Main Trunk Smash

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 21, 15 June 1914, Page 5

Main Trunk Smash

THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF ALL CIRCUMSTANCES,

CORONER'S DECISION DUE TO-DAY.

By Telegraph—Press Association. , Auckland, Saturday. At ii]\<: jl'aia Trunk wsaster inquest to-day, Walter Bowles, district, traffic manager for Auckland, waft recalled by Mr Mays fo r the purpose of submitting a list of equipment carried under die regulations by the .brake van and engine for accident emergencies. In addition to all tools ano. gear considered necessary to meet contingencies, each van is supplied with an ambulance kit, containing splints, bandages, adhesive plaster, and other requirements for first aid.

The Coroner: Since last nifiht, two matters Wave occurred to me that have been overlooked. First, there is *hc question of gas versus electricity «« lighting agents. Are you in a position, Mr Bowles, to say anything about that? No; I am not.

Mr Mays suggested that this point might be settled by the submifsion of a statement prepared toy Mr Morison, locomotive engineer for t/he AucKand district.

Mr Bowles accordinglv read the following statement: "As to tbo risk of fire in a collision, this ,rißk is neccesarily present in gas-lit trains. The only substitute for gas is electricity. The installation of electric lighting in New Zealand trains involves two considerations (1) cost, and (2) feho best system. The cost of installing would be very much greater than gas. There Is a diversity i opinion in the railway world br to which is the best electric 'aystntn. The chief mechanical engineer for New Zealand has, for some time past, been j Investigating this question. Wo have [ never had a Are from gas on ihe Now Zealand railways." There was anotWcr question die would j like to put, said the Coroner, a ques- j tion affecting the position of the sleeping car on the Main, Trunk. The express train from Auckland had this car attached at ttie rear end of the train, while from Wellington .it came back in front. This, he believed, was to save the time that would be occupied in breaking up the train. "Have you anyi thfing to say as to the possibility or otherwise of altering the present arrangement, Mr Bowles?" he asked, adding, "Of course, we can leave out the unworthy consideration that sleepingcar passengers pay more than others, but there is the aspect that sleepine passengers are in a position from which they cannot so readily extricate themselves as passengers who are sitting up in other cars, with tfflbir clotho? on." Mr Bowleg: Well, I would not like to give a decided opinion'off-hand, ibut I think it is a matter that, might ho cor sidcrcd.

Mr Mays: I suggest that putting it at the rear of a jine of cam would boi equally dangerous if a train were run into?

Mr Frazcr: But trains don't run iatfi an express from the rear, Mj- Mays, •But circumstances might arise leading to a rear-end collision.

Mr Bowles: Yes, there h that consideration.. I Qon't know that there is really such a very great deal in the question. As a general rule, of course, the rear is as sate as the front.

Mr Frazer: Except that an express train is,not likely to be over-ran by another train. It is more likely to meet with a serious accident at the front. I suppose the chaneos arc about ten to one that the collision would take place in front. Mr Bowleg: Yes, I suppose it is. ■ Mr Mays: 'Suppose an express train broke down, and another overtook it! The Coroner: iiuit then I suppose the guard would go out with his lamp. Mr Bowles agreed, after further discussion that, it was- a matter thai /night he considered. The Coroner. Now, as you are an experienced traffic manager, it has occurred to me that you might have something to saiv in connection • with the question of crossing a . non-stopping train and a stopping train at a station like WhanganMirino. Mr Bowles: I emphatically agree with Mr Wynne on *hat poiut. . ■ Mir Frozen Then when a non-stoo train is passing through a station where it crosses a stopping train, the safety of the non-stop train depends entirely upon the semaphore working properly and on tihle driver noticing it. Woul'a it not he better to have some additional signal? The porter might, for instance, leave his. red lamp on the tablet exchanger at the iplatform pointing towards the approaching train. T know' that theoretically it is an accident that should not > have 'happened, but there is always the human element to consider.

Mr Bowles: I don't really think there is any necessity for it. The present signalling arrangements seem to mo to be as perfect as they could be. I think that the present system is ample. The Coroner: f agree that the prosent system is theoretically as .perfect as possible, but we have always to look at. the possibility of the failure of the human element. This seems to me to bo a double .protection in the event of such failure. 1 don't siiij««si> for a moment that rtJbio Department has been negligent, but ."uch a precaution might obviate a similar accident in, say, ten years' time. Mr Bowles: Such a suggestion is, of course, worthy of consideration. Mr Mays: It will he considered and tried.

The Coroner: A porter might, ; ti his haste, not trouble to walk and inspect the back light of his signal, and yet would place bis danger light on tHie platform exchanger. Mr Bowles: I do not think that fuclh a system, Qiad it ibech in force on the night in question, would have averted the disaster. , < Mr Mays: I am authorised to say that your Worship's suggestion will havi- the. Department's 'serious consideration. At this stage the Coroner commented on the manner in which tbfc witnesses had all given their evidence. "F think it 'has been one of the most pleasing features in a low and difficult investigation. Every one has been most frank and open in the matter of giving evidence," said Mr Fraser, Mr Martin, in the course of his ad-

dress, said that after exhaustive svano-h he oould not find any case that would be of any direct assistance. Counsel quoted English authority, which, he said, seemed to bear on the imi*'er, in which it was .put down that deliberate or gross negligence of the vdes of a railway company would amount i« <rros? negligence, but an honest error of judgment wouild not. Mr Frazer proceeded to quote an opinion of Judge Cooper, that; tlie difference beteen nesrlicrence and culpable necliccnco was not 1 matter to be defined, but wa* one lint left some latitude to the discretion ■ f the jurv. Hi'! Worship might, as n jury, find that there had neon ncclii'eiiep in one sense on the part of both Donaldson and Cruicbshank, but whether it fl-ns culpable negligence within the meaning of criminal law was a marler for His Worship to consider. Both men. he pointed out, had to exercise discretion, and having regard to the-high character both men heliaud tMelr sne. To^l^i