Re: Granville Accident 1977

[bobg@swifty.tip.CSIRO.AU (Bob Grime)]

In article <3507E69D.37E020C2@fastlink.com.au>,
Bob  <gioia@fastlink.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>David Johnson wrote:
>
>> I have been asked to do another posting on behalf of Vaughan Williamson.  It
>> follows:
>>
>> Having dealt with the incongruity of the lack of criminal prosecution
>> over the Granville accident, could I just tie up several loose ends.
>>
>> Without recalling who said what in the various posts, I would not
>> have been surprised if blame could have gone higher than P.R Shirley.
>> It is just that the historical evidence from Gunn, Fraser and
>> contemporary accounts point us at Shirley. When there was a comment
>> about blame never going past the crews etc in most events, we must
>> ask about the level of justice that applies. More anon. The safety of
>> timber bodied coaching stock has come up. Can I suggest that safety
>> in railways is far more dependent upon the design and upkeep of the
>> overall infrastructure viz signalling and trackwork etc rather than
>> the design of carriages. Rolling stock is not built like a
>> modern car where samples are crash tested for occupant safety! I don't
>> want to press the point, but our preservation societies rely
>> heavily on timber bodied (and framed) carriages. It would be a great
>> pity if the view was taken that the stock was intrinsically unsafe
>> and should be banned. One could only guess about what the upshot of
>> that view would be. Just think of the less than modern crash standards
>> of vintage cars. Should they be off the road? And what of vintage
>> aircraft, including the wood, wire and fabric copies?
>> Personally, I don't have any difficulties in riding in timber bodied
>> carriages, but I can appreciate that the experience of seeing problems
>> could well influence others' opinions on the matter.
>>
>> Could I address three further issues over the Granville accident namely
>> 1. Social issues, 2. political issues and 3. legality; before conclud-
>> ing. Again, I have not seen any very similar comment on these things.
>>
>> 1. I mentioned in my previous post how I felt that the accident was
>> a low point in Australian social history. Whilst there was a very
>> courageous rescue and recovery effort, and note that on the day
>> apparently in the order of thousands came forward to donate blood,
>> there was a very ugly side as well. Whilst some people may have "just
>> had to be there", and some may have been awaiting anxious news on
>> relatives, there was a multitude of others who had no business in
>> the matter, but came for a good look anyway. In what amounted
>> to hundreds, there was a crowd of spectators at the accident scene.
>> I think it was tragic that this occurred. Part of the police duties
>> on the day, consuming valuable resources, was crowd control. I seem
>> to remember the well-known journalist Mike Willesee actually
>> interviewed at least two of the spectator crowd with his typical
>> cutting remarks, and asking what they were doing there. It was an
>> excellent question, and neither respondent had a very good case to
>> answer. How sad that an event of great trauma was seen as being a
>> good morning's or afternoon's entertainment. What an ugly side of
>> Australian social history...
>>
>> Whilst the engine crew were justly cleared of any wrong-doing, some
>> months later the driver was subjected to harrassment in the form of
>> a bomb hoax on the passenger train he was driving. I seem to remember
>> that the train (ex Moss Vale) had to be emptied of passengers at
>> Strathfield so that
>> police, and the bomb-squad could investigate. Was this a mere coincid-
>> encesome, or some form of sick joke by someone with access to crew
>> rosters? Give a bloke who had been through a lot a bit more... When
>> the're down, kick 'em......
>>
>> Of course previous posts mentioned how the train crew suffered rocks
>> through windows, death threats, crank phone calls etc.
>>
>> I don't know now who it was in aus.rail who was going to dredge up the
>> engine crew names for the record, and I am not now going to witchhunt
>> who it was, but can they see why there was so much condemnation of
>> that proposal by various contributors to the newsgroup? With a social
>> history outlined above, it would be clear that the publication of
>> the crew names and whatever else would only serve to wound further
>> and not heal what was an extreme trauma to many involved and nearby.
>>
>> Finally on this issue of social history, what of the end of 1977 when
>> the "Sunday Telegraph" advertised how its New Year's edition was going
>> to contain the 1978 predictions of the clairvoyant who "predicted"
>> the Granville accident! I remember that as a TV ad and thought how
>> low can you go... But against this, could I also remark that the "Women's
>> Weekly" magazine had a very good coverage of the "human side" of
>> the tragedy immediately following the event.
>>
>> 2. Unfortunately, politics does go hand-in-hand with the history of
>> the Granville accident. Public transport had been a hot issue in the
>> May 1976 NSW state election. This was only about six months after the
>> dramatic sacking of the Federal Labor government under Whitlam by the
>> Governor-General, Sir John Kerr. It is significant here because of
>> the statements and leanings of the media, and in particular, the
>> newspapers. The Sydney morning Herald utterly condemned the Whitlam
>> government, and I remember one of its editorials at the time of the
>> state election. It remarked something along the lines that the election
>> of Wran would see New South Wales slide back into socialism, from which
>> the nation had reacted against recently. Its conservative leanings
>> were plain. The leader of the Liberal/Country party coalition was
>> Sir Eric Willis, both before the elction as Premier, and after, as
>> leader of the opposition. If public transport was an election issue,
>> whose side was on the backfoot??
>>
>> But now turn to the events of the
>> 18th Jan, 1977 and Sir Eric is interviewed and remarks something of the
>> order "Mr Wran has a lot of explaining to do, for in the first six
>> months of his Government,..." and went on to compare the number of
>> deaths in railway accidents under Wran and under the previous
>> government (his and his predecessors). It was a cutting remark which
>> did immense damage. Remember how the Herald backed him a little over
>> six months before? Now the Herald condemned Sir Eric, in its editorial
>> where it commented upon the inappropriatness of such a remark upon
>> a "city in mourning" (or similar words). Sir Eric tried to retract
>> his comment the next day, claiming that it was said "in a rage". The
>> video evidence did not seem to support his excuse.
>>
>> Probably, it was the greatest bungle a politician had ever made. The
>> comments cut, and the apology did not seem hearty. I suppose that the
>> ongoing bungle was that Sir Eric did not promptly resign his
>> position as leader of the opposition, and further, that the Liberal/
>> Country party did not dump him anyway. (This occurred about six months
>> later.) At this point of time, I cannot help but think that this was
>> the catapult that launched Wran into a political longetivity that he
>> would otherwise never have achieved. The electorate had great difficulty
>> in forgiving (if they ever did) Sir Eric Willis.
>>
>> We should note that Sir Eric Willis was not dumb. He was an Army
>> intelligence officer in WW2. A closer examination of his remarks
>> could perhaps reveal that the seeds of a most emminent remark were
>> present though. Suppose he said "someone" rather than "Mr Wran",
>> and suppose he had not referenced time and government in his remarks.
>> Suppose he said "Someone has a lot of explaining to do." Would that
>> not have been such a valuable contribution to the effect that it
>> points at criminal prosecution -- that incongruously neglected
>> feature mentioned before! Tragically, Sir Eric said what he said how
>> he said it. The comments were deeply hurtful to many. It was a very
>> low point in Australian politics. Of course there is far, far more
>> than what I have said, and on both sides of politics, but the above
>> remarks are, to me, salient.
>>
>> 3. The failure of criminal prosecution has been mentioned. We have
>> already discussed how Philip Raymond Shirley left a history which
>> points at culpability. Doubtless, if he would have been charged
>> though, he would not have gone down without a fight. He would
>> have taken others with him. How potentially embarrassing eh? So why
>> was there a failure to launch criminal proceedings. Was there a
>> good legal ground under which this could not be done? Or could we
>> enter that unhealthy, rumour-driven world of speculation?
>>
>> I am of the apprehension that many who were involved (as well as others
>> besides) probably have had reactions to the trauma. Note how packed
>> St Marks Anglican Church at Granville was at the 20th anniversary
>> memorial service a bit over 12 months ago (I saw it on the news, as I
>> did the event itself). Without prosecution for essentially what was
>> criminal behaviour, the deliberate neglect of the railway system, I
>> believe has in measure, contributed to the trauma. It has far less
>> meaning than if we were able to identify the person, or persons respon-
>> sible.
>>
>> Can we ask why there was no prosecution. Were the members of the
>> investigating team and the legal team themselves so badly shaken that
>> they simply forgot to go to the basic issue of responsibility? Or
>> were there interests which had to be observed and preserved (don't
>> worry about who suffers of course)? Not a healthy line to take, but,
>> it is a possible scenario! Maybe criminal prosecution simply costs
>> more in fees and compensation. Who knows??
>> I seem to remember that whilst some of the injured and relatives of
>> the deceased received substantial compensation, there were some
>> who didn't.
>>
>> I have to remark that here was a low point in Australian legal
>> history.
>>
>> So thus are some further thoughts. To conclude, just some remarks
>> on 4620. Ian Strawbridge has commented upon its poor mechanical
>> condition, though I note Mick Morahan's comment in the book
>> "Early Diesels and Electrics of the NSWGR" wherein he says gen-
>> erally "the 46 was a versatile and reliable locomotive". The
>> Co+Co arrangement where a beam connects the bogies through which
>> the tractive forces are imparted should not be a problem -- except
>> when unmaintained. 4620's crowning glory was as assistant loco-
>> motive to the famous Western Endeavour tour, ie 3801 to Perth in
>> September 1970, assisted by 3813 to Pt Augusta. Now, film footage
>> out of the rear cab of 4620 is present in the relevent segment
>> of the video "3801 A Legend in Steam". Have a look and critically
>> note the ride quality by comparing the relative roll of 3801. It
>> is not much! Now, I might comment that about 10 days before the
>> accident at Granville, I rode behind 4620 on the Mudgee mail late
>> one Friday night. The train was something of the order of loco,
>> several louvre vans, single FS car, mail and brake vans. (I am
>> only recalling from memory, and could be incorrect about the
>> train, but I was on a train to Mt Victoria at the time!) After
>> Katoomba the train was barrelling along at about 90-100 kph and
>> the ride in the FS was ROUGH! I went to the door and looked along
>> the train and remember that the roll of the vans was great, but
>> the loco's roll was almost violent. The roll was sillouetted in
>> the reflection of loco headlight on the landscape. If it was
>> 4620, which I am fairly certain was up front, it would testify
>> to the poor condition it was in (nevermind the track it was
>> riding on).
>>
>> I hope that the above comments are seen as a useful contribution
>> to the history of the Granville accident. Any distress to anyone
>> is sincerly regretted, but we should try to be honest about an
>> event that etched itself so indelibally in history. 12 months or
>> so ago, I understand Foxtel were looking at producing a TV
>> miniseries. Whether they went ahead or not, I don't know.
>>
>> My observations essentially conclude that the Granville train
>> accident was the product of a volatile cocktail of ignorance,
>> arrogance and ineptitude; a cocktail of which I wonder whether
>> any real lessons were learnt.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Vaughan Williamson
>> Teacher of Electrical Engineering, Wollongong TAFE
>>
>> e-mail: vaughan.williamson@tafensw.edu.au
>
>  No matter how you look at it, worn flanges and worn track are a combination
>for disaster on any railway.
>Bob
>

Bob's comment about worn flanges brings to mind something I saw immediately
after the undamaged coaches were pulled back from the train. Some guys in
suits were there with track gauges and measured the gauge for some hundreds
of yards up to the rear of the coach stuck under the bridge. I chatted with them and they claimed the gauge was correct. It may well have been since all the
coaches that were standing on it prior to having been pulled back were not
off the rails. What I do remember was seeing a shallow groove along the head
of the rail for maybe 30 to 50 yards (its hard to remember now) and I commented
is that a flange mark, ie. did a wheel flange climb coming around the bend and
run along on its flange for some distance before dropping down the outside of
the rail? No was the immediate answer, thats a braking mark. I knew no better 
but thought to myself how come the brakes were applied for some tens of yards
on the Parramatta side of the bridge?

Bob.