|
Post by colly0410 on Nov 3, 2012 12:56:21 GMT -5
My Dad worked at Bestwood workshops for 25 years, some of the time on the trepaner reconditioning section. He always said that trepaners were better than shearers (well he would say that wouldn't he, ;D) I was neutral on the matter. However the two pits I worked down (Moorgreen & Hucknall) both used shearers, (Hucknall had an experimental plough face in the deep soft, but it wasn't considered a success). So what are the advantages & disadvantages of the two?
|
|
|
Post by John on Nov 3, 2012 13:59:12 GMT -5
The trepanner was for large coal, household industrial, and for coke ovens. The shearer is a higher capacity machine designed for cutting "small" coal for power stations and coking ovens. Today's modern shearers haul at high speeds, try a fast walk!! You'd never keep up with them on top haulage speeds on your knees!!
I don't think anyone manufactures trepanners or trepan shearers anymore.
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Nov 4, 2012 11:47:39 GMT -5
My Dad worked at Bestwood workshops for 25 years, some of the time on the trepaner reconditioning section. He always said that trepaners were better than shearers (well he would say that wouldn't he, ;D) I was neutral on the matter. However the two pits I worked down (Moorgreen & Hucknall) both used shearers, (Hucknall had an experimental plough face in the deep soft, but it wasn't considered a success). So what are the advantages & disadvantages of the two? In what context did your father believe the trepanner to be better than the shearer, also which trepanners and which shearers was he comparing, did he mean in terms of working on to repair them or in their performance?
|
|
|
Post by colly0410 on Nov 4, 2012 14:31:35 GMT -5
When Dad was on trepaner section he used to go on the odd face visits to see them in the wild, & boss's would sing there praises to him. Some of the dubious advantages I remember that were claimed: less dust as coal was not cut so small, easier to change cutter picks(??) less side thrust on drum bearings (but more end thrust??) consumed less power, less prone to breakdown & others I've forgotten, & I can't ask him as he passed on 21 years ago. He had very little to do with shearers, maybe that's why he championed trepaners. Another probable reason. He liked to wind me up & as my pits used shearers he'd say trepaners were better just to get a rise out of me, that was his sence of humour, stll loved him though. I just can't remember the makes & models he worked on, long time ago now...
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Nov 4, 2012 15:59:11 GMT -5
Well, to start with I'm sorry to hear that your dad has long gone, I would agree with parts of what he said, the main one being that trepanning was without doubt the most power efficient means of cutting coal. The fact that he passed away some 21 years ago would perhaps suggest that he worked on at least three of the AB trepanner variants, the original 70HP, it’s much more robust heavy duty model and latterly the double ended conveyor mounted combos, the likelihood is that he wasn’t around when the ultimate trepanner was designed and introduced in the 80’s, all singing and dancing brute of a thing that he would no doubt have loved to have witnessed in operation and had he have had the chance, to have worked on. The point he made about bearing loads was true to a certain extent, two totally different applications of cutting element support and reactions, the concept of trepanning was that a relatively small peripheral cutting contact did most of the work, i.e. in cutting a relatively narrow circular slot rather than a full face abutment. Once the core had been cut the tendency is for that hanging cylinder of coal to want to fall and break within the auger, the breaker picks on the inside arms and at the back of the cutting element were subjected to relatively little loading. The rotation and position of the gaps between the arms of the cutting element assisted cleaner coal clearance and loading onto the AFC …………. having said that, it could also be claimed that the same coring effect could be responsible in restricting forward advance speeds, there had to be a balance between haulage speed, loading clearance between arms, r.p.m, and obviously the strength of the cutting element and cutting pick clearance, not easy to explain, but a trepanner could actually defeat its own coal clearance, a shearer on the other hand always had an open side to ‘exhaust’ cut coal from, (not that there couldn’t be coal clearance problems with a shearer drum, dependant on rotational direction, vane depth etc) The cutting action of an auger head by virtue of only cutting a relatively small area of coal by ‘pick sraping’ (God forgive me for using that expression) obviously resulted in less dust being created at the cutting head ………… but, cutting with circular coring tool obviously left both roof and floor coal kerfs, the 70hp and HD 120hp machines resolved that problem by means of both a vertical faceside and horizontal floor cutting chain jib plus a centrally mounted rotating roof cutting turret, all of which produced quite a bit of dust in none too easy to suppress areas. I’m stopping here, because of the risk of getting carried away with myself and boring even myself to death, but there’s plenty more to talk about relating to the comparison.
|
|
|
Post by colly0410 on Nov 4, 2012 16:32:38 GMT -5
You're not boring me at all Daz, I love to hear comparisons of different machines & methods. Dad retired in jan 1983 & it would be a while before that he stopped working on trepaners. Thanks for you're comments.
|
|
|
Post by John on Nov 4, 2012 16:58:11 GMT -5
The only ones I recall used in the No6 area were the AB range, I believe Linby used mostly trepanners, heavy duty type when I first started with the NCB in 1965, I also think Babbington had at least one AB trepanner.
BJD had a trepan shearer, not sure if they made a full trepanner, Daz will more than likely be able to answer that, he's our resident pit fitter who also worked for Anderson Strathclyde, hence his wide knowledge of their machines.
The German Eichoff company also made a trepan shearer and up until a few years back, made a full double ended trepanner, I have a photo of it somewhere, a huge beast.
|
|
|
Post by erichall on Nov 8, 2012 10:33:48 GMT -5
Having worked with the original 70hp floor mounted trepanner, the heavier 80 hp one, various shearers and the AB Trepan Shearer, I know it is always either a matter of horses for courses or, more likely, the preference of the Area Boffins as to which one you got. As for operating/ driving and managing faces with these machines, the results surely speak for themselves in the number used. For me, and it is once again personal preference, the one we always favoured was the AB Trepan Shearer. This used to work fine and give some of the advantages of both machines. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the bearings on the trepan wheel were notorious for failing, at which point the Auger and gearbox was dropped off, the conection blanked off, and the machine used as a simple, albeit more powerful Shearer. The conveyor mounted shearer was what we used to look for in a machine - uncomplicated, easy to use, and, if it failed, relatively easy to change the affected section. In its early days in the South Barnsley Area, our Area Director or AGM as he was known, a certain Johnny Longden had a simple philosophy - Put the machine on the face, let the Machine man change the picks regularly, let the fitters oil and grease the thing, work it til it dropped, then whip it out, replacing it with the spare machine in the Tail Gate. The large/small coal issue was overcome to a certain extent by the introduction of spiral vane drums, and the swinging cowl, which facilitated bi-directional shearing. A puzzle for the ALecs & Fitters. The original shearers were unidirectional. In other words cut one way, flit back. This was achieved on the old AB's by simply flicking a lever which disengaged the racking system and engaged the flit pump. i was lead to understand that the haulage consisted of 2 pumps, one with fixed, full output (the flit pump) and one who's output could be varied by use of a racking handle. We were told 'never cut in flit mode', but in my early deputying days I had a shearer operator, an ex-German submariner. As you went through the face you knew he was 'cutting in flit' but you could never catch him. It being a relatively soft coalseam we were shearing, it didn't seem to harm the machine. Would this be the case?
|
|
|
Post by erichall on Nov 8, 2012 10:52:00 GMT -5
The only ones I recall used in the No6 area were the AB range, I believe Linby used mostly trepanners, heavy duty type when I first started with the NCB in 1965, I also think Babbington had at least one AB trepanner.
BJD had a trepan shearer, not sure if they made a full trepanner, Daz will more than likely be able to answer that, he's our resident pit fitter who also worked for Anderson Strathclyde, hence his wide knowledge of their machines.
The German Eichoff company also made a trepan shearer and up until a few years back, made a full double ended trepanner, I have a photo of it somewhere, a huge beast. Of the Shearer types, I worked at various times with the AB 16 Shearer, the BJD Magnamatic, and the early Eichoff Thin Seam Shearer. Having only rarely worked in much above 40 ins, my preference in the 30/40in seams was always for the AB 16, the rip n'tearer. In the early years, this didn't even have a tilting underframe for level control, this being done by putting wooden wedges in front of the converor pans prior to pushing over. I remember the first tilting underframe I used. It took a little getting used to but was like driving a Rolls after a Ford. AB also made the Trepan Shearer that I used, and the trepanner that I drove was AB. I remember once in my UnderOfficial days going into a fitting shop at one colliery and receiving a surprise. As a youngster I had always taken The Eagle comic, which always had as its centrefold a cutaway drawing of a piece of modern machinery, and there on the wall of the fitting shop was one of these cut-away drawings. Hope they used a little more than this.
|
|
|
Post by John on Nov 8, 2012 11:04:44 GMT -5
Having worked with the original 70hp floor mounted trepanner, the heavier 80 hp one, various shearers and the AB Trepan Shearer, I know it is always either a matter of horses for courses or, more likely, the preference of the Area Boffins as to which one you got. As for operating/ driving and managing faces with these machines, the results surely speak for themselves in the number used. For me, and it is once again personal preference, the one we always favoured was the AB Trepan Shearer. This used to work fine and give some of the advantages of both machines. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the bearings on the trepan wheel were notorious for failing, at which point the Auger and gearbox was dropped off, the conection blanked off, and the machine used as a simple, albeit more powerful Shearer. The conveyor mounted shearer was what we used to look for in a machine - uncomplicated, easy to use, and, if it failed, relatively easy to change the affected section. In its early days in the South Barnsley Area, our Area Director or AGM as he was known, a certain Johnny Longden had a simple philosophy - Put the machine on the face, let the Machine man change the picks regularly, let the fitters oil and grease the thing, work it til it dropped, then whip it out, replacing it with the spare machine in the Tail Gate. The large/small coal issue was overcome to a certain extent by the introduction of spiral vane drums, and the swinging cowl, which facilitated bi-directional shearing. A puzzle for the ALecs & Fitters. The original shearers were unidirectional. In other words cut one way, flit back. This was achieved on the old AB's by simply flicking a lever which disengaged the racking system and engaged the flit pump. i was lead to understand that the haulage consisted of 2 pumps, one with fixed, full output (the flit pump) and one who's output could be varied by use of a racking handle. We were told 'never cut in flit mode', but in my early deputying days I had a shearer operator, an ex-German submariner. As you went through the face you knew he was 'cutting in flit' but you could never catch him. It being a relatively soft coalseam we were shearing, it didn't seem to harm the machine. Would this be the case? I only ever saw the AB16 cut in flit.. ;D The face lads back then were on contracts, ie the old PWA agreement prior to the 25 quid a week fixed PLA of the late 60's. I can't imagine cutting in flit would do the machines much good, but they were built like battletanks. The only problems I recall were blown engine pipes, broken pick boxes and broken links in the haulage chains. Daz has way more experience with these machines than I ever clocked up, so will await his input.
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Nov 8, 2012 13:32:16 GMT -5
erichall, which company made the 80hp Trepanner?
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Nov 8, 2012 17:38:08 GMT -5
Having worked with the original 70hp floor mounted trepanner, the heavier 80 hp one, various shearers and the AB Trepan Shearer, I know it is always either a matter of horses for courses or, more likely, the preference of the Area Boffins as to which one you got. As for operating/ driving and managing faces with these machines, the results surely speak for themselves in the number used. For me, and it is once again personal preference, the one we always favoured was the AB Trepan Shearer. This used to work fine and give some of the advantages of both machines. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the bearings on the trepan wheel were notorious for failing, at which point the Auger and gearbox was dropped off, the conection blanked off, and the machine used as a simple, albeit more powerful Shearer. The conveyor mounted shearer was what we used to look for in a machine - uncomplicated, easy to use, and, if it failed, relatively easy to change the affected section. In its early days in the South Barnsley Area, our Area Director or AGM as he was known, a certain Johnny Longden had a simple philosophy - Put the machine on the face, let the Machine man change the picks regularly, let the fitters oil and grease the thing, work it til it dropped, then whip it out, replacing it with the spare machine in the Tail Gate. The large/small coal issue was overcome to a certain extent by the introduction of spiral vane drums, and the swinging cowl, which facilitated bi-directional shearing. A puzzle for the ALecs & Fitters. The original shearers were unidirectional. In other words cut one way, flit back. This was achieved on the old AB's by simply flicking a lever which disengaged the racking system and engaged the flit pump. i was lead to understand that the haulage consisted of 2 pumps, one with fixed, full output (the flit pump) and one who's output could be varied by use of a racking handle. We were told 'never cut in flit mode', but in my early deputying days I had a shearer operator, an ex-German submariner. As you went through the face you knew he was 'cutting in flit' but you could never catch him. It being a relatively soft coalseam we were shearing, it didn't seem to harm the machine. Would this be the case? Anderson Boyes (and through its various name changes) have a lot to answer for when it comes to their system of classification of various machine configurations, the term AB16 covered a multitude of machine units ranging from the AB16 pre-cutter gearhead through to the DERDS so called Servo 22” haulage, to add even further to the confusion, the AM 17” DERDS Mechanical haulage was also part of the AB16” range, the definitive 16” applies to the actual height dimension of the electric motor. The actual unit that most of us would think of when referring to an AB16” would likely be the MK1 haulage unit used primarily in single ended machine configurations, the MK1 haulage did have the two hydraulic pumps, one fixed output and one variable but there were other variants with quite different hydraulic arrangements, the MK4 haulage having a similar external appearance but the hydraulic power was produced by a single variable swashplate pump and totally different control system. Sticking with the MK1 haulage, the one with two pumps and the infamous flit handle system, it was often thought that by simply ‘sticking it into flit’ i.e. both pumps producing at maximum output the shearer would actually cut at the maximum haulage speed possible, this was usually far from the truth. Obviously factors external to the haulage would determine the rate of progress, hardness and cuttability of the coal, size of the cut i.e drum dia. and web depth, drum design incorporating optimum r.p.m. and coal clearance, pick condition and lacing, physical obstructions such as distorted or worn trapping shoes and even factors less recognised such as distance from power supplies and incurred voltage drops not to mention (in the golden older days) excessive haulage chain tension often created by ‘bent’ face lines, as well as dozens of other potential restrictions. To confuse things even further there were three different pump piston sizes and also three different hydraulic engine sizes which gave a variation in haulage output speeds and torques. Optimum haulage speed, after the operator’s selected control, was actually determined by the machine itself, both hydraulically and indirectly by electrical load sensing. Conditions would rarely be anywhere near so perfect as to allow the AB16 MK1 machine to haul at its maximum (flitting) speed whilst cutting a full web, what usually happened was that the machine operator selected maximum flitting speed and the haulage’s auto controls took over, either by direct hydraulic load sensing and reducing the pump output both by dumping the pump output through an overload valve and or a relief valve that hydraulically initiated a mechanical pump stroke reduction and therefore its output. If the machine speed induced torque loading to the electric motor via the cutting drum rather than a direct haulage resistance first, then the torque sensing system came into play which via a simple torque motor mechanically operated an hydraulic pilot valve that acted in a similar way to the hydraulic protection and resulted in either a speed reduction or a complete stall condition by dumping both hydraulic pumps output to exhaust. (note here; occasionally this torque motor was initiated by a detected AMPs increase that was as a result of voltage drop created by, but rarely admitted by, electrical staff, failings ;D***). The hard part was convincing drivers that sticking a machine in flit didn’t necessarily produce optimum cutting, (hard, that is only compared to trying to convince the electrical staff of voltage drop problems). My own approach to identifying optimum speed of cutting was to time the machine throughout the range of the variable pump, if the maximum speed was obtained then I would reduce that pump to its minimum output, equal to approximately 1.5fpm on standard engine assemblies and then introduce the constant output (flit) pump, increasing the variable pump stroke incrementally until eventually identifying a positional speed that was optimal, i.e. maximum speed below which the torque motor or hydraulic relief valve operated and reduced the haulage speed. Attempting to increase pump output further resulted in the auto control systems being initiated, the machine being slowed down dramatically and only restored after an automatically initiated operational reset delay, then, to repeat the load sensing reaction as the machine attempts to build up speed, further reaction, reduction and inherent system recovery delays which overall creates a loss of production capability ………………. but try to explain all that to a shearer driver intent on cutting in flit, or an irate undermanager trying to make him cut in flit or even worse, laid back electrical staff that had every reason in the world not to effect a trannie move up ………… .. who’d be a fitter, much less a company rep?
|
|
|
Post by John on Nov 8, 2012 18:19:29 GMT -5
On the old 550 volt faces, we did keep the transformer as close as possible Daz, I can't speak for other pits though, but we had major problems with the control circuits, ie pilot circuits if we didn't keep on top of transformer move ups. Cotgrave was different, the transformers were mounted on the monorails inbye of the GEB's, just a stones throw from the ripping lip. They were provided with a one inch thick shotfiring screen, that's how close they were to the face.
Nice write up Daz, explains a lot.
|
|
|
Post by colly0410 on Nov 9, 2012 4:59:40 GMT -5
Thanks for all your thoughts Gents. It's when I read threads like this that I wish my Dad was still here, he would have loved reading this site. Thanks again..
|
|
|
Post by erichall on Nov 9, 2012 6:05:30 GMT -5
erichall, which company made the 80hp Trepanner? Sorry, Dazbt, I accept the reproof. As far as I'm aware, the only firm I am aware of to make a floor-mounted Trepanner was , and here again names changed and firms amalgamated/split etc., was Anderson Boyes, who I believe, became Anderson Mavor and later Anderson Strathclyde. The machine I was refering to was the Heavy Duty Floor Mounted Trepanner which as you say was most probably the 120 h.p. machine. However, in the 60's to 80's, machines were continually evolving, and changing. I believe that there was even a Conveyor- mounted Trepanner. Being a simple-minded Mining type, one machine tended to be very much like another. My main point was that the original design for the Trepanner was a floor mounted machine with an Auger at each end, supplimented by a cutting jib at each end for pre-cutting the coal, a vertical jib at each end to trim the curve left by the auger, and a centre-mounted roof turret. This was a very effective way of cutting the coal, but unfortunately from an operator's point of view required 'eyes in the back of your head and up your arse as well', not an easy prospect in 36 inches or so. It also required the trailing pre-cut jib to be taken out of gear and swung through 90 degrees, and the trailing auger to be taken out of gear before starting it's return run. This required a fully-trained and skilful machineman to operate. It also made for a complicated machine mechanically, and no doubt electrically. It held its own while shearers were uni-directional -(cut up, flit back)and had a rather large plough at its rear end. The invention of the shearer cowl, which could be swung over or under at the end of its run, enabled bi-directional operation. It appeared to be a much more robust, simpler machine, and with the appearance of chain haulage as opposed to the old rope-hauled machine, became a much more acceptable machine for men and management. It's one principal advantage to me was that it embodied what I considered one of the first principles of mining - keep it simple. Repairs underground were so much more complicated because height restrictions, atmospheric and environmental conditions, and pressure to 'get the job going again', were so different to working in a surface workshop. Besides, I much preferred personally to operate a shearer, and apart from the time spent working on the face, I could, whilst making my way through a face on inspection, spell the driver whilst he had his snap. But I never said that!!
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Nov 9, 2012 16:24:46 GMT -5
I can’t recall any major modifications being made to either of the AB floor mounted trepanners, bits and bobs of alterations to the face side shoe lengths and shape of the goafside stell rail but other than that little else changed. With regard to ‘driving’ the two machines, trepanners versus original uni-di shearers, the shearer had to be the easier of the two, seam variation control was very much down to AFC management as erichall suggests, but, an experienced/ skillfull shearer operater was able to some extent, steer the machine by varying haulage cutting speeds ( yet another function or perhaps, rather, a little recognised factor, was the relative reaction of cutting drum to haulage speed, and by that I mean that a shearer with a drum rotation cutting roof to floor would always have a tendency to climb up into the roof, particularly at higher forward haulage speeds, a smart shearer driver recognised and understood that this effect could be used to his advantage, by cutting at faster haulage speeds the machine was put into climbing mode, reducing the haulage speed created the tendency to cut lower in order to follow seam variation (even smarter shearer drivers realised that removing cutter picks or not changing worn picks created the same climbing effect) ………… having said that, the trepanner provided the operator much more direct flexible variation in steering, by providing the ability to adjust cutting to seam height variation via means of hydraulically raise and lower facility of the roof cutting turret, as well as accommodating to some extent slight variation in roll and pitch by means of hydraulically controlled steering shoes. The bottom cutting chain of the 70 and 120hp floor mounted trepanners was primarily to remove the kerf (cusp) left by the auger, the pre cutting function was almost a secondary advantage. With due respect erichall, regarding the statement that pressure to ‘get the job going again’ was so much different underground than on anyone working in surface workshops can only be determined by someone who has experienced both, the situation and conditions definitely varied, but the pressure to get things done weren't necessarily different.
|
|
bob737
Trainee
To read about my recent book on the history of Daw Mill Mine, check out my recent activity
Posts: 12
|
Post by bob737 on Mar 26, 2013 4:45:38 GMT -5
Does anyone have any information about when the change from Trepanners to Shearers came about in Warwickshire (South Midlands Area) and which particular machines were in use and at what time? I'm fairly sure that single ended trepanners were in use when Daw Mill began production in June 1965 but would like to know when double ended trepanners came into use there (I remember a machine called the 'Double Two' on 1s face) and AM 500 shearers and much later Eickhoff SL360s & 500s but what went in between? Also, were the first shearers there designed for fixed extraction or did they always have 'FIDD' arms as ranging drum shearers? With the thickness of the seam at Daw Mill being so great I find it hard to imagine shearers being limited to fixed extraction. I'm trying to work out which faces were involved in the introduction of the various types but have so far drawn a blank... Daw Mill, the last deep mine in Warwickshire has just closed due to, in my opinion, the absolute wreckless ineptitude & incompetence of senior management!- Such a crying shame...
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Mar 26, 2013 5:37:43 GMT -5
Hya Bob, not sure about what was used in Warwickshire in 1965 but both the 70hp and heavy duty 120hp trepanners were available at that time. The first AFC mounted shearers were Unidirectional and baseplate fixed (i.e. no ranging facility), the first design of what could be termed 'ranging' shearers were simply machines based on split level hinged underframes where the machine body was lifted from the bottom base plate at the gearhead end by means of vertically mounted hydraulic rams, various designs, the most successful was probably a ram either side of the gearhead lifting simultaneously, other designs provided front end lift with rams at the end of the gearhead, Bretby Bridge systems.
|
|
|
Post by John on Mar 26, 2013 7:40:01 GMT -5
Was there ever a single ended trepanner??? I only ever recalled double ended trepanners. First and only one I saw was at our training centre in the early 60's.
My first pit used the AB 16's 125HP, one face in Deep Hard had a precutter mounted on a bed frame ahead of the shearer.....total cut was around 42 inches. 12's at the "top end' of the Deep Hard seam was around 60 inches and used a large drum, full seam thickness.
Again, what year did the ranging drum appear Daz??? Wasn't it the late 60's to early 70's???
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Mar 26, 2013 8:00:21 GMT -5
I believe the very first AB Trepanner was a single ended machine, the Augre being set in line of motor and haulage end, simply replacing jib/precutter gearbox. The trials were conducted at mansfield Colliery I think around 1953/54.
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Mar 26, 2013 8:13:18 GMT -5
I'm not sure when the first AB trunnion type ranging gearhead first appeared but in 1965 the AB MK1 Ranging Gearhead was in fairly widespread usage, this machine had an attached so called 6" hydraulic box mounted on the back of the gearhead which over-hung the electric motor, the boom rams were overhead mounted rather than the later preference of underslung rams or in the case of at least one Limited Ranger Gearhead type, vertically mounted within the height of the Gearhead Gearbox.
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Mar 26, 2013 18:38:03 GMT -5
I seem to recall that there was also a single ended Trepanner configuration based on the conveyor mounted AB16" Mk1 haulage that had a transverse box and a Trepanner gearhead offset onto the face side, a sort of half a version of the more widely used Trepan Shearer used in the early/mid 1960s. The twin motor 120hp DECMT (Double Ended Conveyor Mounted Treapanner) fairly quickly replaced most of the 70hp Floor Mounted Double Ended Trepanners, it was a faster more efficient machine and capable of coping with both thinner and thicker seams than the old 70hpTrepanner. The 120HP DECMT had a few varying combinations designed to cope with a fairly wide section of seam thicknesses, perhaps the most unusual being the 'Piggy-Back' gearhead machines having four augers, one piggy-backing the other at each end, intended, I believe to cut in seam sections up to 6' or there abouts, I never managed to see one working, but did dream of the day that I might have. The 120hp Floor Mounted Trepanner continued to be used by some collieries well after the DECMT's introduction, Wheldale Colliery, Dearne Valley, Ferrymoor and Darfield Colliery being just four of those who were reluctant to change over. Some British Coal Areas and specifically some collieries were reluctant to forsake the DECMT for whatever reason, be it historical success in certain seams or coal size market requirements, and refused to accept the 'general concensus' and move over to shearer applications, they almost 'demanded' a new 5th generation of Trepanner. After a design gap of at least twenty years a new Trepanner concept was developed by Anderson Strathclyde, the final format, a 270hp variant ............... shortly after that I retired.
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Mar 28, 2013 18:50:30 GMT -5
There were other configurations / varients of Anderson shearers that enabled higher extraction, the 'Ripper Ranger' AB 16" range of 22" Haulage Machines such as the Servo haulage setup. The gearhead end raised by 3 stage telescopic rams mounted vertically to cut out the inline rip profile at either end. Rossington 101s face in the 14' Barnsley and Dunsil combined seams worked with a three machine set up, a DERDs AB16" Servo 22" as a main run machine and SERDs AB16" Servo 22" Ripper Ranger configurations. Another one off, as far as I can recall was a Mechanical Haulage machine used in a French potash mine, this machine was a 'Piggy Back' design, with four gearheads two mounted above what would have been considered a standard shearer format.
|
|
|
Post by John on May 11, 2013 12:17:15 GMT -5
Daz, any info on the 270 trepanner???
|
|
|
Post by colly0410 on Apr 28, 2014 9:33:51 GMT -5
Just been thinking: I've never seen a trepaner actually working on a face only shearers, & Dad had only ever seen trepaners & not shearers. The only trepaners I've seen were on the overhaul rig at Bestwood workshops, used to go on open days, mind you Dad didn't work on trepaners then (1967/68) as he'd moved to the exploder section were he became charghand..
|
|
|
Post by John on Apr 28, 2014 10:39:53 GMT -5
Just been thinking: I've never seen a trepaner actually working on a face only shearers, & Dad had only ever seen trepaners & not shearers. The only trepaners I've seen were on the overhaul rig at Bestwood workshops, used to go on open days, mind you Dad didn't work on trepaners then (1967/68) as he'd moved to the exploder section were he became charghand.. The only trepanner I worked on was the ABDECMT that came on the scene around 1966/7ish, it was on field trials and should have gone to another pit, but due to bad roof conditions including heavy roof, it was diverted to Clifton. My first sighting of it was in the pit yard where it was assembled and tested, then it was stripped down and transported to 43's T/G where we assembled it. I suppose I was unlucky, we were the last pit in the Area to still be on the Mech/Elec Scheme, so was involved in the assembly and installation of the machine, which at other pits, would have been done by the fitters. As it was on field trials we had some teething problems, but all in all, it outperformed the shearer, whose place it took. Kept the face going for a few more weeks until the roof problems started to get worse.
After the face was closed, we stripped the machine and it went to 51's face to replace the shearer there, it out performed the shearer once the teething problems were overcome.
Remember though, these were bi-di machines, so no flitting back like the old AB shearers and the BJD Magnamatics.
I did see the floor mounted Trepanner at the training centre at Hucknall, similar to the one in the sites background photo.
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Jun 14, 2014 15:42:31 GMT -5
Daz, any info on the 270 trepanner??? Rare photo of the 270 at Swadlincote Test Site
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Jun 15, 2014 4:43:58 GMT -5
The 270hp machine consisted of four basic units, electric motor, hydraulic power pack and two gearhead gearboxes each incorporating roof and floor cutting discs as well as Roll Rack traction units. These basic units were then available in high and low configurations, the low height variant covering extraction heights from 34" to 38", the high range from 40" to 50".
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 15, 2014 9:40:32 GMT -5
The 270hp machine consisted of four basic units, electric motor, hydraulic power pack and two gearhead gearboxes each incorporating roof and floor cutting discs as well as Roll Rack traction units. These basic units were then available in high and low configurations, the low height variant covering extraction heights from 34" to 38", the high range from 40" to 50". Was that two sections, ie face side and goaf side like the first conveyor mounted trepanners Daz??
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Jun 15, 2014 10:49:37 GMT -5
The 270hp machine consisted of four basic units, electric motor, hydraulic power pack and two gearhead gearboxes each incorporating roof and floor cutting discs as well as Roll Rack traction units. These basic units were then available in high and low configurations, the low height variant covering extraction heights from 34" to 38", the high range from 40" to 50". Was that two sections, ie face side and goaf side like the first conveyor mounted trepanners Daz?? Not quite J, the four main sections were inline on the face side of the AFC but canopy sections were attached to these main sections and bridged over the AFC, attached to each end canopy was a goaf-side steering ram combined trapping shoe.
|
|