HYDE RAIL DISASTER

Evening Star, Issue 25005, 26 October 1943, Page 2

HYDE RAIL DISASTER

MANSLAUGHTER TRIAL RESUMED STRUCTIONAL INSPECTION BY JURY The jury by whom John Patrick Alphonsus Corcoran is being tried on a charge of manslaughter arising out of the Hyde railway smash on June 4 spent all yesterday morning at the Hillside Workshops inspecting the rolling stock involved in that accident. On the court resuming at 2.15 p.m., the Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. iB. Adams) suggested to Mr Justice Kennedy that the jury should be given an opportunity of examining a 10-chain curve and a 12chain curve at Sawyers Bay, which were said to be of a similar nature to those at and near the scene of the Hyde derailment. His Honour gave the necessary permission, and the court again adjourned. On resuming at 4 o'clock, Albert Stanton, railway locomotive foreman, continuing his evidence, expressed the opinion that speedometers were not necessary on engines to enable drivers to judge the speed at which the train was travelling. On high-speed trains, however, they might be an advantage. To Mr Anderson, witness said that he remembered one case, a few months ago, of a driver being brought before the railway authorities for exceeding the maximum permissible speed in order to make up time. This occurrence took place on the Central Otago line. In the circumstances surrounding the derailment at Hyde witness would say that the position in which he found the brake controls was the proper one for a " drifting " engine. " Do you know whether a 'drifting ' engine ,can attain a speed of 50 miles per hour?" asked Mr Adams in reexamining the witness. The witness replied that it would depend on the grade. On an appropriate grade a drifting engine might do that and more, though he would not make a definite statement to this effect. Driving at high speed, a driver was not likely to befar out in judging how fast he was going. At 40 miles per hour the average driver would be expected to judge' his speed within a few miles per hour Evidence regarding the condition of two springs from the derailed engine was given by Charles Leonard Peace, who had made certain tests of these springs at Wellington. James Anthony (Reynolds, assistant district engineer at Dunedin, produced calculations made on the working timetable showing the maximum speed required to make, up time between certain points.

At this- stage the court rose. TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS

The sixth day of the trial was begun this morning. .Tames Anthony Reynolds, assistant district engineer, continued his evidence regarding the average speed of trains between stations. Witness stated that the station registers showed that the actual time made up between Kokonga and Hyde was 11 minutes. The time which might be saved while keeping within the limits of permissible speed was 7.1 minutes, assuming that there was no stop at Tiroiti. To make up 1] minutes on this stretch would necessitate a speed of 38.3 miles per hour. The average speed required to conform with the time-table was 24.1 , m.p.h. Taking the figures on the guard's sheet as correct, the average speed between Kokonga and Hyde worked out at 35.3 m.p.h., and that between Kokonga and Hyde Township at 35 mip.h. In regard to the question of cant and slack, witness said that it was considered more important to keep the cant uniform than to keep, to the standard variations. If the cant showed a loss of half an inch, however, adjustment would be necessary.

Cross-examined, witness said that, on a time-table basis, the train was 13 minutes late at Kokonga. Over the Waipiata-Kokonga section the average speed of the train had been 6.6 m.p.h. under the average permissible, and on the time-table basis, 5.5 m.pli. under. Calculated from the station records the difference between" the accused's speed from Kokonga to Hyde and the average permissible speed was 7.3 m.p.h., while if the figures on the guard's sheet were taken, the difference would be 5.1 m.p.h. The differences between Kokonga and Hyde Township taken from the respective records would be 8.2 and 5.5 m.p.h. Witness was unaware that anyone in the department had been able, to fix the exact time of the derailment.

John O'Donnell, inspector of permanent ways, Dunedin, and John Edward Brown, ganger, examined in regard to the " kick-out " in the vicinity of Purakanui mentioned earlier in the proceedings, said that because of a defect in the line in that neighbourhood discovered on April 30 a speed restriction had been imposed. The defect had been adjusted the next day.

To Mr Anderson, he said- that a speed restriction of 20 miles per hour had been imposed over the section mentioned, but this had recently been raised to 25 m.p.h. The " kick-out " on April 30 had been the only one requiring repair. Evidence that they had interviewed the accused on August 13 was given by Detective R. J. A._ Berry and De-tective-sergeant J. Gibson. Accused had then given an account of his movements on the morning of June 4, and admitted that he had been in the bar of the hotel about 11 o'clock and had bad no lunch, also that Sarginson had travelled on the engine from Ranfurly to Waipiata. He did not think he was travelling any faster on this trip than on a trip he had made the previous week. Asked if he had any liquor on the train, the accused had admitted that he had bought two bottles of beer at Ranfurly, as the hotels would he closed when he reached Dunedin. These bottles had not been opened on the journey. He had had three beers at Ranfurly. which, at the present strength of beer, accused did not consider would affect anybody. The curve where the derailment took place was. in accused's opinion, not a bad one. He knew that some time had been made up between Kokonga and Hyde, but he would not say it was 11 minutes. Accused had made no explanation as to how the accident had occurred: everything had seemed to be all right going around the curve before the derailment. The statement made bv the accused, added the witnesses, was a verbal one made in the presence .of his solicitor. _ and he said he preferred to wait until he was out of the Hospital before making a written statement. No written statement, however, had been made. To Mr Anderson: Accused had answered all questions quite frankly and readilv. Accused had said that no complaints had been made during the journey regarding speed,