Signalling complaints months before crash

Press, 24 May 1977, Page 10

Signalling complaints months before crash

PA Auckland. Written complaints about the efficiency of emergency train signalling were made six months before the fatal Newmarket train crash, the board of inquiry into the accident heard. The complaints made to senior railway officers on September 21. 1976. by the Auckland branch of the Locomotive Engineers. Firemen, and Cleaners’ Association, were presented as evidence in a memorandum quoting part of a letter from the association. Thev followed a disruption to the s gnais and mechanical points on the Auckland to Manurewa railway lines on September 7,8, and 9, 1976. Hand signalling and points setting was used throughout this period, as it was on the day of the fa'a I accident. The letter of complaint said that the association was appalled about the conditions and the “complete lack of cooperation within the department,” which became evident during the disruptions in September. “The branch is primarily concerned about the frightening lack of even rudimentary knowledge of departmental rules and regulations displayed by a large percentage of the

staff, employed in hand signalling trains,” the letter of complaint said. The associations letter gave several incidents in support of its assertions, including one where it alleged that main-line points had been incorrectly set during the disruption. Parts of the letter were produced as evidence by the assistant district traffic manager for the Railways (Mr M. J, Farrington) who was the acting area traffic manager for Auckland, in September, 1976. He said that the complaint was passed on to him as a memorandum, and reports on it were sought from the traffic foreman at Auckland and the stationmasters at Newmarket and Taniaki. Because of these reports he had sent a memo to the district traffic manager, saying that he was satisfied his staff had carried out the duties asked of them during the disruption, and that they were competent to do so efficiently. Counsel for the Railways Department (Mr S. B. W. Grieve) said that there had been assertions of a complete lack of retraining. particularly of hand signalmen, and asked Mr Farrington if this should have been investigated because of the complaints.

In reply, Mr Farrington said that this would have been done had the complaints been specific. Mr Grieve: As a general complaint in those circumstances, did you think it required a deeper investigation by yourself? Mr Farrington: It was a sweeping complaint, and could have referred to outside the Auckland area. The district mechanical engineer for the department (Mr B. Ford) said that the district traffic manager should have written to the association about the complaints, and asked them to justify the strong terms in which they were phrased. Mr Ford also said that with hindsight he could have learned more about the incidents complained of.