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

July The Electrical, Legal & Parliamentary Committee met to receive a number of tenders for the painting of the outside woodwork and ironwork at the tramway depot. It was resolved to accept the one from Messrs M. Pearson & Son. A letter was received from the Secretary of the Accrington Master Builders Association, requesting that ‘local’ contractors should be given the opportunity to tender for the proposed extensions to the tramway depot. It was resolved the Town Clerk would reply that this matter would receive due consideration after the plans had been prepared and approved. The Tramway Manager then submitted a number of tenders for the supply of a time-recording clock for the tramway depot. These were deferred to the Sub-Committee to choose which one they thought best. He then submitted a report from one of the Tramway Inspectors, relating to a ‘neglect of duty’ on the part of two men who were in the employ of the Tramways and worked at the depot. The Sub-Committee were again asked to deal with this matter. The question of altering the lights on the single deck cars was also referred to the Sub-Committee. Meeting later in the day, the Sub-Committee made their choice of which time recorder to obtain for the depot. At a meeting of the Finance Committee held on July 28 th the rateable value of the Tramway was discussed. The Borough Treasurer reported that the decision of the Court of Appeal of February 8 th , 1912 in the Tottenham case had been overturned by the House of Lords. As a result of this ruling the Borough Treasurer was to pay out to the townships in which the tramway was laid the following sums - These sums were representing three quarters of the rate which was deducted from the General District Rate or similar rate during the past two financial years, in accordance with the Court of Appeals ruling on these matters. During July, 1913, Mr S. W. Speight from St. Annes-on-Sea was to apply to the Board of Trade for a licence on behalf of the Rishton Electrical Supply Company, to supply Rishton, Great Harwood and parts of Clayton-le-Moors with electricity. It was pointed out that this would enable the extension of existing tramways through these towns. September At a meeting of the Electrical Sub-Committee, they discussed the question of either continuing or curtailing the 10-minute frequency of service on the Baxenden Section after 12 noon on each day. This had begun on July 1 st last, as a three month trial. It was resolved that this level of service would be allowed to continue up until the end of October, when, at a ‘joint’ meeting with Haslingden and Rawtenstall Corporations it would be decided whether or not to continue with this frequency of service throughout the winter months. October At a meeting of the Electrical, Legal & Parliamentary Committee a report was heard from the Chairman on a meeting he, the Tramway Manager, and Alderman Rawson had attended with representatives from Haslingden and Rawtenstall Corporations. After long deliberations and “in deference to the pressing demands made by Rawtenstall”, it had been decided that subject to confirmation by each authority, to continue to operate a ten minute frequency on the through service for a full year’s trial. It was resolved that this course of action would be approved, subject to Rawtenstall Corporation waiving the extra charges now being paid to them for their continued use of ‘regenerative braking’ on some of their cars. The Borough Surveyor then submitted his plans for a shelter measuring 50 feet by 28½ feet to be erected on the Market Ground at a cost of £275. It was resolved that, subject to the approval of the Town Hall & Markets Committee, they were prepared to meet the cost of putting up this shelter. The Committee then discussed the dismissal of the two motormen, who were discovered visiting public houses whilst on duty, in flagrant breach of the ‘printed’ regulations adopted by the Council on the take over of the tramway. Following a long debate it was resolved to endorse the actions of the Tramway Manager in dismissing these men, but it was left up to him to decide whether to consider an application from one of these individuals for re-employment favourable or otherwise. Altham Rural District Council - £1 – 14s – 7d. Church Urban District Council - £23 – 5s – 0d. Clayton-le-Moors Urban District Council - £19 – 5s – 10d. Huncoat Parish Council – £2 – 12s – 6d. Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council - £53 – 14s – 4d. TOTALLING - £100 – 12s – 3d.

205