THE TAY BRIDGE DISASTER.

Thames Star, Issue 3540, 30 April 1880, Page 2

THE TAY BRIDGE DISASTER.

The Board, of Trade inquiry into this disaster has brought out itatements which . ought to be known far and wide. Richard Batnl-ttepiJßßd'thartre"waT«rmouU«E^QdT - had been employed at the foundry which the contractor for the. erection of the bridge put up on the south side of the river. There the columns were oast horizontally. Cleveland iron was employed in their manufacture, and it was of ; most inferior quality. It gave off a great ■ quantity of dross, and occasionally the columns were cracked, or.were not cast, complete. The columns which witness out, were in the part of the bridge which had fallen. Salt water was used for damping the moulds, and in this" way impurities were introduced. James IffcGowtn, who was also employed as a moulder, said the metal used for the columns was the worst he had ever seen. He remembered some base plates coming from t]Wi'jjrtit -of Scotland. They were «ot T&qjgmi £or ■ the work, and were brokffi ip/ H«v assumed they had beta toaJU^offiaofajk. metal. They intended to »« th* pl*te» in melting with Cleveli^ ifob/M^iki manager said that nmst nojt li« do**, tt,^; they could,' when the job;. #*»' 'orni, fed -. the metal at a good price; The eolpdiai which witness cast wertj.uved in the bridge south and north of Ike greej girder*. The foundry at the south end of the bridge was specially built- for the OUting of columns for the structure. 1 fhe worli turned out at it was inferior.. Others witnesses deposed to-the soundness of the materials employed and to the'proper construction, of the bridge. Of course < there will come a time for comment upon . these conflicting statements. .