MORNINGSIDE FIRE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXV, Issue 163, 26 June 1935, Page 8

MORNINGSIDE FIRE

Sparks From Locomotives EVIDENCE AT INQUIRY By Telegraph—Press Association AUCKLAND, June 25. The inquiry into the fire which destroyed the main buildings and plant of the Morningside Timber Company, Limited, on December 1, called at the instigation of the Metropolitan Fire Board, was continued before Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M., Coroner. Evidence was given on Monday, when the inquiry opened, indicating that the | outbreak originated from a spark from a passing locomotive which ignited grass on mill property. Expert evidence relating to grass fires and the efficiency of the engine from which the spark was alleged to have been ejected, was heard to-day. Evidence was given by William Laird Wilson, superintendent of firo brigades, that fires attributed to sparks from railway engines were common in summer months, tho percentage in the Mount Albert district being high. Such fires were exceptionally numerous last summer, and the position assumed serious proportions. The Coroner: But that was au exceptionally dry summer. Mr Meredith (for tho Kailway Department) to witness: You know that tho matter of preventing tho throwing of sparks from locomotives has been the subject of engineering inquiry all over the world? Witness: Yes, that is so. Mr Meredith: Then you recognise the difficulties? —“Yes, it is a question of tho right fuel, and other factors.’’ Mr Meredith: You know it is an engineering fact that 100 per cent efficiency cannot be attained in this direction? Witness said he was of tho opinion that the firo which destroyed Morningside Timber Mill hud been caused by a spark from a locomotive. Witness added that in January, 47 grass fires were attributed to sparks from locomotives. Evidence was given by William Palmer, consulting engineer, that he had examined tho locomotive attached to the train which had passed along the railway embankment prior to the outbreak of fire at the mill. “In my opinion you might get 98 per cent efficiency regarding the throwing of sparks if certain measures w’ere taken, but not the 100 per cent talked about by Mr Meredith.’’ He stated that the engine in question had been fitted to operate on hard coal, whereas soft coal had been used on December 1, when the mill fire occurred. Soft coal was more liable to throw off sparks than the hard variety. The design of the locomotive’s ash pan was at fault, and the ashes were liable to fall on to the track, the engine appearing to be a first-class spark thrower. Maurice Henry Morris, manager of the timber company, said that the book value of the buildings and plant destroyed was over £15,000, the estimated value being £12,377. The total insurances amounted to just over £lO,OOO. They had received £5023 in insurances, and there was nothing more to come. The hearing was adjourned.