such is decidedly helpful, particularly to the mine superintendent and his foreman, who, without such, sail an uncharted sea; the auditor's belated monthly summary rarely ever seen by these men who are held responsible for the labor and material used. I have made reference to this situation as an accentuation of the fact that the coal industry contains more "serious minded, conscientious guessers" than does any other similar industry, although the annual cost of our product runs up well beyond the billion dollar mark, and what is more important, our industry is one that still continues to exact a heavy toll of human life. Now this brings me to the question of safety, the one question that should be, and which is, I know, uppermost in your minds. The coal mining world, engineering and operating, is now well sold on at least two things the theory of using permissible explosives and the elimination of the open light. Furthermore, the industry, particularly that portion which is located in Great Britain and the United States and Canada, are now planning vast extensions of the use of "rock" or "shale dust," both in the form of "dust barriers" and in "direct application" to entries and cross-cuts. This is well; however,, my study of past mine explosions has convinced me that the great majority of such had their very beginning in gas accumulations; frequently originating in restricted areas at the working face, in abandoned worked-out areas, or in some other certain place where ventilation is not, maintained as it should be; and that again leads me to the point where it can again be well said, that there is too much "rule of thumb," too much guessing now being done in regard to the volume of air required, and continuously furnished, in a given entry,, panel, room or area. Just to emphasize this situation, is it not a fact that the majority of mine inspectors express the ventilation conditions as measured by them, in terms of cubic feet per man employed, in each certain split, and does not the mining laws of many states yet demand a minimum of "100 or 150 cubic feet
The 1933 meeting will be held in Denver in May or June, the exact date to be announced later. If you have any suggestions for the place or program, send them to the Secretary at once.
PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Before we open the discussion on the Utah mining laws, I want to bring out what I consider a slight misunderstanding on some of the things that I said this forenoon relative to our comparison of accidents. I did not mean to infer that we, as mine officials, are satisfied we have done the best we can to eliminate the accidents, when I was talking about a four-to- one comparison. I do not want any- one to get the idea in their heads that I do not think we are doing all we can. There is not any of us who can state that, even if we better these figures. It is the general understanding that these figures are based upon ratios per thousand man shifts and not upon the tonnage basis that we use. If it were based upon a tonnage basis, I think the figures would be pretty nearly reversed, for we are producing from two to four tons more per man than they do in Great Britain. The discussion will now be continued as I said this morning. There is a gentleman in the audience here that is as guilty of making these laws as I was, and I am quite sure when speaking he will confine himself to the subject of Utah Mining Laws and the prospective results. Before Mr. Monay starts with his paper, I want it understood that this discussion must be finished by 2:30 for the reason that we have still quite a lot of business before us this afternoon.
The production capabilities of today?s longwall systems have resulted in significant increases in retreat rates. This has in turn resulted in a heightened demand on panel development rates to assure that subsequent panels are completed in time to avoid a longwall production outage. As a means of reducing the pressure on the panel development activity a trend has developed towards the use of wider face lengths. The aim of using a wider face is to reduce the longwall retreat rate without sacrificing productivity and thereby reduce the pressure on increasing panel development rates. However, as the face width increases so too does the number of hydraulically powered roof supports that are required to control the longwall face roof. This increase in the number of units inherently translates into increases in the level of required maintenance relative to the multitude of mechanical and hydraulic components, and an increase in the time required for tear-down and installation time during the moves between panels. An obvious method of mitigating the maintenance and move-time impacts of wider faces is to employ the use of individual roof supports having a wider center-to-center spacing. This practice would serve to minimize the number of roof supports and maximize the time availability for longwall face production. With this target in mind a joint research project with DBT was initiated in 1998 to study the feasibility of using 2 m wide shields to replace the then standard 1.75 m wide shields. After four years of comprehensive work, the technical team from DBT and RAG American Coal completed the design and development of a prototype shield that would later become part of the world?s widest longwall face employing the use of shields having a spacing of +2 meters. The final spacing of the shields actually became 2.058m in order to match the standard pitch of the rack bar shearer haulage elements on the conveyor. In July 2002, the 2 m wide shields were successfully installed in LW-46 panel at RAG Cumberland mine in the U. S. The authors in this paper summarize the design considerations of and operational experiences with the world?s widest longwall face using +2 meter wide roof supports.
Track Bonding