HYDE RAIL SMASH

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 87, Issue 277, 23 November 1943, Page 3

HYDE RAIL SMASH

OFFICIAL INQUIRY OPENS (P.A.) Wellington, Nov. 22. The official inquiry into the Hyde railway derailment, resulting in the deaths of 21 persons, was held in Wellington. Members of the Board are Sir Francis Frazer (chairman), Mr. J. W. Wood and Mr. H. L. Cole. At the inquiry Mr. I. Thomas represented the Railways Department, Mr. T. H. Stephenson the Engine-Drivers, Firemen and Cleaners’ Association, and Mr. L. Mcllvride the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. The order of reference for the Board was: (1) What was the cause of the derailment? (2) Was any person in the employ of the Government Railway Department guilty of any dereliction of duty which, directly or indirectly, contributed to the derailment? (4) What steps (if any) should be taken to prevent the occurrence of a similar derailment? Mr. Thomas said that Corcoran, engine-driver of the train, had been convicted of manslaughter by driving negligently and at excessive speed. Notes of the evidence given at the trial, including practically all the evidence which would normally have been adduced at the Inquiry, were available. He suggested they should be accepted by the Board as had been done at a previous inquiry in similar circumstances. Mr. Stephenson agreed, adding that he took it the Board would analyse the evidence itself and not accept without further consideration the finding of the jury. Referring to the fourth clause in the order of reference, Mr. Thomas said that in the present case there had been a failure of the human element and it was therefore difficult to suggest any measure which might be adopted to prevent the occurrence of a similar accident in the future. The question of equipping engines with speed recorders had been raised at the trial and on previous occasions, and evidence would be given on that subject. Evidence would also be given about the department’s regulations relating to the consumption of liquor, the suspension of employees, and responsibility for the safety of trains.

On behalf of the Minister of Railways and the Department, Mr. Thomas expressed sympathy with the relatives of those who had been killed in the accident, and the hope that those still suffering from injuries would have a speedy recovery. He also thanked the passengers who had shown courage In difficult circumstances, and persons at the scene of the accident who had given ready and willing assistance. Mr. R. J. Gard, assistant chief mechanical engineer of the Railways Department, in a written statement, said the department’s experience with the mechanically-driven recording type of speed indicator had been unsatisfactory over the many years it had endeavoured to maintain them in operation. The solution seemed to be to use the electric transmitter type of speed indicator which, from trials already made, was definitely far superior to the recording type in reliability. (It was explained that a speed recorder kept a permanent record of speeds but a speed indicator merely showed the speed from moment to moment).

“At present it is very difficult to obtain delivery of any type of speed recorder or indicator, but it is hoped the Stones type outstanding on order will shortly arrive,” said Mr. Gard. “It is hoped that by the time supplies of suitable instruments are available tests will be completed and a decision made so that orders for the necessary instruments of the speed indicator type required for our main line engines can be placed. Mr K. G. Reid, of the law office ol the Railways Department, said it was proposed to introduce next month consolidated and amended railway regulations. He submitted a statement showing the present and the proposed regulations relating to the insobriety of employee, the suspension of employees and the responsibility of guards and engine-drivers for the safety of trains. After the luncheon adjournment the Board considered the case of the guard of the train, who. Mr. Mcllvride stated, had been suspended, and who, in the event of dismissal, intended to appeal. After discussing the evidence relating to the drinks consumed by the guard early in the day, Mr. Me Ilvride said he was told that the effect, if any, would have worn off by the time the guard went on duty at 2.20 p.m. and would not interfere with his alertness or judgment. Th" guard had signed on for duty in the presence of the stationmaster, and he knew men in responsible positions were carefully scrutinised and not allowed to take up duty if. in the opinion of the stationmaster, they had been partaking of liquor and were not in a fit state. It was indicated in evidence that the guard had given the requisite signals correctly and promptly. The train stopped at Hyde, and though there was mention of some comment among passengers about the speed of the train, there was no actual complaint to the guard. Up to this time the guard, with approximately 10 years’ experience in the district, did not consider the speed excessive. He said his first awareness of the roll was a few hundred yards before the point of the accident. The guard would not consider one roll entitled him to use the emergency brake, and in addition he would not know whether the driver himself was about to apply the brake. It appeared, said Mr. Mcllvride, that the guard had been alert, using his judgment governed by experience, and had not failed in the discharge of his duties. “I want to make it clear also,” he said, “that while our organisation will not at any time endeavour to have any of its members exonerated if they have been guilty ot neglect of duty, at the same time the organisation does not want any other person or body to justify something that has happened .by dismissing a member not deserving of that punishment.”

Mr. Thomas Submitted that, taking all the circumstances, together with the speed of the train, the time made up, the comments of the passengers and the guard’s knowledge that the driver had liouor that morning, to an alert guard the indications were clear that some action on his part was necessary. There was also the question of how far the liquor consumed bv the guard himself might have affected his judgment. The guard had an opportunity at Hyde of taking up with the driver the question of speed. He also at all times had access to the guard’s emergency brake.

“In all circumstances,” said Mr Thomas, “I must submit that there were.’or should have been, clear indications to the guard that some action on his part was necessary, and that in failing to take such action he was guilty of derelection of duty.” The Board will consider the evidence and report to the Minister by December 10.