March 14, 1913.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

537

tons per workperson was assumed for 1961, requiring 3,200
persons per colliery. This meant that there would be about
10,000 persons directly dependent on each of these collieries
for their livelihood—a total of nearly 1,000,000 persons for
whom housing accommodation had to be provided during
the next 50 years, or, at the rate of houses for 20,000
persons per year, an average of 4,000 additional houses per
year.

Looking at the subject from a purely business point of
view, it seemed well worth serious consideration whether a
definite scheme of development of these new districts, both
at the surface and underground, could be planned to the
advantage of everybody concerned.

The Question of the Surface.

The chief problem was, of course, the question of housing,
and two schemes present themselves, namely:—(1) That
which has prevailed in the past, the workpeople living in
houses built close to the colliery; and (2) a town of
considerable proportions built in the centre of a group of
several collieries.

No. 1 Scheme.—The chief merit of this scheme was the
proximity of the workmen to their work. In the past this
was doubtless the only practicable method in the absence
of any means of conveying men to the collieries from
existing towns and villages; but this consideration need not
apply in the future, as means of conveying such large
numbers of men can be arranged at a comparatively trifling
cost per journey. The serious drawback to No. 1 method was
that a town of 10,000 inhabitants would be, to all intents
and purposes, merely an adjunct of the colliery, and if any
disaster—such as a fire or an explosion—occurred, the
colliery might be stopped for many months. As the nearest
collieries would be 3 or 4 miles away, many of the colliers
would doubtless obtain work at these, and leave the town,
as the means of their daily conveyance to and fro would not
exist.

No. 2 Scheme.—Where the extension of the coalfield had
been sufficiently proved, and its development might be fore-
cast with a reasonable degree of accuracy, some such scheme
as No. 2 could be planned, comprising areas of some 30,000
to 40,000 acres each, without great difficulty; and the writer
was of opinion that this was much the better system, for the
following reasons:—

(a)	Under No. 2 scheme the basis of the security is
greatly broadened, depending not on one but on several
collieries, to say nothing of the subsidiary industries which
it is reasonable to assume would be attracted to such
a town.

(b)	On account of the centralisation resulting from the
scheme, the public services—that was, lighting, water,
drainage, hospitals, schools, &c.—could all be carried on
much more efficiently and at less cost.

(c)	The prevailing features of the district would sustain
a minimum of disturbance.

(d)	The ratable value and the value of land in a given
area would be greater under No. 2 scheme.

Fig. 1 illustrated broadly the idea of No. 2 scheme, and
shows one town in the centre of a group of four collieries
situated at a radius of 2| miles from the centre of the town.
The number of workpersons at these collieries would be
12,800, representing a population of about 40,000; and about
8,000 houses would be required for this number. The writer
suggests that an area of 1,000 acres be allocated to such a
town, under which no coal must be worked, a certain area
being marked out as sites for works.

One difficulty that presented itself was the question of loss
of royalty from the coal underlying the town. Possibly
sections 55 and 58 of the Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act
of 1909 might be used to meet the difficulty ; but, in any
case, the amount which the landowner might lose on his
royalties he would, doubtless, more than gain by the increased
value of the surface, for his gross royalty per acre would be,
say, .£200 ; whereas the value of the surface would increase
in a short period from, say, £40 to £240 and upwards per
acre ; and this increased value would be realised at a much
earlier date than the mineral royalties would fall due. The
South Yorks-Notts-Lincoln coalfield was the one that most
readily lent itself to a scheme of development.

The Question in its Relation to the Working of the
Minerals.

The adoption of a scheme of surface development such as
that outlined would be beneficial from the point of view of
mining; the question of damage by subsidence would be
much simpler ; the loss of coal would be reduced; and, what
is of greater moment, there would be fewer pillars left, each
of which is an addition to the risk of gob-fires and to the
already sufficiently difficult question of ventilation.

In view of the difficulties which confront the mineowners
of the future in these districts, the writer ventured to state
that they should be provided with powers of compulsory
lease or purchase of minerals under certain conditions, in
order to avoid having to leave pillars of coal for altogether
inadequate reasons. Further, that there should be a means
provided for planning colliery “ takes ” on similar lines to
town planning at the surface, in order that the shape of
each colliery “ take ” should most nearly approach the
ideal (that is, where underground natural conditions
permit), namely, a square, and at the same time reduce the
length of the dividing barriers (where arrangements to

dispense with them were impracticable), which at these
depths will probably be 200 yards wide to a minimum. The
Final Report of the Royal Commission on Coal Supplies
gives the following figures on the question of loss of coal
for support of surface and for barriers, respecting seams
upwards of 2 ft. thick (excluding Yorkshire, Derbyshire,
Nottingham and Somerset) :—To be gotten, 73,741 million
tons ; to be left, 5,249 million tons, which works out at
7’1 per cent.

The four collieries in the diagram (fig. 1) have an area of
32,000 acres, or 50 square miles—say 7 miles by 7 miles.
The barriers, at 200 yards wide, will be 2,000 acres in extent,
and, adding another 1,000 acres for support of the town,
this makes a total of 3,000 acres, or 9 per cent. In addition
to this, a few pillars will have to be left for important
bridges, &c.—say 1 per cent, more—making a total of 10 per
cent, to be left for support. The Royal Commission’s
estimate, therefore appears too low, even if a scheme of
development be adopted. If no such scheme be followed,
and the old haphazard way’of the past be pursued, the loss
of coal in this event will probably approach 15 per cent., to
say nothing of the increased cost and difficulty of working
irregular and badly-shaped “ takes.” The recent decision* * *
that the railway companies have the common law right of
support outside the 40-yard zone raises a very serious
question for colliery proprietors in the new fields. The
quantity of coal which will have to be left where it is
deemed advisable to do so will be, comparatively speaking,
enormous. The question of the railways (and canals) which

I I

I I

I I

Fig. 1.—Diagram Illustrating the Development of New Colliery Districts.

will have to be laid down seems well worth considering by
the landowners and colliery proprietors, both in respect to
their most suitable positions and in respect to their control
and ownership. The traffic will be almost exclusively for
minerals, and, if the colliery proprietors had control, the
question of damage to these by subsidence could be solved.

In conclusion, the writer referred to Mr. Price-Williams’s
figures in connection with the probable duration of our coal
supplies. The Report of the Royal Commission stated that
there were about 140,000 million tons available from seams
upwards of 1 ft. thick within a depth of 4,000 ft. In the
writer’s opinion, Mr. Price-Williams’s estimates are now
entitled to more serious consideration, as, if they should
turn out to be anything like correct, the duration of our
coal supplies will be very much shorter than appears to
have been contemplated by the Commissioners, and the
140,000 million tons may conceivably be reduced to 100,000
million tons; and, again adopting an average output of
420 million tons per year, the duration of our coal supplies
works out at the equivalent of 230 years’ output. But the
vital question appears to be not so much that of the
“ probable duration of our coal supplies ” as " how long will
the supply last of those coalseams that will enable us to
maintain our position as a cheap coal-producing country ? ’>

* House of Lords judgment in the London and North-

Western Railway Company v. the Howley Park Coal and

Cannel Company.

<«**** -r ..

If our resources are equal to 230 years’ average future
output, the stage at which a substantial increase in the
price of coal will occur, may well be reached within the next
100 years. Artificial restriction of output would be a
hindrance instead of a benefit to the country, and the
question appears to resolve itself into:—

1.	Can oil or some other substitute be employed to
supplement coal in meeting this increase in the demand for
power ?

2.	Can more economical methods of converting coal into
energy be brought into universal use ?

In conclusion, the writer ventured to suggest that the
time is ripe for an enquiry to be made as to the lines along
which the development of both surface and sub-surface in
these colliery districts of the future should best proceed
with special reference to:—(a) The minimising of the loss
of coal used for surface support and for barriers; (b) the
housing question; (c) the simplification of the underground
boundaries of the various “ takes ”; (d) means of transport
by rail, canal and road.

Mr. Cockin, in proposing a vote of thanks to the
author said they had listened to a most interesting
paper, and he thought it would be better to adjourn the
discussion till a later meeting, and so give them time to
thoroughly go into the points raised.

Mr. J. 0. Forrest, in seconding the vote of thanks,
said he wanted it quite clear that the view of Mr,
Bradshaw, viz.: “ A fair distribution of the liabilities

for the surface support would appear to be one-third by
the colliery owner, one-third by the royalty owner, and
one-third by the owner of buildings,” was not one that
colliery owners could or did accept. The colliery
owners’ view was that the person who took the royalty
should pay all the surface damage. That was the
colliery owner paid nothing, the others could pay as
they liked.

Mr. Bradshaw, in acknowledging the vote, said he
had suggested a one-third on the principle that half a
loaf was better than no bread, as at present the colliery
owner paid all surface damage.

The discussion on the paper was then adjourned to a
later meeting.

The Valuation of Mineral Properties.

Mr. Cockin opened the further discussion on Mr. T.
A. O’Donahue’s paper, “ Notes on the Valuation of
Mineral Properties.”

Mr. J. H. Stephen, Assoc.M.Inst.C.E., in a written
communication, said under the Finance Act, |1909-10
an estimate was required in July of last year of the
present value of the reversion in a seam of coal in the
South Yorkshire coalfield. The seam was proved, was
in work, and in lease. The lease had 36 years to run
and the field was sufficiently large to last for another