ENGINEERS DIFFER

Grey River Argus, 15 December 1943, Page 3

ENGINEERS DIFFER

HUTT RAIL SMASH

Questions of Tracks and Loco Types

P.A. WELLINGTON, Dec. 14. Evidence concerning the chanac-1 teristics of W.A.B. engines, the type involved in the two derailments near Haywards, was given when the inquiry into the passenger train smash on November 8 was resumed to-day, Alan T. Hawken, .transportation superintendent, recalled, said that he regarded W.A.B. engines as satisfactory for suburban traffic where they were now used. They were powerful, accelerated quickly, .and maintained the schedule times. They, could also run either funnel first, or I bunker first. Up to a point, they i had been satisfactory on other lines. If the W.A.B.’s were taken off the j suburban runs, there would not be | much use for them elsewhere. There | were no other suitable types of engine which could be used if the W.A.B.’s were withdrawn from the Hutt Valley services. Harry L. P. Smith, district engineer, recalled, said that the formation in th e vicinity of the derailments had been tested, as 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 nature, such as would cause soft spots to develop. From the engineering point of view, the original ground gave a good formation for a railway track..

Reginald John Gard, assistant chief mechanical engineer, said that, reviewing 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 well within safety limits, was admitted to be within one and a half years of the end of its life. There were also various irregularities in th e . track, some of which were admitted to have been in need of attention; and possibly the ballasting was not of the very best. He thought that the whole effect, as the engine took the curve at 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 the study of the cant, it did seem that the stage was set, in a minor degree perhaps, for a derailment. The weight of ’ the engine on an admittedly old, track must be taken into account. To the chairman the witness said that, if there was nothing wrong with the engine, and a kick-out in the track had not -been there previously, it must mean that the track was not strong enough to carry the W.A.B. engine round that curve at 30 to 35- miles an hour with the cab bogie leading. The witness said that he rejected the theory of the cause outlined by the chief engineer of Railways, Mr Bertinshaw. Mr Watson: Given a suitable speed and proper track maintenance, the Hutt lines would be quite safe for W.AB. engines?

Witness: Yes. Mr Watson: If the track condition is below standard, is not a reduction of speed necessary if 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 their request for a reduction of speed was also well-founded? Mr Bertinshaw: Mr Chairman, I protest against Mr Watson’s question Mr Card 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 an assumption. Mr Watson: Mr Chairman, I would ask that Mr Bertinshaw put any objection through his counsel, instead of interfering with counsel m this war. Mr Watson repeated his question to witness. Witness: I would think that a reduction of speed on sharp curves would meet the position. The chairman intimated that Mr Bertinshaw wished, to put some questions to the witness. Mr Watson': I must object to such .procedure. Mr Bertinshaw has no standing in this inquiry other than that of a witness. If every witness whose theories are not, accepted by another witness permitted, a very dangerous precedent would be established. The Chairman: I quite agree. Mr Bertinshaw, however, feels that counsel for the Department are in] a difficult position. They have to| present evidence on behalf of the 1 Department. Mr Watson: I do not want to be involved in what amounts to a difference between two branches. There are two other alternatives. Mr Gard could b e cross-examined by other ■counsel to-morrow, or Mr Bertinshaw could brief the Department’s counsel overnight. The Chairman: I quite agree. Have you any objection to that /course, Mr Bertinshaw? Mr Bertinshaw: I would prefer to put them myself. Mr Watson has been pressing his attack against my branch in support of the letter which his clients sent in. I feel that 1 could bring out points which should be brought out. , . , The Chairman: This is a different matter. Counsel are here for that. I was quite prepared to have taken the easier course, and my colleagues agreed, but, since objection has been raised, I think that it would b e better to proceed in the proper Planner You are entitled to be called. The Court could call-you to give evidence in rebuttal, but you would have to confine yourself to the matters dealt with by Mr Gard m his evidence. As to cross-examination of the witness, would it. suit Y ou lf ™e adjourned for a period for you to explain your questions to the Department’s counsel? Mr Bertinshaw: Thank you When the Court, resumed, Mi Gard, replying to Mr Aicken, said that the Commonwealth type of bogie was not used with that pai ticular 3-point suspension as in the W.A.B. as leading bogies on other engines. Commonwealth bogies used as leading bogies were of the cpntrepin type, and they were not m -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 m. our own shops, but we have the original designs, which can be produced. The inquiry resumes to-morrow afternoon.