SOCKRURN TRAGEDY.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18616, 11 July 1930, Page 6

SOCKRURN TRAGEDY.

INQUEST CONTINUED. By Telegraph—Press Association CHRISTCHURCH. July 10. The inquest was resumed to-day, before Mr E. I). Mosley, S.M.. touching the circumstances surrounding the fatality a Sockburn, whereby six per- , sons met the.ir deaths as a result of a collision between a motor-car and a , train on the evening of Monday, June j 16. Henry McGrath, crossing keeper, | said he went on to the crossing be- j tween 5.15 p.m. and 5.20 p.m. to warn j traffic of the approach from Christ- I church of a train for Ashburton. While still standing there, witness saw the headlight of the workers’ train from Islington approaching. He remained in the same position to see the train through. He showed his green light . both ways. Witness said that several , cars and cycles stopped. Witness saw j another car approaching, and held up j his green light to show that the cross- ; ing was dangerous. When the car was j about a chain away it swerved to the I left. At the same time the tram ■ came on to the crossing. The next : thing witness knew was that the train had struck the car. Witness thought that the motorist would have pulled up if he had seen the train. Witness was no judge of speed, and it was hard to say what speed the train was travelling at. “It might have been 20 j miles an hour; it might have been more,” witness added. Witness heard the engine whistle as it approached the crossing. The signalman was examined at length by counsel for the relatives. Counsel asked: "Is it your duty to signal to the train or traffic?” Witness: "My duty is to protect the train. I show a green light to warn the public that there is danger as the train is approaching.” "Does the driver of the train see your green light?”—“Sometimes. It ajl . depends. We are not supposed to show ! the green light to the train.” Mr M- J- Burns: “Then so far as I the train is concerned you might be carrying any coloured light?”—The reply of the witness was not audible. Walter Yarwick Purchase said he was proceeding to the city at the time of the accident. He was cycling. He • waited till the Ashburton train passed, I and then walked over the crossing. Witness heard the train from Hornby, and heard the whistle sounded. Witness saw the train go on the crossing and heard the crash. Witness could see the light of the Hornby train half a mile away. It was a dark night. Witness added that there was no fog. Frank Carson, the fireman, who was on the engine, said a good look-out was kept by him on the south side of the engine. The whistle was sounded near the crossing. The line was then clear on witness’s side. Witness saw a car parked some distance from the crossing on the town side. At the same time he noticed another car approaching. The Coroner: “Did you say anything?” Witness: “No, I could see that the driver was keeping a sharp look-out on that side of the engine. The brakes were applied about two chains from the crossing, and the emergency brake was applied before the engine got on the crossing.” Witness lost sight of the car, and the next thing he knew was that a collision had occurred. The engine was running tender first, and there was no cow-catcher. The speed was about 25 miles per hour. The witness was questioned by Mr 1 C. S. Thomas, who appeared for the • Engineers’ and Firemen's Union. i Mr Thomas: “Do you know there ' has been a tremendous amount of \ complaint about the increase in speed } when driving tender first?” —“No.” i “Do you know there have been complaints?”—"No.” Mr Thomas: “Look. Though your I job is in the railways, Carson, you are \ here to give facts, and you will not j be victimised in any way. Let us have ; facts. There have been complaints and conferences with Mr Sterling?”—“l have not been there.”

Mr Thomas: “Do you know it is so?’ ‘I have not heard much about it.”

“Do you know it is so?”—“I have not heard any complaints.”

Cuthbert Poulsen said he was approaching the crossing on a bicycle just before the accident. He saw the crossing-keeper in the middle of the road, showing a green light. The car ran on to the rails and was struck full on by the tender. The impression he got was that the tender wheels mounted the car.

Robert Cook, driver of a grocery van, and Alan John Gilberthorpe, who was riding a motor-cycle behind Smith’s car, gave similar evidence.

Thomas Stewart Paterson, retired engine-driver, said it was unsafe to drive a UB engine tender first at above ten miles an hour, without life guards or cow-catcher. He had known instances where an engine travelling tender first had come off the rails.

Dr. A. C. McKillop said Smith, the driver of the car, was a good, careful driver. He had been medically examined and passed fit for service. The car was new and in perfect order. Mr C. S. Thomas, addressing the Court, said the old regulations provided a maximum speed of ten miles an hour for engines driven tender first. Since Mr Sterling had been General Manager, this speed had been increased for UB engines to 20 miles an hour, and for certain other types to 35 miles an hour. This had led to a storm of protests from locomotive men. who interviewed Mr Sterling on the question. Mr Thomas read a shorthand record of this interview. At that interview’, the locomotive men’s representatives argued strenuously against the danger of driving tender first at a high speed. Mr Sterling argued that the speeds fixed had been certified as safe by senior officers of his department, who were competent to advise him. The protest of the locomotive men was ignored then, and had been ignored since. In running tender first, the engine of this train had to do the journey at over 24 miles an hour, which was over the maximum j speed fixed by Mr Sterling. Mr Dickin, replying to Mr Thomas,

said there was no evidence that the speed of the engine was excessive. Life guards had been fitted to some engines, but shunters represented that they were dangerous to them. The Department could not reasonably be asked, he said, to provide sufficient turntables to run all engines head first. The speed of the engine on this trip was not 24, but 20.4 miles per hour. The Magistrate said it was hard to

understand why Smith did not stop and let the train pass. He had visited the crossing, and he failed to understand why a fatal accident should occur there. It was, in his opinion, one of the most open crossings around Christchurch. When one was eighty yards from the crossing one could see for a distance of several hundred yards to the right. The crossing-keeper w r as in the middle of the road, and his lamp was observed by other motorists and cyclists. "I can find no fault with the Railway Department as regards their guarding of the crossing,” said the Coroner. "All the regulations concerning it were carried out, and the Department must be held blameless for the death of the five people* in the car. With the death of Smith, the

driver of the engine, it is necessary to ' deal separately. It cannot be denied that the fact that he was driving an engine tender first at 25 miles an hour contributed towards his death.” The Coroner held that the practice of driving engines tender first was dangerous. He said also that he was convinced that the Department and the General Manager appreciated the danger. It would be for officers of the Railway Department to try to solve the problem. If they had not funds to do so, they must find other means of safeguarding the lives of their employees.