Re: Granville Train accident

[David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au>]

Vaughan Williamson <vaughan.williamson@tafensw.edu.au> has asked me to post the
following:

Some days ago, using technology better than mine, Nikki wrote:

> I am tracing some information on the Granville Train accident for a
> school project and would be grateful for any response with either links
> to pages or survivers or pictures
>
> thanks in advance
>
> Nikki Oliver

The number and quality of replies has been interesting with the contributions
by Ian Strawbridge and Bob Grime being notable.

One thing that I must note in the history of all this, whether it be the
official findings, media reports, or even the current thread in aus.rail
is that there is almost no mention of responsibility or liability of any
individual for the Granville accident (and it certainly was not the
fault of the crew on the day). I find this to be rather incongruous as
almost all other catastrophic events seem to open up the question of
criminal liability as several following cases will clearly show. Now
what was so special about Granville that no criminal prosecution
followed? For it, of all disasters, would surely have had the greatest
and most obvious signs of impending occurrence!

Recently, the Sydney Morning Herald had a display at the Power House
Museum, and in that display was an impression of their next day coverage
of the accident and near it, an excerpt where their editorial had clearly
stated that the accident should never have happened. That, of course, is
as obvious as night turning into day, but we should note that the
accident did not JUST happen. The official and media reports, also noted
in posts to aus.rail on this subject spoke of neglect. Neglect does not
occur by itself, and it is a wonder that nobody ever seemed to pursue it.

As the recent posts have come up, I came to realize that Granville, in
many ways brought about perhaps one of the lowest points of Australian
social, political and legal as well as transport history. Let me explain.
As once expressed to me, "...topics such as relevant
history, politics, economics, social factors, personalities and
technology. It's only by drawing all these together that you get the full
story of any subject. Leave out any one and it leaves
unanswered questions as to why this, why not that, how and so on." Those
comments were not written on the current subject,
but I believe that the remarks do emminently apply here (not
that I am in a position to canvass all those topics either!).
Lets first review a number of other Australian disasters, say, the
Melbourne/Voyager collision in 1964; the Coledale mudslide in 1988; and
the Newcastle workers club collapse after the earthquake in 1989. A
common theme of all these events was an inquiry preceeding either blame
and/or criminal proceedings.

In the case of Voyager, Jack Loney in "Sea
Adventures and Wrecks on the NSW South Coast" remarks that a Royal
Commission sat for 55 days. "It criticised Captain Robertson and his
officers, (Capt Robinson was Master of the 'Melbourne') but following
a campaign by back benchers in Parliament, a second inquiry lasting 85
days, involving 143 witnesses and costing $650,000, exonerated those
previously held to blame. Unfortunately, the Navy had by this time lost
a fine leader, for although Captain Robertson received extensive com-
pensation, he had resigned his commision." Obviously, originally,
someone had to cop it, and it may as well have been him, even if he
was totally innocent. (I cannot confirm, but heard something of the
effect that the master of the Voyager was drunk at the time. This
may or may not be true - I do not know.)

Turn to Coledale, and a young family is devastated by the collapse
of a railway embankment during torrential rains. I understand that
at least four SRA employees were indicted on criminal charges over
the deaths of a mother and her young child consequent upon that
collapse. Now I have no problem with charges being laid as such, but
it is a worry about who gets charged and for what. All SRA employees
were later cleared, but the process took months. The toll on these
people, the relatives of the deceased, as well as the SRA employees
would have been horrendous as the legal process ground on. I am of
the understanding that quite a number of SRA employees even other
than the accused did not have a nice time around that event. But
what I am trying to point out, is that criminal proceedings were
instituted.

Now, what of the Newcastle workers club which collapsed in the earth-
quake. Apparently here, the structural engineer who designed the
building was being sued for the building's collapse in the earthquake.
He had retired long before the problem, and take note of this, because
it is relevent to the points I would like to make about Granville, but
that did not protect him from litigation. I don't know whether this
matter has reached resolution, but there was no earthquake code for
building design at the time of the worker's club construction, and so
it is a little difficult to make it subsequently comply with current
codes. Notice that also here, litigation over responsibility and
liability has taken place.

The three cases noted above occurred with great suddenness and quite
unexpectedly, and all resulted in charges/blame laid. Of at least
two of those cases, original blame was later withdrawn, the third
case may still be in the courts - I do not know. But what a total
contrast to Granville! LLoyd Holmes in "A Railway Life" said much the same
as Ian Strawbridge did in the recent aus.rail posting. "The tragedy was
seen by railwaymen as an accident waiting to happen." Need I say much
more! A very unanswered question of Granville is why weren't criminal
proceedings instituted! 83 dead, 213 injured, countless others traum-
atized, and who was to blame for all this? Well umm, well err, you
know ummm, it was ,er it was just a rundown railway that caused the
accident. Come on, pigs fly too don't they? No? oh....

Gunn's "Along Parallel Lines" is an invaluable reference in this matter
(Take note Nikki! J Gunn, Along Parallel Lines, Melbourne University
Press,1989. Not the internet, but a vital source.) Gunn states of concerns
of a dilapidated railway system as far back as 1972, even under
McCusker, who some years previously had returned a railway surplus to
the Government. Exit McCusker in late 1972, also with him the old NSWGR.
Enter one Philip Raymond Shirley, and a new organization the Public
Transport Commission. Interestly, as I was researching this matter, I
noted that one Barry Unsworth, a future NSW Transport Minister
and afterwards Premier, was an adviser to Shirley.

Shirley, and his role is, I believe, pivottal in understanding the
Granville train accident. I may appear to wander off the subject of
Granville itself whilst discussing Shirley, but I am sure that it will
clarify my final observations.

Again, Gunn -- "P.R. Shirley had been the financial brain behind the
ruthless pruning of British Railways in the early 1960's" Labor's
Peter Cox -- "criticized Shirley's appointment. His function with
British Rail, he said, had been simple -- closing down lines. Shirley
had no experience in running a transport system" Early in his Public
Transport Commission career, Shirley forecast a turnaround in an
increasing and worrying railway deficit. "His forecast was never to
show even the remotest promise of achievement."

LLoyd Holmes was a former ASM at Albury ie he was "one of the troops".
Of Shirley, he has commented "...an accountant to whom balancing the books
took precedence over all else, including safety;..." (I am sure that
not all accountants are held in this light, even if the profession
often does come in for a bagging at times!)

Leave Shirley for a moment, and look at several remembered events of the
era. The Public Transport Commission and its Rail Division was under
increasing public scrutiny with mounting difficulties such as breakdowns,
strikes, poor cleanliness (how many remember how quickly the Blue and
White livery on single deck suburban rolling stock got dirty,
especially near the pantographs where the result of the friction
between the pantograph carbon inserts, and the copper overhead streaked
the sides of carriages, and not just after rain, carriages were obviously
not washed), and particularly poor timetable performance.

The Sydney Morning Herald around 1974, 1975 began a regular column called
"The Railway" with the PTC "L 7" logo atop replete with cobwebs. Daily
were the woes of the rail travelling public told. Perhaps once the cobwebs
were taken away as a "good story" occurred for a change. Other newspapers
were critical too. I seem to remember that a journalist from Sydney's
2SM radio station rode down the Blue Mountains one morning interviewing
passengers who had to equip themselves with tissue paper and the like to
clean the carriage seats before they sat down! (Of course, all who rem-
ember the times would recall an electioneering Neville Wran riding a
Central Coast commuter train to Sydney with probably his biggest media
coup of an election that saw him elected to power in NSW in the May 1976
State election which probably had public transport as its number one
issue.) But at the time, 1974 onwards, derailments of trains become
frequent. There were a number of coal train derailments on the Blue
Mountains as unmaintained BCH coal hoppers (which were looking extremely
tatty) jumped the rails (seizing wheel bearings, I believe were a common
problem). Obviously, the public was wondering when a passenger train
would leave the tracks. Time would tell.....

Around 1975 Max Ruddock, the father of present day Howard Government
Minister Philip Ruddock, was a State Minister for Transport. A delegation,
which included Joe Booth of one of the unions, inspected track near
Seven Hills. The Minister proclaimed that it was perfectly safe. Booth
begged to differ. The next day, an embarrassed Minister had to try and
shrug off as "an extraordinary coincidence" the derailment of a coal
train only metres from where the Ministerial delegation had inspected
the track. Clearly, things were not in good condition, and this was
around three years after P.R. Shirley had been taken on.

Back to Shirley again, his relationship with the rail enthusiast movement
was appalling. Suffice to say that 3813's current condition is a legacy
of the direct actions of Shirley. The ban on mainline steam excursions
from April 1974 was "a personal vendetta" of Shirley as written in a
letter to the Sydney Morning Herald and quoted in an article in the
Australian Financial Review of 22/8/74. The AFR article was considerably
critical of the economics of the PTC NSW "steam ban". Much more can be
said, but suffice that I have never read nor heard any positive remarks
about our "friend".

Relating now back to the Granville accident, I belive the indicting
statement against Shirley is in Fraser's "Bridges Down Under". "The depth
of concern by railway staff can be gauged when in early 1976 eleven
Division Engineers of the Way and Works Branch wrote to Chief Commissioner
Shirley "to advise that maintenance requirements needed for track and
bridges have been severely reduced...safety in some locations can no
longer be guaranteed." (Unfortunately, the date '1976' is after Shirley
had gone. Shirley resigned "for health and personal reasons" in late
1975 (Gunn), but obviously left a very dangerous legacy).

The character of Shirley can be judged by Gunn's remark that "Shirley was
by now widely regarded as 'an angry old man, crusty, vitriolic, who
enjoyed putting people ill at ease' ". But a most condeming and distressing
aspect of Shirley was from a number of contemporary accounts. By these,
we understand that he was an alcoholic. A bottle of scotch was his close
and constant companion. Inebriation at the workplace was not uncommon
for the man. His last day on duty, before his early contract termination
was marked by his being carried out of his office on a stretcher in a
drunken stupor!

Shirley is since understood to have passed away with cirrhosis of the
liver.

Years later, a structural engineer in retirement was being sued over
a building collapse in an earthquake. Shirley might have gone from the
reigns at the time, but why couldn't he have been summonsed.
I cannot help but regard that one of the greater tragedies of the
Granville accident was the failure to call Shirley to appear
before the coroner -- pending the laying of charges of criminal
negligence. Any comment from anyone with legal expertise?

Perhaps I should leave it here now, but I do have more comment on the
aftermath, as well as the technicalities of the Granville accident. Maybe
in a few days time, if the above  comments are satisfactorily received,
I might try to contribute more.
Unfortunately, I am firewalled out of writing to newsgroups, but can
read most. Thus I am not in a position to rapidly respond to any remarks,
I have to ask favours in redirecting e-mail!

Before calling it quits, can I ask a dumb question? Nikki Oilver's
school project was what got us all excited. What is the project for,
and will Nikki tell us what marks the project gets afterwards?

Regards,

Vaughan Williamson
Teacher of Electrical Engineering, Wollongong TAFE

e-mail: vaughan.williamson@tafensw.edu.au



--
David Johnson
CityRail Guard
trainman@ozemail.com.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/