Accrington on Rails - The Tramways: A Complete History - Robert Kenyon

On the subject of through running to Bacup the Town Clerk reported that Haslingden and Rawtenstall had confirmed that ‘in the main’ they had agreed to the terms recently put forward and discussed by representatives of the respective Corporations, for a trial period of three months, the terms of which were to be as follows - 1. The term ‘authority’ to mean on the one hand Rawtenstall and on the other Accrington and Haslingden combined. 2. Each car running on this through service to be metered, and these meters to be read and aggregated at agreed periods of time. 3. Each authority to supply electrical energy at an equal price per unit. 4. Each authority to pay into a pool a sum equal to the aggregated amount of energy consumed by all its own cars. 5. This pool to be divided between the two authorities in proportion to the total mileage run by their own cars. The Town Clerk then reported on a subsequent meeting with a representative from Haslingden, with regard to the proportion that they would contribute into this pool, and that a ‘satisfactory’ arrangement had been reached on this subject. The above terms were accepted and embodied into an agreement to be submitted to the Board of Trade for their approval. The amount to be charged for power was then discussed, and this included a debate about a discrepancy between the meter readings on the tramcars and those at the Electricity Works! These had been expressed in terms of car/mile consumption and submitted as a statement of charges from April, 1909 to January, 1910. After full consideration it was resolved that a rebate of 7½% was made from the Tramway’s accounts for power to operate and retrospectively backdated to April, 1909. At a meeting of the General Works Committee held on the same day, a letter was received from the Reverend A. Spencer stating he was willing to sell a strip of land next to his Vicarage at the top of Ellison Street, subject to the consent of the Queen Anne’s Bounty and its Hulme Trustees. This was required by the Corporation to install a triangle of tracks. The asking price was £2 per square yard which had been paid to the Co-operative Society, and on condition that a wall and gateway would be erected in a new position to the Vicar’s satisfaction. He also wanted £50 as compensation for “inconvenience and disturbance” caused by the work. A decision on this was put off to the next meeting. March The Electrical, Legal & Parliamentary Committee met to hear a report from the Town Clerk and Borough Treasurer that they had appeared before the Union Assessment Committee to appeal against the rateable assessment of the Tramways undertaking as this had been increased by 180%! This matter was ultimately adjourned and referred to the Town Clerk and Mr Cross, a valuer, who was representing the Assessment Committee with the Town Clerk and Borough Treasurer in conference, with the object of settling the basis for assessment in this and for future years. It was resolved the Sub-Committee would deal with the tenders submitted for the uniforms and stores required by the Tramway Department for the coming year. The Town Clerk reported on his attendance at a meeting held on the previous day with representatives from the three corporations on the subject of through running to Bacup. Following a long discussion the meeting broke up with no agreement having been reached as to the rate to be charged for electricity supplied, the Rawtenstall representatives claiming 1½ pence per unit consumed, as against the 1¼ pence suggested by the Accrington and Haslingden contingent. Later during the course of this meeting a telephone message was received from the Town Clerk of Rawtenstall, who on the recommendation of his Corporation, suggested as a compromise the price of electricity should be set at 1⅜ pence per unit consumed. Another telephone message was then received, this time from the Town Clerk of Haslingden, to confirm that his Corporation would agree to this compromise price, whilst expressing the hope that Accrington would find this acceptable. As a matter of some urgency, and in order that through running might commence during the course of the Easter Week, the matter was referred to the Watch and General Works Committees, of which several councillors of this Committee were also members. At each of those Committee meetings the suggested compromise was accepted and adopted, so resolutions were passed to this end. Rawtenstall had maintained that Accrington’s trams were extracting more juice from the overhead than their own, whilst Accrington countered by suggested that Rawtenstall’s cars were incapable of

179