OTAUTAU FATALITY

Southland Times, Issue 19516, 16 May 1922, Page 3

OTAUTAU FATALITY

CORONER’S INQUEST CONCLUDED (Special to the Times.) OTAUTAU, May 15. The - adjourned inquest into the circumstances surrounding the death of Peter Charles Connell, who was killed on April 19 by a locomotive falling through a bridge, was concluded at Otautau to-day before the Coroner, Mr G. Cruickshank, who found that deceased accidentally met his death through a locomotive falling through a defective bridge. Messrs Hanlon and M. Macalister appeared for the Commercial Union Insurance Company, Mr Hunter for the Southland Timber Company and Mr T. O’Byrne for the Sawmill Workers’ Union. Albert R. J. f Melvin, engine driver, stated that he started work with the Otautau Timber Company on April 19, the day of the accident. He was engaged to drive the locomotive. He left the mill in the morning with five trucks, three in front and two behind, going to the bush for a load of logs. / The trucks were'loaded with rails, but most of them were unloaded before Herron’s bridge was reached. The deceased and Shadforth accompanied witness. Connell was the fireman and Shadforth was assisting in the capacity of pilot, as witness did not know the track. Everything went well except that they bumped off the line twice. He reversed the engine and it went back on the line again. Defective rails or a bad level would cause the derailment. They picked up Clark before getting to the bush. Clark was repairing the trainline. Going across Herron’s bridge witness and Shadforth were in the cab, deceased being in front by the boiler. He did not know why deceased went in front of the engine, unless he went there to put sand on the rails. When they got on the bridge the bridge collapsed and the locomotive fell through. Witness and Shadforth, although bruised, were not hurt when they got out of the cab. The locomotive had a slight list when it settled down. He did not see deceased at all during the accident, as a steam pipe burst and they could not see. To M. T. O’Byroe: He had been driving a locomotive for some years. He made inquiries as to what the tramway was like, and was informed that the bridges were all right. The engine fell about ten or twelve feet. They had no warning of the accident. He had not examined the bridge since, the accident. He was of the opinion that there should be a periodical inspection of tramway bridges. Connell said that the bridges were all right. The bush manager of the mill also told witness the bridges were safe. To Mr Hunter: So far as he was aware there was no defect in the locomotive. Ambrose Shadforth, bushman, corroborated the previous witness’s testimony and stated further that a run off on the flat was not uncommon. All that witness could remember at Herron’s bridge was the collapse. The deceased was on the right hand side at the front of the locomotive, he being there to sand the rails. Had the deceased been in the cab he would probably have been saved. After the steam went down he saw the deceased under the smoke box, which was resting on his head. The rest of the body was under the engine. Witness had repaired the bridge since Christmas, putting in three or four new sole plates. The present bridge was built to replace a bridge destroyed by fire in February 192£. When the bridge was built the locomotive came over it out of the bush, but the bridge was practically idle until Christmas, and since then had not been used greatly. He knew a little about bridge building, having helped to build sawmill bridges. He was satisfied that the bridge was capable of carrying the locomotive and a load of logs at the time of the accident.

To Mr T. O’Byrne: He had been driving birch saplings, the sole plates and caps being sawn. Birch saplings should last three or four years without deteriorating. He tried all the cap heads with a crowbar and they w r ere perfectly sound. The fact if not being used would cause the saplings to rot quicker than if in constant use. The bridge was on the main tramline. He could give no indication of how the accident happened. If inspectors were appointed accidents of a similar nature would be fewer. To Mr Hunter: He had been twelve years in the sawmill business. The tramway bridges and tracks were all built on the same principle. The bridges were as good as any, and better than some. Each mill built bridges to their own judgment as -to what they required. He was of the opinion that birch would stand a heavier breaking strain than red pine. The bridge was held together with seven-inch spikes, the usual mill method. He had never seen bolts used on sawmill bridges. The locomotive was in good order on the day of the accident. The locomotive had only done about a dozen trips since the annual overhaul at Christmas, when it was passed by the Government inspector. The locomotive came across the bridge on April 13 with two trolleys in front and three behind loaded with logs. On the Monday morning before the accident there had been an earthquake. The only reason witness could attribute the accident to was that the heavy rains had caused a washout under the logs and caused the bridge to collapse.

William Clarke, tramway man, said that he met the locomotive coming from Otautau at 11.45 a.m. He unloaded some rails and the locomotive continued on to the bush, witness sitting on the trolley at the rear. At Herron’s bridge the locomotive disappeared, leaving the trolley witness was on, on the tramline. Immediately the accident occurred witness returned to Otautau for assistance. He had never effected repairs to Herron’s bridge. He had about five miles of track to attend to and effected repairs without any instructions. He went over Coulter’s bridge and one of the beams was loose and he attended to it. The rails on that bridge were in good order. He had been working for two years for the company and was competent to build a bridge to carry a locomotive, although he had never been asked to do it. To Mr O’Byrne: He considered the accident occurred owing to one of the caps giving away. The beams were nailed to the cap heads, which were not too sound. This would allow the nails to draw. Some of the sole plates on Coulter’s bridge were not sound. Witness was the only repairer except in a rush. He considered an • inspector was necessary. William G. Pearce, engineer of the Public Works Department, said that he had inspected Herron’s bridge after the accident. He reported that some of the timber was in a decayed state. He considered that the bridge collapsed through the breaking of one of the supports. The legs and sole pieces in Coulter’s bridge were not all sound and the rails were in a partly worn state, two being broken. He was of the opinion that iron rails should be used on all bridges. To Mr Hunter: He had had no experience with sawmill bridges. To Mr O’Byrne: He had been asked by Mr O’Byrne to inspect some bridges a day or two before the accident. Witness informed him that he (witness) would write Dunedin and ascertain what powers he had m that direction. Witness did not know of any act on the Statute Book, and had no instructions from the Minister of Public Works. He did not know of any regulation which operated for the protection of employees. He had men competent to inspect bridges if necessary. The Coroner found that the deceased was accidentally killed by the collapse of a tramway bridge and the locomotive falling through the bridge, which was defective He added that bolts should be used instead of the spikes and iron rails used on bridges The Government should also have the lines inspected.