NEW LYNN INQUIRY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15411, 20 September 1913, Page 8

NEW LYNN INQUIRY.

i. CLOSE. OF THE EVIDENCE. L TRAFFIC MANAGER'S BURDEN. ). CARE OF GROWING DISTRICT, 0 IRREGULARITIES PUNISHED. g d e L BY TELEGRAPH.SrECIAL CORRESPONDENT.] d y Wellington, Friday. The inquiry by the Railway Committee % of the House of Representatives into the : . New Lynn railway accident concluded this . afternoon. a Bowles, traffic manager at Auckland, . was again called. He stated that on Feba ruary 10 last a driver had reported to him f an irregularity on the part of tablet-porter 1 Mooney, formerly at New Lynn (hut not in charge at the time of the accident). He was severely cautioned by witness. An- • other case was reported to witness on April 3 21 of an irregularity which had taken place 8 on February 28. There was an investi- ' gation, and on May 24 the matter was reported to the general manager. Porter , Mooney was the man concerned. Witness r then had that official transferred to an- . other station. s In reply to Mr. S. Kennedy, secretary 3 of the Engine-drivers' Association, witness i said that since the accident he had given d special instructions about the crossing of Nos. 5 and 6 trains at New Lynn. This was in deference to feeling in the district subsequent to the accident. Some alteration in the system of working had also r ' been made at Mount Eden. Assuming » I there was a fog at New Lynn on the • morning of May.2B, fog-signalling would " have been advisable. Had witness been ' in charge he would probably have placed a detonators on the line. He believed the ' attention of the Department had been drawn by someone to the fact that fog-signalling 1 was not being carried out regularly on the Dominion railway services. ; Excessive Speed Blamed. ' Questioned by Mr. R. McVilly, Mr. t Bowles said that if the fog was so dense ' that the driver could only see 30 yards ■ ahead he should, according to the rules, have, slowed down on approaching the station. Had the home signal been further north there would have been less space in which the driver of the colliding train, 3 No. 6, could have pulled up. In witness's j . opinion the cause of the collision was the ! j fact that No. 6 train came down the grade . too quickly and over-ran the home signal. v To Mr. J. S. Dickson : The alterations j in the system of working at Mount Eden , station were made about the time of the 3 New Lynn accident and prior to a mishap at the points at Morningside. Witness 5 had a very, large district to supervise, the 5 growth of the Auckland section being , ! greater than any other in New Zealand. I | Under the circumstances he did not think j ho should have more to do than his general supervision. It was 'purely a matter of j opinion whether No. 6 train could have t i been pulled up any sooner had the home signal been further to the north. It was his firm opinion, however, that if a driver over-ran -signals it did not matter where the signals were placed. I _To Mr. Kennedy: He would not conII aider .the New 'Lynn station was at the I foot of a grade. The siding at the station t was a main line for crossing purposes. To Mr. Green : Every railwayman was ' expected to come on duty for all emergencies at all sorts of hours. He was not i aware that the porter at New Lynn when • not supposed to be on duty could neverthec less not leave without a permit. He was i not supposed to he there all day. If after p being* on all night he was wanted next - morning the man would be called upon, ■- but to. suggest he would be on duty 24 hours wa» erroneous. Mr, Green, was pur- ' suing the same line of questioning when the i witness protested he objected to having to - say what might have happened. i i . Long Hours of Staff. , Mr. Green : Has .not the New Lynn Town Board made representations to you regarding the long hours the staff at this , station is called upon to work? i Witness : I have no recollection of it. Mr. Green : You say you have received no correspondence from the board on the . question of the safety of the public? Witness: No. No Irregularities. I T. A. Foweraker, assistant traffic in- ' spector at Auckland, in reply to questions : by Mr. McVilly, stated thatfhe had never , seen any irregularities at New Lynn. The . discipline of the staff was 'good. They , worked the signals well, and made proper , arrangements for the crossing oi trains. , The removal of No. 5 train was, in his . opinion, safe, considering the home signal . ; was against No. 6 train. If the driver of . No. 6 could only see 30yds ahead -because , of the fog, and if no fog-signal was used he should have reduced his. speed, and , taken proper precautions for the safety of the public. Had he acted in accordance j with the rules, and stopped before passing , j the home signal, the collision would not I i have occurred. The tablet porter at New , Lynn had not over-onerous duties. Wit- ' nes had never beard suggestions that there had been narrow escapes from several accidents. , To Mr. Dickson :He had heard of one occasion on whieh the signals were not . correctly attended to at New Lynn. He I inquired intoVho case, and the result was the transfer of the tablet-porter, Mooney. Witness considered there was sufficient accommodation at the station. He. hod made suggestions for improvements at the 1 station, including the shifting of the water--1 ■ tank. The tablet-porter at the station at I I the time of the accident (Mortimer) was, I ho considered, a good officer. He could I not say why he had been dismissed. ! ■ No Serious Fog on the Line. ; To Mr. Green: Witness would call lo . miles an hour down the grade on the day . of the accident an excessive speed. He had seen no fog worth calling a fog up the Henderson line. To Mr. Kennedy: had not been carried out at New Lynn so far ■ as he knew. The necessary appliances • were all there, however. If there was a 5 fog on the day of the accident, for-sinials 1 ■ should have been used. The driver should ' , have run down Scroggy Hill cautiously if ' there was a fog- In clear weather, if a ■ driver ran at 25 miles an hour over a • line where he was allowed to run at 30 " miles, that would be a cautious rate. To Mr. McVilly: He did not consider No. 5 train stood too long on the main ' line, in view of all the circumstances. It • was perfectly safe for it to be there as long 1 as the home signal was at danger against No. 6. ' George Edward Richardson, locomotive engineer at Wellington, called bv air. Dickson, said no inquiry had come before him in connection with a refusal on one occasion by Driver Dobbie to back his train in at' New Lynn. If the matter was referred to witness he would have reported it to Mr. Bowles. He remembered getting a report from a driver, pointing out an irregularity at New Lynn. It was something to do with the crossing of the trains there. , To Mr. McVilly: In view of the fact , that it was 25 chains from the station 5 platform to the foot of the 1 in 45 grade, he considered the shunting operations at " the station were justifiable under the 3 rules. Being that distance away the platform could not be rightly referred to as being at the foot of a grade. After a discussion as to the calling of I further evidence, it was decided that no I more should be heard. The inquiry was adjourned until a day to be fixed by the chairman {Mr. D. Buick), when the com- ! mittee will consider its findings. ' —*