Accrington Railways - Robert Kenyon

of goods. We have to point out that the reduction in the price of coal raised by you makes a limited statement on the overall costs of operating a railway. Labour costs have risen by 10% across the board whilst at the same time the length of hours in the working day has decreased from twelve to ten, have both increased the burden on the Company. The total working expense of the L & Y for the first six months of 1872 amounted to 46∙87% of revenue, whilst in the same period during 1878 this had risen to 56∙59%. Due to the cost of installing a system of block working across the network an additional half million pounds has been spent, plus we have had to find an additional £50,000 in increased rates, none of which has been passed on to the public. Taking all the circumstances of this matter into consideration, my Directors feel there is no justification for making any reductions in the tariffs we charge for carriage of goods. The Inspector from the Board of Trade, Major Marinden of the Royal Engineers, held an Inquiry on Friday, the 17 th , into the accident which had occurred on the 2 nd instant. Mr Maddock, the Superintendent of the L & Y, objected to the press being present, “as this was an ex-officio inquiry”. Although the reporters offered to withdraw the Inspector said they could remain. The Mayor, Town Clerk and Borough Surveyor along with several members of the Town Council were in attendance, but Marinden dismissed their protestations that this inquiry was about the general safety of Accrington Station, saying he would only be looking into the circumstances of this accident. He added, that the Company were already aware of the situation regarding safety at Accrington’s Railway Station, were anxious to make improvements, to prove this they had already obtained a Bill to this end, and any further observations they had to make should be directed to the Board. Mr Holgate pointed out that they had done this on two previous occasions but without success. He knew that the L & Y were to spend upwards of £1million in improvements to their infrastructure, but had not indicated how much would be invested in Accrington, and all they had heard from the Directors was a plain acknowledgement. Alderman Barlow asked Mr Maddock if this expenditure would in part be spent on Accrington? In reply he stated, “I can make no pledges, as we have already communicated the word of the Company to your Town Clerk”. Once again Major Marinden interjected by saying that past accidents were not within his remit for discussion, only the one which had occurred on the 2 nd . Mr Marshall said that this was what they were afraid of, and that nothing would be done until a major catastrophe occurred and it would then be too late. After this the press and the deputation retired and the Inquiry went ahead. On February, the 15 th , the findings of Major Marinden’s Inquiry were made known. He said the 5:05pm train from Salford had run through the station’s platform onto the viaduct, and had started back when the signal to do so had been dropped. It was found that the rear wheels of the 3rd Class coach at the rear of the train, had not cleared the points and on starting back had taken the rails of the ‘down’ track whilst the front wheels had gone over on to the up tracks, thus swivelling the carriage around at an angle. This had then fouled the parapet dislodging masonry sending it crashing some 30 feet down into the yard of the Crown Hotel. The Major requested a train be placed on the viaduct, to see if when the rear carriage of this train was still over the points, the lamp, which was meant to indicate if it was clear of the crossing, was still visible from the signal box. He also thought it possible that if the train had cleared this crossing by a small distance, the carriages had actually rolled back enough to place the rear carriage wheels onto the points. He concluded no negligence could be attributed to any of the Company’s servants, but that the indicator lamp was not sufficiently far enough beyond the crossover. He was also aware that since this accident the signalling arrangements at Accrington Station had been revised He recommended that this lamp should be moved a distance of 20 yards further along the line, that the points should be fitted with a locking bar, a facing point bolt and a gauge tie. He also observed that this train did not have a brake van at the rear, a practice he described as, “Much to be depreciated!” However, he did say he hoped that this and other accidents at Accrington Station would hasten the making of improvements there.

53