THE TRAM SMASH.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1735, 5 September 1919, Page 3

THE TRAM SMASH.

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. Before the Commissioner, Mr S. E. McCarthy, 8.M., the inquiry into the tram smash at Heathcote, on May 15 last, was continued at the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon. Mr J. J. Dougall appeared for the Christchurch Tramway Board, Mr A. H. Kimbell for the Public Works Department, and Mr J. Hutchison for the Tramway Employees' Union. The evidence of Edgar P. Turner, engineer to the Christchurch Tramway Board, was continued. The witness stated that from previous experience he had had of other derailments, it was his opinion that the derailment in this case was caused through an obstruction getting into the points, leaving them at "'half cock." The Commissioner: Would it not be possible .for this stone to have entered the points after the first tram had gone through ?

Witness: I rather doubt that the natural tendency of the electric car would be to follow the straight road. The first electric car 'and the next trailer had a tendency to the south side, but the back trailer, by reason of its position, would have a lateral oscillation. He had made exhaustive trials at the points to see if any other theory for the derailment could be found. It would not have been possible for the trailer to "split" the points if they had been shut tight, unless the hinge heel was very slack. However, there was no slackness at all in this case. He considered eight miles an hour a reasonable speed for a car to enter the points, and this woull be a safe speed, provided the points were clear. . The inquiry was adjourned until 9.30 a.m. to-day.

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. When the inquiry was contiued this morning the evidence of Edgar P. Turner, engineer to the Chrijstchurch Tramway Board, was proceeded with. Mr Eimbell first asked witness if, when referring to the engineering knowledge of the Public Works Department yesterday, he had referred to Mr Holmes, the engineer-in-chief. Mr Dougall: Mr Kim bell was indignant yesterday when what he called irrelevant matter was introduced, and I am strongly of opinion that this evidence is irrelevant. . Mr Klmbell: The matter had been recorded in the evidence and in the Press. The Commissioner: This has been unnecessarily extended, and a lot of irrelevant matter has been, brought in. j

Mr Kimbell (to witness): Did you also refer to Mr W. S. Short or to Mr Parry? Witness: Yes. Mr Dougall's questions yesterday took me by surprise. The meaning I intended to convey was this: The Public Works Department in New Zealand have constructed and put in the whole of the railways as Jar as I am aware. Upon the completion of the railways, however, they passed over to the control of the Railway Department, which department contains officers highly experienced in the operation, management and maintenance of railways. The Public Works Department supervised the installation of the tramway service in a like manner. Certain proposed regulations, however, have from time to time been put forward by the Public Works Department, covering the operation and equipment of the | tramways. During the time I have been engineer to the board, no officer of the Public Works Department has officially visited us, to the best of my knowledge, and spent even »ne day going closely into the many points covered in the operation of the tramways, and the equipment. Further, in regard to proposed regulations, they seek to control the whole of the' tramways under one set of regulations. The Commissioner: This is going beyond all bounds. We are inquiring into the Sumner accident. We are not inquiring whether the tramway system should be worked under the Public Works Department, and it is merely wasting time. Mr KimbeTl: When you and Mr McEnnis visited the scene of the accident on May 19, did you say the accident was due to excessive speed, and, also, that you had nothing to hide?—l fever have had.

Did you tell him at that date, or since, and before this inquiry, of the discovery of the stone!— No. I did not think it was necessary. I had been seeking for a theory. I have probably spent more time on this accident than any man in Christchurch, because I felt it was up against me to give an explanation if I could. Is it not possible that a stone' could get into the points, and be "housed" away hours before the accident!— That eoujd happen. Could not a stone, on the other hand, have got into the points and be "housed" away after the accident occurred, and before you made your exhaustive search for the stone? —Yes, that is so.

Can you indicate any remedial measures that should- be taken, as far is reasonably practicable, to stop further derailments!— Yes. I think the speed of the tram at the points should be such that it would enable the motorman to stop at a reasonable distance, provided there was reason to do so. He thoughtthe motorman could not have been taking much notice of his car, as there must-have been a very heavy pull exerted on the motor at the time The Commissioner: When the trailer overturned, the train must have been going at' a good speed, as the tran did travel some distance after the motorman applied the brakes! —Yes, that is my opinion Mr Kimlie"']: Had there an assistant-conductor employed on the tram, would there not have.been time for -such S. conductor to have signalled the motorman, and the train to have i been brought to a standstill before the trailer at the end fell over?— Provided the conductor was on the alert at the 'moment, I think, possibly,, it could I have been done. You must remember it was only a matter of seconds.

Did you, after the accident, notice trains passing through the points at an excessive rate of speed? —:Yes, I have frequently reported drivers for such, and in each case inquiries have been made. i

What do you consider a safe maximum of overload to allow on these old trailers? —I think, 50 per cent. So far as safety is concerned, do you consider that the old -trailer is as safe as the newer type of trailers being built by the board? —You are comparing the one-decked car with the double-decked; and the comparison is not a fair one. I do consider the trailers were just as safe as the double-decked electric cars the board had in operation. Wanganui, witness stated*; had the only other electric system in which trailers were used. Double-point switches were in use th.3rey.but they had been tried in Christchurch and found unsatisfactory. Wanganui 'a troubles had yet to come.

Mr Hutchison: Did you, last June, in company with other, tramway board managers, approach the Minister of Public Works and ask that the proposed regulations restricting overloading should not be put into operation?— The chairman of the board was the Christchurch representative, but I could not say what he said regarding the matter. To Mr Dougall: He personally had condemned two trailers which had become tpo old. Regarding remedial measures for the future, the human element was the great factor which could not be overcome.

Arthur H. Thompson, car-shed foreman, stated that trailer 58 passed through the sheds four or. five weeks before the accident. The wheels had been examined and found 0;k. The electric cars were examined every three months, and the trailers at irregular. intervals, varying from tvio to four months. The old. trailers needed more attention than the later ones.

Questioned by Mr Kimbell, witness admitted that a knowledge of the weaknesses of the old trailers would be gained if he could see them overloaded and in motion. «.

Harry Thomas McLeon, draughtsman and track surveyor for the Tramway Board, corroborated Mr Turner's evidence. Harold. Arthur de Courcy Browne, traffic' manager of the Christchurch Tramway Board, stated that he had experience on the Sydney tramways and the. railways. Double switch points were used in Sydney. He thought the points installed in Christchurch were equally safe, and less liable to get out of order. Derailments, to his knowledge, were less frequent in Christchurch than they were in Sydney. In one instance, in the latter city, there, were 50 derailments in one day, and a commission had been set up to inquire into the mattfr. The main trouble was found to be due to some temporary obstruction in the points. The inquiry was then adjourned until 2.15 p.m. (Proceeding.)