T. A. FOWERAKER.j

71

I—6a.

4. How frequently have you visited Nexv Lynn within the last twelve months? —I should say, about every second or third month. 5. Three or four times during the twelve months?— About half a dozen times. 6. During those visits have you ever seen anything in connection with the working of the station that you regarded as an irregularity?— No. 1 have seen no irregularities there at all. 7. From your personal observation did tho man in charge of the station maintain proper discipline?— Yes, I consider so. 8. He worked the signals properly? —Yes. 9. And compiled strictly with the rules in connection with the train crossings and matters of that kind? —Yes. 10. In your opinion, as a man who travels about the district, is New Lynn at the foot of a grade within the meaning of Rule 158?— No, 1 consider not. 11. Do you know the practice that was followed by Porter Mortimer on the morning of the 28th May in crossing Nos. 5 and 6?— Yes. 12. That is, he pulled No. 5 into the station on the main line, and after the engine had taken water tiny pulled north under cover of the " Danger " home signal to back into the siding, and No. 6 was coming down the grade at the time? —Yes. 13. You know link' 82. which provides that a signal must not ho passed when set at " Danger " ?—Yes. 14. Do you consider that the movement of train No. 5 at tho station was safe seeing that the home signal was standing at " Danger " for No. 6?— Yes, I consider it was. 15. Supposing you had been in charge of the station and you had the view that Porter Mortimer said he had—that is, he could sec the north home signal from the platform about 300 yards away would you have considered it necessary to put out fog-signals under circumstances of that kind? —No, certainly I would not. 16. Supposing the fog had been as dense as it has been stated to have been by the driver of No. 6—that is. that he could only see 30 yards ahead -what would you have expected him to do? —I consider he should have carried out Rule 208 and Rule 151, clause (b). 17. Supposing the fog-signal is not used, what should the engine-driver of No. 6 have done under the circumstances that he said existed?—lb' should have approached very cautiously. 18. Under Rule 208 he should have reduced his speed and taken proper precautions to protect the safety of his train ? —Yes. 19. Would you have expected him to comply with Rule 211, which provides that enginedrivers must exercise caution when approaching stations, whether they are required to stop or not, and must approach terminal stations, crossing-places, or junctions at such speed as will enable them to stop their trains with tho ordinary hand-brakes before entering the station limits? —Yes, I should certainly have expected him to carry that out. 20. Then, if the driver of No. 6 had acted in accordance with Rules 208 and 211 and come down that grade so that ho could have stopped his train before passing the north home signal, the collision could not have occurred? —No, certainly not. 21. Mr. Sykes.] Do you think that on the arrival of trains at New Lynn the tablet-porter's duties are too onerous and that ho is required to do too much? —No, I do not. 22. Do you think the tablet-porter stationed at New Lynn was a competent person?— Yes, certainly. 23. And one capable of maintaining discipline?— Yes, certainly, he was a very good man. 24. You have heard it said during the evidence that in the past several collisions have been narroxvly averted? —I have heard that said in this room, but lam not aware of any. 25. Mr. Dickson.] How long have you been in Auckland on that section as Traffic Inspector? —Nearly three years. 26. And you stated in answer to a question by Mr. McVilly that the signals were always carried out satisfactorily at New Lynn?—Yes. as far as I am aware. 27. You heard tho evidence given by Mr. Bowles?—Yes. 28. Did you hear Igm make a statement in regard to the previous tablet-porter, that the signals mi two occasions wore wrong and that the porter was removed from Now Lvnn? —Yes. 29. Did not that come under your notice?— One of them did. 'ill. And yet you tell us here that you knew nothing about tho signals being wrong?— Not to my personal knowledge. The signals were always carried out correctly while T was there. 31. You gave us the impression that you did not know that any signals went xvrong at New Lynn?—l did not intend to convoy that impression, because I inquired into one; but to my own personal knowledge they wore always right. 32. You moan that you never saw them wrong? —No. 33. You have inquired into a case where the signals were not correctly attended to?— Yes. 34. And through the inquiry you made the officer in charge was transferred?— Yes, as a result of that inquiry. 35. You xvere speaking about tho engine-drivers. As Traffic Inspector, what control have you got over the man at the engine?—No control. 36. You cannot interfere with the engine-drivers in their work? —No. 37. As Traffic Inspector do you consider there is sufficient accommodation at Nexv Lynn Station?— Yes, I do, for the ordinary business done there. 38. Had you anything to do with the recommendation in regard to placing the water-tank at the south end? —No. 39. Did you make a report to the Traffic Manager in connection with tho Now Lvnn accident? —Since the accident T think I suggested that the water-tank should bo put at tho south end. 40. It was really on your suggestion thai it was done?—No, I would not say that; it may have been on the plans.