HUTT DERAILMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 December 1943, Page 3

HUTT DERAILMENT

EXPERT OPINIONS DIFFER

WELLINGTON, Dec. 14

Evidence concerning the characteristics of the W.A.B. engines, the type involved in the two derailments near Haywards on the Hutt line, was given when the inquiry into the passengei train accident on ■ November 8 was resumed to-day. Sir Francis Frazer I (chairman) and Messrs John Wood, a former engineer-in-chief of the Public Works Department, and H. L. Cole, secretary of the New Zealand Institute of Engineers, comprised the I board. Mr. W. H. Cunningham, with him Major F. W. Aickin, represented the Railways Department, and Mr. G. G. G. Watson, with him Mr. T. H. Stephenson, represented the Locomoitive Engineers’, Firemen’s, and Clean- • ers’ Association, and the driver of the itrain (James Bain), and the fireman '(A. E. Sutton). Mr. L. Mcllvndge ! represented the Amalgamated Society ! of Railway Servants, and Mr. E. T. C. i Hogg the relatives of Mrs. Ngaire Pearl Rowe, a victim of the accident. 1 Alan T. Hawken, transportation superintendent, recalled, said that he regarded the W.A.B. engines as satisfactory for suburban traffic, where they were now used. They were powlerful, accelerated quickly, and mainI tained schedule times. They could also ! run either funnel first or bunker first. 'Ud to a point they had been satisfactory on other lines. If W.A.B.’s were taken off suburban runs there would not be much use for them else- ! where. There were no other suitable i types of engine which could be used iff the W.A.B.’s were withdrawn from ithe Hutt Valley services. I Harry L. P. Smith, district engineer, i recalled, said that the formation near ;the derailments had been tested as I requested by the board. It consisted mainly of rotten rock, rubble, and broken rotten rock. It was very porous, and would give good drainage. • It contained no clay of a puggy na;ture, such as would cause soft spots :to develop. From the engineering i point of view the original ground igave good formation for a railway ' track.

I Reginald John Gard, assistant chief [mechanical engineer, said that, re!viewing the whole matter, they had The combination of a very heavy engine, maintained by engineers to be .the hardest of all engines on the ; track, travelling bunker' first on a ! curve, the high leg of which, while I well within the safety- limits, was adimitted to be within one and a-half I years of the end of its life. There were also various irregularities in the [track, some of which were admitted Ito have been in need of attention, and [ possibly the ballasting was not of the ' very best. He thought that the whole 1 effect, as the engine took the curve at I 30 to 35 miles an hour, would be to set up a movement, which would finally lift the weight off the leading , wheel, and cause it to mount the rail. 'From a study of the cant it did seem that the stage was set in a minor deigree. perhaps for a derailment. The ! weight of the engine, on an admittedly old track, must be taken into aci count.

To the chairman, the witness said that if there was nothing wrong with the engine, and the kick-out in the track had not been there previously, it must mean that the track was not strong enough to carry a W.A.B. engine round that curve at 30 to 35 miles an hour with the cab bogie leading. Witness said he rejected the theory of the cause outlined by the chief engineer of railways, Mr. Bertinshaw.

SPEED AND SAFETY

Mr. Watson: Given suitable speeds, and proper track maintenance, the Hutt lines would be quite safe for W.A.B. engines?—Yes. Air. Watson: If the track condition is below standard, is not a reduction of speed necessary if the W.A.B.’s ( are to continue?—Yes. Mr. Watson: If the E.F.C.A. complaint as to the safety of the track was well founded, then the request for a reduction of the speed was also well-founded?

Mr. Bertinshaw: Mr. Chairman, I protest against Mr. Watson’s question. Mr. Gard has said nothing in his evidence about the condition of the track. He knows nothing about it. It is not fair to me.

‘ The chairman: I think Mr. Watson was putting a general question based on ah assumption. i Mr. Watson: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Mr. Bertinshaw put any obHection through his counsel, instead of interfering with counsel in this way. Mr. Watson then repeated his question to the witness, who replied: “I j would think that a reduction of speed I on sharp curves would meet the position.” ; , , The chairman intithated that Mr.

Bertinshaw wished to put some quesLinns to tho witness. Mr. Watson: I must object to such a procedure. Mr. Bertinshaw has no standing in this inquiry othei than that of a witness. If every witness whose theories are not accepted by another witness were so permitted, a very dangerous precedent would be established. , i\/r,. The chairman: I quite agree Mi • Bertinshaw, however, feels that counsel for the department are m a diilicult position. They have to present evidence on behalf of the department. Mr. Watson: I do suggest that we should get into grave difficulties. We do not want to be involved m what amounts to a difference between two branches. There are two other alternatives. Mr. Gard could be cioss-ex-amined by other counsel to-morrow, or Mr. Bertinshaw could brief the department’s counsel overnight. The chairman: I quite agree. Haye you any objection to that couise, Mi. Bertinshaw? t . Mr. Bertinshaw: I would prefer to put them myself. Mr. Watson has been pressing his attack against my branch in support of a letter his clients sent in. I feel that I could bring out points which should be brought out. . . The chairman: This is a difficult matter. Counsel are here for that. 1 was quite prepared to have taken the easier course, and my colleagues agreed; but since the objection has been raised, I think it would be better to proceed in a proper manner. You are entitled to be called. The Court could call you to give evidence in rebuttal, but you would have to confine yourself to matters dealt with by Mr. Gard in his evidence. As to the cross-examination of the witness, would it suit you if we adjourned tor a period for you to explain your questions to the department’s counsel; Mr. Bertinshaw: Thank you. When the Court resumed, Gard, replying to Major Aicken, said the commonwealth type of bogie was not used with that particular three-point suspension, as in the W.A.8., as leading bogies. On other engines the commonwealth bogies used as leading bogies were of the centrepin type, and they were not in use in tank engines. “The commonwealth type of bogie was originally designed and submitted by an American company for use on W.A.B. locomotives, as they are being used for running both backward and forward. We eventually built them in our own shops, but we have the original designs, which can be produced.” The inquiry will resume to-morrow afternoon.