Another Awful Railroad Accident

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


On Friday (6th inst.,) last week, the railroad express train, which left this city for New Haven at S A. M. dashed down into the river at Norwalk in the gap of the drawbridge at that place, which had been opened to let a steamboat pass, by which event no Iesthan46of our fellow beings lost their lives. The train alluded to consisted of engine, tender, one baggage car, a smoking gnd mail car, and five first class passenger cars. The Norwalk railroad station is located rom a quarter to half a mile on the west side of the bridge over Norwalk river, and between it and the bridge is a sharp curve to the right, in the road. The track is laid nearly on a level with the general surface of the ground at that place, but a number of houses and trees so intervene as to prevent any view of the bridge from the railroad, until fairly upon it. The bridge signal may be seen at a great distance this side of the draw, but, getting nearer, it is not clearly in view. The train to which the accident happened does not stop at Norwalk, and it seems the engineer neglected to notice the signal of the draw being opened. Owing to the curve in the road just before coming to the draw, the place has always been held to be dangerous, but the following instructions of the company are severe and precise :— " 6. All trains must run with care in approaching Norwalk River Bridge. Trains going east from Norwalk station will move around the curve with exceeding care, and Conductors on trains out of time are cautioned about crossing the bridge ; they will be held responsible for the safety of the trains. 8. In foggy weather, trains will approach the bridge with great care, and if trains are due, stop and send a man 1,000 feet ahead with signals." Instead of obeying these instructions, from vidence adduced be&re the-Coroner's Jury, it appears the accident was caused solely by the engineer—Samuel Tucker. The draw signal was set correctly, but h heeded it not, nor did he check up the train materially until he came in sight of the draw itself, at a distance of scarcely ten rods. Then he reversed his engine, and, with the fireman, jumped into the water, both escaping, but with injuries. So great was the momentum of the train that it came on to the bridge without slacking its speed, at the rate of 40 miles per hour; the gap, 60 feet wide, was almost leaped by the engine ; it struck the opposite pier without varying its line more than 5 inches, and buried itself partly in the central abutment. The tender turned bottom upwards and lodged fairly upon the locomotive. The baggage car then lodged in an upright position on the top of thetender. The smoking and mail car taking a sheer to the left, lodged upon the piles and bridging under the draw,formingar. acute angle with the baggage car. The first passenger car dove, as it were, down between the smoking and baggage cars, the car behind it striking and splitting it in pieces, and partly running over the roof. This second passenger car was, in turn, broken in pieces and crowded over the piles, by the other cars in the rear, one-half of it falling into the draw and partly upon the car ahead of it. The engineer has been put in prison to await the result. The only excuse he makes is that he thought he saw the safety signal up. The scene was heart-rending, and the loss of life, we believe, is greater than has ever taken place by one railroad accident in our country. When will there be more morality in our public carriers.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 8 Issue 35This article was published with the title “Another Awful Railroad Accident” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 8 No. 35 (), p. 274
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican05141853-274b

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe