HYDE DISASTER

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVI, Issue 125, 23 November 1943, Page 4

HYDE DISASTER

GUARD'S POSITION

SUBMISSION TO BOARD

I Submissions on behalf of the guard and for the Railway Department in respect of that officer were made yesterday afternoon to the Board of Inquiry investigating the circumstances of the.Hyde railway disaster on June 4 last. These submissions completed the hearing, and the board will now ! prepare its report for the Minister of i Railways.' ,r Mr. L. Mcllvride, representing the ! Amalgamated Society of Railway Serjvants, traversed the evidence given at the Supreme Court trial of the enginedriver in relation to the actions of the guard before the train set out and on the journey. He referred to the liquor consumed by the guard and submitted that the effects would have .worn off long before the accident and that his I alertness and judgment would not be impaired. The guard had signed on in the presence of the stationmacter, and it was well known that men in rej sponsible positions in the service were jnot allowed to take up duty if, in the opinion of a senior officer, they had been partaking of liquor and were not in a fit state to work. NO COMPLAINT TO GUARD. No actual complaint about speed had been made to the guard, Mr. Mcllvride continued. He had had about ten years' experience on the run, and his first awareness of excessive speed was only a few hundred yards before the scene of the accident. It was the experience of train-running men generally, and Main Trunk guards in particular, that rolls and bumps were frequently experienced which might alarm nervous passengers but which a guard would not feel justified him in interfering with the brakes. Again, a guard would not know whether the driver'himself was about to apply the brakes or not. ; Mr. Mcllvride submitted that on a careful reading of the evidence the guard had been alert and used his judgment and had not failed in the discharge of his duties. "I want to | make it clear that while 'our organisation will not endeavour at any time to have any of its members exonerated if they have been guilty of neglect of duty, at the same time it does not want any person or body to justify something that has happened by dismissing one of its members not deserving that punishment," he added. Mr. I. Thomas, representing the Railway Department, submitted that in all the circumstances—the drink consumed by the guard, the speed of the train and the comments made by the passengers, the time that wasinade up the guard's knowledge that the driver had had liquor that morning his failure to keep a complete list of arrival and departure times at stations, and other factors—the indications should have been clear to him that some action on his part was necessary. Mr. Thomas said he could only submit that in failing to take such action the guard had been guilty of a dereliction of duty. Replying, Mr. Mcllvride said the guard had admitted that at times the train was travelling fast, but m his opinion it was not exceeding the speed limit. If that was so, the guard would not feel it incumbent upon him to take the matter up with the driver at any of the stations. . The chairman (Sir Francis Frazer), said the board would try to get its report out as expeditiously as possible. It would certainly have to study the evidence pretty carefully.