HYDE RAILWAY DISASTER

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 24112, 23 November 1943, Page 4

HYDE RAILWAY DISASTER

BOARD OF INQUIRY

SITS

COUNSEL’S SUBMISSIONS (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Nov. 21. An official inquiry into the Hyde railway derailment, resulting in the deaths of 21 persons, was held in Wellington to-day. The members of the board are Sir Francis Frazer (chairman), Messrs J. W. Wood, and H. L. Cole. At the inquiry, Mr I. Thomas represented the Railways Department, Mr T. H. Stephenson the EngineDrivers’, Firemen’s, and Cleaners’ Association, and Mr L. Mcllvride the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. The order of reference for the board was: (1) what was the cause of the derailment? (2LWas any person in the employ of the Government Railway Department guilty of any dereliction of duty which directly or indirectly contributed to the derailment? (3) Generally, are there any circumstances in connexion with the derailment which call for comment, particularly in respect of rolling stock and the permanent way in the locality of the derailment? (4) What steps (if any) should be taken to prevent the occurrence of a similar derailment? Mr Thomas said that Corcoran, the engine-driver of the train, had been convicted of manslaughter by driving negligently and at an excessive speed. Notes of the evidence given at the trial, including practically all the evidence which would normally have been adduced at the inquiry, were available. He suggested that they should be accepted by the boardj as had been done at a previous inquiry in similar circumstances. Mr Stephenson agreed, adding that he took it that the board would analyse the evidence itself, and not accept without further consideration the finding of the jury. The Human Element Referring to the fourth clause in the order of reference, Mr Thomas said that in the present case there hcd been failure of the human element, and it was therefore difficult to suggest any measure which might be adopted to prevent the occurrence of a similar accident in future. The question of equipping engines with speed recorders had been raised at the trial, and on previous occasions, and evidence would be given on that subject. Evidence would also be given about the department’s regulations relating to the consumption of liquor, the suspension of employees, and the responsibility for the safety of trains. On behalf of the Minister of Railways and the department, Mr Thomas expressed sympathy with the relatives of those who had been killed in the accident, and the hope that those still suffering from injuries would have a speedy recovery. He also thanked passengers, who had shown courage in difficult circumstances, and persons at the scene of the accident who had given ready and willing assistance. R. J. Card, assistant-chief mechanical engineer of the Railways Department, in a written statement, said the department’s experience with the mechanically-driven recording type of speed indicator had been unsatisfactory. Over many years it had endeavoured to maintain them in operation. The solution seemed to be to use the electric transmitter type of speed indicator which, from trials already made, was definitely far superior to the recording type in reliability. Speed Recorders

It was explained that a speed recorder kept a permanent record of speeds, but a speed indicator merely showed the speed from moment to moment.

"At present it is very difficult to obtain delivery of any type of speed recorder or indicator, but it is hoped that Stone’s type, outstanding on order, will shortly arrive,” said Gard. “It is hoped that by the time supplies of suitable instruments are available the tests will be completed, and a decision made, so that orders for the necessary instruments of the speed indicator type required for our main line engines can be placed." K. G. Reid, of the law office of the Railways Department, said it was proposed to introduce next month consolidated and amended railway regulations. He submitted a statement showing the present and proposed regulations relating to insobriety of employees, suspension of employees, and the responsibility of guards and engine drivers for the safety of trains. The Guard After the luncheon adjournment the board considered the case of the guard of the train who, Mr Mcllvride said, had been suspended, and who, in the event of dismissal, intended to appeal. After discussing the evidence relating to drinks consumed by the guard early in the day. Mr Mcllvride said he was told that the effect, if any, would have worn off by the time the guard went on duty at 2.20 p.m.. and would not interfere with his alertness or judgment. The guard had signed on for duty in the presence of the stationmaster, and he knew that men in responsible positions were carefully scrutinised, and not allowed to take up duty if, in the opinion of the stationmaster, they had been partaking of liquor and were not in a fit state. It was indicated in evidence that the guard had given the requisite signals correctly and promptly. The train stopped at Hyde, and though there was mention of some comment among passengers about the speed of the train, there was no actual complaint to the guard. Up to this time the guard, with approximately 10 years’ experience in the district, did not consider the speed excessive. He said his first awareness of a roll was a few hundred yards before the point of the accident. The guard would not consider that one ripl entitled him to use the emergency brake, and in addition, he would not know whether the driver himself was about to apply the brake. Attitude of A.S.R.S.

It appeared, said Mr Mcllvride, that the guard had been alert, using his judgment governed by experience, and had not failed in the discharge of his duties. “I want to make it clear also,” he said, “that while our organisation will not at any time endeavour to have any of its members exonerated if they have been guilty of' neglect of duty, at the same time the organisation does not want any other person or body to justify something that has happened by dismissing a member not deserving of that punishment.” Mr Thomas submitted that, taking all the circumstances together—the speed of the train, the time made up, the comments of the passengers, and the guard’s knowledge that the driver had had liquor that morning—to an alert guard the indications were clear that some action on his part was necessary. There was also the question of how far the liquor consumed by the guard himself might have affected his judgment. The guard had an opportunity at Hyde of taking up with the driver the question of speed. He also at all times had access to the guard’s emergency brake. “In all the circumstances,” said Mr Thomas, “I must submit that there were or should have been clear indications to the guard that some action on his part was necessary, and that in failing to take such action he was guilty of dereliction of duty.” The board will consider the evidence and report to the Minister by December 10. ■