Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1896-11-23
MbeeIin9 Re9istfr
THE COAL CONTROVERSY.
Trades Assembly Committee Alleges
That a Fair Test Was Not Made
At the Water Works, and Gives
Figures to Prove That Coal Might
be Substituted for Gas as Fuel,
and Cause a Saving to the City.
A Reply to the Water Board
Statement

a hSply 10 Inc w dI0I DOeVA -
Statement.
Some time ago the City Water Board
published "a statement regarding tests at
the water plant, which We're made for the
purpose of ascertaining whether it would
be wise to substitute coal for gas as fuel.
The Board gave figures to show that the
change would not be profitable. Yesterday
afternoon, az the meeting of the Ohio
Valley Trades and Labor Assembly the
Arbitration Committee presented
lengthy report, taking issue with state
ments made by the Board. 1t is given in
full below.
To the Honorable Water Board of the City
of Wheeling.
Gentemen:-In reply to the report of
your honorable body which appeared in
the newspapers of November 10, 1886
wherein you state that you have deter
mined the relative cost of operating the
pumping station of the city water works
with both gas and coal as fuel, we wish
to state that we consider your report very
Unfair and misleading
First. you state that you find by tests
made under the supervision OF our com
mittee on September "A, 1896. there was
consumed GA bushels of coal in the "A
hour test. making a total OF Patio bushels
per year at a cost of $S.40412. We de-
sire 10 state that neither our committee
nor the engineers we had employed, had
anything to do with experimenting the
test which you speak OF, nor did we in
irf Or
DO anything that could be construed that
We were present for the purpose of super
intending the test. The matter was en-
tirely in the hands of the superintendent
and his subordinates The only part taken
by our engineers was simply TO take dates
and such other facts connected with the
test as we deemed proper, for the purpose
OF enabling US to make an intelligent re
port.
We wish TO call your attention to several
other facts connected with the present con-
troyersy 1t will be remembered that the
coal consumed at the time of the test,
September Il. 1895. was Ga bushels. TAX
ing the Water Boards own figures as to
the cost of the coal per year, based on the
Ga bushels per "a hours run. which we
cess of good practice; or a coal consump-
tion per year, at the above rate, would be
22i1lO bushels. as per your report. At
cost of 3Si cents per bushel, or 95$i cents
per ton of 1000 pounds, it would aggregate
$S.404l2 per year, taking the statement
and figures of the Board and the consult
ing engineer who made the test Of Octo-
Der 2S. 1896.
We md that the coal consumption, as
per his or their report. was as follows: for
the 70 hours test, 1S5 bushels of coal, or
$40 bushels per p hours, making total
coal consumption for the year of 135,O50
bushels. at a cost of 5i2 cents per bushel,
as per their own figures, would make ST..
427.75.
Now. taking into account the difference
of the cost of the coal per bushel used at
the different tests above mentioned, is as
follows: The cost of coal per year reck-
oned on a basis Of the coal consumption
as per test Of September H. 1896, as above.
Now. take the cost of coal per year, reck-
oned on the basis OF a coal consumption as
per test of October 2S. 1896, as above shown,
s. .427.75. at the 5la-cent rate. showing diff
ference of $976.27.
Taking the amount Of coal necessary TO
operate said plant as per test of October
2S 1896. at coal consumption of 1860
bushels per year at the rate paid for coal
as per their report. Pertaining to the test
of September IA. 1896, 32s cents per bushel,
of 932, cents per ton of 1000 pounds, would
aggregate S5.O6437. Now. deducting So
O6i.37 from s. 40412 shows a saving in the
coal item AT the 80, cent rate as per their
own figures and statements Of September
A. 1875. test, of &S.SS975. Then take the
cost of gas $500. and deduct coal ac-
count of $5.O6437. leaving a balance of s.
1853 in favor Of coal.
Now TO give the Board the benefit of the
additional expense claimed by them, two
extra tiremen AT $1.ii0: one ash wheeler,
$500: repairs. etc, $500 we have $3.50.
Then. taking the difference between $3.50,
the extra expense represented 10 be neces-
sary 10y reason of using coal as fuel, de-
duct $2135.G3. the credit in favor Of coal
over gas as fuel, We have a difference on
the coal side Of the account of $20L37 in
favor of gas fuel.
In support of our former report and the
above figures. we wish 10 call your atten-
ton 10 several other facts.
During the test of September Il. 1896,
there were three Heine boilers used. and
the engines made a. $50 revolutions. equal
TO Se3S $50 gallons of water pumped; and
during the test of October 2Sth, there was
only two Heine boilers used. and the en-
cines made 1852 revolutions. equal TO
o.167. 256 gallons Of water plunged, show
ing an increase in speed over former test
of 10 revolutions, equal to 1S5696 gallons
OF water over former test.
We have arrived at the above facts and
conclusions by figures given US by the
Water Board in their report We will
now attempt TO show how far their report
is nj variance with the facts.
The Board bases the yearly consumption
of coal. on a bisis of the daily consump-
ton of coal. while making test. In max
ing test Of September H. 1896 the coal
consumption was GA bushels per a hours.