SEDDON RAILWAY ACCIDENT INQUIRY

Grey River Argus, 10 April 1948, Page 3

SEDDON RAILWAY ACCIDENT INQUIRY

LOCOMOTIVE IN ORDER BLENHEIM, April 9. George Stuart James Read, inspecting and test engineer on the staff of the chief mechanical engineer in evidence said he had mad“ a thorough examination of every vehicle involved in the crash. He wasatisfied that the locomotive was in good order. There were no detects on the cars which could have caused the accident. The engine’s brane equipment was also in good order. Witness said he had investigated the minimum time that would be re quired in the running of a train from Seddon to the point of derailment fl the maximum speed permitted was 45 m.p.h. on the straight track and if the curve restrictions were observed. He had found that 4min 3sec would be required. He had also in vestigated the time required in running the same distance if the engine were allowed to drift after steaming along the level portion out of Seddon. GREATER THAN AUTHORISED “I found,” he said, “that 3min 17 sec would be required and that the speed at zero point would be 58.7 m.p.h. I conclude from this that in order to reach the speed at whicn the tender would capsize the train must have been allowed to drift alter pulling out of Seddon station and that the actual speed between Seddon and zero point must have been much greater than those authorised between those points.” Test carried out in 1937 by the South African administration showed that an engine was unlikely to overturn on a curve of 8.4 chains ramus below 54 m.p.h. and the tender below 52.3 m.p.h. Dealing with speed indicators, witness said the department’s experience with the mechanically-drawn type had been unsatisfactory. The solution seemed to be to use the electric transmitter type. It was the department, s desire to equip locomotives with a thoroughly reliable speed indicator. It was open to question, he thought, as to whether a speed indicator would have influenced tne driver of the crashed train. He added: “Regard is hard to the fact tnat although the maximum speed over any portion of the line between Picton and Wharanui must not exceed 45 m.p.h. the train must have been travelling at well over 50 m.p.h. for the engine to capsize in the manner it did.” Curve Speed Limits And Indicators P.A. BLENHEIM. April 9 The Board of inquiry into the Seddon railway disaster concluded the Blenheim sitting to-day, and adjourned to Christchurch. Resuming his evidence, George Stuart James Read, inspecting and test engineer, said that, assuming that the engine was travelling at 45 m.p.h. when the driver sighted the curve warning board, and allowing for reaction time, Die driver should have been able to reduce the speed to 30 m.p.h. in 290 yards. If the speed were 55 m.p.h., the distance would have been 545 yards. The maximum speed for the curve was 30 m.p.h., which allowed a wide safety margin. The engine should beable to negotiate the curve at 45 m.p.h. To Mr Wild, witness said that there were no rail markings at the scene which did not fit in with the deductions he had made. .Mi- Wild: “The whofe thing fits like a glove—there are no strings untied.” Witness: “Precisely.*' On the question of speed indicators, the witness said the Department had made a number of attempts to devise satisfactorily equipment, and extensive tests, which were now being carried out. were based on these. Mr Wild: “The total number ordered since 1941 is 48?”—Witness: “The difficulty has been to get overseas manufacturers to accept our orders.” Witness fully agreed that test indicators were desirable. To a final question by Mr Wild witness said that by his reference to speed being grossly exceeded he meant the difference between an over-turning speed of 52.3 m.p.h. and authorised speeds of 45 m.p.h. on the straight and 30 m.p.h. on a curve. In a written statement to the board. Hanley Rex Robson, engineering student, of Blenheim, who injured in the smash, said that he thought he was the passenger nearest the front of the train. Looking forward, he noticed nothing abnormal about the speed. He stated: “As we hit the curve, I was looking through the glass door of the car:\|- r e, I noticed, No. 1 carriage lurch violently, and then No. 2 carriage started to break up.” Robson added that he had no complaint in any way in regard to the manner he was treated after the