CORRESPONDENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 225, 20 September 1906, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE ARTILLERY PARK. (To tbe Editor.) Sir, —if it would unduly strain the city finances to mount the four big guns which blight the grass in the vicinity of the flagstaff in the Albert Park and otherwise disfigure a pretty spot, I am sure the frequenters of the park would gladly subscribe enough for the purpose, or, better still, .to have the things removed, for they have no historical associations, and are intensely inartistic. Perhaps, if the eleemosnary proposal above made is incompatible with a municipality which is spending over £250,000 on public works, the naval artillery might put in an evening's drill in removing the approach which Has now continued for some twelve months. —I am, etc., J. SERVICE. THE TRAM-CAR COLLISION. (To the Editor.) Sir, —With reference to the report in your Tuesdays issue, on last Saturday's tram-car accident, referring to brake-tests conducted on car No. 12 on Monday, the 17th inst., will you kindly allow mc to remark that Mr Carey's remarks on myself are a serious matter to mc, and I now ask you in justice to myself and the public to publish my version of the affair. The state of the brakes, before the accident, and after, as I assume they had been put in order for the tests in question, is certainly not the same thing, as all who think must know. Mr. Carey, in stat ing that the car in question could have been pulled up by the forward emergency brake in two car lengths was safe in sayiDg so, but he ought to have added, "it the forward emergency had been in order" (which I maintain it was not). "If tin rails had been dry" (which they were not), and ''If the. car had been travelling at under ten mile? an hour" (which it was not), and "If sand gear had been in working order" (which it was not). Mr. Carey's statement that the motorman made a mistake in using the backward emergency brake is equally misleading, for the very first sentence in Rule 47 in the Company's rules and regulations expressly directs motonnen to follow this very course in cases of extreme necessity, such as to avoid a collision or save life. There is no room for doubt that had I used only the torward emergency brake under the conditions prevailing at the time of the accident, as Mr Carey states I ought to have done, the moving car would have smashed to pieces the stationary one, and the loss of life and injury to persons which might have resulted under such circum stances may be imagined, compared with which the damage done is as nothing. It may be explained that the forward emergency brake acts differently on different cars, being more efficient on oue car than on another, and is not al\\_3 - s reliable as a means of cheeking the speed of cars in a given distance, as it locks the wheels at once, and allows them to skid on tho rails. This skidding is to some extent lessened by the application of sand on tbe rails by means of sand-gear worked from the iuotorman's platform, which sand-gear is. however, not workable on all ears and was inoperative on car 12 nt the time of the collision in question. Partly on account of the sand-gear being out of order on this car, tlie forward emergency brake was found untrustworthy earlier in the day, and for this reason the extreme emergency brake was used iin its stead. Mr. Carey's statement | that I lost my presence of mind is quite at variance with the facts and evidence lof passengers on my car. and other cvii dence. The ratchet-brake is the one in general use for ordinary braking. It ■ is, however, liable to temporary derangement, and on car No. 12 was not in working order just before the. collision, il'hc track-brake is not adapted for rapid application, leaving therefore only the backward emergency brake to be used. I must here point out that besiues the disorder of the brakes men tioned, the conductor on car No. 12 was an inexperienced man (on the spare list), and his action in pulling in a switch, which under the circumstances he should not have touched after it had blown out, nullified tne efficiency of the backward emergency brake in arresting the car's speed. But for this act alone, leaving out the deficiencies before named, there would have been no collision. The above are facts without reservation or equivocation, and can be amply verified in detail, leaving the public to judge whether the collision was due to my want of presence of mind and mistake, or to ill-cared tor brakes, sand gear, and untrained men. Thanking you in anticipation.—l am, etc., O. H. DREWET, (Motorman of car No. 12). Septemiber 19.