Bancroft stoker proposal.

[Stanley]

Bancroft stoker proposal.

16th. February 1978
FIRING APRANGEMENTS ON LANCASHIRE BOILER AT BANCROFT SHED.
The Proctor Coking Stokers at present In use are getting in a very poor condition. Essential maintenance In order to maintain present levels of efficiency will cost at least £1700 this year and the same next year. If we take into account the unforeseen costs which will inevitably crop up we can safely assume that the total cost over the next two years will be in the order of £4,000 at todays prices. After all this expenditure we shall still be left with an inefficient, labour intensive system.
ALTERNATIVES
Three possible fuels. Gas, oil and coal. I have made enquiries and the price of gas would be the equivalent of £45 a ton for coal. This fact together with considerations such as availability and the cost of testing the boiler before conversion put this method out of court. Oil is a possibility but here again there are major snags in that there would be difficulties with the boiler and settings which would negate any economies gained.
I feel we should stick to coal as this is the cheapest fuel at £30 per ton and would not entail any extra strain on the boiler or attrition of the settings. There are three feasible ways of firing coal. First is the chain grate. This is efficient but very expensive and time consuming to maintain. Not recommended. The Coking stoker, expensive but efficient if we incorporate improvements Lately brought out by Proctors to alleviate difficulties with short fires in summer. A major disadvantage with this is that it is not possible to get any significant degree of automatic running. If we are going to spend money we might as well finish up with a better system.
The third and I think the most attractive system is the underfired stoker. With this system we have almost complete automation at quite a reasonable cost. This is the system that Sutcliffe and Clarkson adopted when they were faced with exactly the same problems that we have now. According to Jack Barret of the coal board they are showing a saving of about a third on their coal consumption even though they now leave the heating on all night. They were burning about 1000 tons a year the same as us. According to Jack they have dropped this to 600 tons but we must allow for poetic licence on his part. The actual figure could easily be found out by consultation with them. Their case is exactly the same as ours. In winter the heating is left on all night and there has been an increase in production in consequence with lower costs and less coal.
COST
It seems probable that this will be in the region of £6000 /£7,000 to install. I have arranged for detailed estimates from two firms. Hodgkinson Bennis and another firm run by the brains who have defected from this firm recently who would put in a very keen price I feel. You will receive these as soon as they are presented.
FINANCE
I realise that finance is a problem and offer the following suggestions. At any one time we have about 180 tons of coal in stock in the yard and boiler house. If we were to burn this stock off in the period up to the summer holidays we would have a credit on the coal account of £5400 at £30 a ton. This would very nearly pay for the installation and if we are going to save as much as the coal board say we will there will be a saving of 150 tons by Christmas. In other words the stocks will be nearly replaced. I would take these figures with a pinch of salt until I had seen how we do but even if the fuel saving is only half of what they say we shall have rebuilt the stock inside one year on present coal purchasing levels. There is of course the risk of running without any stock at all. I would recommend that we clear the yard out completely and keep one load near to the boiler house in case of late delivery by British Fuel.
There are two more sources of finance, one definite and the other possible. The Coal Board run a scheme whereby it is possible to draw three years discount in a lump and then pay full coal price for the three years. If the coal savings are greater than the discount this of course in a good deal but that would be up to you. The second source is Development Grants, Jack Barrett is looking into this as well.

RECOMMENDATIONS
i fee1 we should go for a system by which we can do away with excessive hours in winter on the boiler. It may be that we will find that we can cut the hours down on the boiler to perhaps four a day. I would not favour one man doing both the engine and the boiler as it is too much and one job or the other would suffer. Apart from this the engineer would quite rightly want extra money for doing both jobs and there would be no saving. There to little point in doing the job unless we do it properly and gain the maximum amount of saving. The coal handling arrangements will have to be rearranged anyway as we shall need more room at the front of the boiler to operate the stokers, This will almost certainly entail going over to conveyor or blower delivery which will put about 50p. per ton on costs but will ease the load in the boiler house considerably and be saved in labour. You would be amazed at, the number of hours spent moving coal about under our present system.

TIME SCALE
It will take a fortnight to change over and therefore it is a summer holiday job. In view of the fact that we are going to have to do something anyway may I suggest that we aim for conversion this summer. If you take up the suggestion of burning the coal off it would mean starting to burn stock by the middle of April. The only other alternative in to take an extra week off at September and give us a fortnight then. The first thing we should do to is see Sutcliffe’s and find out the advantages. It may be that they were more uneconomical than us in the first place.