Accrington Railways - Robert Kenyon

interfere with the roads and streets within Accrington, and that the costs of such opposition be charged against the general rates.” On questioning, it was explained that the Company’s plans for this extension had not been revealed, except that it was planning to take a piece of land on the north-westerly side of the railway station, but this did not include any improvements to the station itself. Benjamin Hargreaves said that he opposed this plan in its entirety, since the failure of the previous resolution on the merger of the two railway companies when Clayton, Blackburn and Burnley had all given their consent, Accrington had stood out alone. It was his belief that the L & Y along with the L&NWR had planned to construct a large depot in Accrington and to build railway carriages there, and these plans had been thwarted by the Board, principally on the instigation of Mr John Boothman. He stated, “I accept the inadequacy of the Railway Station, but what good would come out of blocking the Company from extending its lines? The roads adjacent to Manchester’s Victoria Station had been darkened, but this has been of no impediment to traffic in Manchester, and this method of mounting an objection is quite frankly ‘frivolous’. I have been informed by a person very conversant in matters of this nature, and he had said it would cost the ratepayers between £400 and £500 to mount a challenge”. Mr Holgate was also in favour of abandoning all opposition, as the Company’s own Inspectors were always tinkering with the arrangements at the station in order to improve things, and this extension might help them in their task. Mr Dewhurst pointed out that Sheffield Corporation had gone into the Bankruptcy Court having lost £3,500 in an unsuccessful action of this kind, and without first getting the permission of the ratepayers. Mr Turner said, that in Preston the L&NWR had made a complete muddle of the work until the local board had intervened, and it was better now even though it had been going on for years. “Wherever you go you will hear Accrington’s Railway Station being blackballed, as it is a great disgrace to the town”, he said. The Chairman said, “Despite everything the buildings at Accrington Station are not an eyesore, but there are at least two railway bridges in the town which cause great inconvenience to traffic, one at each end of Scaitcliffe Street. The L & Y have been asked to do something about them, but as yet nothing has been done”. The Parliamentary Agent in Westminster had been in touch, when the Company’s representatives had asked for clauses to be inserted in their Bill, and if these proved to be satisfactory, then the cost would be in the region of £150, not that which had been postulated. Mr Higham said, if the issue was one of light under the arches, then it would be incumbent of the Company to meet the expense of gas lighting. Mr Hargreaves pointed out that the bridge in Woodnook was narrow, because when it was constructed it crossed over what was a narrow pathway, and since then the area had been developed in a way which could not have been anticipated in 1848. Mr Entwistle pointed out that the arches over Blackburn Road and Whalley Road both leaked water, and even though the L & Y had been served with notices they had not remedied the problems. The Chairman felt that the L & Y were stalling for time in not revealing their plans, in order to thwart the Board from having time to deposit any opposition before the Bill went into the Lords. A local dealer in earthenware, Mr Jones, added that it was safe to travel on the railway until encountering Accrington’s Station. (Hear, hear!) Mr Duckworth enquired if there would be an open space between the two arches, and what would there be to stop the Company from filling them in with even more lines at some point in the future? The Chairman answered by saying, “We would have no such guarantee Sir”. The Town Clerk having studied the draft plans showing the centre line of the tracks, estimated that the distance between the arches would be, “Somewhere in the region of 35 to 40 yards, and if this were to be filled in, it would create a small tunnel!” The Borough Surveyor was called in to evaluate this plan and said the second crossing of Blackburn Road was some 50 yards from the existing arch and would come off the line at a junction on the corner of Paxton Street, and this would mean the L & Y would have to buy up some dwellings on that Street. Mr Hindle said that this was the principle entrance to the town centre and therefore the Company should not be allowed carte blanch to construct any archway which blighted the road underneath. Mr Holden was of the opinion that the archway over Blackburn Road was wide enough and high enough so as not to impede traffic, and any new arch should have at least the same dimensions so as to make provisions for footpaths and a roadway.

48