I.—6a.

56

[P. T. MUBISON.

Thursday, 18th September, 1913. Francis Taylor Murison recalled, sworn, and further examined. (No. 20.) 1. Mr. McVilly.] Did you examine the rolling-stock on that train No. 6 after the collision? —I did. 2. It has been stated by one of the witnesses that the car that was badly damaged was in a very bad condition and practically rotten. Will you describe to. the Committee what the condition of that car was and when it was built? —It was an elevated-roof car, built in August, 1890, and was in good condition. 3. Did you examine the timbers after the collision? —Yes, they were in good order. 4. Sound ?—Sound in every respect. 5. Any sign of decay? —No. 6. Are you quite satisfied that the construction of the car was up to our standard of work manship in every respect?— Yes. 7. About what distance was No. 5 pushed back by the impact?—l took particular notice where this collision occurred. I can say without doubt that the collision occurred 30 ft. on the bridge —that is, 30 ft. from the New Lynn end. There is no doubt about that to my mind. I saw the marks on the rails. The rails were depressed about 3j n anc ] the broken portions of the front end of the standing engine had just fallen down straight where tho collision took place; all the broken parts were there. The engines met 30ft. on the bridge, and pulled up 110 ft. back. 8. The force of the impact, then, forced No. 5 back 110 ft.? —Yes, a little more than that. It was 110 ft. where they pulled up, but there was a space of 6 ft. or 7 ft. between the engines, as I explained before. 9. At what speed do you reckon No. 6 was running at the time she struck No. 5? —She xvas going at nothing less than fifteen miles an hour. 10. Hon. Mr. Herries.] What sort of carriage was it that was telescoped?—A four-ci mpartment car. 11. Are those cars more likely to be telescoped?—No, I think not: they are stronger. 12. How do you account for that one being the only one telescoped ? It is difficult to say. 13. It was not because of anything in the construction of the car, in your opinion?—No, because there were older cars than that on the train. 14. Mr. Veitch.] I understood you to say that the train was flushed back 110 ft. from where the collision occurred?— Yes, slightly more than that. 15. You heard the evidence of the driver of the other train, did you not?--Yes. 16. He states that he gave his engine steam to go back out of the way?— Yes. 17. Is it not possible that part of that 110 ft. might be due to the fact that steam was en the engine that xvas collided with, and that the two engines became locked in tho collision, and so the power of the engine which was standing would help to carry the train back over and above the force of the impact?—l considered that too, but from what I could find cit they xvere not coupled together. On the other hand, the draw-bars of each vehicle on No. 5 train were driven through the draw-bars of the next vehicle, and the train-pipe wis broken almost throughout, and therefore the brakes were put into emergency. It was a solid block. 18. .1//. Dickson.] What is tho average life of a carriage?—lt is very hard to say. We have not been going long enough to tell what the average life is. 19. What do you consider the average life of a carriage?— About thirty years. 20. You cannot tell us whether that train that was shunting was oil the move or not when the collision took place?— No. 21. If you cannot tell us that how can you tell us where the collision occurred? You say tho train ran back 116 ft.. practically? —There were marks on the bridge where the collision occurred, and the broken portions that fell down when the trains came together. 22. Mr. Green.] Yon mentioned about the car that was telescoped, which was in the middle of the train. When a standing train is backing through is there not an S curve, and is not the centre of that S curve the weakest point of that train? —No; I think that train was practically on the straight when the collision occurred. 23. She was going through the loop, was she not, at the time?— No. 24. Is not the bridge on the straight?— Yes. 25. The other part of the train was on the curve? —Whero these ears were telescoped was on the straight bridge. 26. You have no idea on whose authority the signal was shifted?—l have nothing to do with that. 27. You would hardly be prepared to say that had the signal been in its original place the driver might have seen it much sooner?— No. I am not prepared to say that. 28. Look at this photograph: does it not show there is an S i urve, and that the back of the train is on the curve?—lhis [indicated] is the back end of the incoming train. 29. Yes, and here is the other going into the loop here? —No; that is all straight there. 30. The colliding train is on a curve and tho other one is on a curve, which shows it is an S curve, and the weakest point xvould be in the centre?—l do not admit that. It is perfectly straight to me. 31. Mr. McVilly.] Is it not the practice of tho Railway Department to keep the rollingstock up to practically now condition all the time? —Those are our instructions, which we carry out. 32. Seeing that that is our practice in regard to the maintenance of carriages, does it not practically bring the stock up to equal to now all the time?— Certainly. r