View report page

Year No. of smoke emissions observed No. of notices served Prosecutions
1960 39 17 5
1959 85 39 8
From the 1st June, 1958, the date on which the Regulations came into operation, until the
end of 1959 the Port Health Authority concentrated on infringements of the Regulations in respect
of Black smoke only. Since January, 1960, lesser shades of Dark smoke have received
similar attention. It is interesting to note, however, that during the year the number of these
Dark smoke emissions observed was negligible, less than half a dozen, indicating that the
efforts of all concerned had been successful in ensuring that the majority of vessels using the
Port of London complied with the Regulations in their entirety. All prosecutions with the except
of one in 1960, which was in respect of a dark smoke offence, were in connection with
emissions of Black smoke.

It is noteworthy that with the exception of ship No. 5 all defendants pleaded guilty.
Ship No.5 was a tug which emitted Black smoke during a towing operation in one of the
docks. The difficulties to be overcome in eliminating smoke from coal-burning tugs are fully
appreciated by the Port Health Authority and it was the first tug in connection with which legal
proceedings have been taken. By nature of their duties, sudden and unexpected calls are
frequently made on these vessels to raise a full head of steam at short notice. This fact is well
known and the majority of those connected with this class of vessel are to be congratulated on
the measure of success they have achieved in minimising smoke emissions.
It has, however, been realised by the Port Health Authority that a few tug operators have
not been as conscientious as expected in reducing smoke emissions, a point associated with the
offence by ship No. 5. During the proceedings the Master of the tug challenged the Port Health
Inspector's statement that Black smoke, as opposed to Dark smoke, was emitted, but it was
brought out in evidence that this particular Master had not even seen a Ringleman Chart prior
to the date of the offence and did not know the technical difference between Black and Dark
smoke. Furthermore, the stoker in charge of the offence admitted that when told from the bridge
that smoke was being emitted he immediately threw more coal onto the fire which,as was agreed
by the defendants, could only increase smoke rather than reduce it. However,the magistrate
considered that the case had not been proved, although stating that it was one which was very
rightly brought to the Court by the Port Health Authority.
47