Re: Granville Accident 1977

[xtr12426801 <wguest@xtra.co.nz>]

David Johnson wrote:

> I have been asked to do another posting on behalf of Vaughan Williamson.  It
> follows:
>
>

<snip>

> 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.

I agree, provided the bogies are of a reasonable design and kept in reasonable
condition. The main body of a carriage only comes into play AFTER the accident,
and has nothing to do with intiating the accident.

> 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.

The key to this is the allowable speed and anti-collision frames. What is safe
at (say) 70 km/hr may not be safe at (say) 100 km/hr. I have seen a serious
accident in NZ involving timber framed carriages with steel anti-collision
frames at each end. (The Rolleston level crossing accident in 1993). The timber
framing broke under the impact, but the anti-collision frames did remarkable
work in pushing the concrete truck back outside the carriages. If there were no
anti-collision frames I would want to see a fairly low speed for the carriages -
but then, rail fans are not going to be too upset at this, I suspect!

> 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...

I find it hard to be critical of these people. It is human nature to want to
watch such a dramatic and terrible event. For the most part they will have been
very sympathetic, and many will have felt sad and helpless. The idea that people
should "turn and walk away" because it is none of their business is not really
valid. I have no doubt that I would have watched for a while too.

> 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.

There is no justification for crap like this, however. Small, stupid minds
making mischief......<snipped>

> 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.

Not surprising the bloody politicians jumped in. They can stuff anything up! But
the question of funding of the railway needs to be separated from the operating
decisions made on the day. Let me explain. Suppose you are a bit broke, and you
decide not to replace the badly worn tyre on your car. You then drive it on the
freeway at 110 km/hr; it blows out and you crash. Did this acident occur because
you were "underfunded", or because you made a bad operating decision?

The fact is, the track at Granville was not capable of taking that train at that
speed. If the staff had been properly trained and supervised, there would have
been a severe speed restriction on it. Now the speed restriction could have been
laid squarely on "underfunding", but in my view, the accident cannot! Of course,
my view is based on more modern thinking than existed at the time, and modern
ideas have the advantage of hindsight where Granville is concerned.

We have just had this argument out afresh in New Zealand over the Cave Creek
disaster (not a railway event, though), and I have say with disgust that the
politicians got their ideas wrong in that one also.

Granville was a system failure, involving middle and senior management,
probvably right up to top management levels.

> 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?

There are real problems with criminal prosecutions against individuals in cases
where whole systems (that is, whole or large parts of organisations) have
failed. However, the death or serious injury of persons must be investigated,
and if there appears to be a case to answer that a statute has been broken, this
should be heard in open court. It has to be done as part of the process of
delivering a measure of justice to the injured and families of the deceased. In
other words, to let them know that the community takes their concerns and their
grief seriously, and show them that due process is following.

<snip>

> 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.
>
>

I am sorry I missed the earlier post. I was "off the air" with HDD probs.

> 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.
>

Absolutely right!

Bill Guest
formerly of NZ Railways