MIDDLETON YARD ALTERATIONS

Hokitika Guardian, 14 December 1929, Page 2

MIDDLETON YARD ALTERATIONS

TO COST £22,000. , DISSATISFACTION OF MEN DENIED. WELLINGTON, December 10. In a statement made by the Hon. W. B. Taverner, Minister of Railways, today regarding the Middleton yard, Mr Taverner said that, careful investigation of the working of this yard and the best method of improving it had been made, with tlie result that certain alterations had been decided upon which would cost about £22,000. Prior to these alterations being decided upon various schemes and alterations had been considered by the General Manager of Railways, Mr H. H. Sterling, in conference with his officers and the men engaged at Middleton. At these conferences every opportunity had been afforded to the men for voicing their opinions, and they had taken full advantage of this. 1 A scheme of alteration had been propounded by one or two foremen who are not engaged at Middleton, but at Christchurch. This scheme had been very carefully considered, but it was concluded alfter very careful investigation ’of all the points that it was not as good as that which had been adopted. It was not in accordance with fact said Mr Taverner, to say that this scheme had been unanimously npproved, by all the men. As a matter of fact it was disclosed at the conferences that there were very marked differences of opiniop among the men, and at the last conference which was held with the General Manager it became quite clear that these differences were not reconcilable, The General Manager pointed out to the men that it then became necessaiy for him to make a decision regarding one or other of the schemes which had been propounded, and representative speakers of those present indicated that they realised the position and would loyally accept the decision • that was come to. It was surprising, therefore that a report should be published that there was grave dissatisfaction among the men. The scheme that.'was put forward by the foremen as'above mentioned, and which was supported by some of the men, was by no means summarily rejected, but received full consideration and was fully discussed at the conferences mentioned. Immediately after the statement regarding the alleged dissatisfaction among the men was recently published in the Press, representatives of the Shunters’ Council voluntarily called on the Divisional Superintendent at Christchurch, and gave him a written statement as follows : “We, as representing the Christchurch Shunters’ Council, wish to disassociate bur council from the opinions expressed in a newspaper of November 27, and assure you the information was not conveyed to the Press by us. “We appreciate that the Department is providing improved facilities, which will be a decided improvement on the existing yard, though not approved by all. “We may state that the shunting staff will give their best endeavours in working the altered yard.” This quite conclusively disposed off the question of the attitude of the shunters towards the Department’s action. “With regard to the reference which has been made to the remarks of the Coroner, I would emphasise,” said Mr Taverner, “ that the accident did not take place at the foot of the hump, but in the vicinity of the sorting sidings, some five or six chains away. The prime cause of the accident appeared to have been the inability of the deceased to grip the handrail of the wagon owing to the position of the tarpaulin. The General Manager had also investigated the matter of improving the handrail to overcome the difficulty, and, in association with the Amalgamated Society off Railyway Servants a new type of handrail nad been devised, and adopted as the standard which met with the approval of the society.” The hump system of shunting was being retained as this was in accordance with modern shunting practice. The installation of a retarder would obviate the difficulty which had been experienced in connection with the working of the hump owing to the various speeds at which the wagons run down into the sorting sidings. '‘ln conclusion,” said Mr Taverner, “I would emphasise that the General Manager gave tljp men every opportunity of discussing with him and the officers of the Department various proposals for the improvement of the yard and I believe that the men appreciated what was done in that connection. The arrangement that has been adopted is believed to he the best when all circumstances are taken into account, and will make for a higher standard of efficiency and safe working. I am pleased indeed to have the assurance of the shunters as contained in the above quoted communication, and with their co-operation I do not doubt that the work will be carried on with satisfaction to the men and to the Department.”