BERKeilY LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA university or caliiorhia ,*FARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEER^ BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA ^ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OEPARTMCNT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL REPORT MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS ito iht ScjisJaturi; IN RELATION TO THE DISASTER ON MONDAY, MAECH 14, 1887, DEDHAAI BKAXCII OF TIIE BOSTOX & PROVEDEXCE RAIEllOAD, AT THE BRIDGE COaIMONLY KNOWN AS THE BUSSEY BRIDGE, OVER SOUTH STREET, BETWEEN THE ROSLINDALE AND FOREST HILLS STATIONS, IN THAT PART OF BOSTON CALLED WEST ROXBURY. BOSTON : WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING CO., STATE PRINTERS, 18 Post Office Square. 1887. Commoncoealth of ittassacljusctts. Skkate, April 13, 1867. Ordered, That the Board of Railroad Commissioners be authorized to report in print, for the use of the Legislature, the results of their investigation of the recent accident on the Boston & Providence Railroad, at Bussey Bridge, with such diagrams and illustrations as may be necessary for a proper understanding of the text. Sent down for concurrence. (Signed) E. HERBERT CLAPP, Clerk. House of Representatives, April 14, 1887. Concurred. (Signed; EDWARD A. McLAUGHLIN, Clerk. A true copy. Attest : E. HERBERT CLAPP, Clerk of the Senate. ENGIN. IBRAR> Commonfoealtjj of Massachusetts. To the Honorable Senate and the House of Representatives in General Court assembled. The Board of Railroad Commissioners respectfully sub- mit the following special report : — On the morning of the fourteenth day of March last past, an appalling disaster happened to the seven o'clock train from Dedham on the Dedham branch of the Boston & Providence Railroad at the bridge commonly known as the Bussey Bridge over South Street, between the Roslin- dale and Forest Hills stations, in that part of Boston called West Roxbury. Within a few hours after the catastrophe, two members of the Board visited the scene, carefully examined the wreck, and in accordance with their request, Mr. A. A. Folsom, the superintendent of the road, undertook to have preserved all portions of the wreck which would be likely to throw light on the cause of the accident, and especially two broken hangers to which his attention was (jailed. On the same afternoon the Board employed Mr. Thomas Doane, civil engineer, as an expert in its behalf, to make a careful examination of the details of the wreck, and to see that all important portions of it were preserved in accordance with the agreement of the super- intendent. The railroad company also employed Mr. Edward S. Philbrick to act in a similar capacity in its behalf. 369 4 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. TnE Hearings. The first public bearing was given on Tuesday, the fif- teenth day of March, being the day after the accident, and thirteen sessions in all were held, the last being on Mon- day, the 4th of April. The Board felt that greater confidence would be placed in the testimony of the employees of the train if they were examined without delay, and accordingly proceeded at once with their examination. Next they examined the officials of the road who were responsible for the road-bed, for the bridge and for the rolling-stock ; then those people who were represented to have discovered defects in the bridge in the past ; then two eye-witnesses of the disaster and several passengers on the train, and finally the experts. This order of the investigation gave the experts the bene- fit of all the evidence which was before the Commission, so that they could express their opinion with a full knowl- edge of the details of the disaster. The employees of the train who were examined were conductor William H. Alden, engineer "Walter E. White, fireman Alfred E. Billings, and brakemen John Tripp and Elisha Annis. There were two other conductors, one of whom, Myron Tilden, was killed, probably at the rear platform of the third car, as his body was found on the embankment on the Boston side of the bridge behind the car ; and the other, Webster N. Drake, was so badly injured as to be unable to attend. There was a third brake- man, Winfield W. Smith, who also suffered severe injuries. This is a complete list of the employees in charge of the train. The Board also examined the president of the company, Mr. Henry A. Whitney, and two of the directors, Messrs. Balch and Robeson ; the superintendent of the road, Mr. A. A. Folsom ; the master mechanic, Mr. George Rich- ards ; the superintendent of construction, Mr. George F. Folsom (not a relation of Mr. A. A. Folsom, the super- SPECIAL REPORT. intendent of the road) ; the chief car inspector, Mr. Edward Lang; the foreman of carpenters;, Mr. James A. Folsom, a brother of Mr. George F. Folsom ; the clerk in the superintendent's office, Mr. George A. Davis ; and the builder of the bridge, Mr. Edmund H. Hewins. Messrs. Harlan W. Brock, Henry C. Allen, Theodoiv B. Moses and Israel G. Whitney were examined in relation to reported defects in the bridge ; Thomas P. Lally of the Boston Fire Department, as to fires ; and Martin Lynch and Joseph McDonald, as eye-witnesses of the accident. The following passengers also testified : — Messrs. W. K. Dennett, Frank Davidson and Arthur W. Crosby, who were in the first car ; Messrs. Joseph K. P. Reed, Rudolph Weimar, Julius Meyer and Wright W. Williams, who were in the second car ; Messrs. Charles T. Bowthorp, Charles E. Farrington and Winslow J. Spaulding, who were in the third car; Messrs. Charles C. Darling, Jr., and Frank Cutter, who were in the fourth car; Messrs. Cyrus W. Hayes, Francis W. Gib- bons and George F. Waldron, who were in the fifth car ; Mr. Edward V. Cormerais, Miss Alice L. Page and Miss Mary A. Page, who were in the sixth car; and Mr. Louis Arnold, who was in the eighth car. Among the experts who were examined were Henry Manley, Assistant Engineer of the city of Boston ; Prof. George F. Swain, of the Institute of Technology; Prof. George L. Vose, and Messrs. Edward S. Philbrick and Thomas Doane, civil engineers. The Make-up of the Train and the Number of Passengers. It appeared that the train left Dedham at seven o'clock in the morning, drawn by the engine " Torrey," built in 1880 at the Rhode Island Locomotive "Works, and weighing 32^ gross tons. There were nine cars on the train, arranged in the following order: passenger cars Nos. 52, 18, 28, 87, 54, 80, 81 and 82, and at the rear 6 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. end of the train a combination smoking and baggage car No. 1. There were from 275 to 300 people on the train when it left Roslindale. The fourth car, No. 87, was fortunately not so well filled as some of the others. The Killed and Wounded. The dead number twenty-three. Most of them were killed outright. Some survived a few hours, one several days. Over one hundred were injured, aud of these more than half received injuries of a serious nature. Many of the victims, being residents of Roslindale, were cared for by their friends and relatives. Some were brought to the city, where arrangements were made by the railroad for their reception at the hospitals ; but as soon as ambulances and other means of conveyance could be obtained most of the sufferers were taken to their homes. The History of the Bridge. The Bussey Bridge was formerly a Howe truss wooden bridge. At that time portions of it were tinned to pie- vent it from catching fire, and it then acquired the name of the " Tin Bridge." In 1870, the westerly wooden truss was replaced by an iron rectangular truss made by the National Bridge Company, of which Mr. C. II. Parker was engineer. The bridge was then a nondescript bridge, having one iron and one wooden truss. In 1876, the railroad company removed the wooden truss, changed the Parker truss from the west side to the east side of the bridge, and had a new iron truss put on the west side. This work was done by Edmund H. Hewins, civil engi- neer. Only two proposals were made at that time to the company for rebuilding or repairing this bridge ; one from Mr. Parker, representing the National Bridge Company, and the other from Mr. llewins, representing the Metropolitan Bridge Company. A copy of the pro- posal made by Mr. Hewins was submitted at the hearing, and was signed " Metropolitan Bridge Company by SPECIAL REPORT. 7 Edmund H. Hewins, agent." It appeared that there never had been any such company as the Metropolitan Bridge Company, Mr. Hewins testifying that it was his intention at that time to organize a bridge company, and that he commenced under that name by himself, until such time as the organization could be made, and it was in fact never consummated. It further appeared that Mr. A. A. Folsom, the super- intendent of the road, and the superintendent of construc- tion, Mr. George F. Folsom, knew that the bridge was being built partly at the Trenton Iron and Steel Com- pany's Works and partly at the Phoenix Bridge Company's Works, but that they never inquired about the standing or even the existence of the Metropolitan Bridge Com- pany, and knew only and looked only to Mr. Hewins for responsibility in the matter. They had known him pre- viously as engineer for the Moseley Iron Wo ks at Read- ville, and his bearing impressed them as that of an able and upright man. Mr. A A. Folsom, the superintendent of the road, also testified that he made inquiry of one man, now dead, in regard to Mr. Hewins, and received a favorable report, and thinks he may have inquired of one or two others. The main tension members of the bridge were made at the Phoenix Iron Works, and were of excellent workmanship and apparently of good material. The rest of the bridge was made at the Trenton Iron and Steel Company's Works, also a reputable company ; but it appeared that the work there was done, not under the superintendence of the ofiicers of that company, but under the superintendence of an agent of Mr. Hewins, the iron company furnishing only the iron, the workmen and the tools, so that the company did not and does not consider itself responsible for the quality of the iron or the workmanship. Moreover, Mr. George F. Folsom, the superintendent of const ruction, testified that since 1861 he had had charge of the construc- tion and repairs of buildings and of bridges, that for ten 8 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. years previous to that date he had worked as a machinist in the shops of the company, that up to the time of his appointment as superintendent he had had no practical experience in bridge building, that his first experience in iron bridge building was in connection with these trusses in the Bussey Bridge, that he was at the bridge but little while the construction was going on, that he had other business to attend to, and that he trusted wholly to Mr. Hewins to build the bridge properly and put it up in proper shape. The work of putting up the bridge was done under the superintendence of Mr. Hewins by employees of the Boston & Providence Railroad. It further appears that the railroad company employed no expert to pass either upon the original design of the bridge or upon the bridge after it was constructed, and in fact consulted nobody in regard to it. If the management of the railroad had taken the trouble to make inquiry, it would have learned that the company which Mr. Hewins professed to represent did not in fact exist, and that not only the design but the quality of much of the materials and workmanship of the bridge depended solely upon his ability, honesty and faithfulness. As a matter of fact, the material and workmanship of the compression members appear to have been sufficiently good. The design in many of its details proved to be bad. Such a way of doing business would be lax in a purely commercial transaction. In contracting for and construct- ing a bridge, in dealing with a matter involving the safety of life, it was culpable. Description of Some of the Peculiarities of the Bridge. The old rectangular or Parker truss, as has been stated, was removed in 1876 from the west to the east side, and the new Hewins truss, which had oblique end-posts, was erected on the west side. The cross iron floor-beams SPECIAL REPORT. 9 rested on top of the Parker truss, but were hung under- neath the top chord of the Hevvins truss. The skew of the bridge was so great that the floor-beam which ran from the centre of the He wins truss rested on the north end of the Parker truss. Id the top chord of the Hewins truss were three cast- iron joint-blocks, one at the centre, and one at either end, against which the end posts and the two wrought iron sec- tions of the top chord abutted and were held in position by the force of compression. From the joint-block at either end of the top chord, a cross iron floor-beam was suspended by means of two hangers, the loop at one end of each of which passed round a pin in the joint-block, and at the other end round a pin passing through the two I-beams constituting the cross floor-beam aforesaid. These hangers were so encased in the joint-block and were so placed with reference to the I-beams that only a small portion of the lower side of the lower loop could be seen. Their dimen- sions are given in the drawings submitted herewith, which also show their eccentricity, so called, — that is, the hangers were so made that a line drawn from the centre of one loop to the centre of the other loop did not coincide with the middle line of the shank, as it should do in order to secure the greatest strength. The cross floor-beams supported by these hangers had also some additional support from a five-inch iron I-post running down to the bottom chord. The Parker truss was designed to carry its load at seventeen points, but the floor-beams rested upon it at four points only. The trusses were twenty feet apart from centiv to centre, it having been the original idea to put at some time two tracks across the bridge, but in reality only one track had ever been constructed, and that track \va> placed close to the west or Hewins truss, so that this truss bore about four-fifths of the weight of a passing train, and the Parker or rectangular truss bore the remaining fifth only. 10 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. The Track from Roslindale to the Bridge, and the Rate of Speed at which the Train was Moving. The train was from five to seven minutes late when it left the Roslindale station. The distance from this sta- tion to the bridge is about three-fifths of a mile. A curve of two degrees terminates fifty-five feet from the bridge. The track from that point across the bridge and for forty-five feet beyond is straight. It is a down grade all the way from Roslindale to the Forest Hills station, the grade being fifty feet to the mile. Professor Swain estimated that with the given grade and curvature, allowing for ordinary friction, a train impelled simply by gravity from a position at rest at Roslindale would have acquired a speed of about twenty miles an hour when it reached the bridge. Walter E. White, the engineer, teSti- fied that he had about ninety pounds of steam and worked steam with the throttle open two or three notches all the time after leaving Roslindale, but that he had not, in his opinion, acquired a speed of about more than fifteen miles an hour, because the air brakes came off slowly and retarded the train. The condition of the wreck indicated that the train must have been going considerably faster than the engineer supposed. The experts generally placed the rate at thirty miles an hour or more. The engineer had served in that capacity on the Ded- ham branch for more than thirty years. He knew that the rules limited the speed on the old bridge to twelve miles an hour, and thought that the same rule applied to the new bridge. He did not know whether he had received any printed or written instructions since the bridge was rebuilt in 1876. If he had received any, he did not know where they were. The superintendent of the road subse- quently testified that the limitation as to speed had been removed after the bridge was rebuilt in 1876 and he sub- mitted a printed copy of the present ' ' Rules and Regula- SPECIAL REPORT. 11 tions," the second and last edition of which was issued in 1881. It often happens that an employee of long stand- ing blindly follows routine and loses sight of the reason or authority which established the practice. This may be a source of danger and should be guarded against. The engineer showed that he was a man who would tell what he believed to be the truth, no matter how disastrous the consequences might be to himself. The Engineer's Account of the Disaster. The engineer testified that when he struck the bridge everything seemed to be all right; that he did not notice any settling or swinging, but when he came to the Boston end of the bridge he saw the forward end of the engine come up with a jar, and when the drivers came along there was a shock ; that he looked round and saw the forward car was off the track, and that he had broken away from it, that the coupling was broken, and that the car was off the track and going to the east side. His first impulse was to stop. He reversed the engine and then looked back again, and saw the first and second cars off the track, and a cloud of smoke coming up ; then he knew the cars had gone through the bridge. The engine had almost stopped. Then, to use his own words, "I hap- pened to think that we two, me and the fireman, could not do much ourselves, and I knew there was help on the train at Forest Hills, who were going down to Dedham to work on the bridge. I thought of all these things quicker than I can tell it here. So, quick as I could, I put on steam, and went down to Forest Hills. I blew the whistle all the way, with my body hanging out of the window and I saw people coming out of doors, and I kept pointing up the track, and they ran out of their houses, and before I got down to Forest Hills I saw a good many going up that way ; and before I got to the station I saw Mr. Worley, and hollered to him that the train had gone through the bridge, and to throw the switch to have 12 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Prince's train run up ; and I ran clown to Prince's train that was coming on the outward track, and hollered to him what was the matter, and he started and went up there as quick as he could. Then I went back, and hollered to the station agent and told him to telephone for doctors and ambulances. Then after Prince had gone up with his train, I folloA?ed up with my engine." It was due to this wise action of the engineer that notice of the catastrophe was immediately received at the office of the superintendent of the road. The police and fire departments were summoned, and physicians and sur- geons were secured and promptly taken to the wreck. The Cause of the Disaster. The testimony of the passengers, of the employees on the train and of two outside witnesses shows conclusively that the trouble originated on the north half of the bridge, and the evidence as a whole clearly indicates that the origi- nal cause of the disaster was the breaking of the hangers at the joint-block at the north end of the Hewins truss. In this view the counsel of the corporation and the experts, including the expert employed by the corporation, concur. These hangers were found in the street, and were exam- ined by several people, including one of the Commission- ers, on the morning of the accident. They were broken, the upper loops with part of the shank remaining in the joint-block and the lower loops with the remainder of the shank lying near by. One hanger was broken through the shank, and about seven-eighths of this break was old. In the other hanger the lower loop was broken on the side and at its junction with the shank. At the shank there were indications of an old break through about one-eighth of the sectional area. The hangers should have been die forged. They were loop welded, and the weldings were imperfect. The eccentricity, so called, of these hangers was un- necessary. This eccentricity caused the strains to be i6in. \\ inch squa\ M 3 18^ in. 184- in. I %. inch square. "^ 174 in. D 7T SPECIAL REPORT. 13 transverse and unequally distributed. In consequence thereof the hangers were for their work in the bridge not nearly as strong as the same amount of material would have been had they been properly designed. Portions of them without making any allowance for the jar of the train were subjected by each passing engine to strains approach- ing, if not in excess of, the elastic limit. The margin of strength, if any, was so small as to be inconsistent with safety. Iron will surely break if repeatedly subjected to a load which strains it materially bc}*ond its elastic limit. The hangers were unfit for their work. The wonder is that they held on so long as they did. They had been break- ing for some time. On the morning of the accident there was little more than the equivalent of one hanger left. ■ The theory that the disaster was due to a derailment of the train received no sufficient confirmation. On the con- trary the fact was abundantly established by the evidence that neither the ties on the embankment south of the bridge nor those on the south half of the bridge itself showed any signs of derailment. If a derailment oc- curred it must have occurred within a few feet of the joint-block at the north end of the Hewins truss. A theory was also started at the investigation that the disaster might have been caused by the dropping of a brake beam between the ties, but the theory was not supported by the necessary evidence. If a brake beam dropped at all it must have dropped within a few feet of the hangers. When the hangers gave way, the track system, from the centre of the bridgG to the iron post near the abutment, a distance of fifty-two feet, lost its main support, but it still had considerable strength, not sufficient to carry a train, but sufficient to retard somewhat its fall. In the first place there was the five-inch iron I-post supporting the cross floor-beam, immediately underneath the hangers. Then the track system had in itself some supporting power. There were three sections of sixty-foot rails on 14 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. the bridge, extending some distance on to the embank- ment on either side. The sixty-foot rails, which began on the north embankment, extended on to the bridge to a point five or six feet south of the angle-block which held the broken hangers. The track stringers, which rested on the cross floor- beams, were of iron, and on top of them was a six- by-nine hard-pine beam upon which the ties were laid. This beam was bolted to the iron stringers, and the joints in it did not coincide with the joints of the stringers. Moreover the iron track stringers were trussed in such a manner that when they had fallen a short distance the trusses would operate as a continuous chain. A speed of fifteen miles an hour is equivalent to about twenty-two feet a second ; of twenty miles an hour, to about twenty-nine feot a second ; of thirty miles an hour, to about forty-four feet a second. A cannon ball falls sixteen feet the first second. The length of a car is about fifty feet. The Wreck. The strain which broke the hangers was probably given when the engine driving-wheels passed over them, and there was a slight depression of the bridge when the engine left it. This depression had increased when the first car left the bridge, so that as it went up off the bridge it jumped the track to the east, and its rear truck was torn from it. The second car dropped still farther, receiving a much more severe concussion at the end of the bridge ; but the train of seven cars behind it crushed into its rear and threw it up over the edge of the abutment, displacing both its trucks and leaving them under its rear end. When the second car struck the abutment the third car was driven against it with such force — that car being just upon the point of leaving the solid part of the bridge at the middle of the truss — that its Miller platform was crushed on top of and into the platform of the ■j. — A 2 i3? — •s U-'.J - \ $ E t,-T-' — \ A z. i2 i ~ N* 1 |5 I E rt A a* i im i ft 'a i ~ 10 - o — '2 i _ 'O i - - H::j — r * i — r l-C 1 oz _ IV, '\ — i. M ] ; o» = — m ' : Or o» - E !* i lc!i — (---.; 2z : L — tm.i . ■■■ LivKrc Prf ,Iiho THE 7TH, STH AND 9TH CARS IN THE S SPECIAL REPORT. 15 second car, and became inextricably entangled with it. This may have saved the third car from going into the street, as it must have formed a very strong and close con- nection between the two cars, and must have greatly helped to carry the front end of the third car over the chasm. As it was, this car lost both trucks, its floor system was almost demolished, its sides were shattered and loosened at every joint, and it was found on the embankment a few feet behind the second car, having lost its front platform, which had finally been torn out and remained entangled with the rear platform of the second car. The fourth car was not able to leap the chasm. It had not however fallen so far that its roof did not come above the line of the abutment. The car was stopped by the abutment but the roof went on and landed on the embankment. The front end of the body of the car, striking the abutment at an angle of twenty-one degrees, was crushed in for about half its length, and the remainder of the car veered off to the left or west side of the track, and fell into the street, land- ing on its right or east side. The fifth car followed the course of the remnants of the fourth car, struck its rear end, and was telescoped by it for half its length. It seems probable that the He wins truss stood up until the cast-iron joint-block, in which the broken hangers were, was struck by the fourth or fifth car. This blow knocked out late- rally the block and the two adjoining members and the truss fell to pieces. The sixth car fell diagonally across the street. It was badly broken and twisted, and its top was nearly torn off. The seventh car landed in the street upright, and was the least injured of those which went through the bridge. The eighth car landed in the street, behind the seventh car, was tipped to the cast side, and was badly shattered. The ninth car, being the bination smoking and baggage car, turned over and landed in the road upside down. Most of the people who were killed were in the fourth, fifth, sixth and ninth cars. 16 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Suggestions and Warnings to the Road. The evidence shows that there has been considerable anxiety on the part of passengers in regard to the safety of this bridge, and in various ways and at various times this anxiety has been brought to the attention of the management of the road. Though in some cases this anxiety was caused by the discovery of loose nuts on the Parker truss, it was generally a vague fear, founded on no known defect in the bridge, but apparently largely due to the skew of the bridge and to the fact that the track on both sides of the bridge ran on high embankments. In December, 1881, the Board of Railroad Commis- sioners wrote to the superintendent of the Boston & Providence Railroad, in relation to this bridge, as follows : — West Roxbury Bridge over the Highway, near Bussey Farms. The superstructure of this bridge is an oddity among bridges. If it has never been tested under a given load, the Commission- ers suggest whether it would not be wise aud prudent to test it now, and perhaps at stated intervals hereafter, shorter or loDger, a year or more, according to the behavior of the bridge under the load ; the test to consist of putting on a load somewhat heavier than the bridge is ever called upon to bear in the course of your business ; noting the load put on, the deflection taken by the bridge under the load, and the amount of recovery after the load is removed ; noting also its lateral stiffness and strength. A series of such records would show conclusively whether or not the bridge tested was maintaining its strength and safety. It appeared in evidence that shortly after the receipt of this letter a test of the bridge was made ; but no record of such test was returned to the Board, nor was the test followed by a series of tests, which the letter of the Board indicated was necessary in order to show conclusively whether the bridge was maintaining its strength. It appeared that examinations of the bridge had been made every spring and fall by George F. Folsom, the SPECIAL REPORT. 17 superintendent of construction, and be described fully his method of going through the bridge and examining its details. He testified that he had detected no fault in the construction of the bridge, except that it would he better if made of fewer pieces ; that he never had any anxiety about any portion of the bridge that was covered up; that he did not knoAV how the floor-beams under the joint- blocks at the ends of the truss were supported, but sup- posed that they were supported on iron stirrup straps, which he thought were one and a halt-inch square ; thai he could not examine these stirrup straps, and never thought they were an important feature of the bridge until he -aw them lying on the ground. Such was the examination made by the superintendent of construction to ensure the safety of passengers riding over that bridge. The hangers held up the floor-beams. When the floor-beams fell, the floor system would fall, and yet it never occurred to the man who was supposed to have su- perintended the construction of the bridge, and to whom was entrusted the examination of the bridge every spring and fall, — it never occurred to him that the strength and condition of these hangers was vital and should have been an important feature in his examination. Moreover, he did not know how the hangers were made, his supposition in regard to their size and shape was incorrect, and he did not have, nor did the road have, any drawings .-bow- ing their construction and dimensions. It is a defect in any bridge if a vital part, no matter what excess of strength it may have, is unnecessarily cov- ered so that it cannot be inspected. In this bridge, not only was a vital part unnecessarily covered, but no one in the employment of the corporation knew anything about its construction or its strength, and, as a matter of fact, it was so constructed as to be Mire to weaken under con- tinued use and was insufficient t<> do its work with safety, even had it been so placed a- to be subject to full and con- Htant inspection. 18 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. In December, 1881. the Board issued a circular to the Boston & Providence Railroad and other railroads, re- specting the proper construction of bridge floors, which cir- cular was drawn up by Mr. Clemens Herschel, civil engi- neer, at that time a member of the Board. This circular is printed in the Commissioners' Report in January, 1882. It calls attention to the danger of knocking to pieces iron trusses composed of several members, in case a train is derailed upon a bridge, and urges the great importance of devices that are calculated to prevent one or more de- railed wheels from swerving to any great extent from the rails, and of a tie system that will support derailed wheels and carry them over tb.e bridge in safety without catching between the ties. The circular gives diagrams showing different forms of track structure for bridges, designed to meet these requirements, in all of which guard rails, guard timbers, and the laying of the ties not more than eight inches apart, form a conspicuous feature. The circular closes as follows : " The Board of Railroad Commissioners commend to the railroads of this Common- wealth the consideration of the examples shown and of their several merits and defects, and the application upon the bridges within the State of a safe and efficient form of track construction, the essentials of which seem to be strong and closely-laid ties of sufficient length, guard rails or guard timbers, lined with angle iron ; these guard tim- bers outside the track, and notched and bolted down, or else separate outside stringers, notched and bolted down to the ties." After the annual inspection in 1882, the Commissioners further wrote to the superintendent of the Boston & Provi- dence Railroad as follows : " The Commissioners refer to their circular of Dec. 1, 1881, for their views on the best method of track construction on bridges. The track con- struction on most of the bridges of your line is wanting in guard rails or proper guard timbers, and several of them need the ties laid closer.'* SPECIAL REPORT. 19 There were no guard rails on the Bussey Bridge in 1881. There were none at the time of the disaster. Neither was there at either time any timber notched and bolted down, as suggested in the circular. There wan outside of the track a plank, three inches high by ten inches wide, placed a few inches from the. track, bolted to every third or fourth tie, but not notched. Mr. George F. Folsom, superintendent of construction, stated that he had never known a train to be saved by a guard rail ; that in one case a guard plank similar to the one on the Bussey Bridge had guided a derailed train which was moving slowly across a bridge on the Boston & Providence Railroad; that he had a feeling in regard to guard rails that probably there were cases in which they had done as much damage as, if not more than, would have been done if they had not been used, but he had never known such a case to occur; that it was a supposi- tion, a feeling which he had in regard to it, and therefore he objected to putting guard rails on. In his view- in regard to guard rails he has been in the past and was at the hearing sustained by the superintendent of the road. Guard rails and guard timbers have been in use so long on the leading railroads of the country, and their value, when properly placed, is so generally acknowledged, that the position in regard to them taken by the superintendent of the road and the superintendent of construction is inde- fensible. Further, Mr. George F. Folsom, being unable by reason of sickness to answer certain questions of the Board in regard to the construction of the Moor system, communi- cated information relating thereto to Mr. A. A. Folsom, the superintendent, in the following letter, which was submitted to the Board : — Boston, March 29, 1887. A. A. Folsom, Esq. Dear Sir: — The ties on the Bussey Bridge .ill extended eighteen inches outside of rail on east side, and were all eigh- teen inches on centres. 20 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. The short ties that butted against truss were seven feet five inches long ; the ties at both ends of the bridge were ten feet long. The ties were six by ten and eight inches apart. Guard plank outside each rail ten inches wide and three inches thick covered bridge and abutments. Yours truly, George F. Folsom. It will be seen from this letter that the superintendent of construction states that the spaces between ties on this Bussey Bridge were eight inches. Mr. E. S. Philbrick, the expert employed by the road, and Mr. Thomas Doane, the expert employed by the Commissioners, who took measurements of the ties and the spaces between them as they were found at the wreck, testify that the spaces between the ties on this bridge were from fifteen to eigh- teen inches, instead of eight inches as stated in the letter of the superintendent of construction. In spite, then, of the circular of 1881, and of the letter of 1882, each of which called the attention of the superin- tendent of the Boston & Providence Railroad to the impor- tance of having ties on bridges laid closely together, the ties on this bridge remained unchanged, and at the time of the accident were so far apart that had a train been derailed upon that bridge, the destruction of the bridge would have been inevitable ; the spaces between the ties were so great that the wheels would have sunk down between them, and the bridge would have been wrenched and torn to pieces. Moreover, if a brake beam had fallen, it would, in all probability, have caught between the ties and wrecked the bridge. Neither the superintendent of the road nor the superintendent of construction would deny that the spaces between the ties on this bridge were too great. As it happened, the accident was not caused by the defects of the tie system, but the management is none the less censurable for its long-continued neglect to remove this undoubted element of danger. SPECIAL REPORT. -j\ The Brakes. It appeared that seven of the nine cars on the (rain were supplied with the Westinghouse Automatic brake, but none of the brakes would work automatically because the other two cars had the old Westinghouse Straight- air brake. Had the train been supplied with auto- matic brakes throughout, they would have applied themselves when the first car parted from the engine at the abutment at the north end of the bridge; they would have materially diminished the violence of the concussion of the cars against the abutment and against each other. and there is reason to believe that the results would have been less disastrous. A railroad company is bound to use the utmost dili- gence in supplying itself with well-approved contrivances for the safety of its passengers, and this railroad is guilty of neglect in not having, long ago, fitted all its ears with the Westinghouse Automatic brake. Economy in some portions of railroad management is commendable, but economy which risks the safety of passengers is culpable. The Bkakemen. In section 170, chapter 112 of the Public Statutes, it is provided that every railroad corporation shall cause to be stationed on every passenger-train " trusty and skilful brakemen, equal in number at least to one for every two cars in the train." This, being a train of nine ears, should have been provided with five brakemen in order to comply with the provisions of the statute. There were in fact only three brakemen. The Board do not consider that the two assistant conductors can be considered as brakemen with- in the meaning of the statute. If they had duties to per- form as conductors, in taking up tickets or otherwise, they could not be on hand to apply the brakes with that promptness which is necessary in case of an accident, and which is possible for a brakeman who is at his post of 22 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. duty on the platform. The eighty-second of the printed "Rules and Regulations" of the company, among other provisions, requires brakemen to be at their brakes when the train is moving, except when called away by the direct order of the conductor. Fire. The cars were provided with the Chilson Conical Stoves, one of which was placed in the middle of each car. One fire caught in the third car, being the last car on the em- bankment, and was put out readily by the passengers. At least two fires also started in the wreck in the street, and these also were fortunately put out before they had acquired any serious headway. Water was near at hand, and the passengers and the people from the neighborhood realizing the danger took immediate measures to prevent the added horror of a conflagration. Their efforts were supplemented b}' Chemical Engine No. 4 of the Boston Fire Department, which arrived on the scene eight min- utes after the accident. Though no one was suffocated or burned, the fire demon was at work in the ruins, and was only prevented from gaining the mastery by a fortunate combination of circumstances. Summary and Recommendations. The conclusions which have been reached by the Board are as follows : — The contract for rebuilding the bridge in 1876 was made without proper examination as to the standing of the contractor. Those who acted for the corporation in making the con- tract had not sufficient knowledge of iron bridge building to enable them to pass intelligently upon the design and specifications. The design and specifications for the bridge were not such as should have been accepted. The bridge was constructed practically without superin- SPECIAL REPORT. 23 tcndencc on the part of the corporation, and the corpora- tion neglected to preserve a copy of the specifications, drawings and strain sheets. The tests of the bridge were not made in the presence of any one acting for the corporation who was qualified to judge of their value. From the time of the construction of the bridge to the day when it fell, the railroad company had caused it to be ex- amined by one man only, who, year after year, passed over vital parts of the bridge without realizing that they were of importance. This man had been in the employment of the corporation for a long series of years, his trade was that of a machinist, he had not been educated as a civil eno-ineer, and the management had abundant reason to know that he was not qualified, and had had no opportunity to qualify himself, to do the work assigned to him witli refer- ence to this bridge. The series of tests of the bridge recommended by the Board in 1881 was not made. In the erection and inspection of bridges the manage- ment of a railroad is bound to exercise the utmost care. Had such care been exercised, there is every reason In believe that the disaster would have been prevented. On the thirty-second page of the last report of the Commission is the following : " The Board renews the expression of its belief that a preventible accident is a crime." Notwithstanding the repeated warnings of the Board the spaces between the ties on this bridge were far too greal for safety. Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Board in 1881, no suitable guard rails or guard timbers were placed upon the bridge. The Westinghouse automatic air-brake, a safety appli- ance, remarkable alike for its simplicity and effectiveness and long ago approved and adopted by all the leading rail- roads, was not in practical operation on this train, neither was the train furnished with a sufficienl number of brake- men to comply with the requirements of the statute. 24 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. The disaster and the facts which have been disclosed, impose a grave responsibility on the board of directors. It is their duty, by the most searching inquiry, to ascer- tain forthwith whether any other work has been done in a like negligent and incompetent manner, whether in other matters reasonable and well-approved precautions against accident have been ignored or neglected, and whether false economy has been practised and safety sacrificed. They should not rest until they have taken the most ener- getic measures, without regard to expense and without regard to persons, to correct the past and to ensure better and safer management in the future. So far as relates to bridges, the Directors have already caused a thorough ex- pert examination to be begun. Fortunately there are but few bridges on the line. In mitigation of the sentence of condemnation called for by the foregoing findings and in support of the hope that the history of the Bussey Bridge is exceptional, it must be remembered that from 18G9, when the Board of Railroad Commissioners was created, up to the time of this disas- ter, a period of eighteen years, there has been no train accident on the Boston & Providence Railroad which re- sulted in the loss of a life of, or even in serious injury to, a passenger. The accident furnishes another proof of the necessity of abolishing the deadly car stove. As bridges embody many possibilities of danger, it is proper that special means should be taken to secure care- ful, competent and faithful construction, and a thorough and scientific examination of them by the railroads at regular intervals, followed by a thorough State inspection. The importance of such action is emphasized by the fact that the weight of engines and of the rolling-stock of railroads and of the loads carried has been increasing for many years. The weight of engines and rolling-stock has doubled within twenty j^ears. Moreover, the speed of the heavy passenger express and through freight trains has also largely increased. SPECIAL REPORT. 25 The examination made by the Board of Commissioners can at best be but cursory. There arc over a thousand bridges in the State, and no member of the Board, no matter what his scientific education may be, can, in addi- tion to his other duties as commissioner, make anything but a brief, partial and unsatisfactory examination of them. A proper inspection in behalf of the State would require practically the whole time of a bridge expert. The Board recommend the passage of an act re<|uirin:_ r every railroad, at least once in two years, to have a thorough examination of all bridges on its lino made by a competent and experienced civil engineer, who -hall re- port in writing to the corporation and to the Board of Railroad Commissioners the results of his examination, his conclusions and recommendations. The reports should embrace such information in relation to the history and construction of each bridge, including detail drawings and strain sheets, as may be called for by the Board of Kail- road Commissioners, and said Board should be author- ized to employ a competent expert to examine such reports and make such further examination of the bridge structures as may be deemed necessary or expedient. GEORGE G. CROCKER. EDWARD W. KINSLEY. EVERETT A. STEVENS, APPENDIX INQUIRY BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS THE CAUSES OF THE ACCIDENT ON THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE RAILROAD, MARCH II. 1887. HEARING. Boston, March 15, 1887. The Board met at 2.30. The Chairman. This, gentlemen, is an investigation into the cause of the accident at the crossing of the Boston & Providence Railroad at South Street in West Roxbury. The Board desire, in the first place, to examine the employees who were on the train at the time of the accident. Will those of them who are present be kind enough to rise and be sworn. (Five gentlemen rose and were sworn.) Testimony of William H. Aloen. Q. (By the Chairman.) You were one of the conductors on the train to which the accident happened? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is your age? A. Thirty-two. Q. Your residence? A. Dedham. Q. How long have you been a conductor? A. Since 1879. Q. On this branch ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you been employed by the railroad? A. Since L873. Q. What time did the train leave Dedham? A. Seven a.m. on the 14th. Q. Were there other conductors on the train with you? A. Yes, sir. Q What were their names? A. Myron Tildon and Webster N. Drake. Q. Were they both killed? A. Myron Tilden was killed and the other one injured. Q. Seriously injured? A. Well. I have not beard how seriously; he is at the hospital, I believe. Q. When the train reached Boslindale was the train <>n time? A. Yes, sir. Q. At what rate of speed was it going when it came to the bridge? A. I should say about twelve miles an hour; somewheres in that vicinit}-. Q. Is that the regular rate? A. Yes, si.. 30 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Down grade at that point? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) All the way from Roslindale station? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many cars were on the train? A. Nine cars. Q. All passenger cars? A. There were eight coaches and a combination car, making nine in all. Q. Where was the combination car? A. In the rear, sir. Q How well filled were they? A. The forward cars were very well filled ; I can't say about the rear ones, for I hadn't been through. Q. How mairy of the forward cars do you know about? A. Only two, sir. Q. How many persons should you say there were in those? A. I should say there were eighty or ninety in the two together. Q. What part of the train was Mr. Tilden attending to? A. The middle three cars. Q. And Mr. Drake? A. The three rear. Q. Have you any means of knowing how many people were in those cars? A. No, sir. Q. In what car were you at the time of the accident? A. The second car from the engine. Q. What portion of the car? A. About middle way of the car. Q. Now, describe, as nearly as you can, what the nature of your experience was. A. Well, that would be impossible for anybody to do. Q. When did you notice anything out of the way? A. I didn't have time to notice anything. Q. Did you notice anything out of the way before you got on to the bridge? A. No, sir. Q. Did } t ou notice anything out of the w T a}* when } r ou were on the bridge? A. No, sir. Q. When do you think your attention was first drawn to the fact that there was something wrong? A. I couldn't tell you. Q. Was it after you left the bridge? A. I was busy, you know, taking fares, and I can't tell exactly, of course. Q. Then you don't know but it was on the bridge that you first noticed it? A. I couldn't tell you anything about it at all. Q. What happened to you? A. Well, the first I knew I was sit- ting right on the floor, in the middle of the car, the seats and every- thing piled on top of me. Q. Had you been thrown any distance, or were you sitting about where you were standing? A. Some little distance ; not far. Q. Thrown which way? A. I could not tell; I don't know as I can tell which way it was, it was all done so quick. APPENDIX. 31 Q. Do you think 3-011 were thrown towards the forward «i»y the cur suddenly stopping? A. Oh. yes. (.,). Will you explain how that could be done? A. 1 don't know as I can explain it ; it has been done with inc. I know. Q. You found yourself on the floor? A. Yes. sir. Q. With the seats loose? A. Yes. the cushions, yon know; the cushion part. Q. And some of them on top of you. did yon say? A. Yea, there were two. Q. Where were the rest of the people in the car? A. Well, there wasn't but three or four, I think, in tin- car, when I went to them ; they had got out of the windows. (). (By Mr. Kinsley.) Were you stunned in falling? A. [must have been unconscious Q. (By the Chairman.) When you picked yourself up, you found that all but three or four had left the car? A. Well, three or four; somewhere in that vicinity. Q. What did you do then? A. As soon as I could get ui\ together, I looked in that car to see if there was anybody in there, and then I got out of the car and went into the next one. to Bee if there was anybody in there. Q. Wait a moment. You looked to see if there was anybody in that car? A. Yes, sir. (^. Whom did you find? A. I didn't find anybody. Q. You didn't find even the three or lour? A. No. Bir; they were just going out of the rear end. where it was broke in. Q. Was anybody killed in that car? A. No, sir. Q. Then you went where? A. Into the next car. n. Which do you mean by that, the car in front or the car behind? A. Behind. Q. The nest car behind? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you find there? A. I didn't find anybody in thai one either; they had all got out of that. Q. What was the condition of that oar? A. Well, it was all broke ; all tore to pi< n. Worse than your car? A. Yes. sir. Q. Anybody there? A. No. sir. 32 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. What did you do then? A. Then I went down the bank, down side of the road, where the rest of the cars were, and looked round there. Q. Before we go down the bank, won't you describe a little more accurately what was the condition of those two cars that you went into before you went down the bank? You did not go into the front car of the train at all ? A. No, sir. Q. What was the condition of those two cars? In the first place, describe as well as you can the condition of the car in which you were when the accident happened. A. Well, the trucks were gone and the seats thrown round. Q. You say the trucks were gone. What do you mean by that? A. Thejr were gone from underneath the car, and the car set right down on the ground, on the rails. Q. That is the one that you were in originally? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you go where the trucks were? A. No, sir. Q. Was the car in a line with the track, or was it outside of the track? A. Almost in a line with the track. Q. What was the condition of the upper part of the car? A. What do you mean by the upper part? Q. Where the people were sitting, where the seats were. Was the solid part, the fixture part of the seats torn? A. I didn't stop to make a close examination, of course. Q. How about the ends of the car? A. One end was smashed in, the end I got out of. Q. Which end was that? A. The rear end. Q. How much smashed in, how far into the car? A. Not very far into the car, but the end was about all gone. Q. Should you say it was smashed five feet from the end of the car? A. Oh, no; not as much as that. Q. Was the end partition of the car knocked in? A. Parts of it. Q. How about the platform ? A. I don't remember about that at all. Q. Do } r ou remember how you got out of that car, whether you went out on to anything like a platform or not? A. I remember stepping on to a piece of iron ; I should say it was the railing, or something of that sort, of the car. Q. Did you climb out, or did you walk out? A. I climbed out. Q. Then you got into the next car behind ? A. Yes, sir ; the next car behind the one I was in. Q. How did you get into that? A. That one I walked right in ; the door was gone, or was open, I don't know which. I walked right into that. APPENDIX. 33 Q. Did you get down out of the first car on to the ground, and then up into the second? A. Yes, sir. Q. How were the cars situated? Were they righl up elose to each other, or were they separate? A. Very close; not way up bo other, but perhaps five feet apart. Q. Were they united together, or were they t<>ni apart ? A. apart. Q. Separated from each other? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the condition of the rear car that you went into? A. That was very much wrecked. Q. How was it wrecked? A. Well, the roof was wrecked. Q. That was the third car? A. That was the third ear from the engine. Q. The roof was wrecked? A. Yes, sir ; and the side was sn. a little, not a great deal, — bent out and the trucks gone. Q. The trucks also gone to that? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know where the trucks were ? A. No, sir. Q. You didn't look for them afterwards? A. No. sir ; 1 didn't. Q. Do you think anybody was killed in that car? A. I don't think there was : still, I don't know. There wasn't anybody in there when I went there. Q. Was there any other car on the Boston side of the bridge? A. No, sir ; that was all there was, those three. Q. How far was that car from the bridge; have you any ilea? A. No ; I couldn't say. Q. Do you think it was within a few feet, or the length of a car? A. It must have been the length of the car there. Q. Then you went down the embankment? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you do then? A. Well, we helped all we could to get the wounded and dead out of the wreck. Q. Where did you go to work first? A. Right under the bridge : right under the original bridge. Q. Do you remember on which car? A. I could not tell yon what the number of the car was. Q. Do you think it was or was not the fourth car? A. I could QOt tell you which one it was ; I did not take any particular DOl Q. (By Mr. Kixsu-y.) Which side of the bank did you go down? A. As you go in from Boston, I went down on the right-hand Bide. Q. (By the Chairman.) That is, on the north side of the bank? A. Yes, sir ; I suppose so. Q. Do you remember whether you passed by any cars, or whether you went to the first one you came to? A. No; I went to the first car. Q. Describe, as well as you can, all you found there, A. We 34 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. found men and women in there ; I could not say how many ; we got them out the best we could. Q. What was the nature of the trouble there ? Was the car that you were working upon standing upright, or was it on its side, or was it on its end, or how? A. Well, partly on the side, about so (indi- cating at an angle). Q. Was one car on top of another? A. Yes, sir ; they were kind of shot over, one over the other, like that (indicating) . Q. Which was over, do you remember? A. I don't remember the numbers of them ; no, sir. Q. Do you think it was a rear car that came over a front one, or a front car that was over a rear car? A. I could not tell you ; I don't know how the}' were situated in the train. Q. Did you see any evidences of fire? A. We did, a long while after we got all of them out ; there was a little mite, nothing to hurt anything at all. Q. After you got them out? A. Yes, sir. I don't know where it came from, I am sure. It didn't set fire to any wood. Q. What do you mean, then, by seeing fire ; what was it, — coals? A. Yes. Q. Where was that? A. That was right where I was speaking of; where we were. Q. Was there a stove right there ? A. I didn't see any ; I couldn't tell whether there was a stove right there or not. Q. That was the fire that you saw? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that had not set fire to any wood? A. No, sir. Q. How many persons did 3*ou assist in taking out? A. I could not tell you, sir, I am sure. Q. About a dozen, or twenty, or more? A. Well, I shouldn't want to say how many, because I don't really know how many there were. Q. Well, you have some idea whether it was one or twenty, haven't you? A. Well, there were more than one, sure. Q. Did you take out any dead bodies ? A. Well, there were two that were dead. Q. Did you see an} r other dead bodies? A. Yes, I saw two or three more taken out, but I didn't assist in taking them out. Q. What was the nature of the assistance which you gave down there? A. What do you mean by that? Q. How did you go to work down there ? Pulling people out, was it, or tearing away the wreck, or what, did you do? A. We tore away part of the windows and the frames, took the frames out, and took them out that way. Q. How long did you stay there? A. I think it was about eleven APPENDIX. o'clock when I left there, or a quarter of eleven ; BOmewhere in that vicinity. Q. Did you make any examination of the rest of the train, to sec what its condition was? A. I looked the length of the train; yea, sir. Q. What was the condition of the cars; how were they placed? A. There was one car that set right down on the iron, upright. — stood upright. There were a few windows broken in it. Q. Which car was that? A. I forget the number of it; it was either 80 or 81. I don't remember which one it was. Q. No; but which one in the train? A. Well, if it was 80 it would be next the smoker; if 81, it would be the next to that, the third car from the rear. Q. You say it was on the iron? A. It was on the iron of the bridge. When the bridge fell, it seemed as though the car went right down with it, and stood upright. Q. You don't mean by "iron" that it was still on the track? A. Oh, no, — on the iron of the bridge, that was originally the bridge. Q. How about the other cars? A. The smoker— that is the combination car, we call it the smoker — was turned completely over; it laid on the monitor, right in the road. Q. Did you assist anybody out of that? A. No, sir ; I didn't get back as far as that. They had taken them all out of that before I got there. Q. Now, the cars in front of the smoker, —you say there was one standing upright? A. Yes, sir. Q. How were the others? A. There was one that was kind of canted round cornerwise. That is the one I spoke of. It would be over a little on one side, this way (indicating). 1 forget how the other one was, but it seems to me it laid up against the abutment more. Q. How many cars were there down in the road? A. Supposed to be six ; there were three up on the track. Q. Are you sure there were nine cars in the train? A. V- Q. How do you know that? A. I counted them before they left Dedham. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) You made up the train at Dedham, did you? A. Yes, sir, and ordered the brakeman to have nine i (). (By the Chairman.) Do you usually run with nine cai Monday mornings ; yes, sir. Q. Have you ever felt any peculiar motion on that bridge in going over it? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever felt any jar of the train a. i: was leaving the bridge? A. No, sir. 36 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Have you never spoken to anybody and said that you didn't like that bridge ? A. No, sir. Q. Ever had any special anxietj' in regard to that bridge? A. No, sir. Q. Are you very sure that you never noticed, as the train left the bridge, ajar of the cars? A. I never did, sir. Q. Was that an iron bridge or a wooden bridge? A. It was an iron bridge, sir. Q. How do you distinguish that bridge from other bridges ; have } T ou an} T particular name for it? A. We always called it amongst the boys the Bussey Bridge. Q. Any other name for it that you ever heard? A. Not that I know of; I have never heard one. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Mr. Alden, can you give the numbers of those cars in their order as they started from Dedham? A. I can, part of them. Q. Will you be kind enough to do so? A. The first three, — the first one was 52 ; the second one was 18 ; the third one was 28. Q. Those were your cars distinctively? A. Those were the three cars that I had charge of. Q. The next ones ? A. I don't know what they were ; but there was the middle of the train ; I don't know what the numbers were, but in the rear there was 82 and 81 and 80. Q. You are still running backwards, are you? A. Yes. sir. Q. Still running backwards to No. 1, the combination car? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was a combination, smoker and baggage? A. Yes, sir; all in one car. Q. And the next one to the combination car was 80, then followed 81 and then 82? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, you have given us seven. Can you give us the numbers of the other two cars, which would be the fourth and fifth? No matter whether you give them in their order or not. A. I think 54 was one, and the other one I don't know what it was. It was 80 something ; I could not tell you whether it was 85, 86, or what it was. Q. Now, Conductor Drake had charge of the last three cars? A. Yes, sir. Q. That is, 81, 80 and the No. 1 combination? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you go through, on the way from Dedham to Roslindale, any of the other cars than your own three? A. No, sir. Q. You are accustomed to inspect the whole train at every station, are you not, to see how many passengers get in ? A. What do you mean by that? APPENDIX. 37 Q. That is, you stand outside of the train, and see how many passengers get in the whole train, and then von start the train? A. Yes, sir; when they get in. Q. Can you give the Board any idea how many passengers got in at the various stations? A. No, sir; I can't. Q. Not approximately ? A. No, sir. Q. You had charge of the whole train, had you not? A. V Q. And the others were assistant conductors? A. Assistants. Q. The first car, which was No. 52, you have described what as it lay there after the accident. Did you examine the shack- ling gear in front of the first car? A. No, sir, not particularly. Q. You don't know whether that gear was broken or not? A. No, sir. Q. You have testified that 3*011 were thrown backwards, Mr. Alden. Knowing now the character of the accident, would you not rather say that your being thrown backwards was attributable to the engine carrying the train forward by a sudden movement? A. I can't tell you what it was. Q. Did you feel an}' sudden forward motion ? A. No, sir. Q. Were both the trucks of the forward car — the one next to the engine — gone, or only one? A. Only one. Q. The tender had gone with the engine, had it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you got out of the car, the tender and engine had gone? A. Yes, sir. Q. I believe that went up the track, to give the alarm? A. To Forest Hills. Q. Who was the engineer? A. Walter E. White. Q. Who was the fireman ? A. Albert Billings. Q. Were either of them injured ? A. No, sir. Q. What brakemen were on the train? A. John Tripp, — he was on the forward cars. Q. Where does he live ? A. He lives in Dedham. Q. What part of the car did he occupy? A. He was between the two forward cars. That is, I don't know whether lie was there at the time of the accident; he was probably in the forward car. Q. Who was the next brakeman? A. The next one was Winfield Smith. Q. Where does he live ? A. He lives in Dedham. Q. Where was he stationed ? A. Between the fourth and fifth. Q. And the next? A. The next was Elisha Annis. Q. Where does he live? A. Dedham. Q. AVhere was he stationed? A. In the combination. Q. Did he also have charge of the baggage part of th Yes, sir. 38 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Was his proper place in the car, or on the outside? A. I could uot say as to that. Q. Were an}' of these brakemen killed or injured ? A. The middle man, the} 7 say, was injured very bad ; that is Winfield Smith. Q. Is Mr. Tripp present here? A. Mr. Tripp is present, — yes, sir. Q. And Mr. Annis? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember how wide the top of the embankment is at the point where your car was left? A. No, I don't. Q. Now, besides the cars that you have mentioned as being on the embankment on the Boston side of the bridge, there was the top of one car, was there not? A. I didn't notice. Mr. Williams. I think if there are any photographs of the scene of the wreck, possibly they might be of assistance to the Board in conducting the examination. Have you any, Mr. Putnam? Mr. Putnam. No. My impression is some photographs were taken, but it is altogether too soon to get proofs. Mr. Williams. I understood that some were in the possession of the road. Mr. Putnam. They must have been proofs, then. I have not seen any. As soon as they are made, they shall be at the disposal of the Commissioners. I understood to-day, when I inquired for them myself, that they were not completed. I have not even seen a proof myself. Q. Can you tell whether both trucks were gone from the second car? A. They were. Q. Were both gone from the third car ? A. They were. Q. And you saw none of those trucks on the embankment? A. I didn't notice them ; but still, of course, I didn't make any close ex- amination there. Q. Is there any way in which you can describe or identify those cars by their construction or color? A. Well, I might; some of them. Q. Won't you tell us the differences, if you can? Take the last six cars more especially. A. Well, there was 80, 81 and 82 all alike, painted alike. The combination car was darker. Q. Red cars? A. Yes, they were red; but the combination was darker. It hadn't been painted so lately as the others, you know. Q. Do you know how long car 52 had been running on the road? A. I can't tell you. Q. How long have you known it to be used on the road? A. I could not say as to that. Q. Was it an old-fashioned car? A. It was, you might say, almost a new car, because it had been newly remodelled and fixed up. APPENDIX. Q. Do you know whether the trucks were new or old? A. say as to that. Q. How about is, — was that a new car? A. No. I how many years it had been running, but thru it was not a new car. Q. How long should you say 18 had been on the i not tell you how long, Q. Several years? A. Yes, sir. Q. And 28? A. Several years: but I don't know how mi course. Q. Was 28 what you would call an old ear? A. V- ■-. Q. Now, can you tell us the number of the next car? A. [could not. Q. You can't do that? A. No. sir. Q. Xor describe the car in any way? A. I could not ; no, sir. Q. Can you tell us where any of the last six cars lay as they fell? A. Well, the smoker, the combination car, lay alongside of the abut- ment, bottom up. Q. Parallel with the abutment? A. Almost parallel with the abutment. Q. That was turned upside down absolutely, was it, and resting on its top? A. Yes, sir; on the monitor. Q. Was its full length on the ground? A. Yes, sir. o. Was it parallel with the abutment, or diagonally across? A. I should say it was very near parallel with it ; I can't say exactly, . if course. Q. That is, in the direction of the street, lying on the line of the street? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you tell us where any of the other cars lay? A. There was one car, as I sa}-, that was upright. The number of that car I can't tell, exactly. Q. Canyon tell us the number of any of the other cars? A I could not. Q. What is the usual number of cars on that 7 o'clock train? A. We run nine cars Monday mornings, and eight every other ing of the week except Sundays; of coin run then. Q. Did you have any official instruction from the road as to the running of the trains over that bridge? A. No, sir; 1 have not. Q. Did you ever have ? A. The engineer has that ; he has of that part of it. Q. So that you do not receive any instruct speed, or anything of that kind? A. Of coi. neer has the whole charge of that bush Q. There is a curve in the road on the Roslindale side of the bridge, is there not? A. Yes, sir. 40 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Does that curve or did that curve extend on to the bridge? A. I don't think it does. Q. Did it extend up to the bridge? A. I could not say how close to it. Q. But quite close? A. I don't think it goes to the bridge. The Chairman. I suppose we could get better evidence in regard to that from the engineer of the road, and from drawings. Mr. Williams. Undoubtedly, in detail, but I wish to ask him as to the effect of that curve on the train as it came down from Ros- lindale ; that is my onby purpose. The Chairman. Of course it is best to get the information from the parties who know best, rather than to spend time in asking a man who, perhaps, doesn't know anything about it. I do not want to waste an}' time ; that is all. Mr. Williams. Undoubtedly, j'our Honor. I ask that with reference to the train as it comes from Roslindale on to the bridge. Q. It has a swing upon the curve as it touches the bridge, has it not, Mr. Alden? A. I didn't notice anything. Q. In which direction is the curve, — to the left or to the right as you go towards Dedham? A. The curve swings this way. Q. That is, to the left? A. Yes, sir. Q. Whether you have ever noticed, coming from Roslindale, a swinging motion to the cars as they came on to the bridge past the curve? A. I never noticed anything. Q. Or going in the other direction? A. No, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) You have given the names of three brakemen; were there any other brakemen on the train? A. No, sir ; that is, none that were employed on that train. Q. No other brakemen engaged in running the train? A. No, sir. Testimony of Walter E. White. Q. (By the Chairman.) What is your residence? A. Dedham. Q. And your age? A. Fifty-two. Q. How long have you been employed by the Boston & Provi- dence Railroad? A. About thirty-three or thirty-four 3'ears. Q. How long have you been an engineer on the road? A. I couldn't tell exactly. Somewhere about thirty-one years, I guess. Q. And before you were emplo3*ed on the Boston & Providence Railroad what were you doing? A. I learned the moulder's trade. Q. What trains have 3'ou run on the Boston & Providence Railroad? A. I have always been on the Dedham branch. Q. Thirt3'-one 3'ears on the branch? A. Yes, sir. Q. Always on this branch or the other branch? A. Both branches. APPENDIX. 41 Q. Running on both branches to Dedham? A. Yes, sir. Q. What are your instructions in regard to the r:U<' of speed over that part of the road where the accident happened ? A. Twelve miles an hour, I think. Q. Have you any written instructions? A. The rule used to be on the old bridge twelve miles an hour, and I think the same rule is on the new bridge, but I won't be positive ; I won't swear to that. Q. On the old bridge it was a written rule? A. Yes, sir. Q. "Written instructions to you ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you received any written instructions or printed msl ruc- tions in regard to this bridge? A. I can't remember, it is so long ago. If I have, I have forgotten it. Q. What was your rate of speed at this bridge? A. I should say we were running from twelve to fifteen miles an hour, as ceai could tell, in my judgment. Q. What is the grade there, — down grade or up grade ? A. grade coming towards Boston. Q. Where from? A. From Roslindale. Q. Where does the down grade begin? A. It begins at Highland station, above Roslindale. Q. And what is the grade? A. Sixty-five feet, I believe ; sixty or sixty-five. Q. How far from this bridge is the Roslindale station? A. About a quarter of a mile ; might be a little more. Q. In that time you got up a speed of from twelve to fifteen miles an hour? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you behind time? A. Well, a very little. I took out my watch after leaving Roslindale that morning, and I believe it was eighteen minutes past. That was after I got started Q. What was your proper time for Leaving Roslindale? A. We ain't timed there at Roslindale. I am allowed fifteen minutes to For- est Hills from Dedham. Q. How long would it have taken you naturally logo froi lindale to Forest Hills? A. Well, with nine ears it would have taken me, as I usually come down there, about four minutes. I should say. Q. So that you were seven minutes late: A. No. 1 wasn't so late as that. Q. Eighteen and four are twenty-two minutes past. If you wen- due at Forest Hills at fifteen minutes past, that would make yo minutes late, wouldn't it? A. Yes. you might say BO, from there. Q. Were you hurrying up for that reason? A. No, sir. Q. How fast do you go over that bridge? A. A.bout fifteen milea an hour. It is a place where I generally run slow. If I fi] 42 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. running a little fast I shut steam off; if I ain't, I work steam. It is according to how I am loaded. Q. If you have any instructions in regard to the speed over that bridge where would they be ? You say you don't remember whether you ever had any instructions in regard to your speed over that bridge since the new bridge was built? A. I think I have, but I won't say positive. Q. If you have had them, where would they be? Would you have them on your engine? A. I take them on the engine, and they get dirty and wear out. Q. How long ago would they have been given to you ? A. If I had any instructions I must have had them when the bridge was first built. Q. How long ago was that? A. It must have been all of ten years, I should say. Q. About ten years ago? A. I won't say positively. Q. Whether or not you have those instructions anywhere now? A. I don't know ; I don't think I have. Q. Do you know where you could get a copy of them? A. No, I don't. Q. Do you think that you were ever authorized to go faster than twelve miles an hour over that bridge ? A. No, sir ; I don't think I ever was. Q. But you have been in the habit of going from twelve to fifteen miles an hour? A. Twelve to fifteen miles an hour, I should say, as near as I can calculate. Q. Did you feel justified ingoing fifteen miles an hour over it? A. Well, as near as my judgment would tell. Q. Why did you feel justified in going more than twelve miles an hour over it? A. I don't know as I felt justified, but I run ten or fifteen miles an hour as near as I could calculate, running along. I couldn't tell whether it was going twelve or fifteen miles an hour ; somewheres about there, as near as we can calculate. We calculated to go down over that bridge slow ; that is the idea ; that is, not to go very fast. We have other places to run where we want to run faster. Q. Did you ever go over that bridge faster than you were going yesterday morning? A. I may have been over faster, but I don't know when. Q. Were you going about as fast as you ever go over it? A. With nine cars, I was working along about as smart as I could. Being heavily loaded, I couldn't run much more than twelve to fifteen miles an hour. Q. When you came to the bridge it looked to be all right ? A. Yes, sir. APPENDIX. 43 Q. What was the first thing that you noticed wrong? A. When I struck on the bridge everything seemed to be all right. I noticed no settling nor no swinging ; but when I came to this Boston end of the bridge I see the forward end of the engine come up with a jar, and when the drivers came along there was a shock. 1 looked round and see the forward car was off the track and that I had broke away from it. The coupling broke. Q. How soon did the coupling break? A. I should say the instant I looked round, the car was oil' the track. When I looked round I see I was parted from the train and the car was off the track and going to the left-hand of the track. Going out, it would be to the east. The car went that way, towards the east. Q. On your left going out and on your right coming in? A. On my right coining in. Q. What did you do? A. An engineer, when he sees anything of that kind, his first impulse is always to stop the train. I reversed her, and as I was about stopping I happened to think, and I looked back and saw the first and second cars off the track. I continued to look back and saw a cloud of smoke coming up, and then I knew they had gone through the bridge ; and I happened to think that they needed more help, — we two couldn't do much. — and then I put her into my head-gear and went down to Forest Hills as quick as I could and sum- moned help. Q. You reversed your engine soon after you left the 1 A. The instant I turned round I jumped off of my seat, and as I saw they were off the bridge I hauled her right over. No time at all ; not as long time as it takes to tell it. Q. You kept her reversed how long? A. She came almost stop. Q. How soon did the first car break away? A. Just as quick as .1 had time to look round I see I was parted from the train, and the car was off the track. Q. Then, when the engine was reversed you were disconnected from the next car? A. The coupling had broken. (). Was the next car pressing against the engine? A. le- as to that. Q. You had reversed the engine? A. I had broke away from the cars. I reversed the engine after I broke away from the car-. (). How far do you suppose you had -one after you left the bridge, before your engine was reversed? A. I don't flunk that I had -one more than the length of four or five cars before I had the engine reversed. Q. And the first car had broken away from you before you re- versed, had it? A. Yes, sir. 44 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. And how far out on the side was it? A. It was running along very near parallel ; it was running along kind of teetering. Q. It was not on the track? A. Partly it was on the track. The forward truck part, I think, was about in the middle, I should say. Q. Were the wheels of the front car on the track after they left the bridge? A. No, sir; they were on the ground. Q. And they had been thrown off to the right of the track, had they? A. To the right of the track coming in, and the coupling had broken. Q. How did you know that? A. Because I left the train ; because I was running away from the train. Q. Then what was the effect when you reversed the engine? A. She stopped as much as she could. Q. Did she stop before the train split? A. No, sir ; the cars split first. Q. So that the cars did not come into you again ? A. No, sir ; I did not come to a dead stop. 1 could have stopped very easily, but I happened to think that we two, me and the fireman, couldn't do much ourselves ; and I knew there was help on the train at Forest Hills who were going clown to Dedham to work on the bridge. I thought of all those things quicker than I can tell it here. Q. So you put on steam and went down to Forest Hills? A. Yes, sir ; quick as I could. "Q. What did you do then? A. I blew the whistle all the way, with my body hanging out of the window ; and I saw people com- ing out of doors, and we kept pointing up the track, and they ran out of their houses ; and before I got down to Forest Hills I saw a good many going up that way, and before I got to the station I saw Mr. Worley and hollered to him that the train had gone through the bridge, and to throw the switch to have Prince's train run up ; and I run down opposite to Prince's train that was coming on the outward track, and hollered to him what was the matter, and he started and went up there as quick as he could. Then I walked back and hollered to the station agent and told him to telephone for doctors and ambulances. Then after Prince had gone up with his train I followed up with my engine. Q. How long was it after you got to Forest Hills before you be- gan to go back to the scene of the accident? A. I don't think I was down there three minutes. Q. Then you went back to the bridge? A. Then I went back to the bridge, following Mr. Prince up with his train. Q. What did you do then? A. Well, I undertook to take hold and help ; but I didn't do much. APPENDIX. 45 Q. What is the reason you didn't do much? A. My courage was gone. Q. Didn't have any strength? A. No, sir; I didn't fool as though I could do anything. Q. What did you see up there? A. Well, I saw those three cars that stood on the embankment. The forward track of the Brst stood there, but the others had no trucks under them. I saw one pair of trucks lying on the north side of the track. The front trucks were under the forward end of the front car, but the hind trucks were gone. Q. You think they were not up on the embankment? A. All I saw was this one pair of trucks that lay, as I said, ou the north side of the track. Q. The forward trucks were on the north side of the tracks? A. The forward trucks were on the forward car on the end of the car, but the rear trucks were out from under it. They were not under the car. I saw a pair of trucks on the embankment. Which car they came out of I can't tell. Q. Where were those trucks? A. They were down nearly oppo- site this forward car. Q. On which side of the track? A. On the north side of the track. The car, I should say, stood on the south or southeast side. Q. What was the condition of the second car? A. T didn't go into the car. I didn't examine the cars at all. Q. Well, about the trucks? A. There were no trucks under it. Q. No trucks under the second car? A. No trucks under the second car. Q. How about the third? A. None under the third. Q. Did you look around to see whether those trucks were any- where on the embankment? A. I don't think there were any other trucks only this truck that I speak of on the embankment. I think that was the only pair of trucks, the pair that stood under the ear. and the pair I saw on the north side. Q. Did you look around carefully to see? A. I did not look around carefully, but I was around there enough so that if they had been there I should have noticed them, I think. The Chairman. What is the direction of the road there, Mr. Folsom? Is it south, southwest, or what? Mr. Folsom. I should think it was about southwest. I know as you stand on the hill just at the right you face the east, the rising sun, which is about southeast. I can furnish you that information. The Chairman. You can bring the location of the road here. Mr. Putnam. It is usual in speaking of the main load to .-: the west and east side and the north and south directions, ami the 46 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. direction of the branch differs so little from the main road that I think it would be convenient if we adopted that designation. That is, speak of north and south as the direction, and the sides as east and west. The right side coming in would be the east side and the other the west. Q. The third car had been thrown to the east of the track? A. Yes, sir. Q. How about the second car? A. I should say that stood up pretty near straight. I should say the same of the third. Q. PreUy nearly on the line of the track ? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) But off of the iron ? A. Yes, sir. Q. No trucks under it? A. No trucks under it. Q. What was the condition of those cars? How much smashed were they? A. I did not look them over at all ; I went right down the bank. I made no examination of them, but I should say from walking along by them, that the third car was more demolished than the first or second was, by the general appearance of it. Q. Did you examine them afterwards at all? A. No, sir. Q. You went down the bank on which side ? A. I went down on the west side as you call it. Q. What did you find there? A. Wiry, I saw them all piled up. I was not down there but a little while ; I felt so, I came back. I went down there twice, but I did not stop but a few minutes either time. I came back and found one of our conductors who was pretty badly hurt and I took care of him. Q. Can you describe the position of the cars as they laid in the street? A. No, I couldn't. I think the brakemen and conductors could do that a great deal better than I could. Q. Did }'ou take out any dead bodies? A. No, sir. Q. Or assist anybody in doing so ? A. No, sir. Q. Who was the conductor whom you helped ? A. Mr. Drake. I got him on to the bank and got him into Mr. Prince's train. Q. What car was he in? A. I don't know, I am sure. Q. Where did you find him? A. I first saw him up on the bank when I first got up there from Forest Hills. When I backed up there with my engine he was there sitting down on a sleeper ; and somebody, I don't know who it was, helped him into the car. A little boy came and told me he was dying, and wanted me to run down for a doctor for him ; so I went in and stayed with him. Q. How long did you stay around there? A. I left there about nine o'clock, and brought in a train with some of the wounded. Q. Now, to return to the original crossing of the bridge. Did you notice the dropping of the bridge before the engine struck the embankment? A. No, sir; I didn't notice anything whatever. I APPENDIX. 17 felt no drop, nor no swing. The first thing I felt was when b! on the abutment this way, I noticed, just as I told you. that the forward end came up, and the next thing was, there was a strike or something. Q. About how much should you think the bridge had dropped away at that time? A. I can't say. Q. Six inches or a foot? A. I don't know as it had dropped away any. I don't know anything about it, any more than you do. Q. You say the front end of the engine came up? A. I felt it rise up and then I felt a shock. Q. How much do you think that rise was? A. I noticed it. and the next instant this shock came. Q. Can you give any idea about how much of a rise that was? A. No, sir ; no idea at all. Q. Should you think it was two or three inches? A. I could not say. It was not six feet, of course, but it was enough so I felt it. Q. Should you think it was a foot? A. I should not say it was as much as that, but I can't say how many inches ; whether it was an inch, or two, three or four inches, but I felt a shock. I don't know how much of a rise it would take to give me such a shock, or how many inches of drop it would take to give me such a shock. I don't know anything about it. Q. Do you think the drop was more than an inch? A. I could not say ; I don't know how much it dropped . Q. Do you think the bridge was absolutely broken through at that time? A. I don't know that. Q. Did you discover any more drop on the one side than on the other side? A. I think the blow was the hardest on the east - the engine on the track. Q. That is, on your right? A. Yes, sir ; on the right coming in. Q. That was the side you were sitting on? A. Yes. sir ; 1 noticed that. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Was your engine canted down? A. No, sir ; not that I noticed. Q. (By the Chairman.) You did not notice any canting down, but you think the blow was the hardest on the east side? A. I think it was. Q. In going over that bridge previously, hail you ever I any jar at that point? A. No, sir; the bridge rode as solid as a rock; I never felt anything of a swing there. The bridgi Q. Did you ever find any jar just as yon Left the bridge? A. \... sir; no jar nor any swing; I haven't all winter long, nor I never have. I have called it an extra good riding bridge, Btifl and stent. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) You have never had any doubt- 48 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. that bridge in your own mind? A. I have never been afraid of it. Of course it is a bridge, and we are all a little more shy of a bridge than we are of the solid ground ; but I always thought that bridge was perfectly safe. Q. Didn't you ever have any fear on account of its being on a skew? A. I don't like to strike a bridge on a skew. Q. Little rather have it straight ahead, hadn't you? A. Of course. Q. (By the Chairman.) Why was that a bridge that you did not exactly like ? Mr. Putnam. He did not say that ; he said he did not like a bridge generally as well as hard ground. The Chairman. I know ; but I understand the position of the bridge and the way it crossed the street was such that it was some- what peculiar, was it not? A. The idea is, I did not strike the bridge square. Q. You struck it diagonally, did you? A. That is it. Q. Is that a more difficult bridge to build than a common bridge ? A. I am not a bridge builder ; I can't tell whether it is or not. Q. Can it be made as strong as a straight bridge? A. I don't know why that could not be built as strong where the skew is as slight as it is there, the bridge part of it, as any other. Q. Have you ever had any suspicion in regard to that bridge as not being built strong enough for such a position? A. No, sir; I always considered the bridge safe, as far as I know. In fact, I am no judge of bridges. I alwa} - s calculated that our officials know when a bridge is a safe one ; I don't know anything about it. Q. Have you ever reported in any way in regard to the bridge ? A. No, sir ; never. Q. How long ago should you say that it was last materially repaired ? A. I could not say. I ain't very good on dates. I think the bridge has been there about ten years, as near as I can tell. I know they have painted it and have done work on it, but I don't know how long ago it was. Q. Have you ever heard any nicknames for the bridge? A. The old wooden bridge, after the company tinned it over, people outside of the railroad, I think, used to call it the " tin bridge" ; but the em- ployees never called it anything but the " Bussey Bridge." They tinned the old wooden bridge over to save it from catching fire, and then it got the name of the " tin bridge." Q. Where was the tin put ; on the sides ? A. No ; on top of the bridge. Q. That was a wooden bridge, wasn't it? A. I think that was a wooden bridge. APPENDIX. 49 Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Hall truss, wasn't it? A.I think it was an old Hall truss. Q. (By the Chairman.) Was any portion of that old bridg remaining until yesterday morning? A. No, sir. Q. Was it completely rebuilt eight or ten years ago? A. The wooden bridge was taken away and this iron bridge put on. Q. The wooden bridge was changed to an iron bridge, was it, at that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you go ou to the track on the Dedliam side of the after the accident? A. No, sir ; I didn't. Q. Did you examine the cars in the street at all? A. No, sir; I didn't. Q. Did you see any evidences of fire there at all? A. No. sir : I didn't. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) I want to ask you one question or have you emphasize an answer you gave just now. I understood you to say that you had never had the slightest doubt or fear about the of that bridge. That is so, is it? A. Yes, sir ; tliat is what I say. Q. (By Mr. Stevens.) Did you ever hear any of the puss say that they were afraid of it? A. Not until after the accident. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) What was the name of your ei A. " Torrey." Q. How old an engine is that? A. I can't tell you that. Q. How long have you known it to be on the road? A. I couldn't tell you that. Q. It has been there ever since you have been on the road? A. Oh, no ; it is a new engine, comparatively. Q. About how old? A. She might be three or four years old. Mr. Potnam. If you only want to know, all those statistics can be had with absolute accuracy from the people who have them in charge, so that it is hardly worth while to spend lime on that subject. Q. How long have you had that engine to run? A. 1 took that engine just about a year ago. Q. Was she new then? A. No, sir, she wasn't new. Q. Do you know how heavy an engine it is? A. No; I don't know the weight of her. Q. Can you tell us approximately the weight of it? A. N I know she weighs more than twenty tons, but I don't know what she would weigh. Q. How diil it compare with the engine that you had for the train before that? A. She is heavier, I should say. Q. And larger? A. Yes, sir. Q. How much longer? A. Well. Bhe isn't any longer. Q. Can you tell us how much heavier? A. No, I can't. 50 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Mr. Putnam. You can have the exact weight of every engine on the road if you will ask for it. I don't care, only 1 thought it was spending time unnecessarily. Q. Are there any freight trains run over tbat track? A. No, sir, I think not. Q. Do you know how long it is since freight trains have been run over the track? A. Oh, it is a great many years since freight trains have run there. Q. How far across the bridge had your train got before you noticed any unusual motion? A. Just as I struck on this edge of the abutment 1 first noticed it, as I gave my testimony here. Q. How far should you say your engine had got on to the abut- ment before you felt any motion? A. It was right on the abutment, 1 suuuld say. Q Had it got entirely on the abutment? A. No ; I should say it waa about where the abutment begins. Q. Should you say the middle of the engine was on the edge of the abutment? A. The shock came on the wheel, of course, or the truck, as I went along. Took the truck first and then the driving- wheels. Q. You have spoken of a shock. Was that a pitch backward or a pitch forward? A. Well, it was like this (striking his hands). That is the only way I can represent it. Q. A sensation as of something which was striking the ends of your engine ? A. As though the wheels struck something. Q. You also spoke of the front of your engine rising. Can you distinguish between the rising of the front and the falling of the back of the engine? A. As I was looking out I saw the front bob up a very little. <^. Was there any sensation of sinking where ycu were in the box? A. Not at all. Q. Did you see the motion of the tender at that time? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. 1 suppose you were busy reversing your engine after you noticed the motion? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you first looked back after giving your attention to your engine, how far had the train got on the abutment? A. I looked back just as I noticed this shock on my drivers ; turned my head back, and the car then was off the track, and I knew I was broke away be- cause I was running away from the car. I was running faster. The car had run off the trnck, and of course I was running faster. Q. The first car was otf the track? A. Yes, sir ; the first car was off the track. Q. Was that still on the bridge or was it up on the embankment? APPENDIX. 1 A. When I first saw it the end part of it must have been bridge. Q. How ranch of the car should you suppose bad got on the abot- ment when yon noticed it running off the track? A. Well, it was just about coming to the abutment, I should say. Q. Was the car in a horizontal position? A. After it left th< it sheered over — lay right over like that (illustrating). I I it was going to tip over, but it didn't ; it righted up. Q. Was the front end of the car higher than the back? A. Yes, there was no truck under the hind part of the car. Q. That is to say, the front end of the car was elevated, pointed upwards? A. Yes, sir. Q. How about the second car, could you see that? A. Yes. I aaw the second car, but I can't tell whether the trucks were on it when it left the bridge or not. I could not see it distinctly enough. I I see the first car plain ; but after I got back there I see the trucks were out from underneath the car. Q. When your engine broke away from the first car how far should you say you had got on the embankment from the abutment? A. Why, the whole engine and tender were on the embankment when she broke. Q. Should you say the break occurred about the time the front of the first car got on the embankment? A. That is what I should Bay ; yes. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) What is your theory in regard to this accident? I should like to have you tell what you think about it. Whether you think an axle broke, a wheel broke or the bridge broke? A. I could not say for ray life what caused the accident, — whether it was a broken journal, a broken wheel or a broken rail. Ail 1 know is what I have told you here. I felt that jar, and that is all I know about it. What caused it 1 have no more idea than you have. Q. (By the Chairman.) It was not caused by a broken journal on the engine? A. The engine was all sound, as far as 1 ki. Q. There was some defect in the bridge, was there not, at the time when you left the bridge for the abutment? A. I could not swear that there was a defect in the bridge ; all I can swear t<> is that I felt that jar there. Q. Did you think it was a jar caused by the train in the did you think it was a jar caused by a Bottling of the bridge? A. It seemed to me like the shock when we back oil from the tabh into the engine house. It seemed just the same kind of Shock as that, when one rail is a little higher than the other, as you go off of the turn-table. It seemed to me just like that. 52 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. You think that the bridge had settled, then, a little? A. I don't know. Q. That is what it seemed like? A. It seemed so; but then, of course, I would not give my testimony that it had, because I don't know anything about it. Q. Did you ever feel that sort of a jar from any breaking of a wheel or anything on the train behind you ? A. I have felt that sort of a jar when I have had a broken rail ; the same thing exactly. Q. You mean when a rail broke under your engine ? A. I mean when somebody else had broken it and I run along and run into it. Q. When your engine went on to a broken rail? A. Yes, sir. Q. But not when the cars behind you broke a rail ; it was only when your engine went over a broken rail that you felt that sort of a jar? A. When the engine went over it. Q. (By Mr. Pdtnam.) Did you ever have a car behind you break a truck so as to have it strike at a point where the track was open, as on this bridge, before this time? A. I don't understand you, Mr. Putnam. Q. Did you ever have a car on your train break a truck or a jour- nal so that the truck or some part of the truck dropped and caught on the ties? A. I never was running a train when I broke a journal or a wheel on a car. Q. Or truck? A. Or truck, to my knowledge. Q. Then how that would affect that engine 30U don't know? A. No. Q. When you went back to the bridge after the accident, you sa}- 3 r ou saw the first car on the east side of the track upon its forward truck, with the rear truck gone? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you saw a truck which you supposed to be its rear truck on the west side of the track? A. I saw a truck on the west side of the track, but I don't know which car it came from. Q. How far from the abutment was that car, according to your best judgment? A. They didn't run but just a very little more than their length. Q. That is, the length of the three cars ? A. Yes ; but very little more. I noticed that. Q. That would make the rear of the first car about two car lengths from the abutment? A. Yes, sir. They didn't run but a little more than their length. Q. Where were the second and third cars lying? A. They were on the embankment, behind the first car. Q. On the east or west side of the track? A. They stood about middle way, I should say. APPENDIX. 53 Q. The\- stood about in the centre of the track? A. Y< The}' were not entirely off the track ; not off one Bide. Q. But they were off their tracks? A. They were off their ti Q. Did you look to see where their trucks were, <•!• give any atten- tion to the question where their trucks were? A. No. -ir, I didn't. Q. Are you prepared to say now whether their trucks were or were not on the embankment? A. I don't think they were. All I see was one pair of trucks. Q. You did not observe any other trucks there? A. No, sir. Q. You were not looking for trucks, were you? A. No : I wasn't looking for trucks. Q. You were on your way to go down the hank into the A. Yes, sir. Q. You went down the bank close up to the abutment on tl: side, I take it, just where the path is now? A. Yes, sir, where the path is now. Q. You have said something about rules for speed upon bridges — have you ever had a rule for speed on this particular bridge? A. I think we have. Q. Was it in the shape of a rule for this particular bridge, or was it in the shape of a general rule for all bridges, or was it in the shape of a rule for certain specific bridges of which this was one? A. I think the rule was a specific rule. That is, after they had been op and tested it, I think there was an order came out as to this particu- lar bridge. But there is a rule as to running over all bridges Blow. That is a rule that has been in force a long time back, to run over all bridges slow, with care and caution, as well as any bad places there might be. Q. According to your memory, was the rale you speak of made after the renewal of this bridge ten years ago or thereabouts, or was it made during the existence of the old wooden bridge? A. I could not say as to that. Q. "Were you in the habit of slowing as you went on to the bridge without regard to the rate at which you were going before you reached the bridge? A. That was a place where I always invariably — I have one way of doing everything — that was a place where I always invariably run slow. Q. You mean on the bridge or as you approached it at either end? A. If I was going too fast I shut off and put on the air-brake ; it* not, I perhaps would shut off. If I whs overloaded, perhaps I would work steam right over the bridge. I would run twelve or Bfteen D hour as near as I could, according to my judgment. Q. Then you did not alter your rate of Bpeed over this bridge, unless you were going too fast when you came there? A. That is it. 54 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Do you recollect whether you went over on this occasion under steam? A. I was working steam. Q. And you continued to work steam ? A. I continued to work steam. Q. You felt, as I understand 3'ou, a rise in the forward part of the locomotive and tben a more distinct bump when the drivers, as j'ou thought, reached the abutment, and then you instantly turned, did you? A. Yes, sir. Q. And saw the first car off the track and detached from the en- gine? A. Yes, sir; the coupling was broke and I was running away from her. Q. That is, when you first looked round you were free of the train and the first car was off the track, and you looked round the moment you felt this rise, or this jar that you speak of? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see the second and third cars go off the bridge? A. I see the second car, but the third car I couldn't see. Q. Could you see when the second car left the bridge whether it was running on the rails or not? A. I see that was off the track. As quick as it got off the bridge I see that it was on the ground. As soon as it struck the ground I see it was on the ground, the same as the first one was. Q. You mean off the rails? A. Off the rails. Q. Not off its trucks, however? A. I can't say about that. Q. And the third car you could not see at all? A. Did not see at all. Q. And when you got back there, how far north of the abutment was the third car? By north, I mean towards Forest Hills. A. Well, the three cars laid a little more than the length of them this way from the abutment. Q. Yes ; but do you mean that the rear end of the third car was a car length from the abutment? A. I should not say it was quite a car length. Q. It was somewhere in the neighborhood of a car length from the abutment, was it ? A. It was a little over three cars' length from the abutment that the whole three cars stood. Q. Were the three cars coupled together? A. No, sir. Q. They had been shaken apart, had they? A. I think the for- ward one was apart, sure, but the other two I won't sa} T about. Q. Do you recollect noticing any difference in their condition as to being smashed up, — whether one was more smashed than the others? A. I thought the third car was more demoralized than the other two as I walked along by. Q. And the rear of the third car was somewhat less than a car length from the abutment? A. I should say so. APPENDIX. Q. Do you remember whether that third car was an old car 01 a new car? A. I don't know anything about it. Testimony of John Tbipp. Q. (By the Chairman.) "Were you brakeman on this trip? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you been in the employ of the road? A. Since last October. Q. What is your residence? A. Dedham. Q. In what capacity have you been since last October? A. Pas senger brakeman. Q. What were you doing before that? A. I was horse-car con- ductor. Q. Ever been on the railroad before? A. No, sir. Q. What was your position on this train? A. Head brakeman. Q. Which cars did you take care of? A. The Grst two forward cars. Q. Where were you at the time of the accident? A. I was in the rear end of the first car. Q. Inside of the car? A. Inside of the car. Q. What was your experience? A. Well, I was seated down in the seat, the first seat right side of the door, on the left. Q. That is, the h ft passing forward? A. Facing the engine. And the first thing I knew the car seemed to go down on to the ground, the rear trucks of the car came out from under it. and caused it to stop. I got out of the car and looked round, and I see that an accident had happened, and I w r ent into the two cars that were behind me. Q. You say the car in which you were came down en to the ground? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you thrown out of your seat? A. I was thrown out of my seat, towards the door, into the alley. Q. Thrown forward or back? A. Well, I wasn't thrown either way, I should say; the trucks came out from under the rear end of the car, this way. and the car swayed down that way, and 1 BWayed off of the seat on to the floor. Q. Were the front trucks also off? A. No. sir. Q. Was the car tipped up in front? A. It was a little higher in front on account of the trucks being there. Q. The fi out trucks were on? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did the floor of the car break in any way? A. No. sir. Q. How soon did the car stop? A. Well, we hadn't -one more than a quarter of a car length when we stopped after the car struck the ground ; that is, I should judge so. 56 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Was there any swaying of the car before it struck the ground? A. No, sir ; I didn't notice any. Q. How far was the car from the bridge when it stopped? A. It was a little over three car lengths ; that is, the first car was. Q. When did you first feel the jar? A. I felt it when the rear truck came from under the rear end of the car. Q. When do you think that was, with reference to the bridge, — before or after you left the bridge? A. After we left the bridge. Q. Do you think that the trucks were on the car after you left the bridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. Both trucks? A. Both trucks. Q. And was the car then on the track when it left the bridge ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you feel any jar of the car over the sleepers before the truck was torn out from underneath the car? A. I didn't notice any ; no, sir. Q. Do you think that the car ran smoothly on the rails after it left the bridge until it came within a quarter of a car length of the place where it stopped? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was the front truck on the track when you got out of the car? A. No. sir. Q. Well, what did you do after you got out of the car? A. I looked around and saw two other cars behind me. I went right through both cars ; there was nobody in them. I looked down and saw the wreck, saw that the bridge had gone through. I went down the embankment, and helped take out those that were killed and injured. Q. What was the condition of the two cars behind you? A. They were pretty well wrecked, — the ends of them. Q. Were they on the track or not? A. Very nearby. They were parallel with the track. Q. Were they on their trucks? A. No, sir. Q. Any of the trucks under them? A. No, sir. Q. Did you examine the condition of the ends of either of those cars? A. Nothing more than to take a look at them ; that is all. Q. Describe the general condition of the end of those cars? A. I should judge that the ends of them were sort of chewed off, smashed ; the ends were wrecked. Q. Pulled apart and crushed in? A. I could not say that. Q. What did you find down on the street? I found the cars all in a heap there ; some people were trying to get out ; some did get out of themselves ; and those that could not get out we took out. Q. How many cars were there on the train? A. There were nine cars. APPENDIX. 57 Q. How many cars were there on the track on the embankment? A. Three cars. Q. What was the position of the six cars in the Btreel ? A. Well, they were all piled up there in a heap. Q. Can yon describe any more definitely 1k>w they were arranged? A. The only two cars that I could tell were S2 an. I combination 1. Q. What was the condition of combination 1 ? A. It laid nearly parallel with the road, upside down. Q. In the road, or at the side of the road? A. Just at t] of the abutment. < v >. Upside down? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you go to that car to help anybody out of it? A. ' there, but there was nobody in there. Q. How soon did you get there? A. Probably ten minutes after- wards. Q. Then what was the condition of the other car that you say you know about, — 82, — where was that situated? A. That was next to the combination. Q. And how was that placed? A. That was right side up, on top of the others. Q. What cars were under it? A. There were ">4, 87, so and 81. Q. Eighty-two was on top of 54 ? A. It was not on topofthoec cars, but that was the only car that was right side up. Q. Was it on top of any other car? A. I think it was on top of 80 and 81. Q. Eighty-two was what car in the train? A. It was close to the combination, next to the last car. Q. Where were 80 and 81 ? They followed. Q. Followed it or preceded it? A. They were just ahead of it, — the next two cars ahead of it. Q. How about the other cars in the train ; how were they? There are four cars, — the combination, 82, «<> and 81. Now. what were the others? A. There were 82, 81 and 80. Q. That is three ; and then the combination makes four? A. Y -. sir. ',». Now. there were two other cars? A. Eighty-seven and fifty- four. Q. How were they situated in the street, — do you remember? A. They were down there, all smashed up. Q. One on top of the other? A. They looked to me - they were jammed in there, — smashed in; I could not Bay whl on top or which was underneath. Q. What did you do down there? A. I helped take out the wounded and dead. 58 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Out of which cars? A. I don't know which cars they were. It was next to the end, towards Forest Hills, where I helped to take them out. Q. Did you see any evidences of fire? A. No, sir. Q. How badly were those cars broken? A. Some of them were smashed all beyond good, and there were some of them that were not smashed so bad. Q. Were any of them completely broken up, — did they retain the shape of cars or not? A. That I could not say. Q. How many dead bodies did you see? A. I don't know, sir. Q. About how many? I could not say; there might be two, three or four, — somewheres around there. Q. When did you think you first felt any jar? With reference to the bridge, was it when the train was on the bridge, or when was it? A. I don't remember feeling any jar until the rear trucks came out from under the car I was in. Q. And where was that? A. That was a little over three car lengths from the bridge, — from this end of it ; that is, when we stopped. Q. Where did you first feel the jar? A. Well, the car I was in slid along on the ground, probably a quarter of a car length, after the trucks came from under it, and we stopped. Q. Have you ever been in a railroad accident before? A. No, sir. Q. In your opinion, then, nothing happened to your car until it got two or three lengths beyond the bridge? A. No, sir. Q. You don't think there was any jar in your car when it left the bridge? A. No, sir. Q. You feel very confident that there was not? A. Yes, sir. Q. How do you fix the exact position of the bridge ? How can you feel confident that there was no jar when your car left the bridge? A. Well, for the simple reason that I noticed nothing more unusual coming over there than I ever did. ' Q. How could you tell exactly where the bridge was? A. Well, by the sound ; as you go over it, there is a different sound — there is a sort of holiow sound when 3 t ou go over a bridge — from what there would be going right along on the smooth rail. Q. What do 3-011 suppose it was threw your car off of the track? A. Wh3 r , the trucks came from under it. Q. What made the trucks come from under it? A. The engine broke away from us. Q. Well, wh3 T did the engine break awa3 T from 3*011? A. That I could not say, anything more than the rear trucks came from under the car I was in ; of course it would make it harder to pull. APPENDIX. 50 Q. Yes. Now, what do you suppose made those real trucks come away? A. That I dou't know. Q. Have no idea in regard to that? A. No, sir. Q. You think it was no fault of the bridge? A. No, Q. You think it was not due to any fault of the bridge? A. No, sir. Q. What was it due to? A. I don't know that. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) lias there been any gossip among the men about the weakness of that bridge? A. None that I ever beard. Q. (By the Chairman.) Absolutely never heard any gossip about it? A. No, sir. Q. Have you heard anything about it since the accident? A. Oh, ves, I have heard lots of it. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Among the men? A. No, the passengers that ride on that branch. Q. (By the Chairman.) Have you ever felt any jar coining off that bridge? A. No, sir, I never did. Q. Did you on this occasion feel any jar coming off of that bridge .' A. No, sir. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Can you tell the numbers of the fourth and fifth "cars? A. Fifty-four and eighty-seven. Q. Fifty-four first? A. Yes, sir. Q. Eighty-seven next? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the number of the first car? A. Fifty-two. Q. Second? A. Eighteen. Q. Third? A. Twenty-eight. Q. Fourth? A. Fifty-four. Q. Fifth? A. Eighty-seven. Q. Sixth? A. Eighty. Q. Seventh? A. Eighty-one. Q. Eighth? A. Eighty-two. Q. Ninth? A. No. 1 combination. Q. You are quite sure that 80, 81 and 82 were in the order you speak of? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Alden, the conductor, testified, as I understood nun, the other way, — that 80 was next to the combination, thru came 81,then ».t-_ „„i*« ,^ c ;hvp nbnnt the order? A. xes, came sir Now, are you quite positive about the order? Q. Did you help to make up the train at Dednam ? A Q. Were there any other braketnen on the train than the other two men, Mr. Smith and Mr. Annis? A. Not that I know o£ Q. You had charge of the first two oars? A. 5 es, bit. Q. How many cars did Mr. Smith have charge of? A. I charge of three cars, I believe. 60 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. And Mi'. Annis? A. He had charge of three cars. Q. That would not make nine. There were nine on the train, were;! there not? A. Yes, sir. Q. How man}- did Mr. Annis have charge of? A. He had charge of three cars, — rear brakeman. Q. Then Mr. Smith had how main-? A. Supposed to have three cars. Q. How many did he have that day? A. That I don't know; I don't know how many cars he had charge of that morning. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Was there a baggage-master in the bag-', gage car? A. Yes, sir. Q. He was supposed to have charge of that? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was that Annis? A. Yes, sir. Q. Annis was acting as baggage-master as well as brakeman? A. Yes, sir. Q. You had only charge of the two forward cars? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Stevens.) Was that the regular number of brakemen on that train ? A. Yes, sir ; I believe so. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) There were three conductors, were there not? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Monday morning you had nine cars? A. Yes, sir. Q. What would you have ordinarily the balance of the week? A. Eight cars. Q. Have the same number of brakemen? A. Yes, sir. Q. (B3- Mr. Stevens.) In case anything should happen, were the conductors supposed to act as brakemen ? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) Did the conductors ever act as brake- men? A. Yes, sir. Q. When and how often have you known them to act as brakemen ? A. I couldn't sa} r how often ; whenever the engineer calls for assist- ance he gets it, as well from the conductors as from the brakemen. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) I suppose the hand-brakes are not called for very often, are they? A. No, sir. Testimony of Elisha G. Annis. Q. (By the Chairman.) Your residence? A. Dedham. Q. Were you a brakeman on this train? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you been in the employ of the Boston & Provi- dence Railroad? A. About a year and a half. Q. In what capacity ? A. Passenger service brakeman. Q. And on what trains? A. Mostly on this train, the train that I was on. Q. Have you been brakeman on the main line, or on any other APPENDIX. 6] line of the road? A. Xo, sir; only on the Dedham branch, the other way. Q. Always on one or the other of the brauchea to Dedham? A. Yes, sir. Q. What were yon doing before yon were employed by the B & Providence Railroad? A. I was working at carpentering. Q. What were your duties on this train? A. I w:is acting as baggage-master. Q. Was that all of your duty? A. To act as brakeman and to look after the baggage ; yes, sir. Q. You were also brakeman ? A. Yes, sir. Q. For what cars? A. No. 82 and the combination, the smoker. Q. That was combination No. 1? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where were you at the time of the accident? A. In the baggage compartment of the combination. (.). Well, what happened to you? A. Nothing very serious happened to me. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Tell us about it. You left Dedham at such a time, and }'ou came down to this place, and then what? A. The first thing I felt was a shock. I looked out of the door, and at the same time the crash came, and I saw that the bridge had given way, and felt that the car was fast going down. I didn't think of jumping, but went inside, or was inside, and I laid down ; hadn't more than laid down before my car went with the rest of them, paused for a moment about half-way down, rolled on its side, and then completely over, and landed on its top in the street. Q. You first felt what — a jar? A. A little jar, which caused me to look out of the door. Q. You were on the Dedham side of the bridge at that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. How far from the other end when you felt this jar? A. The train was the length of nine cars. When I looked out, 1 saw that the bridge had given way. Q. How many cars were ahead of you then? A. Well, there were three cars that were over the bridge ; so I suppose there were about sis cars ahead of me. Q. (By the Chairman.) You say you looked out of the door. Which door? A. The baggage-car door. Q. Side door or front door? A. Side door; the big door, on the right-hand side towards 1$ iston. I saw the I way ; and when my car came down, I got out from the n Q. On looking out and seeing the bridge giving way, and that the cars were going down, what did you do? A. I didn't think of jump- ing, but I laid right down on the tloor ; and when the car got about 62 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. half-way down it paused for a second, and then it took a tumble and rolled over on its top and landed in the street. Q. Where were you? A. I was in the baggage compartment. Q. Where were you then? A. I was there then. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) In the monitor? A. Yes, sir ; I had the monitor for a floor. Q. (By the Chairman.) Were you bruised at all? A. Yes; slightly bruised, a little bit injured inside, I think. Q. Then what did you do? A. Then I started up the bank to go towards the station to flag the express which came along, and I met one of the track hands, who was there (as it happened they were working there), aud I sent him back, and came back and went to work to do what I could do. Q. What did you do 9 A. Well, I helped get people out of the cars the best I could, and that is all I can say. Q. Where did you work principally? A. The first car was my smoker that I went into ; then from there into the passenger coaches. Q. You mean the car that you were in, — combination car No. 1? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the condition of things in that car? How many peo- ple were there in it? A. When I left Roslindale the seats were full ; it was well seated. Q. How many seats are there in it? A. I believe it seats, with the stove in, somewhere between thirty-eight and forty ; I don't know. Q. There was a stove in the car? A. Yes, sir. Q. Fire in the stove? A. Fire in the stove. Q. That was in the passenger part, was it? A. That was in the passenger part. Q. What did you find when you got back to the car? A. Well, I found some men that were working there taking up those that were injured and those that were killed. I took hold and did the same. Q. How many did you help get out of that car? A. Some three or four ; I don't know just how many. Q. Anybody killed there? A. There was; I forget just how many. There were some killed there, — two or three or four. Q. Those were, of course, all men? A. Yes, sir; they were all men. Q. How long did you stay there? A. Well, not over five minutes I don't think it took. I looked at the stove and saw there was no fire coming out of it, and I went into the passenger cars. Q. Then what did you do? A. I done the same there. Q. What was the condition of things in the passenger car No. 82? A. No. 82 set right side up. It looked as though it had been badly shaken up ; the seats were thrown around the foor, lamps, etc., APPENDIX. strewn around there ; but it set right side up, oue side pretty badly smashed. Q. Which side was that? A. The left-hand aide. Q. Facing towards Boston? A. Ye>. Q. Did you find any persons killed in that car? A. No, sir; I didn't find a soul in it. Q. Nobody in that car? A. Not in that car. Q. Then what did 3*011 do? A. Then I went still further forward. Q. To 81? A. Well, I don't know the numbers of them; they were all in a pile there, so I could not tell one from another : al I didn't notice whether I was in 81 or in 80. Q. Did No. 82, the next car in front of you, have any other car on top of it? A. No, sir. Q. Then you went forward, and you found another car. Did that have any cor on top of it? A. I can't say; I know there were several there piled up together ; I can't say as to that next car, but I think it did. Q. Did you find any other persons killed there? A. I found several. Q. I mean after you left the combination car? A. Yes, sir. (j. Did you take any special notice ns to how the cars were arranged in the street? A. No, sir ; I didn't. Q. What did } - ou do down there further? You say you helped out some of the people. How long were you about it? A. I don't know, I am sure; time passed very quickly; 1 don't know anything about the time ; I can't tell 3011. Q. When did you give up taking out people? A. When every- thing was clone that I could do ; when they were all out, as far as I knew. Q. Did you see any evidences of any of the woodwork taking fire. A. No, sir. Q. You think some cars were on top of others, do you? A. res, sir ; 1 know they were. Q. Did you come up on to the track on the Boston side of the bridge? A. I did, after a while, though not then. Q. What did you find then? A. Not anything that I took any notice of at all. I didn't take any notice of the cars there at 1 couldn't state. Q. Did you go back on to the Dedham aide of the bii Ige, on to the embankment? A. I did. Q. Did you see anything peculiar there? A. No, air; I didn't notice anything. <,>. Did you notice any trucks up there? A. N- . (^>. Did you know where the trucks of your combination car were? 64 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. A. No; I didn't notice; didn't look to see where they were. 1 supposed they must have been on the car ; I don't know whether they were thrown off or not ; I didn't notice. Q. You didn't notice whether they were on the car, or left behind? A. No, sir. Q. What was the nature of the jar that you first felt? A. The nature was as though we struck something. Q. As if you had met some obstacle ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How severe was it? A. Not very severe. Q. Did it throw you off your feet? A. No, sir. Q. How much did it throw you? A. It didn't throw me any at all ; just kind of moved me a little, that is all. Q. How were you standing, do you remember? A. No ; I don't seem to remember. Q. Facing forward, or back, or sideways ? A. I think likely I was standing sideways looking out of the door. My door was open, and I would naturally be looking out of it, standing side of the front end. Q. If you did, would you have your hands on each side of the door? A. No ; I wouldn't be standing as close to it as that. Q. How about the speed at which the train was going then, was it going slower or faster than usual? A. It was going about the same rate of speed. When the cars commenced to go through the bridge, the rear end, I think, commenced to go faster then ; but when the engine struck the bridge, we were going at the usual rate of speed. Q. The speed increased after you looked out and saw the cars going through the bridge? A. Yes, sir ; I think it did. Q. How is it about that curve there, just before you come to the bridge; is it a pretty sharp curve? A. I never noticed, — I never noticed the curve at all. Q. How about the bridge itself, had you felt any rocking when you came on or off of the bridge? A. I never felt anything at all. I always had just as much confidence -in that bridge as I had in any part of the road ; I never feared it at all. Q. Are you sure that you never felt any jar as you came off of that bridge before? A. Never felt a jar ; no, sir. Q. Have you ever heard passengers talk about that bridge. A. No, sir ; never heard a word. Q. (By Mr. Stevens.) What do you use for brakes, — automatic or straight air? A. Straight air. Q. Are there any automatic brakes on the Boston & Providence Railroad? A. Yes, sir; on the main road they are all automatic. Q. It was straight air on that branch all the time? A. It was straight air ; yes, sir. APPENDIX. 65 Q. (By the Chairman.) Did you receive any signal from the engineer? A. None at all. Q. Were the brakes set on the train, do you think? A. No; I don't think they were. If they were, they gi t released before the train broke apart. Q. As soon as you discovered that the bridge was giving way, you did not attempt to apply the brake? A. No, sir : didn't have time to. Q. Did you give any signal to the other people in the car? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you do? A. Oh, I just told them the bridge bad gone. Q. How did yon do that? A. Just told them, that was all. There were a few in my compartment; I told them that the bridge had gone. Q. Did you tell the people in the other part of thecal? A. No, sir ; I didn't have time ; if I did, I didn't think of it. Q. What did the other men in your compartment do? A. I didn't notice, it was done so sudden ; I couldn't tell anything about it. Q. Were any of those men killed? A. I haven't seen them all ; I don't know. I met one afterwards; he was all right. Q. How many do you think were there? A. Oh, I don't know, I am sure. To tell the truth, 1 didn't notice. There were four or five in there, I guess. The Chairman. I suppose, Mr. Putnam, there is no question but these are straight air brakes, and not automatic? Mr. Putnam. To tell the truth, I don't know the difference : I am wh< lly ignorant. I have no doubt what the witness says is true. I have not talked with him before. At any rate, whatever the fact is will be stated to the Board ; whoever knows will give you the infor- mation. Q. Was your car fitted with the Miller platform? A. Yes, sir. Q. And all the cars of the train? A. Yes, sir. Q. You know they were? A. Yes, sir; I am sine of it. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Who were the persons with you in your compartment? A. I don't know their names; they were Roslindale folks. Q. Don't know any of them by name? A. No, sir; not any of thera. Q. Did any of them look out of the door with you when you op >ned your door? A. I think not; I won't say for sure. Q. Was the door opened for that purpose? A. No, >ir ; it was open ; it had been open since we left Dedham. Q. Was it still open when the car went through the bridge? A. Yes, sir. 6(3 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Wide open? A. Wide open, and fastened back. Q. When you looked out, you say you saw the bridge going down? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see any cars fall with the bridge at that time? A. Yes, sir ; I saw cats, I think the first ones that went through the bridge, I should judge. Q Which did you see fir>t, the car or the bridge going down? A. I could not answer that ; I suppose they were both together. Q You don't know which attracted your attention Grot? A. No, sir. Q. Which way did the cars fall, to the right or to the left? A. They seemed to be sinking to the left. Q. Now, can you tell us which car that was? A. No, sir ; I could : not. Q. About how many cars ahead was it? A. I don't know; I should suppose it was the first one that went through. Q. Could you see the engine? A. No, sir ; I didn't notice it ; if I did I don't remember of it. Q. Did you see more than one car go over? A. There were two or three, I think, there all together, I should suppose. I didn't notice the whole of them on the bridge. Q. I mean, while you were looking out, was there more than one car that you saw pitch over into the road? A. I can't tell, for I put my head in pretty quick. Q. You can't answer that question? A. No, sir, I can't answer that. Q. (By the Chairman.) Is the track straight at that point where you looked out on to the bridge? A. The track is straight on either side of the bridge. Q. Down where you looked out on the bridge is the track straight? A. I don't know whether it is or not. I know it is straight coming on to the bridge and going off the bridge. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) You looked out of the right-hand door coming towards Boston. Did your car turn over to the right? A. It turned to the right. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) The cars that you saw going with the bridge were going to the left? A. Yes, — going to the left. Q. And your car went to the right? A. My car went to the right. Q. Did the one in front of you go to the right or' the left? A. The one in front of me settled right down ; it didn't turn either one way or the other. That is the way I saw it after it was down. Q. (By the Chairman.) Was it in the line of the track? A. Yes, sir ; it appeared to be pretty nearly in the line of the track. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) You were in the rear car, which was the APPENDIX. 67 When your ear went down, did i to twist around off the track? A. No, sir, I don't know as it did. Q. Look here a moment. The track is running in this way : here is the street; and 3-0111- ear was here at the end of the train, and it fell down into that position. Now, it must have twisted in going from here to there. Did you notice it? A. Yes. I didn't notice it at the time it fell, but afterwards. Q. That is what I want to know, — when it, fell? A. No, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) Do you remember whether any of tin- other people in the car were thrown off their feet l>y the jar you Bpeak of? A. No ; I guess they were not. They were not in m . partment, any way. Q. Were they standing up? A. Yes; there were no Beats there for them. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) The baggage compartment of t_l i< ■ car lay up towards .Jamaica Plain? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) Which end of the car was the bi p ar t, — the Boston end? A. The front end of the car, yes, sir. Q. And the passengers were behind? A. Yes, sir. Adjourned to Wednesday, at 10.30. SECOND DAY. Boston, March 16, 1887 The Board met at 10.30, and Messrs. A. A. Folsom and I Richards were called and sworn. Mr. Putnam exhibited to the Board several photographs, showing the condition of the bridge originally, and the scene after the accident. Testimony of George Richards. Q. (By the Chairman.) Your residence ? A. Roxbury. Q. Your age? A. Fifty-nine. Q. What is your connection with the railroad? A. I am master mechanic, and have charge of the locomotives and rolling stock. Q. How long have you been in that capacity? A. 8 and over. Q. How long have you been connected with the road? A. Thirty- eight years. Q. And in what capacity before yon became master me A. As fireman, engineer, machinist, telegraph op keeper. es BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. When did you first hear of the accident? A. About twenty minutes past seven ; twenty or twenty-five past. Q. Where were you at the time ? A. At the shop. Q. At what shop? A. At the workshop in Roxbury, in the office. Q. What did you do? A. I commenced to get ready for a train to go out, — had to send out engines for other purposes, doctors and so on, and waited for another one, — and got started, I think, about 7.40, — 7.35 or 7.40, — and went up to the scene of the wreck with a wrecking car and a lot of men. Q. About 7.40, you think? A. I think about 7.40 ; I don't know the time. Q. How many men? A. All that were handy, perhaps twenty- five. Q. What did you find when you got there? A. Well, when I first arrived all hands went immediately down the bank to see what we could do in getting the people out. All of the living had been taken out; but there were four bodies, possibly six, I am not sure which, that were fastened in. Q. They were there then, — had not been gotten out? A. No, sir ; they were fastened in so that they could not be got out without jacks or levers. Q. There were no others that had not been gotten out, then, besides those dead persons? A. Four, I think. We got those four out and then searched the train thoroughly for more. Q. And you found no more in the train? A. Saw no more in the train. Q. When you got out there, then, the injured had practically all been gotten out? A. They were. There was quite a number round there that were putting them into wagons, and some of them were laid on stretchers, and they were taking them away as fast as they could. I do not know, but perhaps there was a dozen that I saw on my way to the cars. Q. Down the bank? A. Yes, sir ; we went down the bank on the icy side, on the west side. Q. What did you find the condition of the cars there then ? A. Well, those below were piled one on top of the other. The photo- graph shows better than I can describe them. One was bottom up- wards, others were over on their sides in part, twisted in together, woven together in various shapes. There were parts of three cars on the bank on the east side ; that is, on the opposite side of the bridge. Q. What was the condition of those cars? A. The first car, which was No. 52, was entirely off and clear of the track. Q. Was that the first car in the train? A. That was the first car in the train. APPENDIX. Q. On which side? A. On the east Bide. Q. What was the condition of its trucks? A. The forward truck was in its place and the rear truck was on the other Bide of the track, and had fallen down the incline on the west side and held by a brake rod which was attached to the car and about at right angles with the track. It was so far down that cutting that rod would have let it clown. Q. Then this car was standing with its front elevated and; resting on the ground? A. The rear resting on the ground. Q. What was the condition of the second car. No. 18? A. The second car was nearly over the track, not much out of place, — the body of the car. The trucks were driven back, both of them, near together at the rear end of the car. Q. Was the rear truck driven back? A. Both tracks were driven back. The forward truck and the rear truck were near together. The forward truck was nearly at the rear end, but still locked in there so tnat we had some difficulty in moving it. O. And out on which side of the car? A. On thp east side. Q. The rear truck was also thrown back out of place? A. Fes, sir; the rear truck was back out of place a little to the east Bide of the centre of the car, off the rails. Q. Both of them off the rails? A. Yes, sir. Q. How much was the car broken? A. The rear end of it was broken out, or broken in rather. There had been a collision, a tele- scoping; the rear of the second car had telescoped with the forward end of the third car, and then been pulled apart afterwards, leaving the Miller platform of the forward end of the third car locked in to the rear platform of the second, so that it was quite a job to part them. Q. The Miller platform on the forward end of the third car. when you found it, was next to the end of the second car? A. No, Bir, it was interlocked with the rear platform of the second car ; and the body of the third car, what there was remaining, was Bome eight or ten feet back, showing that they had been telescoped, and then [lulled apart by some power. Q. That the two cars, the second and third, had been crushed together. Was the Miller platform of the third car above or below the Miller platform of the second car? A. The platform of the third car was above the platform of the second. Q. They had been crushed together, and the rear end of the second car had been crushed in by it? A. Yes, sir. Q. How far? A. Well, the walls of the front end wasn't Crushed much of any, but the whole of the back end was broken in, and the walls spread and twisted on one side. 70 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Well, five feet from the end of the car, or how much? A. I could not say. It would not be necessary to go more than six inches in order to crush the end of the car in, and there is no means of knowing how far it went in there. Q. Then the Miller platform of the third car. having been pushed on top of the Miller platform at the rear of the second car, got locked in with it and remained there, and the third car was pulled off from it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there any connection between the Miller platform that was at the front end of the third car and the car itself, when you got out there ? A.I think not, — not a rod nor anything ; I believe there was no connection left. Q. And what was the condition of the third car? A. Well, the third car — both ends were knocked in and the trucks gone. Q. The third car was what number, do you know? A. Twenty- eight. Q. Both ends knocked in? A. Yes, sir; and the trucks were missing. Q. Do you know where they were? A. No; probably with the bridge below ; couldn't have been in any other place. Q. Did you look around on the embankment to find those trucks? A. I did; theie were no trucks on the embankment except the two pairs. Q. You are sure that they were not on the embankment then? A. I am. Q. And that car was in what position with reference to the track, — was it nearly on the track or off the track? A. Well, nearly over the track ; there was but little left of it. In fact there was almost a total destruction of that car, so that it required but a little effort to twist the body asunder, and throw it down the bank. Q. What was the condition of the floor of that car? A. I could not say ; some of the men went to work on that car and twisted it over and pitched it down the bank, the side, the top and the flooring, — so that I could not say much about that car. They pitched first one side down and then the other, and then the flooring and then the roof on top of that. Q. The top and the sides were so disconnected that it was com- paratively easy, you say, for the men to break it up? A. Yes, sir; by rocking it sideways they parted it. One of those photographs shows how the condition was. The photograph was taken after the car was pitched down, but it lies on one side. Q. How far was that third car from the abutment of the bridge? A. Well, 1 didn't notice particularly, but I should think it was fifteen feet to the nearest point on the skew of the abutment. APPENDIX. 71 Q. Was there another car or any portion of any other car between there and the abutment? A. I think not. There might have been some small pieces, but nothing to attract attention. I don'l reco seeing anything except some small slivers that might have come from either of the cars. Q. There was no extra monitor top up then? A. There was :i monitor top of a car laid on the east side, but I think it belonged to 28; lam not sure; I was on the move round and didn't notice Ml there was; I am not sure whether that monitor top which lay on the east side was part of 'is or of another car. Q. Twenty-eight was which car? A. The third ear from forward. Q. Yon are not sure whether that monitor top which lav on the east side was the top of ear 28 or not? A. I am not ; I think it was. Q. Now, where was the fourth car? A. All the other cars of the nine were down below, alongside of the piers. Q. Do you remember seeing the fourth car out there anywhere. as a shape in any way? A. Well. I saw all the cars. I went down and went round them and went across. Q. Did you attempt to count the cars down there? A. I did; I counted them myself, and then I got one of my men to count them and report to me the number, so that I should have a whole list of the train. Q. How many did you make? A. I made nine ; three above an 1 six below. Q. There were six cars below, were there, of which you could dis- tinguish the shapes? A. I thought I did; I counted them and I thought I found six cars. Q. Can you describe generally how the cars lay in the - beginning at the front end. the fourth car? A. Well, that is not a very casv thing to do, the positions were so irregular. The end car was entirely bottom upwards, and then there was another car which was on top of another one still. Then' was one set On it- nearly erect. There was another one that laid over on its side, the wheels partly turned towards the wall. Q. Towards what wall? A. Towards the sooth wall or abutment. It is rather a hard matter to describe the positions onderstandingly. (^. Suppose you e. mC here and Let us >ee if W6 can flgure this out at all. (The witness examined the photographs and pointed out the several cars as well as he could.) . A. It is very difficult to describe the eoadiUon one could understand it without looking at the pi< I 72 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. The rear car was turned completely upside down? A. The rear car was turned completely upside down. Q. Then the next car in front of that? A. This (indicating) was the next one in front. The people represented there are standing on the bottom of the car. Q. Then the next car was turned up with its bottom in what direction? A. Partly towards the south wall. Q. The next car in front of that? A. That was the one which I spoke of as standing nearly erect. Q. Then the fourth, fifth and sixth cars, where were they? A. One car was on top of another ; I do not know about the order in which they were in the train ; I didn't look at that. Q. Well, they w T ere the fourth, fifth and sixtli cars, and one of them was on top of the other. Was the fourth on top of the fifth, or the fifth on top of the sixth? A. I think that the fifth and sixth one was on top of the other. Q. Where was the fourth car? A. The fourth car laid partly hidden heie. Q. Partly hidden where? A. At the side of the third car, west of it. I think that shows a part of the roof of the car which was forward of that. From memory I should think that that would be the fourth, that the fifth, that the sixth, that the seventh, that the eighth, and this would be the ninth. There was part of a car in there ; I crawled through there yesterday. Q. In which of the cars were the most people injured or killed? A. That I don't know. I think that there were none injured in the cars that were on the b.mk ; whoever might have been in those cars were removed before I got there. I saw one spot of blood on the bank opposite 28, which was the car that was so thoroughly de- stroyed ; and I was told (of course that is of no account) that there were but few passengers in that car. The killed and wounded, as I saw them, were down below in the highway ; and they wouldn't have been likely to have carried them down that icy bank on that side. They must have been in the cars below, I should say. Q. Well, were they mostly in the last three cars or in the three cars forming the middle of the train? A. Well, those that we took out were about the mddle of the train ; I didn't notice the number of the car. The others I can say nothing about. Q. What did you see out there that gave you any clew as to the nature and cause of the accident? A. Well, the telescoping of those cars seemed to indicate that there was some kind of breakage of some part of the train. I cannot conceive of how that could be done under any other principle than that there must have been some shock, and APPENDIX. 78 that that shock knocked the bridge down. The cars were Br inly tele- scoped and then pulled apart. I can see do other clew to it. Q, What kind of an accident would cause such a telescoping as that? A. Anything which would suddenly check the momentum of the train forward, allowing the rear of the heavy train to crush into it, such as derailment, a broken truck or parts of a truck. There are probably five hundred causes which might be conceived of, any one of which might have caused such an accident ; any one of them might have been the cause or the result. Q. You found, did you not, that the front truck of the forward car remained on the track, — was not tin own off? A. No, it was under the car, but several feet off the track: it stood in its place. Q. It was in its place under the car? A. res, Q. The rear truck of that car was thrown off, both trucks of the next car were thrown back out of place, and both trucks of the third car were entirely removed, — disappeared? A. Yes. Q. Now, what does that suggest to your mind as to the nature of the accident? If a train runs oil' the track simply, docs the bumping of the cars on the sleepers remove the trucks from under the car-? A. It usually does if the blows arc severe enough. It depends upon how much obstruction it meets in the way of sleepers, cro>s timbers, or whatever there may be. It depends upon the strength of the fas- tenings. Q. With a train going at the rate of fifteen miles an hour, would you expect the trucks to be thrown from three cars in that way by simple derailment in going that distance ? A. Not on frozen ground ; but if they struck against some strong obstruction, as, for instance, sinking between deep-down ties in frozen ground. Q. Did they in this case sink between deep-down ties? A. Well, the ties on the bridge were the ones which would do the basin anywhere. I saw no signs of any derailment on the ties on the ground. There had been so much tramping and nm\ ing around there, that there was nothing that I noticed. I could not have Been much if I had paid particular attention to it. I looked some to find some marks and found none. Q. Would the ties on the bridge take a truck off of a ear? A. Well, they might ; a very slight derailment sometimes takes the trucks back, and other times they will hold on wonderfully. Q. Do you think that the original cause of the accident was derail- ment? A. I think there was something of the kind. I think then was a partial derailment or an obstruction of some kind, a- tin- drop- ping of some parts, very much as it would be if something dropped on the track. Q. Do you think that the derailment began on the bridge? A. If 74 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. there was any such it must have begun on the bridge, as the track south of the bridge shows no marks on the ties or on the ground that I could find. Q. Have you examined the ties of the bridge? A. I have not; they were covered with cars the last time I was there, covered by the wreck, and I could not examine them. Q. What did you see of the ties on the north end of the bridge? A. Well, the rails, which were long rails extending some ways bej'ond the abutment, those were gone — one on the right and one on the left ; and the ground was frozen where the rails commenced ; and there had been so much tramping over there that I could not see any marks of wheels. Where all those trucks were derailed, four of them, and weie found off the track, you could not see the marks, the tramping there had disfigured the ground so. Q. Were there any marks on the sleepers? A. I didn't notice any until we got forty feet away ; the first I noticed. I didn't pay particu- lar attention to looking up that side of it. The fact was evident that those trucks were off the track early ; that they must have been off the track at the abutment. Q. Is there any evidence that they were off the track before they reached the abutment? A. I saw none ; if there is, it would be found down below the cars, as I last saw them ; they have since removed the truck parts of the cars. Q. If those ties show any marks, will they be preserved? A. I presume they will. Q. Are 3'ou managing that? A. I have nothing to do with that. The Chairman. Mr. Folsom, have you given any orders to have everything of that sort preserved? Mr. Folsom. I have given orders to have everything appertaining to the bridge and cars carried to the shop and carefully taken care of- The Chairman. Will the men appreciate the importance of pre- serving the ties belonging to the bridge? Mr. Putnam. I will say that Mr. Philbrick and Mr. Doane will both examine the ties and everything relating to that bridge as soon as the work will enable them to do so. Q. The train evidently went off the track. Do you think that there may have been a settling of the bridge and that the cars were derailed as they struck the abutment, and that the sinking of the bridge and the jar through that may have removed those trucks and wrenched them out of place? A. The trucks of the third car must have struck the abutment and then toppled over with the bridge. About the time that they struck the abutment the bridge must have goue down, for the angle at which the trucks struck the bridge would force the bridge down to the left. APPENDIX. 75 Q. The trucks of the third car must have struck the abutment, because they went down into the Btreet. Now, the third car, never- theless, crushed into the second car in front of it? A. Yea j proba- bly previous to that. Q. May it not have been at the time when the Beoond car -truck the abutment that the third car crushed into it? A. I hardly think it possible from the condition of things; I think that the telescoping was previous to that. Q. Previous to the time that the second car left the bridge? A. Previous to the second car striking the abutment and that being telescoped, and then when the trucks of the rear car struck the abutment, it sheered the trucks off and also parted the platform from the forward end of the rear car. I think that the rear platform of the third car also went down with the trucks from the pulling of the train beyond it. This third ear. No. 28, was a Lighter car, weaker car, lighter built; and of course it would sutler under such condi- tions where the other ones would not. Q. Now, is there anything that you saw that is inconsistent with the theory that the bridge settled somewhat; didn't entirely give way, but settled somewhat when the engine went over; that the Bret car was thrown off of the track by the settlement; that the rear trucks of the first car, striking the abutment, were thrown off by that, and the trucks of that second car were thrown hack ; that when the third car went over the bridge it had still further settled, and that the trucks of the third car were taken off completely, and then the third ear got on to the embankment and the rest of the train went down? A. Well, that might be possible ; it is very hard to say. Q. That is a possible solution? A. res. Q. Do you know anything that necessarily militates against such a theory? A. I cannot account for the telescoping of the oars except in one of two ways: One is, that the rear of the train rushed on to the forward car; and the other is, that the bridge rose op in-trad of going down, — it evidently went down, and the two ears wen together; and in no way that I can think of can it he done excepl by the rear of the train rushing on the forward car, or the bridge ris- ing up. q. The front car being in some way suddenly stopped - A.. Ye*, sir; the bridge must have been in good position when the locomotive went on, for the locomotive went on its way without barm except parting from the first car. Q. How do you explain the statement of the engineer, thai left the bridge he saw the front end of the locomotive rise and felt a jar on his driving wheels, which Id hitn to look around to the matter? A. Well, as I understood him, — he didn't make it very 76 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. plain , — he felt a resistance. No man on a locomotive or car, if there is a resistance, can tell whether it comes from the front or rear. If the train is suddenly checked the momentum carries that person for- ward ; there can be no distinction between checking from behind and in front that I can see. Q. If it was the fact that he saw the front end of the engine rise as it left the bridge, what would that tend to show? A. Well, from the form of that bridge, if the bridge had moved enough so that the motion upward was perceptible, the locomotive and tender must have gone down. The locomotive and tender being heavier than the rest of the train, they must have gone over on the west side. Q. That is, that was the side where there was the greatest strain, i do you mean? A. That was the side where there was the greatest strain. Q. How does an iron bridge go down ? Does it go down all at once? A. Well, it depends upon the construction of the bridge, the giving way of one member and then another. But if you could cut every member at once it would not move instantly ; it would take time to move, slowty at first and then faster. Of course, one part falling throws the strain on the other part, and the motion is compara- tively slow. Q. You are the person in charge of the locomotives and cars? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you describe the condition of this locomotive and these cars? A. The locomotive was built in 1880, weighed about 82,000 or 83,000 pounds, and was in good general condition. The tender probably weighed at that time between 50,000 and 56,000 pounds. That is not a heavy locomotive, but it is heavier than some weigh. The first car was a car that we rebuilt within eighteen months, and was very strong and as good as new. We laid out a good deal of money on it. Q. How old a car was that? A. I am not sure about its age, but in rebuilding we took off all the older parts. The trucks, the only thing about a car by which an accident could happen, were en- tirely new, and they are in good condition now. The next car was an older car, but so good that we decided then to rebuild it and laid out about $1,500 on it. It is as strong to-day as a modern car, — stronger than some are. Q. How old a car was it? Do you keep a record of every car? A. I keep a record, but I began in 1874 ; many of those cars are older than that. Some of them I do not know the age of. Q. You have a record of each one of those cars from that time down to the present, as to what has been done to them? A. Gen- erally ; yes. APPENDIX. 77 The Chairma.1T. I think that wo had better have the al record rather than Mr. Richards' memory in regard to that matter. The Witness. The question that I was asked as to the original construction of the car, I could not answer. Mr. Folsom may have it in some of his records. The first and second cars were very strong cars; the third car was of a different construction from the common cars in its form and features, but not so strong as the others. Q. Then the fourth car, No. 54? A. Fifty-four is one of the same lot that was thought to be worth rebuilding, and we laid out a great deal of money on it. It was a strong car. Q. Eighty-seven? A. Eighty-seven was but a few years old. and as strong a car as any that is running anywhere. Q. Eighty-two, eighty-one and eighty? A. Those were a little older, but about the same in their construction and equally good. Q. The smallest numbers represent the greater age, do they? A. Not certainly; I believe we have some cars that we have switched in, as we call it, — where we have destroyed old ears and replaced them. But I believe it does in this case, as applied to those cars. No ; No. 1 is a newer car than 28. Q. Combination No. 1, you mean? A. Yes. Q. What kind of a car was that? A. That was a very strong car. Q. What is your regulation in regard to the examination of loco- motives and cars? Have you any printed regulations. A. We have none. Q. How often do you examine locomotives? A. Well, the loco- motive engineer is the inspector of engines, and the engineers are supposed to look them over every trip, and most of them do. For their own safety, for their own convenience, they will do that. Q. But as far as your duties are concerned, what examination and how often do you make an examination of the locomotives? A. Well, whenever anything is reported to be done to them, and then when they come into the shop they are taken apart and all the parts thoroughly examined. Q. A locomotive then runs until it is reported to you as t> some way out of order ; is that it? A. Yes, sir. Q. How about the cars? A. They have a regular set of i; tors who examine the cars from time to time. Q. How often do they examine them? A. Well, I don't know; it is different on different trains. On the trains going between Bos- ton and Providence, the cars are looked over at both ends j a train running like this train, two or three times a day. Q. Are the cars at any time of the year put into the shop and thor- oughly examined? A. The cars are sent int.; the shop about once a 78 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. year, whether there is anything the matter with them or not ; or as near once a 3'ear as they can. Q. That is done as often as once a year? A. We try to get around once a year, and we about do that ; but there are some excep- tions. We keep the shop full of cars all the time for that purpose, and intend to get round once a year, if possible. Q. How long was it since tt.ese cars were examined in that way? A. I cannot say, only in regard to one of them, car 87. Q. You have a record of that which you can show? A. Yes, sir, we have a record of that car ; 87, which had the broken axle which was found, was in the shop and went out about the 14th of January with all new wheels and all new axles. Q. You found a broken axle on that, did you? A. We found a journal broken off. Q. What part? A. What we call the journal is the turned part close into the shoulder ; in fact, that is the only place where a journal ever breaks. Q. Close in to the shoulder? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) This broken journal was on 87 ? A. On 87. Q. (By the Chairman.) How long ago was that put into the shop and thoroughly examined? A. It came out of it the 14th of January last. A record is kept of these cars when they come in and when they go out, and a general record of what is done to them. Q. You happened to see that journal? You don't know whether other journals are broken or not? A. No, sir ; the trucks have been brought to the shop ; I saw them this morning. Q. Anything peculiar about that break? A. Well, I don't know that there is. All breaks are peculiar in some respects, and are not by any means alike. If an axle or piece of iron is broken in one way they call them crystalline ; if they are broken in another way they call them fibrous. A piece of iron may be broken an inch and a half apart, and broken in a different manner so that the two fractures won't show any relation to each other ; and so much so that an expert, or some that call themselves expert, will pronounce on the quality of the iron as one being poor and the other good, when the two parts are only an inch or an inch and a half apart. That is quite a common thing. Q. What was the nature of this fracture, — crystalline or fibrous? A. This was broken in a way to show crystalline, from the fact that whatever broke it or whatever strain there was on it broke it at the coiner. Q. In examining the bridge did you discover any places where the bridge showed defects as far as you have gone on ? A. No ; I don't know that I have. APPENDIX. 7 I Q. Any places where there irere mated cracks or atijtl that sort? A. Tlie only thing that I recollect now. then- \\:i^ :i plate of cast iron which was merely a bearing plate, taking compreasion only, which showed some rusty cracks; I think that waa all ; I don't know where that piece belonged. Q. What kind of a piece was it? Where did it come from? A. I dou't know that I can show it ; it was simply a | iron. probably a bearing plate. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) (Pointing to joint block <>n the photograph of the bridge.) Are you sure that was a cast-iron head? A wa> a cast-iron head. Q. (By the Chairman.) What do you describe that pii • being? A. Well, it was T-shaped. Q. "What is the technical name for it in bridge building? A. I don't know what member it was; I don't know where in the bridge this piece came from. Q. How would you describe it, as well as you can? How did you describe it just now? A. As a T-shaped piece, — shaped like the letter T. Q. Cast iron? A. Cast iron. Q. What did you find in regard to that? A. Well, that small, old crack, that was all ; the rest was a new break. Q. How long and in what part of the T? A. I don't recoil considered it, when I saw it, of no importance in the matter what- ever, and I didn't pay any attention to it. It was a piece that was broken out of some column or support of the bridge. I don'' this photograph where it came from. I didn't think it of enough ac- count to pay any attention to it. Q. Is that the only place where you saw a rusty crack or broken off and rusted? A. That is the only one I think of. out there yesterday with some other men. We looked over the bridge, every part we could find, and we could not find a piece that Indicated any weakness in the bridge, but every f inj im- portance was entirely new. There were some little places in - the end rods where, of course, it would break in tl place, that would show partial weakness in the welding. lint that is universal in weldings. A perfectly Bound weld Is I rather than the rule in all blacksmith's work. It hv a weld and (ind it entirely perfect ; so much so, that in -.me kinds of work for some special purposi - welding la discarded. n. [lave you seen anything in your examination so fa:- tl i indicating Berious weakm - of the bridgi J A. seen nothii <>. No old fracture in any part whii 80 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. portant or dangerous? A. No; there are a great man}' parts that can only be seen by taking out the pins and entirely separating Ihe members of the bridge. Q. So far as the special construction of this bridge is concerned, are you posted in regard to it? A. I am not; I am not a bridge builder, and don't pretend to know much about that. Q. How about that journal that was broken ? Did it show any flaw? A. Well, I am not sure. It was discolored round the edge, and I am in doubt whether it was oil or what it was ; but an axle of that age wouldn't show any fracture unless it received some severe blow. There was discoloration around the edge. Q. How far in? A. Oh, .perhaps a 32d of an inch; but at the time that that broke, of course, it was covered with waste and oil, and that might have soiled the edge and not farther in ; I call it oil, and not any evidence of a fracture. Q. How far round did that go? A. Well, it showed that dis- coloration all the way round, I think, or nearly all the way round ; I am not sure. I didn't at the time call it a fracture ; some perhaps would. Q. That has been preserved, has it? A. Yes. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Have you the rest of that axle of which the journal is broken off? A. Yes ; it is at the shop in Roxbury. Q. Is the wheel attached to the other end of it ? A. The wheels are on the axle. Q. Is the wheel on the other end of the axle attached to it? A. Both wheels are on the axle. That is, the axle broke in what we call the journal, outside the wheel, and both wheels are on the large part of the axle, as they were. This piece that was broken off is about 7| inches long. Q. Outside the wheels? A. Outside the wheels. Q. Then the breaking of that journal would not cause the axle to fall or the wheels to give way ? A. Well, yes; breaking outside of the wheel might cause a very serious accident. In fact, one of the worst accidents that ever happened in this State w T as caused by the breaking of an axle outside the wheel — breaking in the journal. Q. (By the Chairman.) Do you mean between the wheels, or outside of the wheels? A. I mean outside of the wheels. We call the axle the whole piece ; the journals we call the parts that turn down on which a bearing is made — that is the technical name of the parts. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Does the weight of a car come down on the journals? A. Yes, sir ; the weight of a car is carried directly on the journals, and the breaking of a journal takes all the weight off of the wheel on that side, and it is very likely to leave the track. APPENDIX. 81 Q. That is, it is likely to jump? A. It unloads that cud - the load on the other end of the same axle will lift up tin- wheel which is unloaded, and allow the wheel to go between the rails. That is very sure to follow a broken journal. Q. With the car standing still, the load on the remaining journal will lift up the wheel on the side where the journal is broken off, and raise it more or less, according to the weight of the portions axle or the truck? A. If the journal is broken, there can be i on that wheel next to which it is broken. Q. (By the Chairman.) Mr. Richards, do you suppose that the breaking of that journal could have been the original cause of this accident? A. I had not thought of that. I did not know of that until this morning. I saw the axle as I came over from the shop, and immediately looked up the records to see from which car it. came, and the story of the axle. I had not studied it in that direction. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Did von find out what car it came from? A. Yes ; No. 87. Q. (By the Chairman.) Have you thought it over, or do you think now that that could have been the original cause of the acci- dent? A. Well, it is possible; as all things are possible. The breaking of any one of the parts might have caused the accident. The breaking of that journal would cause or might cause a very severe shock to the bridge. The breaking of that journal would tend to raise the wheel next to the journal and the other wheel might have left the rail. Q. If that journal broke and caused a shock to the bridgi would account for the cars that passed over the bridge being tec by crushing together? A. Well, I don't know as they could, on that principle. The drawing apart afterwards it would account for ; it wouldn't account for the telescoping. I don't see what would. No- body has accounted for it ; nobody attempts to account fur it : it is a mystery. Q. You do not see any explanation of it by referring it to the breaking of that journal, do you? A. Except if the breaking of the journal caused the wreck of the bridge, there is an instant of time when the motion of the bridge downward would telescope the , throw the forward platform of the third car on to the rear platform of the second car, when it is passing a certain point of th n between the bridge and the abutment. (i. Will you explain that more fully? We want to getat this thing. Will you give us some possible position of the cars which account for this accident on the theory that it started with the break- ing of that journal? A. That may not be an easj thing to do. Bat 82 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. if the broken journal had caused the bridge to settle, forming a quick valley, that would cause a telescoping of the cars. Q. Wait a moment. That would necessitate the fifth car being on the bridge at the time, wouldn't it? A. Well, the result would not follow immediately. A bridge does not go down in an instant; it took an appreciable time for the bridge to go down ; such a large bridge cannot be moved instantly. Q. Where would you have the journal break in order to account for the accident on that theoiy, — before that car struck the bridge or when it was on the bridge? A. Well, the journal might break half a mile before there is any effect perceptible from it. Journals have been found broken and caused a serious accident immediately ; others have been known to break and the train to go 40 or 50 miles without doing any harm at all. It is impossible to say what might happen. Q. Explain to us what the operation was or might have been in this case to account for the accident? A. Well, if it was caused by that journal it must have been done by the derailing of that pair of wheels, — the wheel nest to the journal lifting up and the wheel on the other axle falling inside the rail partly. Q. And at what point before the car reached the bridge ? A. Well, wherever it might be. Q. Then what followed next? A. Well, if it went on to the bridge, or if that happened on the bridge, it would cause a very severe shock to the bridge. Q. What followed then? A. Then the tendency would be to throw the bridge to one side, breaking some of the rods. As for the form which the shock to the bridge would take, it is impossible even to imagine. Q. How long was the bridge? A. About 100 feet in length, I believe. Q. What is the length of a car? Well, the body of a car runs from 50 to 60 feet, or from 45 to 60. These cars, all of them, were not far from 50 feet in their bodies. Q. Which was this, the front truck or the rear? A. I do not know ; I have no means of knowing. Q. When that car got fully on to the bridge the car in front of it was just going off the bridge, wasn't it, if the cars are 50 feet long and the bridge was 100 feet long? A. When the rear end of the rear car was entering the bridge, of course the forward end of the forward car was passing off. Q. And if some of the trucks of the fifth car were off of the track and carried the bridge down, what would have been the effect upon the front three cars in the train? A. Well, the effect would have been simply pulling apart in the weakest place, I should say. APPENDIX. 83 Q. How would you account, then, for the crushing together and telescoping of those cars? A. I have not been able to account for it on any principle. Q. On your theory of that journal being the original cause of the accident, can you account for the crushing together of the front three cars? A. No, I cannot; and I fail to account for it on any other theor}-. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Mr. Richards, do you have anything to do with the inspection of bridges? A. Nothing to do with the inspec- tion of bridges. Q. Did you examine the whole of the bridge structure as it lay on the ground yesterday ? A. We examined every part of it that we could get at ; it was covered a good deal by the wreck ; most of it was removed last night and some this morning. We examined all we could get at. Q. Had any of the iron pieces of the bridge been removed when you arrived there to make your inspection ? A. I don't know as to that ; there is quite a number of small parts missing ; whether re- moved from the bridge or not, I don't know. There are a great man} 1 curiosity seekers there. Q. I would like to call your attention to a particular part of that bridge and ask you whether you inspected that part. The bridge is supported by a truss which covers a span from shelf to shelf, I be- lieve ; and that truss consists of the slanting posts which make an angle with the compression chords. That composes the whole of that truss, does it not? A. The two posts and the compression chord. Q. Now, at the angle there is what is called a joint block, I believe ? A. Yes. Q. That joint block is the joint for the truss posts and the com- pression chord or the upper chord of the truss. That is so, isn't it? A. Yes. Q. Now, if 1 am correctly informed, the floor beams of that bridge are suspended from hangers, and one of those hangers or a pair of those hangers come down from a pin in that joint block. That is true, is it? A. Yes. Q. And the floor beam stands at right angles to the pin from which the hanger is suspended. That is also true? A. Yes. Q. So that the hanger is twisted to meet the angle of the floor beam? A. I believe the hangers are put at right angles with each other, twisted, as you say, a quarter of a turn. Q. A floor beam runs through the lower loop of the hanger? A. Well, I have seen this bridge a great many times when it was there, but to state the construction of the bridge in all its parts I do not know as I could, but only the members which. I examined. 8t BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. The Chairman. We will have the superlnten lent of bridges here, who can give mure exact information upon that point. Mr. Williams. Yes, Mr. Chairman, but I wish to put a question as to one particular hanger. Q. Diil you examine the j >int block on the northwest corner of the biidge yet>teid y? A. I looked at a joint block in which the hangers were in their places, but broken. Jt was down so near the ground thai we could not see ; all w t c could do was to feel of the ends of them ; we didn't see the ends of them. Q. Was that the north-west corner? A. The way this laid, I hardly know to which side it belonged. I think the one that I speak of was on the east side as it then laid. They were removing the bridge and removing the cars. I could not locate that particular piece. It was one of those blocks with parts of the hangers in them, but it laid in such a position that I could not see the fractures, and could only feel of them with my fingers. (^. There are only four of those blocks on the two trusses? A. Two on each truss. Q. Couldn't you tell whether this was at the north pier or at the south pier? A. This laid nearest to the north pier, and I think to the east of the centre of the biidge, as it lay yesterday. Q. That hanger was fractured or broken, w r as it not? A. It was broken ; the fracture I could not see — couldn't see into the place. Q. You fe'.t of it? A. Felt of it. Q. Could you tell from the feeling what the character of it was, whether it was an old fracture or not? A. Well, it is pretty hard tc distinguish colors by feeling, and that is wdiat we judge by mostl}-. Q. That hai gs in the joint block? A. It hangs in the joint block, so that it can never be seen when it is in position. Mr. Williams. I have called Mr. Folsom's attention to that joint block, and that, I presume, the Board deshes to have preserved. The Chaikmax. I have seen it myself; we will have it here anc the testimony of expert authority in regard to it. I saw it the morn ing of the accident. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Who examines the condition of the wheels and the trucks from day to day to see if they are in good coi dition? A. There is a gang of men at the station in Boston that wt call car inspectors, whose special business it is to examine those cars. Other cars are brought to Koxbury and there are men for that pur- pose there. Q. How often is each car inspected as to the condition of it trucks, wheels and axles? A. The cars running to Providence an .inspected at both ei.ds of the line. The cars in the local trains an inspected at Bostun only. APPENDIX. 85 Q. Every trip ? A. Those running on the local trains are ins] at Boston only. I do not know how often, but I think abonl forty miles run. Q. Not every trip, then? They are not inspected every time they come to Boston? A. I do not know whether they are or not. I should not think it was necessary. In a groat many case 9 i* not be done. Q. How often are the wheels sounded to gee if they art A. Well, whenever the cars are inspected it is the custom to sound the wheels. Q. And only when they are inspected? A. No, not usuall; doesn't amount to much, — the hammering of the wheels. Tint is like the bell to tell us that dinner is ready, but it doesn't tell us anything about the condition of the wheels. Q. Docs it not indicate that the wheel is all right? A. No, sir ; the general idea is to let people know there is somebody round. Q. Do you moan to say that if a wheel is not all right it will ring true? A. "Wheels are made in so many different ways that one kind of wheel would give a ring, when struck a blow, like a bell ; and on another kind of wheel there would be no ring. . Q. (By Mr. Kinsley ) Do you mean to say that if a ear in- spector is rapping around underneath a car and conies to a broken journal, he cannot tell by the sound whether it is broken or cracked or whole? A. I have tried to make that out for a great many years, and I wouldn't give a snap for it. Q. I saw a car the other day where there was a journal broken, and that was the only way they found it out? A. It depends upon how the wheel stands on the rail, on the formation of the wheel, and on the kind of spring there is in the box, and so on. They connected together so that sometimes you can tell and Bom itim You can tell by the sound of a cast-iron wheel, a- we call it, the dif- ference between a cracked wheel and one that is not cracked, pro- vided that the crack is open so that the parts are actually . just as a crack in a cymbal will show by the sound of it. Some wheels are made in one piece, and sane in seventy or eighty; and those that are made with seventy or eighty pieces, there is not much ring to them. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) What else is done by way of inspection, besides hammering the wheels to see if they ring true? A. Looking over the wheels, looking for broken wheels, looking for l wheels. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) And axles also, isn't it? A. Well, look- ing for cracked axles to a certain extent; but where tiny are mo^t likely to break nobody can sec; no* mortal can tell. 86 13USSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. You wouldn't recommend dispensing with that kind of cxami- nation, would you? A. No, sir ; I would keep that up on account of watchfulness. But the only places that we can see are the parts which we know never will break. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) The parts that are liable to break are hidden, are they? A. The parts that are liable to break are hidden. The breakage of axles years ago was inside of the wheel, close up to the wheel and slightly inside of the wheel. Knowing that, our people, for a long number of years, have changed their axles and made the axle much larger in there ; and except in axles of the old st) le they rarely ever break. There are but few roads but put on passenger cars axles that at that place weigh fifty per cent, at least stronger. That has removed the breaking point to other places. Q. (By the Chairman.) Where is the breaking point now? A. It is either the breaking of the journal or the middle of the axle. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) And if the journal, it breaks at the shoul- der, I suppose? A. Yes; a journal usually breaks out close to the shouldei , as near the wheel as the length to the wheel will admit it ; usually next to the wheel. Q. As I understand you, Mr. Richards, your theory of the probable beginning of this accident is, that something brought the forward vara to a check ; that that brought the rear cars down upon them with the full force of the speed with which they were going on a down grade; that that created a telescoping or a violent shock, and that that shock carried away the bridge? A. Well, it would seem so. Q. Was that the idea that you intended to convey in your first tes- timony? A. Well, substantially that; that there was a checking of the train forward from some reason or other, and that the telescoping might have been caused by the rushing on of the rear of the train, and afterwaids checked behind and pulled apart, as it would be if the forwaid car had met some obstruction; as, for instance, something thrown on the track, checking the motion of the train, and they had gone forwards, and afterwards the motion of the train had been checked from the rear ; and they had been suddenly pushed together and then parted — those that were left on the top of the bank. Q. Could that check of the forward cars, which might have brought about this telescoping, have been occasioned by any breakage in any of the cars that you could imagine? A. Yes, it could be done by a breaking down of a brake beam or anything that would obstruct the motion of the train that went under the wheels, chuking against the wdieels or against a part of the trucks. Q. Is there anything under a car which might break loose and catch in one of those sleepers, for instance, on the bridge, and so cause a violent checking of the train? A. I don't know as there is APPENDIX. 87 anything. Yes, that being- an open bridge, a broken brake would do that. If a brake beam should break between one or both of those hangers, or possibly between the tics of the bridge, it cheek the train ; and trains are derailed as often from the breaking down of brake beams as from any other ordinary cause. Q. Then if a brake beam in the second or third car had dropped and caught between the open sleepers of the bridge, that would have brought about the sort of telescoping that yon think caused the acci- dent, would it not? A. Yes, if it was forward. Q. I take it that the breaking of an axle on any of the rear cars would not have brought about the accident in that way? A. I don't see how it would with such a long distance between. Q. The telescoping has got to be accounted for by some Bodden cheeking of the forward end of the train, as I understand it? A. It would. Q. (By Mr. Stevens.) Do you think that a brake beam would check the forward end of the car enough to telescope it, with Miller platforms on? A. Weil, check it by derailing the train. I do not think it would by merely striking against a tie ; the resistance would be so great that it would break it off. Q. It would have to be derailed first? A. I think so ; the momen- tum would not be enough to check the train except by derailing. Q. Anything in the way of an obstruction on the trm-lc would have to throw the car off of the track before it would telescope it? A. I should think it would. Q. (By the Chairman.) Now. Mr. Richards, if it was doe cause of that sort, on which car must it have been. — the first, - or third? A. If that telescoping was done by a brake beam it must have been on the first or second car. Q. Did you examine the Miller platform at the front end of the second car? A. I cannot say that I did particularly examil end, the front end of the second car ; I did the front end of the (ii-t car. Q. What was the condition of the front end of the flrsl car? A. The hook was pulled round to the west and bent ; I might have ex- amined the other; I cannot say what I saw, if I did. Q. When did you first notice the fact that those ears were crush* d together instead of pulled apart: A. Well, as soon 1 up on the bank — I went down, as I told you. at first, and came up as soon as I got through there — the first thing that attracted my attention was the telescoping of the cars. Q. If the cars were brought to a stand-still by a brake bar ping, what car do you think it must have been on. — the first i Becond car or the third car? A. Well, as applied to that telescoping 88 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. of the forward end of the third car, it must have been forward of that, and it must have been the first or second car. On that princi- ple, if the train was retarded so as to cause that telescoping, it must have been the third car. Q. Now, does the fact that the front car was off the track and that its rear truck was drawn from it have any beating to show whether it was that car or the second car that the brake bar had dropped from? A. Well, I don't know that it would. That would depend upon the instant of time that the bridge swayed to its side. My opinion is that the first car never landed on the track, but went off at the abutment ; and I don't see how it could change its position quick enough to get where it was. if it ever landed on the rails. But 1 think that between the tender and the forward truck of the rear car was the instant when the bridge changed its position. I cannot see any other theory than that the car shot to the right and severed it from the tender. Q. Now, if the brake bar on the second car broke, and shifted the position of the bridge, do you think that is consistent with the con- dition in which the first car was found, with the trucks off on the side of the road? A. That would be possible. Supposing the re- sistance had occurred just as the first car entered the bridge, it then had 100 feet to run, and the bridge might change its posithn. It would require but a slight change in the position of the biidge to throw this car off. It is possible for the car to run the whole hundred feet and the biidge shift, so that when it arrived on solid land it passed to one side. Q. According to that idea, when would you have the telescoping occur, — on the bridge or after the cars left the bridge ? A. I should certainly have it before the other cars went down ; for after they went down there wouldn't have been any momentum. There was not weight enough for the car to telescope with no force ; it required the force of the train. If it was the train that telescoped the cars, it required a good deal of weight. Q. Do you see how the accident could have been caused by a brake bar dropping? A. Well, any obstruction that was on the track, let it be whatever it was, brake beam or whatever it might be — it is pos- sible for the same accident to have occurred. Q. On which one of the cars must that brake beam have been? A. Well, in some circumstances I might imagine it might be on the first, second, third, fourth or fifth, and make a collision, telescoping the cars together. When the bridge had changed its position and checked the motion, of the train.— as, for instance, when the first car went over the bank, — the momentum of the train behind it, if the APPENDIX. 89 bridge had settled at the time, would be on the increase, still poshing on. Q. If it was due to the breaking of a brake beam, how conld that affect the bridge until the car to which the beam was attached struck the bridge? A. Oh, it couldn't, of course. Q. Then tin' car to, which the brake beam was attached must have been on the bridge before the bridge got a jar to break it down, must it not? A. It would have happened immediately after the car was derailed, let it lie where it would. Q. Well, that car must have got on the bridge before the trouble would happen, must it not? A. Well, I don't know about that. The car was evidently off the bridge before it was derailed, if it was derailed, from the looks of it. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Is it your theory. Mr. Richards, that the derailment preceded the telescoping? A. I should say it must have preceded it. Q. Your idea is, then, that the cause which produced the derail- ment is the responsible cause, and that the derailment was what brought the sudden check upon the forward end of the train, which caused the telescoping? A. That is it. Q. Then, in my question before, I omitted to put in the element of derailment in order to state your theory correctly, did I? A. V sir. Q. Then, as I now understand, your idea is that something must have caused the derailment of one of the forward cars, and that the check produced by that derailment brought the rear of the train down with force enough to telescope the two cars, and that that gave the bridge such a shock that it went. Do I state your idea correctly ? A. That is the direction in which I should look. Q. If that is the case, then it would have to be the first ear that was thrown off the track by something or other, would it not? A. Not necessarily. Q. How could the second and third cars have been thrown together with the violence with which they seem to have been, if the BCCOnd car was derailed? A. I should say the fust or second ; it must have been forward of the point of telescoping. Q. Forward of the third car? A. 5Tes. Q. Then anything that would have thrown the first and second ears Off the track would have brought about :i telescoping which would ]■.-..■ caused this accident? A. I should say so. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) If it was a brake beam that cause. 1 that accident, it would certainly have left its mark on the ties of the bri would it not? A. If the wheel landed on the lies, of course it must have left a mark. [YERSITY OF CALIFORNIA i>£FAft IJViENT OF CIVIL ENGINLEttlN KELEY. CALIFOh 90 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. If the brake beam fell, would not that of itself leave its mark on the ties? A. Well, a brake beam would, if it fell, slide along on the rail. A broken brake beam sometimes slides some distance in front of the wheel without doing any harm, and there are other cases where it strikes on the rail and shoots a little one side, choking one wheel aud leaving the other free. There are a great in airy directions which it might take in falling. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Did you notice where the rail left the abutment and went on to the bridge? A. I did. Q. Was there a joint at the place where the bridge struck the abutment, or did it come in the centre of the rail? A. The joint was several feet on the long side ; the bridge was at such an angle that one rail lapped further on the embankment and the abutment than the other. I noticed that the one on the east side was pulled out of the fastening and left a piece of the rail in there. The rail was broken, leaving a short piece in there. Q. Where broken? A. Well, a part of the base of the rail broken out. Q. (By the Chairman.) More in the nature of a tear, was it? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) How far was it from the first joint of the easterly rail to the edge of the abutment on the line of the rail? A. That I don't know ; I don't know the angle. There were two on each side, 60 feet rails, which would make 120 feet. The bridge, I believe, is somewhere from 100 to 105 feet long, so that on one side they lapped over a long distance ; I think it is five or six feet. Q. You are speaking of the east side or the west? A. Of the east side. Q. That is, the joint would be more than five or six feet north of the abutment? A. I think it was. Q. And how on the west rail? A. Well, that, of course, would be less. I think that the joint was in the centre of the bridge, and that the bridge is 104 or 105 feet long, and that would give two short laps, on account of the angle of the abutments, the bridge being 104 feet long. If the bridge was a square bridge, there would be eight feet lap to each rail. Q. You are reasoning this out, then, not speaking from anything you observed? A. No, I am only speaking from memory. My attention was attracted by the broken piece of rail, and not by the distance. Q. How do you account for the first car having been thrown on one side of the rail and the truck on the other ; and for the cars that were saved being on the right-hand side, the east side of the track, and those that went over being on the other side? A. Well, really I APPENDIX. 91 don't know. Of course the cars that went down went down in the direction in which the bridge swayed. 'I should Bay the bridge top- pled over; it didn't go down vertically, it is not at all likely, but toppled over, and the northeast corner must have ;_:< ne down Brat. Q. The northeast? A. The northeast corner must have down first. If the train had been going in the other direction, and the bridge had failed, going up hill, the cars would have been likely to drop on the other side from the angle which the bridge forms with the abutment ; subject, of course, to other conditions which might reverse it. Q. You see nothing in the position of the cars to indicate a Bway- ing of the train before the bridge went over? A. No, I don't. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) If a hanger broke on the bridge, that would let down the floor beam, wouldn't it, where that banger was suspended? A. Not necessarily ; it would depend upon the construc- tion of the bridge. Q. I am referring to this bridge? A. I am not posted enough in regard Lo the members of that bridge before i to form an opinion ; that would probably have to be referred to experts. Q. (By the Chairman.) If the front cars of a train which is provided with the Miller platform arc derailed now, do the cars telescope? A. Oh, yes. Q. Do they telescope the same witli that platform on the train as they did before its introduction? A. No, not as much. A Miller platform is supposed, ordinarily, to keep them in a straight line. That depends on the amount of force. The Miller platforms arc supposed to be in line with the body of the car, and the cars will stand a great many times more strain and a much more violent shock than they would without the platform. But if a sufficient B applied they must telescope ; there is no limit to the power. Q. My question is, taking the case of a train of nine ears going at that rate, and the three front cars being derailed, would you expect BO much of a telescoping as occurred in this case from a .simple derail- ment? A. Well, I don't know how much the train was retarded. If that train stopped what we might call instantly, there was no Miller platform and no car ever built that would withstand the ahock ; and it was the amount of retarding, together with the velocity, which would give the force. Q. Would you think from the condition of the track there, the ground about it and the condition of the sleepers, that the train was retarded by simple derailment, sutliciently suddenly to account for that telescoping? A. I could not say; I could not exp opinion on it. Q. Would it not be more reasonable to Buppose that that tel< 92 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. ing was occasioned when portions of that car, the truck or otherwise, struck flat against the abutment of the bridge and made a sudden stop? A. Well, it might have been so. Q. And wouldn't striking against the abutment of that bridge account for the trucks being thrown off of the cars? A. It would, of that car, if the rails were not under it at the time. It is a question of the instant of •time when the wheels left their position. If the car went off the rails on account of the trucks striking against the abut- ment, the question arises, what was the car resting on when the bridge went down, and what held up the other car? Q. The bridge didn't go down all at once, you say? A. No. Then, again, that third car being on top of the second, it seems to me on that principle it ought to have been below instead of on top ; the breast beam of the platform was clear in to the other car. Now, if that was falling in that way, that platform should have gone to the bottom and the other one to the top ; but, on the other hand, if they were off until the rear end of the second car had returned to its hori- zontal position, and the shock came on and the force continued, then that would have carried the breast beam, as we term it, of the third car over on top of the other. Q. If the road-bed of the bridge had fallen and dropped say six inches at the time when the first car went over it, when the second truck of the first car went over it, that truck would have then come up against the abutment and would have had a severe jar, and might have been thrown out of place, as it was. The trucks of the next car also came against the abutment, and the}' were thrown back. The third car. as you say, didn't have any trucks at all? A. No. Q. They must have been cleaned off by the abutment? A. They were no doubt sheered off by the abutment. There is no doubt they went entirely to the abutment and there were dropped. I tried to prove it from the condition of the wreck, but things were so mixed up I could not demonstrate it. The natural supposition would be that they would reach the abutment and then be sheered off. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Do you think you can prove it by further examination? A. No.; it would be a question of the exact spot where those trucks were found. They have got that stuff all up now, and I doubt whether anybody but myself and one other man could even recognize the trucks, as to which car they belonged to ; and he probably didn't observe it (and if I couldn't he couldn't). We have several kinds of trucks, an old pattern and a new pattern ; and we recognize one truck from another very much as you will one person from another, — by their faces. There are some peculiar features about them. In some cases nothing more than that. I recognized that truck by the fact that it had some wheels on it which are under only APPENDIX. two other cars, ami those were not in this wreck. That is the only way I could have told that that broken axle belonged to 87. It was ' the only car that was in the wreck that had that particular wheel. Q. In your opinion, Mr. Richards, doesn't the fact thai those ears were teloscoped after they got over the bridge show that the accident was a train accident rather than a bridge accident? What do you think ? A. I cannot help thinking so. I think that the falling of the bridge was the result and not the cause, but how to work that out I can't say. There are so many thousand ways, — there are hundreds and hundreds of pieces about a train which might cause it. All that it requires is derailment. The question is, whether that train was dei ailed anywhere, no matter what the cause might be. We find pieces of flanges broken off; we find crooked axles; we find broken joists ; but this one broken journal is all I have seen. Any one of them might be a cause or might be a result. Q. Would not the falling down into that street break the flanges, journals, etc. A. Oh, yes ; certainly. 1 have no doubt the flai were bioken b}- falling into the street. That is, those I have seen were small fractures ; small pieces broken from the outer edge. Q. But this broken journal which you found was not down in the street, but was up on the bank. Am I correct? A. I really don't know where that was landed originally. I understood it was taken from the base of the north abutment by one party ; but whether somebody else had picked it up and laid it there I don't know. I don't know what its original position was. Q. That broken journal was on car 87? A. Cars?; and a man told me out there yesterday that he saw that journal lying in a cer- tain place, and pointed to it. I asked him if it had been moved there, and he said he didn't know. There was snow on the ground, and there were tracks of feet around there. He didn't know whether it was landed in that place or not. Q. (By Mr. Stevkns.) That car was near the west abutment, was it not, — the fifth car? A. I couldn't say. The place was BO full of cars there wasn't much difference in distance ; the tail end of the train, as we call it, was nearer to the west abutment generally. The general direction of the forward end of the train was nearest the east abutment. Q. You would hardly expect to find the head of a car? A sir. The place pointed out was about half a car length back of the forward end of the car. Q. (By the Chairman.) Supposing this is the second car in the train. It is on the bridge. This is the abutment here. The b has sunk away some half a foot or a foot. It comes to this point, and the front truck of the second car strikes the abutment. It rcceivi 94 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. great shock, of course. The front truck is thrown back and the car would be tipped up in that position, and it is thrown up on to the embankment, going up so. At the same time that it receives this severe shock, which throws this front truck back, and of course gives it a sudden stop, the third car coming on finds this end of the car somewhat depressed ; and the Miller platform of the third car, there- fore, is naturally up above the Miller platform of the second car and goes on top of it. And then, at that time, when this sudden stop comes, it gets that telescoping. Then this car is pushed over with its two trucks under here, and the third car comes along and strikes the abutment with its trucks, and the trucks are thrown off and the car slips on to the embankment on its floor. Might that be? A. Yes, certainly it could. Q. How are j-our instructions in regard to the inspection of cars? You have charge of that department, have you not? A. Yes, I have charge of those that come to Roxbnry. We have a chief inspector who has charge of the inspection of the cars in Boston. Q. You are the head of the department, are you not? A. I am the head of the department. Q. What are your instructions in regard to the examination of cars on the suburban service? A. There are no written or printed in- structions. This thing has grown up and taken care of itself. As I said before, the through trains are inspected at each end and the others are inspected, as I understand it, about once every forty miles. Q. Who would know about that? A. Edward Lang, chief in- spector ; he has charge of those inspections. Q. (By Mr. Stevens.) Is he responsible for the condition of the cars? A. Yes, sir ; those cars that don't come to the shop he is re- sponsible for ; makes his own rules in regard to them. Adjourned to Thursday at 10.30. APPENDIX. THIRD DAY. Boston, March 17, It The Board met at 10.30. Testimony of Edward Lam;. Q. (By the Chairman.) Your residence? A. 14 St. .lames Street, Boston Highlands. Q. What is your age? A. My ago is 62. I was born on the Sd of January, 1825. Q. What is your connection with the Boston & Providence Hail- road? A. Chief car inspector. Q. How long have you been so? A. I went from the shops in Roxbury the 1st day of February, 1853, to Boston, for the pur] inspecting cars. Q. You have been an inspector since 1853? A. Yes, sir. Q. And chief inspector for what portion of the time? A. Well, perhaps that time. I was put in charge. At that time we bad nol BO many cars nor men as we have now. Q. Prior to 1853 what were you? A. Car builder; building and repairing ears at the shops in Roxbury. Q. For what length of time? A. I went to work for the company the 18th of October, 1847. Q. As a car builder then? A. Yes, sir. Q. What had you done previous to that? A. Carpenterii I served my time at carpentering for four years. Q. Will you describe fully the regulations for the inspection i on the Boston & Providence Railroad, so far, at least, as relates to the cars of the Dedham branch? A. Well, I have two men specially appointed to inspect those cars when they get in, every trip, under my supervision. <». At Boston? A. At Boston. <,>. In the Boston depot? A. In the Boston depot, or their ear- house, or wherever the cars may happen to be placed outside. Q. Do they do it every time? A. Yes, Bir, Q. What is the nature of their inspection ? A. They go round the cars and examine them underneath and outside. Q. What portion of the car do they examine? A. All parts of the running work. I should say three men. I have one man to lo for the glass and what little things may be out of order inside of the car, — seats and ever) thing of that kind. 96 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Now, describe more fully what their method of examination is with regard to the outside of the car. What do the}' do? A. They examine all the wheels, and look to see if they can find any nuts loose, or wheels cracked, bad wheels, or anything of that kind. Q. How do they do that? A. They do that by looking at them. Q. By looking at the wheel? A. Yes, sir. Q. By striking it at all? A. Sometimes they strike it, but that is not an infallible rule for a broken wheel. It is according to the posi- tion of the wheel. If it should have a shoe on it, it won't ring. We don't consider that a safe rule. A wheel should be examined by the e}e, if it can be seen. If it is in a dark place, we have torches made especially for the purpose, with a long handle, which we can put right up to the wheel and see if it is cracked or anything of that kind. Q. How about the axle? A. An axle is something that no man can tell about. It is liable to break in places where it can't be seen. The axle lies inside of a box or housing, and it cannot be seen there. A wheel may be worn out, and it may ring, may be unsound, and still it may ring under the stroke of a hammer. Q. The inspectors examine the wheels, then, onby, do they? A. They examine the wheels and all parts, brakes and brake-guards and everything of the kind. Q. How do they examine the brakes? W r hat are your instructions in regard to that? A. Well, it is to examine them, look at them, see if there is anything loose about them, see if the straps are kept in their places. Q. Have you any written or printed instructions in regard to the examination of cars? A. No particular instructions. Q. Any written or printed instructions, I say ? A. I think I have a letter written by the superintendent, telling me to keep the cars thoroughly inspected ; and I have full power to take any car off of the train that I think is unsafe, and send it to have it repaired, if I cannot do it ni) self, — like wheels being taken out or anything of that kind that is wore off. As far as an axle is concerned, — and by that I mean the whole of the axle, journal and all, — you can't tell anything about it. Q. Well, you can tell about what parts are in sight? A. Yes, sir. Q. What examination do they make of the parts that are in sight? A. If it is where we cannot see it very plainly, we hold this light along there to see if it is perfect. Q. Do you mean by that at every inspection? A. Yes, sir. Q. What are the names of your inspectors who make this inspec- tion? A. Joseph II. Leishman, Thomas Lynch and Charles W. Tol man. Mr. Frank W. Atkinson is the inspector for the inside of the passenger cars. APPENDIX. Q. On these Dedham trains, do they make an insp time a car comes into the depol ? A. i"es, -ir. Q. Do you know what the condition of the >n this train? A. I know they were as good as any oars we have on the road. < v >. Do you know what the cumbers of the cars on thi A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you give me the cumbers, please? A. Th the train was No. 1 ; that was ;t combination and sm there was so. si. 82, 87, 54, 52, 28 and 1^. Q. Is that the order in which they were? A. I n'l Bay. I know that this combination smoker was tin- last car of th.' train coming to Boston. Q. [t would be the first going out? A. Certainly. Q. You are not sure about the arrangement of the othei A. I don't know anything about it. Q. What was the condition of those cars, beginning with tl car. combination No. 1. he lure the accident? A. Well, it wac good order as any car we have got on the road. It was built in the ops in Roxbury. Q. How long ago? A. That I couldn't say; perhaps between fifteen and twenty years -ago. Q. What has been done to it since? A. Well, it was kept in run- ning order. Q. When was it last thoroughly repaired? A. It i> generally taken into the shop once a year lor any repairs, to he painted ami varnished or anything that may want to he done to it. Q. When was this ear last taken into the shop? A. i < v >. You have a record of it. haven't yon.? A \ ■. sir, we have no record of the repairs on it. The records of thos< cept at Roxbury ; it is separate from Boston. Thai - neral repair shop there. By Mr. Kinsley.) A record is kept there, is it? A I say. Mr Putnam. The ear record, whatever it is, will be at tl poeal of the Commission. I think it can be procured at short if the Commission would like it. Q. Have you had any report from your car inspectors that these cars were in any waj defective,at anytime lately f A. N Q. Have you had any record that they were defective in th< ain record of anj defect which has col been cure sir. By Mr. Williams.) When is this train that comes h Dedham at seven o'clock las! examined? v. I think th< in, — I am not certain of the time of the arrival of I 98 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. ton, but I think it is somewhere in the neighborhood of fifteen min- utes past five. The train is examined then, and it goes out again at ten minutes past six. Between that time it is examined last. Q. That is, in the afternoon of the previous da}-? A. The after- noon of the previous day. Q. I understand you that the seven o'clock train from Dedham in the morning is made up of the same, cars that you use at 6.10 in the evening? A. I don't know how it is made up; I don't know any- thing about that. Q. Are they the same cars? A. Saturday night I think they are. I am not certain about the same cars going out at ten minutes past six. Q. Then, how can you answer that this train was last examined the. afternoon previous to the accident? A. We take on two cars Saturday night in addition to the regular cars on the 6.10 train. They are taken from the Providence train, and they are always exam- ined after they come in on that train before the}- are put on the ten minutes past six train. Q. That is by reason of the greater travel to which the cars are put? A. I don't know ; I think it is on account of Sunday trains. Q. Do you know of your own knowledge when the cars that con- stituted that train Monday morning were last examined? A. I stated my own knowledge. Q. Those particular cars? A. Yes, sir. Q. How do you know that they were examined Saturday evening? A. Because I have my men appointed, and see that they do their business. Q. Did you see them examined? A. No, sir; I don't always see them examined. Q. You do not speak, then, of your own knowledge? A. I speak in general. I have supervision of the inspection. Q. Are your assistants here? A. No, sir. Q. No examination is made, as far as you know, between that time and the time when the train comes back to Boston Monday morning? A. I don't know anything about it. Q. Do you know where the cars are kept over Sunday ? A. I do not. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) You don't know whether they are exam- ined at Dedham or not, I suppose? A. No, sir ; I know nothing of that. What I am speaking of is the Boston station. Q. These men whom you employ have nothing else to do but to inspect the cars, have they? A. Nothing but the inspection. Q. That is their entire business? A. That is their entire business, sir. APPENDIX. 99 Q. Are they mechanics? A. They are mechanics, the Bai any inspectors arc; they have to learn the business of insp No matter what trade they learned originally, the} have got to learn that gradually. Q. They are not necessarily taken from the car-sho] sir. Q. You yourself were a trained car builder? a. 'i rs, ^ir. Q. (By the Chairman.) Do you know whether any of those can were used on Sunday? A. I do not. Q. Are there Sunday trains for Bo8ton from Dedham? A. ^ ■ -. sir; there is a Sunday train from Boston to Dedham. Q. From Dedham to Boston? A. The train leaves Boston and goes to Dedham. I am not thoroughly familiar with the running of the trains, we have so many trains. Q. Do your inspectors examine the ears on Sunday- as well as other days? A. Yes, sir: we have a man there on purpose to exam- ine those cars. Q. One man? A. One man. Q. On Sunday? A. On Sunday. He lias plenty of time, and he has to do it thoroughly. Q. Which one is that? A. That is Mr. Tolman. (.,). (By Mr. Williams.) Who are the conductors on the 6.10 train, or who were they last Saturday? A. Well, I am not familiar with all the conductors. Mr. Alden was one of the regular men, ami Mr. Tilden. Q. On thi' 6.10 tram? A. I can't aay going out. All I know i>, that is Mr. Alden's train ; he is the only man I can Testimony of < rEORGE I- . Folsom. Q. (By the Chairman.) V residence? A. Roxbury. Q. Your age ? A. Fifty-six. Q. What is your connection with the Boston & Provideno road? A. 1 have had the care of the bridges for the last twei : uee 1861. <>. What is the title of your office ? A. " Superintendent o Btruction" is put on to my letters. I have the care of the ci work, and so on. for the stations. Q. state fully what your duties ar< . A. I : ok after the b hat they are in a safe c lition, and do anj repairs that are required on the buildings. That i> my general bus Q. Do you have any thing to do except the care ol irid esi \. 1 eneral repairs of buildings. Q. Anything with the road-bed? A. Nothing further than the approaches to bridges. 100 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. As far as they are connected with the bridges? A. As far as the road-bed is connected with the bridges; yes. The trackmen have more or less to do with the track in my absence. I know noth- ing about what they do, frequently, as far as repairing is concerned ; but when there are general repairs of the bridges, it is done under my instruction. Q. The bridges, then, are under your care, are they not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And how often do you examine them? What is your system in regard to performing your duties as superintendent of bridges? A. Every fall and spring I make a general examination of them. Occa- sionally, whenever I am in the vicinity, I generally make an inspection of them, if I have an opportunity. Q. Well, what is the nature of your examination in the fall and spring? A. I examine every part of them as closely and carefully as I know how, and can. Q. State your method, whether you do it alone, what tests you apply, and generally what your method is. A. By sight and sound. Q. Well, explain more fully, Mr. Folsom, please, what your method is. A. Well, I examine every point in the bridge, and see if there is any defect that I can see, and sound any of the connection rods in it to see if they are sound. Q. Do you do it alone? A. I do the principal part of it alone. I go over every point nryself ; but I have others go over with me, and men that assist me. Q. What was the last examination that you made of the Bussey Farm Bridge? A. It was the middle of last month, I believe; I think the 15th, if I recollect right. Q. Describe exactly what you did then, fully. A. I went to the bridge and examined it all over to see if I could see any defect any- wheres about it. There are more or less nuts taken from the bridge by the boys frequently stealing them ; but for the last year or so I don't remember of a nut being taken off from the bridge. Q. Go on, and tell us exactly what you did, please, when you went out there in February and examined the bridge. A. I looked at every point in connection with the bridge as carefully as I could by sight. Q. W T hat points did you look at especially ^examining the bridge? A. All the particular points where the connections are. Q. Well, please explain, from this photograph of the bridge, what points you consider dangerous points and the ones of which you make a careful examination. A. No one in particular; I examine one as well as the other, every part of it, all through, to see that its attach- ments to the abutments are all secure, and see that there is nothing APPENDIX. 101 out of the way in any of the connections in through h< possibly be out of the way. I aever have found one of them out, farther than I'found Bome of these nuts taken off from the end \ I those I have replaced with other nuts at differenl times. ( t. [f you were going out there to examine thai bridge, what would you '1"? A. I generally gel on the bridge and i on t ho base-chord to the south panel bent, from there •■ from the centre to the north panel bent, always on the lower and then. to the foot of the north main post. Then l >verthe same ground, and get on the bridge, and go down inside of thi work, and work my way along, and examine each point ! it, all the way through, and see if lean find any defeel anywheres about it. Q. Going along under the track? A. Working along under the track. I get down inside. There is a net-work tie re, bo that I have to crawl from one post to another: I can't describe it ; the. great many rods in it. Q. Then what do you dor A. Then I go above and examine tin- track . Q. You come back from the north to the 30uth end of the I and crawl through here under the track, and then what do you do? A. 1 get up on to the bridge, wherever I happen to end mj inspection. Q. Then what do you do? A. Thenlexamine thetopof thel to see if the track is in good condition : tie-rods that hold tin- bridge to the abutmi I their con- nections are secure. Then | gel down on the south end of tl erly abutment, and go through towards the south, go from the north to the south, through that truss, examining each rod there. Q. ( By Mr. Putn \m. ) You are speak it tin--? A. Yes. That I did not go through tb< there ; I did not go through that one ; but, if I recollect right, I down below to sec thai the nuts on tie- bottom wen examined the top by Bight, by walking on the track. \ikman.) What else did you do? A. I remember of anything else l>ut making that ■ that way. Q, [g this a bridge of peculiar construction ? A Q. What is its peculiarity ? A. Man pi< Q. Well, explain wherein the pecnliaritiei I combination of trusses ; a main truss thai a Q. Perhaps we had bettei and learn I bridge. You have given us your method of . history of that bridge, whi I 102 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. then how this bridge was built. A. The original bridge that was on the line of the road when the road was built was two wooden Howe trusses, the track being close to one. It was in poor condition, and I recommended that an iron truss be put in the place of it. That truss was built by the National Bridge Compan}- of Boston, from designs submitted by them, and put in place by them. After remain- ing there four or five years, as near as I can remember, the other wooden truss — Q. Which truss was that, — the first one? A. The first, one was on the north side, or west side, as you call it, I believe. Q. The west truss was first replaced by one built by the National Bridge Company of Boston? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then after how many years was there another change made? A. I think it was four or five years ; I don't remember the exact time. The other wooden truss being poor, it was suggested that another iron truss be put in. The first iron truss was designed, I think, for two thousand pounds per lineal foot. It being light, and our engines growing heavier, I suggested that we make a change and have a heavier truss put in the place of it, instead of changing the track on to the easterly side, which would have been necessary. There was only one track over the bridge, but it was wide enough for two tracks originally. The old Howe truss was only designed for one track, but the bridge was wide enough for two tracks. Q. Won't you repeat what you said in regard to this westerly truss, which was the first one put in, that was designed for 2,000 pounds? A. I think it was designed for 2,000 pounds per lineal foot. Q. What was your suggestion ? A. I suggested that we take it out and put it in the position of the remaining wooden truss, and have a truss that would anticipate our wants put in its place ; and that was done. When that matter was decided, I requested the National Bridge folks to submit a plan and a bid for putting in a truss there carrying 3,000 pounds per lineal foot. They did so. I requested Mr. E. H. Hewins, of the Metropolitan Bridge Company, to submit a plan and bid, and he did so. After consultation with the superintendent, it was decided that Mr. Hewins should take the mat- ter in hand, build that one truss and put it in there. He had the truss built, and put it in position, with the help of my men, he super- intending its erection ; and everything was done as he wished. Q. How about the track? Was the track moved at all? A. No ; the track remained the same as it was originally, on the same line of travel. The rail nearest to the main truss was within perhaps a foot of the truss, and the top of the main truss was higher than what the track was ; and to avoid any trouble from the snow-plough striking APPENDIX. 103 it, when we imt the sleepers on, or were going to pnt them on, I bad timbers thick enough lain the iron stringers to for it u\> sufficiently so that the track should come as high :is the top of the top chord. Q. Which truss is the one which whs pot in first? A. I which is on the further side of it. or what you call the i ■ n. That is the oldest truss? A. Yes, Bir; thai - th< truss. Q. I low long ago was that put in? A. This new one wns put in place in June, 1876, and the other one was changed into that p at tlir same time. Q. Well, when was the further one put in originally? A. four or five years before ; I have nol gol the date exactly. (.,). Somewhere aboul 1871 or 1872? A. Yes, Bir; it must have been somewhere about that time. Q. That is a rectangular truss? A. res, sir; that is the Howe truss. Q. That was put in in 1871 or 1872? \. Yes, sir. Q. What do you call this, — an octagonal truss, or what? A. I don't call it anything except Mr. Hewins' truss ; I don't know what to call it. n Mr. Hewins' truss was put in when? A. In June, 1876. o. Have you got the contract that was made in regard to that? A. I have the contract and the diagram, which is all that I ever had about it. 1 think, — all that I find. (The witness produced the contract, which was lead, as folio 19 I George Folsom, Esq., Master Carpenter, Boston A /'< ] > i \ i ; Sir, — li is hereby offered to build and erect on the i nished bj yourself, near Bussej Woods, one iron main I with iron cross bearers and iron 3tringers under tl . be proportioned and ai end of the cross bearers to be attached to tin- mai the iron tin- now- formin of the bridg be placed for one track, but the ceive string rs of econd tr k :it an\ future time; the iroportioned thai a uniformlj 'li-"-: nu tour locomotive drivers shall strain no pounds per square inch, and no •rmula. The material iron, tli.' tension b , for the purpose, and pounds per square inch, with twenty-five percent, the origin J length of the ba 104 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. point of fracture of nol Less than thirty per cent, the clastic limit being about 28,000 pounds per square inch ; and the compression members to be of the best quality of American shapes and plates; the workmanship to be first-class in every respect ; all holes to be bored and bearing surfaces dressed truly normal to the lines of strain, no error of more than -,,',„ of an inch in diameter of pin or hole, nor more than ,,,'„„ foot, in the length of tension or compression members, to be allowed: all screws, threads and nuts to lie cut to lit. and turned smoothly and true, and the bars to have at least equal area under the thread as in the body of the bar. All machine- cut parts to be covered with white lead and tallow, and all other parts with one -oat of the best mineral paint and oil, and before leaving the works, and all to be covered with a second coat of the same paint of such color as may be prescribed after erection. We will build and erect the structure complete in every respect, ready for one track, and ready to receive the stringers of the second track, for the sum of 84,500; or we will furnish the material as above described ready for erection, and deliver to the road at Providence or Boston for the sum of $4,000, and we will furnish superintendence for erection. The above is for a thoroughly iirst-class structure in every respect, including a special brand of iron for all tension members, superior exactness of manufacture, and in strength to be fully up to that specified. The provisions for concentrated loads on the locomo- tive drivers, though adding to the expense, being, a.- we believe an es- pecially valuable requirement. Yours respectfully, Metropolitan Bridge Company. Q. AVhat other paper have you there? A. Simply a diagram. (Diagram shown and explained to the commissioners.) Q. Now, describe such circumstances as you remember iu connec- tion with the making of that contract. A. The first iron truss, the one that was built by the National Bridge Company, was, according to Mr. Hewins' estimate, not up to the standard of what was required in the place. It had been in use for four or five years in that position. But it was sufficient if placed over in the other position, where it would receive only one-quarter of the strain ; and that probably had something to do with Mr. Hewins having this particular job. Q. You estimate the strain upon it as one : quarter? A. Yes, sir; in this position, as it was for the last ten years. Q. How was that a reason for Mr. Hewins having the job? A. Well, I asked two parties to submit bids. Q. What two parties? A. The National Bridge Company and Mr. Hewins, or the Metropolitan Bridge Company, as he called it. I didn't know anything about the company other than his styling it the Met- ropolitan Bridge Company. He was their engineer. He went out there and made his measurements to make his plans for it. While there, I think he took the dimensions of the old truss, and he reported to us that it was not what it ought to be for the position ; and I im- mediately put in extra security in the shape of timber, so that there APPENDIX. 105 Bhoold be do doubt whatever in regard to the safety, until h«' ;_'<>t his new truss done and put in. <). That was put in in L876? A. L876. (). What method did you adopt of testing the strength of it. A. We used two locomotives ; took the tenders from the locon and backed them together, so as to gel all the hefl of the locomotive part as near together as possible, and put them on the bridg< tuck the deflection. Q. And what was the deflection? [f you have any record of the test that you made, please give us all the information that you have in regard t.> it. A. (Referring to memorandum.) The engine was run on to the bridge slowly. The deflectioi b of the north truss at the three main points were as follows: Point l. ,' "fan inch; point 2. T 2 ^ of an inch; point 3, f^ of an inch; avi ["he II. A. Chace and D. L. Davis tenders together were run np slow] the hridge. The deflection of the north tri point 2, y' 6 : points, f^; average. , s ,,. Both machines were run at the usual train rate down over the bridge, and the deflection of the north truss was : Point 1. fa ; point 2.^; point 3, ,',. : average, 8^-1 Gths. Both locomotives together were then run up over the bridge. The south truss deflected an average of- of an inch. engine weighed 74,900 pounds ; tender, 24,230; water, 21.250 6,000 pounds. That is as was given to me by the master mechanic. Q. Each engine the same? A. The same; so little difference that it was probably of no account. Q. (By .Mr. Kinsley.) This was the test made when I was built? A. Yes. sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) Was the test satisfactory to yon \ Yes, sir. Q. Was the method of construction satisfactory ? A. ! it was. My experience with those two trusses was my first exp< in iron bridge erection. Q. Did you find any fault with it at that time? A. 1 b recollection of finding any fault with it. n. Do you remember whether you thought it would be h build a bridge with two trusses of the same character? A. time it was thoughl best, if 1 recollect right, to put another ti the other side ; and cross floor beams were put on with the h I of attaching them to another truss of the same kind on tl Q. At the time it was thoughl besl by whom? A. Well, tl the plan that was made. His design was to put if over there, and in case we accepted this truss as being a good article, I the second track was put on. we should put another truss on the y (south) side, of the Bame kind as the one on tl 106 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. and the cross beams were designed to connect with another truss of that kind on the south side, or east side as 3'ou call it. Q. Did you think at that time of changing the old truss on the east side, without waiting for the double track? A. No, sir; because it was all-sufficient for the purpose, only carrying one-quarter of the load. Q. Now, what tests have you made of the bridge since the original tests, and what faults have you discovered in it since then ? A. I have made no tests other than watching its operation. Q. No test at all? A. I don't remember of making any test. Q. Since the original test? A. No. Q. You have never tested the deflection by a train going over it? A. No. I may possibly, but I have no recollection of it now. I have no record of it that I know of. Q. What has been the nature of the repairs that have been required on that bridge? A. Very little, indeed. I don't remember of any particular repairs, further than there may have been a few sleepers replaced with new ones. I don't remember of even replacing a sleeper on the bridge. We put steel rails on the biidge 60 feet long, I think, so as to have as few joints as possible. That is the plan which we have adopted on other bridges. Q. The bridge was 100 feet long. AVhere were the 60-feet rails united? A. I think they were united somewheres near the middle. Q. That is, they extended over on each side about ten feet? A. Well, the actual opening at the top of the bridge is some over 104 feet, according to the batter of the wall ; and the position that the truss sets in, it may be 115 feet, or such matter ; so that we had the two rails extended on to the embankment at each end, and the joints were on the earth. Q. Did you ever find any portion of either truss cracked? A. You mean the old truss and the new ? Q. Yes ; either of the two main trusses. A. I don't remember of seeing any part of them defective. Q. Did you ever discover any traces of cracks in any portion of the iron work of the bridge? A. I don't remember of seeing any crack in any part. 'Q. You never repaired any portion of the bridge? A. Not that I have any recollection of whatever. I should probably have recol- lected it if I had, but I can't bring to mind any occasion when 1 have had any occasion to repair it, further than to put on some of the nuts where the boys had stolen them off. Q. Are boys in the habit of climbing over the bridge? A. Yes; climb through it like spiders. APPENDIX. 107 ( ). Since 1876 you have learned more in regard to iron you knew then? A. i r es, sir, I suppose s<> : ougl I Q. What faults have you detected in 1 e consti those trusses of the bridge? \. 1 have never detected anj i although I should not build another bridge of that kind, should have a bridge made of fewer pit i Q. In what respect fewer pieces? A. Well, in every particular, vou might say. The bridges of to-day are made with links, without screws on the ends of the main connections, and bitched together with pins sliding through the eye of the link. Q. Have you never found any fault with that bridge, or reported any anxiety in regard to it? A. Never that I have any recollection. I don't know why I should; I don't remember of any occasion. 1 have always considered the bridge as thoroughly substantial. I ki was designed to meet all the necessities of the Q. Did you ever have any anxiety as to any portion of the bridge that is covered up and you could not examine? A. No; I believed the bridge to he thoroughly made in every particular; I had not a doubt about it. Every part that shows or - I have exam- ined repeatedly. I have no recollection of seeing any part fail, with the exception of one little counter; the nut was Btripped, probably when the bridge was set up. It didn't amount to much of anything, it was a sleeve nut. Q. t)u :l counter-rod? A. Yes, a little counter-rod : it was in the middle of one of the small trusses that held up the track - By Mr. Stevens.) You mean that the thread was strip] ■ of the nut? A. Stripped off of the nut ; yes, <>. (By the Chairman.) How Ion- was that after the trot erected? A. I can't tell you ; it had been a examined it closely, and watched the operation to see if th< any real necessity for repairing it. There was a difficulty in making any change. The whole structure was woven together in that it was difficult, in case there was any failure, part and replace it with another. In this particular ci small rod about the size of your fing< r. I suppoa for assistance in putting the work together than supposed at that time that it was a litl work together, because 1 know thai the} ha get everything together and g< 3nug, trig piece of WO the :iu-. Q. Was it repaired ? A. No; I watc ed to change in the motion ly the it did not appear to amount to anything, and I 108 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. to take it out, because I did not consider it really necessary or essen- tial. That is the only thing about the whole structure that has shown j a sign of failure. Q. Is this truss wrought iron or cast iron? A. The truss is of wrought iron, except the end blocks, where the main top chord unites] with the leaning post there and the piece that it sets on down ,j there. Q. That and that? (Indicating.) A. Yes; on those points. I And there is a casting where the main links of the base chord unite, where the pin goes through ; that is cast iron. Q. Please show that to us. A. (Referring to photograph.) There is a little casting there at the panel bent. That is simply to steady the ends of these main links that form the base chord through here. J That is a casting there that forms the sides of the bridge, and one there is cast iron. That is a cast iron I block in there, and one there I also ; and some of these members in here, little small members, are cast iron. It is not essential that the}' should be wrought iron. I believe that is all there are. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Is it not essential that that I block should have been wrought iron? A. No ; cast iron, I think, is just as good for it, made solid as it was. It was solid enough without any shadow of doubt. Q. (By the Chairman.) Won't you describe that ca ting, and what duty it performs (referring to the block between the top chord and the leaning post at the north end) ? A. It takes the thrust of the end post of the top chord. Q. You have seen that since? A. I saw it on the ground after the accident. I was there on Mouda}* and saw it lying there. Q. What was its condition? A. It was perfect as far as I could see, with one exception. It had received a most terrific blow, break- ing off four or five inches of cast iron .from it. That appeared to be from a blow which was received above the top chord. The casting extended a little above the top chord, perhaps three-quarters of an inch, possibly, anil was rounded off similar to the end of my thumb ; but it had received a shock in the direction of the train, that had broken awaj' more or less of the casting. Q. What other duty did the block have to do? A. It had a pin through it that held this main link that supported the middle of the bridge. It kept that link in position on that pin. Inside was a stirrup, made, I think, of inch and a half square iron, looped down to take the end of the floor-beam running across, the other end of which rested upon the abutment. Q. Now, describe those hangers more fully. A. It was a loop, if I recollect right, of inch and a half iron (I did not measure it, only APPENDIX. 109 by my eye), that had two eyes formed at the end of it, that this pin went through. The lower pari of il formed a li Q. Could you draw it? (The witness roadi Q. Was that a righl angle at the I think it was turned with a small curve. The banging stirm was about an inch and a half square, I think. 1 this compression beam I think there was something like ten inches bet* • that chord plank laid down between the t<>[> chord and the ti: Q. The chord plank, then, virtually re« top chord? A. Well, it was up close to it : must have been. Q. l»o you believe that the ties of a bridge should be as those ties were? A. We put all our ties at present only four Inches apart. Wherever we renew anything we i pletely floor the bridge, you might say. The bridge that we are building at pi or having built in Dedbam, we intend to put them i Q i r.\ Mr. Stevens.) How close? A. Tiny are put in four inches apart out of the road, ordinarily. All my later hri'L built in that shape. c v >. (By Mr. Putnam.) You mean four inches apart whei say close together? A. I say those at Dedham we intend to put close together. < v >. That is, closer than four inches? A. In contacl wit other. Outside of the road we put them four inches apart, to «dlow snow and matter that might lie on them to go through out of tin way. It makes almost a complete floor, sufficient for the wheels to ru safely and easily in case of derailment. Q. (By Mr. Stevens.) [f you had had occasion to renew this bridge would that have been your plan? A Y. -. Bir. B Mr. Kinsley.) I understand that you would nol put on a guard rail? A. 1 have a feeling in rails, that there a ly, where they ha damage, if not more, than would have been done if they had no there. Bringing the guard rails to a point between I of derailment the wheels might hit along the side there, and m derailment much worse than it would be if the guard there. ( ). Have you ever known thai I i '■ I ,ccur; that is a supposition, that is a feeling ! regard to it, and therefo I I '«> puttin in such shape. Q. Have you ever known a train to A. I never have, except in I ■ we had a plank on the side, and the flai that plank and went acn lone. The train was moving slowly at the t Q. i By Mr. mi m ns. [f you had guard them at the ends? A. I and at the large bridg< we have put in at I A- I 112 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. bridge we put a parapet, high enough and supposed to be strong enough. to hold in case of derailment. It is only about a foot from the wheel of the car, so that in case of derailment the car would come up against this iron work, to still keep it on the bridge, so that it could not go off. The Canton Viaduct is only a little wider than the tracks, and we put iron beams across them, making a fence of iron on each side, you might say, — a strong structure, — to guide the cars along and keep them in position. Those are flared at each end, so that in case of derailment before they get to the bridge it should guide them on to the bridge. Q. (By the Chairman.) What is the distance apart of the two trusses from centre to centre? A. I don't recollect. Q. Well, about how much? A. They must be not far from twenty feet from centre to centre ; may be eighteen onl}\ Q. How near is the west rail stringer to the west truss? A. 1 think the track is only ten inches, and that is over the centre of the stringer ; I think it is about ten inches from the side of the chord to the rail. The rail is placed over the centre with the stringer under it. Q. Are the embankments on either side for single or double track? A. The road was built originally for a double track. The embank- ment where a single track would come in is somewhat lower ; never was filled up, because it was never used. It may be two feet or such a matter below the level of the road-bed where the track is. Q. Is that on both ends of the bridge? A. The same on both ends. Q. Then }'OU had approaches wide enough for two tracks with a single track on one side of it? A. That is true. Q. Would it have been better, in your opinion, to have put that single track nearer the middle of the bridge ? A. No, sir. Q. You think there is no difficulty in having a bridge of that sort with trains always going on one side of it? A. Well, it is only a two-truss bridge ; the trusses were far apart enough for the two tracks. Of course it would be better to locate the tracks as closely as you could to the trusses on each side. Q. You think it is better in a bridge with two trusses wide enough apart for two tracks, if you are going to put only one track on, to put it as near as possible to the one truss? A. Yes; that truss is de- signed to carry the load, and the nearer you keep to it the better it will be. Q. Was any complaint ever made to you in regard to this bridge? A. I don't remember of an}- complaint of any consequence, further than perhaps somebody walking over it saying that it was not safe to walk over it. Q. For fear'they would fall down through? A. Yes ; for fear they APPENDIX. 113 would fall over it. That would be outside parties. I particular case in which any one connected with the road b found a word of fault. I have repeatedly asked in i to it, fthev felt anything out of the way in it. and I have nevei ! from first to last but that it was perfect. Q. Now. recall more carefully about the engineers. Did any of the engineers ever complain to you, or make any statement t.. you in regard to that bridge, that they found any fault with it whal A. I don't remember of any occasion. One circumstan me now: I think it was that some one driving under the bridg that Mime part of the bridge was out of order. Be reported it to the superintendent ; he sent me word, and I went immediately to the bridge and examined it thoroughly. And soon after a train arrived from Boston, and I sat down close by the side of the track, m< the engineer to come on to it, and I watched the deflection. ! not see a particle, and I think he told me he felt nothing whatever out of the way. It was simply an outsider that had no Interest what- ever in regard to the bridge; I don't know who it was. He simply reported it to the superintendent, and of course it was my bnsi go and see. I found nothing out of the way in the bridge in any par- ticular. Q. How long ago was that? A. I don't know; it may be eight years ago. Q. Since that time no passenger and none of the engineers have reported anything out of the way? A. I have no recollection of any one ever saying anything to me about it; I have not the leasl lection of it. It is not impossible that they might hav< thing about it, but I have no recollection of ever hearing an;. plaint. Q. About any jar of the bridge or anything of thai Bort? \ I don't remember of hearing anything of that kind. Q. Do you give instructions in regard to tl \er the bridges? A. No, sir; I consulted with the superintendent, and it was decided that the engineer-, should have orders to run their train- Blow over that particular bridge. I don't know that t : ever been countermanded. Q. What was the late of speed? A. I think it wa~ ten or twelve miles an hour ; I don't remember. Q. Did you suppose that trains were being run over il rate of speed? A. I have noticed them frequently in passiu the bridge; I don't think they run any faster than that. I thi more frequent that they run less than twelve miles an ho do over twelve. 114 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Did 3-ou suppose the bridge was safe for twenty miles an hour? A. I should not be afraid to ride over it at fifty miles an hour. Q. Would the curve of the track before coming on the bridge, especially in coming from Roslindale, make any difference? A. No, sir. There was a straight line over the bridge, and fifty feet each side of it. It was put in in that shape so that there should be no effect from the curve on the bridge. Q. Would the cars get over the swinging motion from that curve by the time they got on to the bridge? A. It was supposed they might, and the fifty feet on each side was allowed, because that was the length of the car. Q. In your judgment, would they? A. I don't know why they should not. Running at the rate of speed they run there, the swing could not amount to much, anyhow, at that point. Q. That is what is called a skew bridge, is it not? A. I should say it was. Q. That is, it crosses the street diagonally? A. Yes, sir; at a very sharp angle. Q. And that is a more difficult bridge to build, and a more danger- ous bridge, than a bridge at right angles? A. I don't know as it is necessarily. Q. It is more difficult to build? A. Not particularly. Q. It is not more difficult to build? A. I don't see that it is. Instead of long cross-beams to go across the entire truss, they simply land on the abutment. In some ways it is better than it would be if at right angles, as far as that matter is concerned. Q. Taking all the considerations together, is it more difficult to build a skew bridge than a bridge at right angles? A. I don't know as it is. The main trusses are the same in both cases ; it is merely the attachments to the- cross-beams. In one case part of the cross- beams are attached to the abutments, and in the other case, that of a right-angle bridge, they would simply be attached to the other truss. Q. Is there any peculiar strain that comes on a bridge of this sort? A. Only at the end of the bridge. The heft of the engine strikes one side of the rail on the track of the bridge before it does the other. It never rides as well. We can never make a bridge that will ride as well on a skew as we can at right angles, where it is possible to have a right-angle bridge. [ Q. Have you any other bridges on the road that are as much skew bridges as this? A. We have but very few bridges on the road now. They are most all built up with masonry. There is one bridge at Central Fails ; one at India Point, Providence, and one at Rumford. That was a bridge nearly four hundred feet long. It was recon- structed three or four 3 ears ago, and shortened up to two hundred APPENDIX. US feet for the open bridge, and masonry arches pat in at each end. That is all right-angle work. The Dedham bridge wo are now chang- ing is on an angle, but not so 'is is, Q. Did you ever have any peculiar anxiety about this bridge more than about other bridges? A. I don't know that 1 have ; do, bit. I considered it perfectly safe in every way. Knowing that the line of the track was straight for a piece at each end of the bridge, and the rate of speed going over it, it did not seem to me that there should be any occasion for any anxiety in regard to it. I don't know that I should have any anxiety about that bridge anyway ; I don't know why I shonld, because I considered it thorough and substantial in particular. Q. Did any passengers ever express any anxiety to you. or to any officers of the corporation which was reported to you, in regard to that bridge? A. I don't think that they have. It has been n to me that people have said that that bridge was not safe down there ; but I don't know who made the remark or anything about it. Q. How did that come about? A. Well, some our happened, — in talking about one matter and another, that bridg >me up, and I recollect of hearing some people Bay — but I considered they were only those who were walking over it — that they did not con- sider it safe ; the same passengers probably that have ma remark I have heard outside, — floating criticism. That i> all I know about it, — the same as some people say now that they never ered it safe, and yet rode over it every day. I don't know any par- ticular case. Q. What reports of that sort have come to you? A. Nothing further than just a casual remark, you might - Q. Did they report any swing of the cars on the bridge, or any- thing of that sort? A. 1 don't remember of hearing of anything uf that kind. Q. Or any jar? A. I don't remember of hearing of anything of that kind. Q. How were the compression members in the top chord of the vertical posts, etc., attached to their castings? A. I eted on to the inside of the chord member, and extended into the casting. What we call a "lug" is a piece of iron list led on. — ears that stick out on the end to project into tl Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Yourcontn [uality of iron in the construction of this bridge. Did your suggestion, examine into the iron, or did you lea 1 Hewins? A. I left it to Mr. Hewins. [supposed that proper structure to put there. A- I - , that was :.. in anything of that kind. 116 BUSSEY BEIDGE DISASTER. Q. Now, in building a new bridge at this point, should you recom- mend a new iron bridge, or would you change the highway a little and put up a stone arch? A. I should change the highway and put up an arch, decidedly. We adopted that plan years ago. We had a bridge at Dodgeville which was over two hundred feet long ; we took that away and put in two brick arches and filled up. That has been the policy of the road, — to do away with everything of that kind that was possible, and make solid, substantial work. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Mr. Folsom, if I understood you right, for twenty-five years you have regarded yourself responsible for the safe condition of the bridges of the Boston & Providence Railroad ? A. Well, you can put that as } T ou please. I was appointed to that place, and that work was put into my hands to attend to it, and I have attended to it to the best of my ability. Q. I understood that you were the sole person to take charge of this business? A. Yes, sir. Q. That has been for twenty-five years, since 1861 ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Previous to that time what had been your experience in me- chanics? A. I was ten years in the machine shop, under the direc- tion of Master Mechanic Mr. George S. Griggs. Q. The machine shop of the Providence Railroad? A. Yes, sir. Q. Previous to that time what had been your experience ? A. I worked in a shop, and served my apprenticeship in a machine shop and pattern maker's. Q. And at what age did you begin that? A. Seventeen. Q. Up to 1861 had you had any practical experience whatever in the construction of bridges? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know where Mr. Hewins is now, the gentleman who built this truss? A. Yes, sir ; he is here in this room. Q. Did you have charge of the making of this contract for the building of the bridge in 1876? A. I simply attended to the matter, and then in consultation with the superintendent of the road it was decided what we should do. Q. Who drew the specifications? A. Mr. Hewins, I suppose. His name is signed to them. Q. Did you have charge of the specifications and supervise that part of the business ? A. I had them left with me. Q. And the whole contract was in your hands to complete with Mr. Hewins, in consultation with your brother? A. Not my brother. Q. What relation is Mr. Folsom, the superintendent, to you? A. He may be a very distant relation, with eight or ten generations be- tween ; that is all. Q. He isn't related toj'ou? A. We both started from the same branch. APPENDIX. 117 Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) You were n mt of the relationship? A. Not at all. He was a Btra when I met him on the road. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) At that time did yon submit tin tract or specifications to any engineer? \. \ . b!t. Q. Or practical bridge builder? A. The 01 Bridge Company figured on the same thing. Q. That was in 1871 ? A. No,— on this particular brl Q. And to no one else, no one representing your railroad? A. I don't remember doing it. Q. When the test was made which you witnessed roursel was present? A. Mr. Hewina and two or throe of my men. Q. No bridge engineer? A. I don't remember of any one being there. It seems to me the superintendent was there, and Mr. B aids, the master mechanic. Q. Since that time, as far as you know, has any brii_ examined that bridge? A. I don't know as there has, <>. How many times has your attention been called to the feeling of the community about the safety of that bridge? A. I don't know- that it was ever called particularly. Q. Are you not aware that there has been ', of timidity in the minds of people who travel on the branch in regard to the safety of that bridge? A. No. As I say. 1 have beard casual re- marks now and then from some people travelling on foot over the road that it was not a safe bridge ; but it was simply from walking over it, as I understood it. Q. Have you been informed more than once of nuts falling from that bridge? A. I don't remember whether I have more thai or not, — once certainly ; not falling from the bridge, bnt that they were off of the bridge. I have found some of them partly turn< the boys could not get them completely off, where they nsed I I piece of stone and bruised them up in trying to get the Bnt they did not amount to much more than ornaments of the b that was all you could say about them or the effect of them. Q. In inspecting the bridge, as you Bay you have done. able to get under the iloor beams, so as to inspect the condition of the beams and the hangers upon which the floor bean pended? A. No; I have aever looked at that partlculai particularly, because it was all completely bidden In there <>. What inspection of the north side, or tb called it here, of the bridge did you actually make in February? A. I have Btated it. Mr. Williams. I and course. 118 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. The Chairman. No ; he described exactly what he did in February; Mr. Williams. That was the question, but I understood him to state in his answer what he usually did. Q. (By the Chairman. ) Was what 3-011 described what 3'ou did in February ? A.I crawled down under the work and looked the thing over. Q. One moment. You described, a little while ago, an examina- tion of the west truss of the bridge. Was that a description of what you did at the last examination, or was it a description of what you generally do? A. That was what I did at the last examination, and what I generally do. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) What part of the hangers on which the floor timbers were suspended was exposed to view ; any part? A. A very small part of them, as I remember it. Q. How much? A. Well, there couldn't have been but very little, because there was a casting there that steadied the post that was under the hanger. Q. The casting on top of the post that ran down to the post chord, — how deep was that casting? A. I don't remember ; ma}* be three or four inches, something like that. I don't remember now just the shape of it. Q. Was there not a casting at the bottom which concealed the lower part of the hanger? A. Well, it was the casting that was on top ot the post that came under that point. Q. In answer to the question of the Chairman respecting the rivet- ing of the post to the compression chord, did I understand you to say that there was any riveting to connect the chord and the joint. A. Lugs. Q. You do not call those rivets, do you? Those were simply to keep the chord in the socket, were they not? A. Yes ; but they were riveted to the main part, I remember. Q. Were they riveted to a joint? A. Not to a joint; they were riveted to the wrought-iron part of the structure, and inserted into the cast-iron part to keep it in place and steady it. Q. So there was nothing to hold the compression chord in place in that casting except pressure ? A. Except pressure. Q. Now, is it not true that in case of lateral pressure enough to drive the truss out, there was nothing to hold either the post or the compression chord in its socket in the joint? A. Only those ears. Q. That wouldn't be sufficient in case of a hard blow on the side of the truss, would it? A. The bridge would be destroyed, I think, before they could be moved. Q. Would not that be the first thing that would occur, the driving of the post and the compression chord out of that joint ? A. Not APPENDIX. 119 unless there was something bearing against some of the other members to hold them in position, allowing that to be pushed out. There is nothing that I can conceive of that would hohl them in position and allow it to be pushed out. Q. Where was that scar which you have Bpoken of indicat blow? A. It was on top of that joint block. Q. And on the inside? A. On the inside. Q. That broke that casting, did it? A. It broke a piece the casting, slivered a piece off of several inches. Q. Have you inspected the hanger which was suspended from the pin in that joint? A. Only as it lay there in ruins. I was there a short time Monday. I was busy about other matters and I simply saw it lying there. Of course I expected it would be here for inspec- tion, and gave it no further thought. I have given very little attention to it, because I have been almost sick in my bed for the last fen weeks ; I have been quite ill. Q. Did you inspect the ends of the broken section at that A. Only as I passed along. I looked at it casually, did Dot examine it closely, as I intended to look at it more closely, but have not been able to be there since. Q. How long is it since freight trains have been run over that West Roxbury branch? A. You ask me too much. Q. How many years, do you think? A. Well, it may be thirty years, or something of that kind, I think. Q. Do you know why it is that freight trains do not run over that branch? A. I believe there is no occasion to, and we want to use the branch for passenger trains. Q. You have freight from Roslindale, do you not? A. I don'1 know of any ; there is no side track there. Q. You have a side track at Spring Street, running down to the river, and get ice and gravel from there? A. Yes, sir. Q. How is that freight taken over the road? A. It is carried to Dedham. Q. Taken to Dedham, and then it goes over the Readvillc branch? A. Yes, sir. Q. How much further is that than it would be to go over the Weal Roxbury branch from that point? A. It depends upon where it wants to go and the convenience of the time between trains to get the material round. Q. Has any freight train, as far as you know, run over thai in the last twelve or fifteen years? A. Nothing that 1 kno* the last thirty years. Q. Do you know of any reason for it? A. No; I don't know of any reason further than for convenience. 120 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Has it been by }'our advice ? A. No, sir. Q. Or at your suggestion ? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever heard any explanation of it? A. No, sir; if the bridge would carry a locomotive, it would carry almost any freight train, so that it is a small matter to be considered. Q. Do you know the weight of a car full of passengers? A. I do not ; I never have made an estimate of it. I don't know that I ever heard it estimated. Q. (By Mr. Achorn.) Whether or not the test which you made of the bridge showed that the two trusses bore their proportional weight equally, or whether one was weaker than the other? A. I don't know how I could put it. I simply know that the east truss was a light one, not designed to carry so much of a load as the west one ; but I never made any calculation in regard to it. The test was made of the north truss ; we never did anything about the other one, only what little weight was transmitted through the floor beams over on to that. Q. Were the two engines in the position on the bridge that trains are when they pass over? A. Yes, sir. Q. At that time when one of the trusses deflected more than the other under the strain? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did not that show a weakness? A. No, sir. Q. I would like to inquire, for it has not been brought out, how the bridge was attached to its foundation, how it was secured? A. It was set on the stone and I think pinned with pins, — simply set down to keep the bridge in place. Its own heft holds it there ordinarily, with ju«,t pins set in the stone work, set in brimstone. That is our usual way of setting those things. Q. Do you know what the size of those pins was, or anything about it? A. I don't remember. The Chairman. Mr. Hewins, I suppose, can give the best infor- mation in regard to that. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) You say that the nuts that were removed by the boys in no instance affected the strength of the bridge? A. Not one particle. Q. (By the Chairman.) You were out there on the morning of the accident? A. I was there a few minutes after the accident. I started out immediately to get material together for a temporary structure ; but, as I say, for the last week or two I have been ill ami have been at home. I haven't been able to attend here, and have not been out there since, only a little while in the afternoon. Q. Did you make any examination at that time? A. I only made a casual one. 'I supposed that I should get a better chance when they APPENDIX. I2J got some of the wreckage out of the way. I haven't been able to be there since. Q. You saw this block? A. [ saw that block there that afternoon, ami Bpoke to a gentleman about it who was looking over tin- matter. 1 -aw the hangers in connection with the block at that time. Q. Anything else? A. [ don't remember of seeing any thii of any consequence at all, or that would be of any note at all. Q. Did you see anything there that gave you any idea as to what the cause of the accident was? A. Nothing, only as I formed an opinion in my own mind. When 1 went ap to the wreck I noticed that the locomotive and three ears had gon< those cars had separated and were terribly injured : and yel they had gone over on to the abutment where it was on the earth. And I aaw the superintendent just then, and I told him it wa- not the failure of the bridge that let this train down, — " there i- proof positive." And. says I. "It would be well for as to have photographs taken of the thing as it is, wouldn't it?" He said, •• Yes, have it done." And I sent a man immediately to get a photographer, who took these pictures. And in thinking and studying the matter over, I can't Bee an. way than derailment, from some cause, I can't say what, that canted the destruction of the bridge. It was evidently the falling of the cars over that carried the bridge with them. Q. You say the engine and three cars got over the bridge ; and when do you think the trucks of the three cars were drawn from under them? A. That is more than I can till you, but it Btruck me very forcibly, from the fact that those three ears were over there with the engine, that the bridge had not given way until somethii had caused it after those three car- bad passed. It must be, from the position in which the cars were in the wreck below, that they pulled the bridge over with them, — from just a casual observation. A- I said, I Stopped tin re only a few moments. Q. Do you think that those trucks u , ,v drawn out of place on the bridge? A. I think it must have been somewhere near the end of the bridge. Q. Was it not exactly at the end of the bridge? A. ' how that was. but from the construction of the bridge, the Btringen running up to the abutn ' ■<•} do there, certainly it co have been a breakage when those were under the bridge there. The engineer Btated that he felt a shock after his i ;ht up, but I think that must have been when the breaking apart of I place. Q. Supp.sin_r that the hangers supporting that cr. .-s-b m; that cross-beam down, whal would it have rested open f I part here would have borne part of the ttirust, it would ha\ 122 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. what it could stand, and consequently those stringers would simply have gone down like that (suddenly) , and let everything go down with the bridge. The ends of the stringers rested on the flooring, and if that hanger that supports that had given out entirely, there is nothing there to prevent dropping that down perpendicularly, except a small post that is under it. Recess until two o'clock. AFTERNOON SESSION. Testimony of Edmund H, Hewins. Q. (By the Chairman.) Your residence? A. 625 Tremont Street, Boston. Q. What is your age? A. Forty-one. Q. You were the builder of this bridge? A. A portion of it. Q. Please describe, as fully as y< u can, your whole connection with it, in your own words? A. It is so long ago that I don't know whether I can remember all that you would like to hear, but the con- tract required me to build a truss to be placed upon the westerly side of the bridge. Q. That is the side nearest Boston ? A. The side nearest Boston ; replacing an iron truss which had been there for some years, which truss w r as to be placed upon the east side of the bridge, and I was to furnish the floor system. That was done in the spring or early summer of 1876. Q. Go on and describe more in detail what you did. Were you doing business for yourself, or were you representing a company? A. I was in business for myself. Q. How about the Metropolitan Company? A. It was my inten- tion at that time to organize a bridge compan}*, and I commenced under that name by myself, until such time as the organization should be made, which was never consummated. Q. Go on and tell us about the bridge ; where the work was done, how it was done, the character of the bridge, the nature of its con- struction, etc. Perhaps you had better begin, and state, in the first place, your experience as a bridge builder. A. My first experience in building iron bridges was with the Detroit Bridge & Iron Works, Detroit, Michigan. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) What j-ear? A. I think it was 1863; and my experience has been from then until — lam not sure this APPENDIX. bridge wasn't the last that I built. Since then I have acted oc< ally as consulting engineer. Q. (By the Chairman.) Did you have a scientific edoi A. Yes, sir; at the Lawrence Scientific School, at Cain!' Q. Full course? A. No, sir ; partial. Q. What was your course, then? A. I was tin I r only. Q. What year was that? A. I am not sine, hut I think it was 18G2-1863. From there I went to Detroit. Q. How long were 3-011 with the Detroit Bridge 0, pany? A. Well, I don't recollect ; but several years. Q. What were you doing there? A. I designed their bridges, proportioned them, and I made some portions of the dra* Q. Did you do that all the time that you were there? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember any bridges that you designed at that time? A. Well, there was one drawbridge across the Mississippi I where the C. B. & Q. Railroad crosses, — Clinton on one Bide aid Fulton on the other. Q. How long did that stand? A. It is standing now, I suppose. That was at the time the longest drawbridge, I think, in the world. Some have been built longer since. There were a great many on the Illinois Central and the C. B. & Q., and other roads through the Western States. Q. Did you build any bridges in Massachusetts when you were with the Detroit Bridge & Iron "Works? A. No, sir. Q. Then you left the Detroit Bridge & Eron Woik^ at what time? A. I don't recollect the date. Q. You were there about three years, yon say? A. I - but I don't recollect just how many it was ; I could not tell even ap- proximately. Q. What did you do after you left there? A. M\ that after I left there I went South for one winter, and then :« North, and afterwards was employed by the Moseley Iron Building Works for some time, and after that by the N pany. Q. How long with each? A. I could not tell fro < v >. In what capacity were you with those two oompanii sf \. A- engineer. Q. Then what did you do? A. Then, after that I bulll work on my own account; at hast, until the tin. constructed. Q. You mean that you built bridges OU your own m A. Yes, sir. 124 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Were an}' of those in Massachusetts ? A. I think not ; I don't recollect one in Massachusetts. Q. How man}' do you think you built before you built this one? A. I could not tell. My business was building bridges and roofs, which were of a similar nature. Q. Do you think you built half a dozen or a dozen bridges? A. Well, I should not think it was more than half a dozen. Q. Was it as many as half a dozen ? A. I think there must have been somewhere in that neighborhood. Q. Now, coming down to this bridge, give us as full a description of that as you can : where you had the work done, how it was done, and the design of the bridge and the method of construction? A. The main ties, the main tension ties of the bridge, were furnished by the Phoenix Iron Works. The balance of the material of the bridge was furnished by, and the work done in, the shops of the Tren- ton Iron Company. Q. Why was part of it made in one place and part in another? A. The main tension bars — Q. Is that the lower chord ? A. The lower chord constitutes a part of it. Q. What do constitute the tension bars? A. The lower chord and the main ties ; not only of the main truss of the bridge, but of the trusses of the floor beams and the stringers or stringer truss. Q. Those were made at the Phoenix Iron Works? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where are they? A. Phamixville, Pa. Those eyes are forged by a hydraulic press. Q. What was the reason that you got them made there ? A. The Trenton Iron Works had no facilities for doing that work. Q. And you sent those to the Phoenix Iron Works for that pur- pose, — because you thought eyes forged in that way were better. A. Yes. Q. Then the rest was made by the Trenton Iron Company, from designs drawn by you? A. Yes. sir. Q. Now, will you describe the method of construction and its pe- culiarities, if any ? A. Well, every bridge, almost, has peculiarities of its own. This bridge has a very sharp skew. If I remember cor- rectly, an angle of twenty-one degrees. The centre of the truss on one side is exactly opposite the end of the truss on the other side. The theoretical length of the span was 104 feet ; the theoretical depth of the truss twenty-six feet, divided into four panels at each point, a floor-beam truss extending across the bridge, at right angles ; the other ends of the floor-beam trusses resting on the opposite truss or on the abutment ; upon the floor-beam trusses were the stringer trusses, each of which was directly under one of the rails. The APPENDIX. 185 bridge was proportioned to carry an evenly distributed k»ad of pounds per lineal foot of track, and a concentrated load of I that your bid happened to be taken? A. I did not have any relations with them. I was asked to make them a proposal. I did not know of their issuing invitations for proposals; I was asked verbally to make a proposal. Q. Who asked you? A. The superintendent. Q. Mr. A. A. Folsom? A. That is my recollection. It might have been Mr. George Folsom. bnt my recollection is that it wi - m A. A. Folsom, and I made a proposal and was awarded the contract t). Did you know Mr. A. A. Folsom before that? A. Q. You drew the plan and specifications? A. Yet Q. It was put entirely into your hands? A. Well, it is not fair to say that I was the sole author of the specifications. They were mad.' by consultation, of course. <,'• Consultation with whom? A. I presume principally with Mr. George Folsom. Q. Well, how did you do it? You drew a plan and took it to him for his approval ; he criticised it and then you adopted some of his Ideas, — is that it? A. The first thing would be to determine the specifications, undoubtedly, although I cannot recall the circumstances at the time ; the amount of load to be provided for, the >train t<> l>e allowed upon the iron, were matters of consultation and agreement, and whoever else bid upon the joh Undoubtedly had the same consul- tation, and when they had agreed a- to what the specifications Bhoold he then it was put in our proposals. Q. How do you suppose you happened to get the contract? !'•• Cause you were cheaper than any one else? A. I don't know. Q. Your relations with Mr. A. A. Folsom were nol so < I"-- that he would naturally hi' in your favor, WOUld h- : A i >. s,, that you drew the plan of this peculiar bridge and submit- ted it to them, and thej adopted it after consultation with M r. G Folsom, and you put it up. It was not tested during construction and only tested when it was finished. Am I Btra ght in that meiit ? A. That is right. q. (Bj the Chairman.) Mr. Qewins, what was the reason that 130 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. the centre of the shaft going through here did not come under the centre of the main bar? What is the reason that the centres of sup- port are not under each other? A. That I do not know. I cannot recall why they were put so. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Could you not recall by referring to your papers? You have got a memorandum of the whole contract, I take it, have you not? A. Oh, yes. Q. Would they have been stronger if the centres of support had been under each other? A. Undoubtedly. Q. Was that an element of weakness in them as compared with what they would have been if placed centrally? A. Of course it is an element of weakness. In the sense in which perhaps you mean to use it, no. Q. Could that element of weakness have been compensated for by stouter iron? A. By stouter iron than would have been required had they been in a straight line, which I assume to have been the case, although I do not recall it now. Q. How do you estimate the strength of one of these? Are there regular formulas for it ? A. Well, the sizes. This bar in its middle, or between the two eyes, is in direct tension. Of course the strength of the bar within those limits it is perfectly easy to get. Its strength in the eye of either form is a question of experiment. I have tried them in testing machines perhaps hundreds of times. I don't know how many. Q. Have you ever tried exactly these eyes? A. I don't know about exactly those eyes. Q. How did you arrive at the proper strength of those? A. By experiments which I had made before with testing machines. I don't recollect what the rule was now, but it was adding, I suppose, some percentage to what it would otherwise be. Q. Is that a fresh break or old break on that hanger? A. I can- not tell. Monday, when I examined it at the bridge, this was inside its casting and I did not then know that there was any crack in it, and whether the rust which is now there has come there since the disaster or before I cannot tell. Q. Is that where it was welded on? A. That is across the weld. Q. Do you consider that a perfect weld? A. These do not seem to be welded down into the neck of the eye thoroughly. At any rate, they have opened slightly where the weld was. both of them. Beyond it seems to be united thoroughly. Q. How about this? A. That is split, but whether it is split through the weld I cannot tell. Q. (By Mr. Stevexs.) Would those have opened had they been APPENDIX. LSI perfect welds? A. That Bret crack on the lower end of the unbroken hanger might have opened if it had been ;i perfect weld. Q. (By the Chairman.) To what kind of a strain is that break due? A. It is a mere question of opinion ; I ran give yon mine. Q. Is it due to a tension spring or to a cross spring? A. I think it was an enormous leverage on the Boor beam acting upon it with a very short bite when it went down in the crash. Q. A leverage in what direction ? A. For instance: represent the main truss, if you please, by this roll; represent the Boor-beam truss by my arm. When the thing went down there was an enormous lev- erage in this way. which we Bhould expect to tear out something. It is a very long lever, some 20 feet long, and a v.i \ short distance from the fulcrum to its end. a few inches only, which would increase the leverage forty times or thereabouts. I should expect it would break something. Q. Put your arm in there and show how it would work that way. A. This laid vertically in the bridge, the Boor beam horizontally, which would now be upright. The strain of the lever might be in either direction, this way or that way, and I think the result would be the same either way. Q. Then you think it was not a leverage either one side or the other? A. You mean, longitudinally with the bridge? A. I mean tit, it way. A. The pin is too short. That would be a leverage produced by the pin. I mean a leverage produced by the floor beam. Q. Where was the floor beam with relation to those? Between them? A. I think the floor beams were on each side of those, and these were bel ween the pin- going through the bottom end of the links and the webs of the floor beams. Q. Will you be kind enough to make a drawing showing the way in which you think that part was arranged. (The witness made a drawing as requested.) A. aa are the bottom ends of these links, and there they are vertical. 66 are the two I beams which compose the floor beam. These beams are reinforced by plates cooe, through which passes the pin '/. Q. Passing through these reinforcing plates and also through the I beams? A. Through the I beams on the lower ends of the links „-/. ee are the main ties of the door beam tin-. The joint block came down and re-ted on the top of these Boor beams bb, and extended for perhaps a foot (1 don't know what the distant iwise of the bridge; so that the other end of the floor beam, if held in | and the truss dropped (which amounts to the game thin- as taking hold of the other end of the floor beam and raisin- or lowering It), 132 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. having a bearing against the cast-iron block and the pin, would pro- duce this leverage, which should break something. Q. Have you examined the bridge since the accident? A. I ex- amined it on Monday morning. Q. What did you find? A. I found several things that I could not understand or see any reason for. Of course I found these links broken, and I was surprised to find the floor beam secured to the block at one end. I should have expected that they would both have broken away somehow. Q. Where do you mean? At this end of this block? A. Yes, sir. The floor beam remained attached to the block at the southern end in the upper chord. At the Boston end it was broken, as these links show. Those two at the Boston end came from the block that shows where something has given it an awful blow, — a blow sufficient to have overturned the whole bridge, surely. On the easterly side of the bridge there was one vertical post which was buckled, as though it had been buckled by a sheer compressive strain. (Witness pointed out the post to which he referred on a small photograph.) I think this was the post on which the northern floor beam rested in the easterly truss. I won't be quite sure that this is the one, but I think so. That post was buckled. Q. What do you mean by " buckled " ? A. Call this the post ; the weight pressing down upon it buckled it up in this way. There was no mark of anything having hit sideways to cause it that I could find. The next joint towards Boston on the same side in the upper chord was broken down. I could not account for that, because there is no weight upon it, — nothing rested upon it. I do not recollect any thing- else, but I have an impression that there was something else that I could not understand. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) If there was no weight resting on it, and it had cracked and rusted, could it not have been broken by the weight of the train at that particular moment? A. I should not properly say there was no weight resting upon it. Q. There was no way of examining it ; but we find, after the bridge has broken down, that it had rusted, showing an old crack? A. I don't know whether that was rusted at that point. Q. Suppose it was for the time being, would not the weight of the train coming upon it at that moment break that joint up in that box that could not be opened and could not be inspected? A. Not until something else went first. That was not in the joint block at all. I am speaking of the east side. Q. It is one of those heavy upright beams that you say buckled? A. Yes, sir. It was the one directly under that fioor beam. It was buckled up at some point below its centre. The upper chord was APPENDIX. 18S broken at the nexl post, broken righl overhand that post broken right down. Q. What was the condition, after the accident, of this truss! a All smashed op. I ought not to say that; but it irai all down, of course. A. Was not everything bent and twisted? A. Oh, no. C>. (By Mr. StevbnS.) Could it have struck that abutment or anything of thai sort? A. It was tOO far away from it. It was away out in the road. <^. That one that buckled supported the thiol beam which cams from the first joint on the other truss? a. fee, Bir. I remember that is the one, because I saw the mark on the top where the casting, which is shown on this small photograph, was torn off. That possibly might account for the fact of that floor beam not breaking loose from the joint block at the other end. That floor beam at the other end was in this identical pair of links. Q. Now that you see the results of the accident, what is your Opin- ion in regard to the nature and cause of it? A. Well, I am unable to definitely make up my mind as to what the actual cause was. In general, I believe it must have been either derailment, or the break- ing of some part of the rolling stock, which let it down on to the upper chord, and in its motion, whatever the speed was going towards Boston, Btriking that joint block and overturning the whole thing. I think that blow would have done it. What the thing was that broke and let the car down I can't tell; there might be quite a number of different things. I have no opinion about that. Q. Might it not have been a brake-bar? A. For aught I know. Q. The brake-bar does not go outside of the car? A. It does not project as tar as that. Q. What could it have been, then? Could it have been anything except derailment under that theory? A. I don't know whether a derailment would have carried the axle-boz far enough over — that is, by dropping it vertically — to have hit it. but if the car was off the track sideways it could undoubtedly have don< ( >. How do you mean, oil the track BidewajS? A. Well, perpen- dicular to the direction of the track horizontally. Q. You mean outside of the iron a considerable distance \ Well, it woidd not have to go vei \ far; just how far it would go I don't recollect. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Admitting that for a moment, if the bridge wsa properly constructed, with a proper floor system and guard rails, ought DOl the train to have gOBS Off and not hop the bridge? A. If you can get a train off the track on a bi that it shall not strike any of the main supporting parts of the bridge, 134 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. you can cany it across safely, — if you can steer it so that it shall not strike an}'where. Q. On a majority of railroads you can steer a derailed train on a bridge perfectly, can't you? A. It is a pretty hard job to do. Q. It is done? A. It is done at times. Q. Do you believe that if at Clinton a train should run off the track on the bridge, it would put that bridge through into the river? A. I do, most certainly. I don't know what would prevent it. A train would not have to go very far off the track before it would go into the river. Q. (By the Chairman.) You have not spoken in regard to the breaks of those two hangers. What do those suggest to your mind? A. I thought I had described that as in my opinion the peculiar leverage which it gets from the floor beam. Q. The further hangers? A. The same thing. Q. Are those fresh breaks? A. I think so; I think they were broken by the fall. Q. How soon did you see that after the accident? A. I saw that Monday afternoon. I went out on the quarter-past three train, I think it was, or ten minutes past three. They do not look as fresh now as they did then. Q. Do 3'ou think that was broken at the time of the accident? A. I think so. I examined them pretty closely on Monday, as closely as I could in the position that they were, and satisfied myself in my own mind that that was a fresh break. Q. Were they resting in water at that time? A. No, sir. Q. Was it raining at that time? A. Not while I was there. Q. Were they wet? A. No moisture on them. Q. Did they look differently then from what they do now? A. They looked slightly fresher than they do now. Q. (By Mr. Stevens.) Look like good iron, in your opinion? A. Yes ; I think it is good iron. Q. (By the Chairman.) You would pass it as good iron, would you? A. Yes, sir. Q. What makes the difference in appearance between this part and this part in here ; is that where it was welded, or not? A. Oh, no ; that is a break through the solid iron. Q. What makes the difference between the appearance there and inhere? A. There are two spots there that are rusted. There are spots on the edge there that are clean ; it is not rusted over the whole surface. I think it is fresh rust. Q. You think this is fresh in here? A. Yes, sir. You see there is rust away into the grain at the furthest point. Q. And that is fresh rust? A. I think so. It looks to me as if APPENDIX. 135 at this point it had been done when forged ; made pretty hot, perhaps quite as hot as it ought to be. Q. (By Mr. Stevens.) Burned? A. [ don't think it was burned, but came pretty near it. Q. If they gol it too hot, that weakened it. Bectiooal area. < v >. You mean that the upper chord of that tin-- was oom| • three I beams, Burrounded by plate iron? A. Partially surrounded. If you would like, I will make you a sketch of tin- i ,i.-a. Q. (By the Chairman.) Are those hangers as well made other extension members of th< bi I se? \. [think so. <^. Ought they to have been as well made ? \. Certainly. Q. Ought they not to have been more carefully made ? \ ^ . - they should have been more can fullj made. Q. And you think they are t"u 1 1 \ aa well made as th« oi members of the bridge, do you ? \ rhey are not pen. somely made, as far a- outside finish i- concerned. 138 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Do you think they are as well made? A. Special care was taken that they should be safelj- made. Q. Do you think they are properly made? A. I think so. Q. As well made as you would expect them to be made? A. I think so. Q. (By Mr. Aciiorn.) Did anyone compute the strain which each one of these trusses was to bear? A. Yes, I think so. Q. Could you tell from the position of the rails what portion of the weight each truss would bear? A. Certainly. Q. Did you ever compute a bridge like that? A. Many times. It is the same principle as an} T bridge. Q. (By Mr. Williams ) If this hanger which is broken here should give way, the effect of that would be to let down the floor beam which that supports at the west side of the bridge, would it not? A. Yes. Q. Now, that would let down the whole road-bed at that point, would it not? A. Certainly. Q. And the train would go through naturally, the road-bed giving way? A. Yes, sir. Q. The impulse would be toward the west, would it not? That is, it giving way at the outside first, the impulse would be outward, would it not? A. The impulse in the first instance would be directly in the line of the track ; in the next instance it would be to the left, or west- ward, as you describe. From the skew of the abutment that would be perhaps the strongest inclination, to the left, by the locomotive pulling in that direction. Of course the abutment would deflect every- thing. Q. Would the fact of the cars being on a curve and to the left also have that effect? A. I don't know that that would have any effect, but on account of the skew of the bridge I should expect the cars to^ go that way. Q. Now, is it at all unnatural to suppose that the bruise to that joint block which you have described could have been occasioned by the sinking of the road-bed and throwing a car against the joint block? A. Yes; there are two reasons why I think that could not have been the cause : If the cars dropped vertically, I don't know of any part of the car that could have made such a mark on the casting by striking it. In the next place, the post or strut that was directly underneath it would have been crushed, which was not the case ; it was split, it was not crushed, as it would have been if that large flooi beam had been dropped. Q. You mean the strut that supported the floor beam? A. It did not support it, but it was directby under it. Q. In your theory of derailment, how should that bruise be caused; i APPENDIX. lag A. By the train going off the track on that Bide far enough for some portion <>f the truck to strike this casting, Q. How high up is that casting from the level of the rails? A. My recollection is that it is ptvttv nearly flush. (.,{. The effeel of the sinking of the road-bed, if yon had an upward thrust of the train, would be to throw the axle over against that joint block, would it not. A. It would not get angle enough to do that. Q. Did you see anything on the sleepers that were taken from the road-bed on the bridge that indicated anything to your mind? A. No; I tried to. but I could not get anything from them. Q. When did you inspect the bridge? A. Monday afternoon. Q. You could see the sleepers on the Roslindale Bide in the wick? A. Yes. Q. There were no signs of derailment, were there, there? a. I think not. <,>. How far across the bridge Should you say you inspected the sleeper-? A. I can tell better by looking at this photograph. I crawled down on the sleepers here : that is the way I gol down to the wreck. I came down this abutment on the Rot le. There I came to the track, and followed it along down. Their must have been eight sleepers that 1 -aw. Q. There were no signs of derailment ? A. I did not gee any. t.l. (By Mr. Putnam.) I forgot to ask you whether you saw the "I* these bangers which are here now when you were out at the wreck ? A. Yes, I saw them. < v ». Did they have bright fractures at the time yOQ saw them? A. Yes, sir. Q. No indication on them of an old break? A. No, sir; not that I could see. Q. Did you form any opinion from seeing them with those pieces at the time that the break was new and not old- \. I tainly ; my opinion was made up from seeing the tw<» together. Q. And you formed the opinion without hesitation that it was not an old break? A. Not without hesitation; I gave them a careful examination. Q. 1 mean, you came to the decided opinion, did you, that it was a new bieak and not an old one? A. I did : yes, sir. • ,>. Was this bridge properly provided, in your opinion, with diag- onal bracing between the two trusses: \ r< Q. Both vertically and horizontally? A. Fee, sii l' iraa hori- zontal in two planes, top and bottom chord, and vertical a' floor beam. c^. There was both vertical and diagonal bracing? A. 'i at each floor beam. 140 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. And the ends of the trusses, where the} 7 were not opposite t< one another, were braced to the abutments? A. Yes, sir ; some o the horizontal bracing went into the abutments, anchored there. Q. In forming your theory of the way in which this accident hap pened, did you take into account the condition of the three cars whicl arrived on the other side? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have } T ou considered the bearing upon that accident of the fac that the second and third cars were badly telescoped, indicating tha they received the full weight of the train behind them after they ha substantially stopped? A. The only impression I got from that wa that perhaps that was somewhat due to the shock received by th train when it struck that casting. Q. Do you think that if the first or second car had struck thr casting, knocking the bridge down as you say, the first, second an third cars could have been. dragged on to the abutment as far as the were? A. Well, I have not any opinion on that ; I don't know. Q. Is it not very clear that they could not? A. Well, Strang things will happen. I have not any opinion. Q. (By Mr. Achorn.) Have you any opinion as to which c; was derailed first? A. No. Q. Would you expect to find on the sleepers marks of wheels wh( th£ wreck is removed, if there was derailment? A. Not necessaril but I should look for them. Q If there were marks of wheels, they would be recognized such, would they not? A. In all probability, though marks tbat y. Is that a first-class company ? A. First-class company. (j. Would a first-class company allow burned iron t<> go out of its place? A. You hardly do fairly in calling it burned iron. I mean While it was heated rather warmer than I think it ought to have heen, at the same time, I don't think it had been heated to an Unreasonable extent, to do it any serious injury. Q. Their is no element of in that iron, in \oiir opinion? A. I do not think it is quite as Btrong as if it had not been over- heated, but I think it is very Btrong. <,>. If that had Keen properly inspected, either in its manufacture or after it was completed, would not that burned iron have been found out? A. V ' v ». There is no way to find it out? A. No way to find it out. Q. You have not to trust the company it-elf? A. You hi to trust the company itself A. company ent has got to be trusted to do it-, work properly. ','. lint if properly inspected at the time through its 142 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. formation, the inspector will find out whether it is being burned or not. A first-class corporation would have a competent inspector, it st'cm- to me. A. No concern can appoint a special man to watch every stroke that is made, or every heat that is put into the fire. The workmen must be inspectors themselves to that extent. That is so in all concerns, without any limitation. Q. A competent workman would not allow burned iron to go out of his shop, would he? A. The Trenton Iron Company mean to em- ploy good workmen, and they think they do. Adjourned to Friday at ten o'clock. FOURTH DAY. Friday, March 18, 1887. The Board met at ten o'clock. Mr. Putnam. I desire to put in the paper from which Mr. Folsom testified ^yesterday and call attention to the date, which was not read, and which is important. He supposed that he was testifying with reference to the test which was made at the time the bridge was put up ; he had forgotten that there was another test made, but it appears from the very paper itself that it was a later test. (Taper put in headed "Test of Bussey Bridge, Jan. 7, 1882.") Henry F. Shaw — sworn. Q. (By the Chairman.) Your residence ? A. Core}- Street, West Roxbury. Q. What is your occupation ? A. Mechanical engineer. Q. What has been your education as such? A. A practical one. (). Have you any special knowledge in regard to this bridge structure? A. Not particularly as regards the bridge structure. I have been over it ever since the structure was built, and before, when the old wooden structure was there. Twenty-six years I have been over that bridge. Q. Have you ever had any reason to doubt the strength of the late structure? A. I have had some doubts in regard to that matter. (,). What, was the occasion of your doubt? A. The lateral vibra- tions of the structure from the trains passing over it. Q. When did you notice that, — when you were on the train? A. Yes, sir. APPENDIX. 143 Q. How great a vibration was it? A. I cannot say as far as that is concerned. I think it is impossible to determine the lateral vibration produced by a train running over a bridge from the fact that the springs underneath our cars take off considerable of that lateral motion which occurs on the truck beneath ami it is not felt in the car. Q. I understand that you have felt this lateral vibration that you speak of yourself, have you? A. I have felt somewhat of a vibration or swaying. Q. Are you sure that was the vibration of the bridge and not the vibration of the car? A. I think it was due to the vibration of the bridge produced by the locomotive. Q. Do you know whether or not other people have noticed that vibration? A. I do not. Q. Have you ever reported it to the officers of the road? A. I have not. Q. How often have you noticed it? A. Every time I have been over it, if I took any particular notice of it at all. Q. Have you any further information to give in regard to the bridge? A. I should like to make a statement in regard to the construction of that bridge, if it is in order. Q. We know the general construction of it. If there were any special defects in that construction you can state them. A. Yes, sir, that is what I wish to speak of. The principal defect I saw in that bridge was the want of proper bracing laterally from the bridge into the abutments. There was nothing that I could discover from examination that was anchored into the abutments and into the bridge to stop this lateral vibration produced upon every bridge that a locomotive runs over. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) You have examined that bridge, I under- stand? A. I have been looking it over since the disaster, not before. Q. (By the Chairman.) You did not notice this lack of cross bracing before the disaster? A. I did not, but I supposed it was there. Any man acquainted with the action of a train upon a bridge would certainly have put it there when the bridge was built. It showed a want of knowledge of what was going on overhead in not having that bracing there. Q. You have not examined the structure of the bridge except as you saw it on the ground since the accident? A. That is all. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) You are a locomotive builder, are you not? A. I have built one locomotive, sir. Q. Have you made an}' study of the elfect of curves upon the mo- tion of locomotives on the track ? A. I have. 144 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Have you examined the curve of the track on the Roslindale side of tlu- 1 nidge? A. I have. Q. How near to the southerly abutment of the bridge is the end of that curve? A. I should say the curve conies up within ten feet of the abutment. Q. Can you tell what the motion of a locomotive passing from the Roslindale side of the bridge to the Boston side would be after pass- ing over that curve? A. That locomotive as it came on to the curve swung over to the easterly side and threw her centre of gravity over on to the easterly track. As she struck the bridge, to right herself up into her proper position, she would strike, about two-thirds of the way across that bridge, a blow which I believe to have been the death- blow of that bridge. It was given by the locomotive there, and as she rolled up on to the westerly side she took the bridge off from the abutment on the forward end and carried it round, swinging upon the real' abutment of that bridge, and carried it down. The evidence, as far as I examined it, is proof of that. The front of the abutment was scratched and marred a good deal from the ruins of the bridge, etc., while the rear of the abutment was perfectly smooth, nothing but tie rods sticking up at an angle, showing that as the bridge fell it swung at the same time clear of the western abutment. Q. In building a curve the outward track on the curve is made higher than the inner, is it not? A. Yes, sir, slightly higher, to round the curve, and that would throw the centre of gravity beyond the centre of the track. Q. Throw the centre of gravity inside the curve? A. Yes, sir. The engine recovers her position by a reaction upon the straight part of the track, and that reaction is enormous with a heavy engine such as this was ; and that was sufficient in this case, from the angle of the abutments — they had to move only about six or eight inches to be carried off of the abutment at the left, and that was sufficient to carry it entirely off. There is no doubt about it in my mind. Albert A. Folsom — sworn. Q. (By the Chairman.) Your residence? A. 97 Appleton Street, Boston. Q. Your occupation? A. Superintendent of the Boston & Provi- dence Railroad. Q. How long have you been connected with the railroad, and what have been your positions there? A. I entered the service of the corporation in 1854. Q. Describe the various positions which you have held. A. From 1854 to 18G0 I was the general ticket agent; from 1860 to 1864 I was the agent of the corporation in Providence ; from 1864 to 1867 I APPENDIX. 145 was assistant superintendent of the road in Boston, and since 1867 I have been the superintendent. Q. What is the method adopted by you with reference to the safety of your cars and locomotives? A. Our cars and locomotives are under the charge of the master mechanic, and if there is any car which is injured or needs repairs it is sent to the shop and there attended to. The cars are, of course, scattered around over the system, the same as the locomotives, and they are under the super- vision of a great many people ; but if they need repairs they have to go to the repair shop. Q. AY here is that? A. Roxbury. Q. Your master mechanic is Mr. Richards? A. Mr. George Richards. Q. AYhat are his instructions from you in regard to the care of cars? A. Well, the only instructions are to have everything in first- class order. Q. Are there any printed regulations in regard to it? A. No, sir. Q. Any regulations in regard to the methods of inspection or the frequency of inspection? A. The cars in Boston, where of course the most cars are used, are under the charge of Mr. Edward Lang r who is a very able and competent man. We believe he thoroughly knows his business, and everything in regard to him has been satis- factory. We have had no occasion to find any fault with him in regard to the discharge of his duty. Q. Is it left to him to decide what inspection shall be made and how often it shall be made? A. Yes, sir ; he has the sole control of it in Boston. Q. Is he superior to the master mechanic, as far as that is con- cerned, or is the master mechanic over him? A. The master me- chanic has charge of the rolling stock. Q. It is left to the master mechanic, then, to decide how often the cars shall be inspected, how often they shall be put into the shop, and what repairs shall be made to them? A. Well, a great part of the rolling stock, of course, comes under Mr. Lang's supervision, coming into Boston, — Mr. Lang and his assistants. If they find anything wrong or anything out of order the cars are sent into the shop. The cars are marked and some notice is sent of what is required to be done. There they undergo a careful examination, are put in order and returned to Boston. Q. To whom does Mr. Lang report? A. He reports to the mas- ter mechanic anything he wants done ; anything that is necessary. Q. Is he under Mr. Richards' immediate supervision or is he under your immediate supervision? A. He is under Mr. Richards' super- vision and my own too. He frequently speaks to me about certain 146 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. things, as, for instance, if it is advisable to keep a car for rebuilding ; and when he speaks to me about that, Mr. Richards and I consult whether it is advisable to spend a certain amount of money in repair- ing the car or to condemn it. (). To which one of those two men do you look as primarily re- sponsible in regard to the proper condition of the cars, — to Mr. Rich- ards or to Mr. Lang? A. Mr. Richards. Q. Then Mr. Richards is Mr. Lang's superior, and Mr. Lang would report to him, would he not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Richards is not subject to an)' special regulations in regard to the frequency of the examination of cars, the nature of the examina- tion, or the frequency with which the}' shall be put into the shop and thoroughly repaired, but is left to exercise his discretion, is he? A. Yes, sir. Q. How about the locomotives? A. The same thing. The loco- motives are under his full control. He can do as he pleases with them. His opinion is entirely respected ; there is no going back of him. He is the master mechanic, and we believe that he is a good one. Q. Are the records of the different cars returned to you ? That is, what is the nature of the record which is kept of each car? A. A record of the repairs on the cars is kept at the shop by Mr. Richards. Q. Is there a separate record kept of the history of each car? A. Yes. We know when the cars come on the road, and we know when they are rebuilt, as they are, after several years' service. Sometimes the}' get injured, and require extensive repairs ; and sometimes we send cars to outside shops to be rebuilt, — to Worcester, for instance. They require constant attention, there are so many of them now. Q. Is there any one place where you could go and get the history . Did you make any investigations in regard to the Metropolitan Bridge Company ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you know where their works were? A. No, sir ; I only knew Mr. Hewins. Q. You did not know where the bridge was going to be built? A. Yes, sir ; 1 think I was told that the bridge was going to be built at Trenton, N. J., by the — I won't be sure, but 1 think it was the Trenton Bridge Company. Q. Did not that strike 3'ou as a curious fact, if the contract was APPENDIX. 149 made by the Metropolitan Bridge Company? A. No; it did not, because there used to be — I don't know whether there are any now or not — men carrying on the bridge business and calling themselves a company, who had their bridges built round in different places. Q. Do you suppose that you thought it was possible that there was no such company at that time? A. I never gave the Metropolitan Bridge Company a thought. I never thought anything about il , only Mr. Hewins. Q. There was no such company, was there? A. I don't know that there was any such company ; I never thought anything about it. C*. What was your reason for selecting Mr. Hewins rather than some other bridge constructor? A. Well, the good report of him and his good bearing and appearance. Everything about him would tend to give the impression that he was an able and upright man. Q. What action did you take after the bridge was built in regard to having it tested? A. Then it was put right into use; it was watched. I went out to see it and I rode over it very often. Q. I mean before passenger trains were put upon it, how was the bridge tested ? A.I have not got a copy of the test ; I suppose I have it in my files, but I have not had an opportunity to get it, I have had so many things to attend to. I know it was tested, and the test was a severe one, — the same as we test every structure that we have. We put it through the hardest test possible. Q. You think you have that paper? I should like to see what that original test was. A. I think I have it. Q. Do you remember in whose presence the test was made? A. The test was probably made on a Sunda}-. Q. By whom? A. By Mr. C4eorge F. Folsom. The test was made with engines. (,). What has been the history of the bridge since that time? A. I have seen the bridge frequently, ridden over it a great many times, and I have been underneath it. My practice when I rode over it was always to ride in the rear car, and I have always thought that it was an excellent structure, solid and substantial. I never noticed any swing about it nor anything unpleasant about it. I never had the remotest suspicion but what it was as good a bridge as then' was in the world for a railroad bridge. I had the utmost confidence in it. Q, Have you ever had any complaints made to you in regard to it? A. No, sir. Q. No complaints at all? A. No, sir. You mean in regard to the safety of it? Q. Yes ; in regard to the safety of it or any defects in it? A. I think once there was a communication sent to me that there were one or two nuts off, but how recently I have no means of telling; and I 150 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. notified the bridge superintendent, and he afterwards told me that there were a couple of nuts gone, but they did not affect the safety of the structure, — they were something that was more for ornament than for use. Q. Was that a written communication ' A. I think not ; I think that was in our consultation in regard to matters ; a verbal report. Of course we have frequent consultations with regard to structures on the line of the road. We have not so many now as we used to have, because we are gradually getting rid of bridges. We have got rid of a great many in the last ten years. Q. How often has that bridge been tested since its original con- struction? A. Aside from its usual use it was tested in 1882 by the use of two engines. The tenders were taken off and they were backed up together so that they had the four drivers together. Q. That was just after you received a communication from the Kail- road Commissioners, was it? A. Yes, sir. Q. And was it that test to which Mr. Folsom referred yesterday in his examination? A. Yes, sir; that was the test which he had here yesterday. Q. That test to which he referred yesterday was not the original test? A. No; he made a mistake. Q. Any test since 1882? A. No test of that character excepting watching it with trains upon it ; the movement of trains upon it. Q. Who has done that? A. Mr. Folsom. He has been under the bridge, and I have been there myself and on the ground uear by. I always make it a point to see these bridges as often as I can, where- ever they are, and see how they act in actual use. Q. Have you got with }ou a copy of the letter which was sent to you by the Railroad Commissioners in December, 1881 ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember that you received a letter at that time? A. Yes, sir. The Chairman. We have a letter-press copy of it, dated Dec. 8, 1881, and addressed to A. A. Folsom, Esq., Superintendent Boston and Providence Railroad. Dear Sir : — Agreeably to custom, notes made by the commissioners (luring their annual examination of your road, Sept. 28, 1881, are hereiu communicated to von. Track. In excellent order. Stations. The Mansfield station was noted as being kept untidily. At- tleborough Station : Not cieanly, especially on the gentlemen's side. Bridges. Your attention is called to the accompanying circular. The track construction of the following-named bridges appears to the commis- sioners more or less defective : Hyde Park, over Mother Brook. Readville Bridge, over Neponsct River. West Roxbury Bridge, over highway near APPENDIX. 151 Bussey Farm ; the superstructure of this bridge is an oddity among bridges ; if it has never been tested under a given load, the commissioners suggest whether it would not be wise and prudent to test it now and perhaps at stated intervals hereafter, — intervals shorter or longer, a year or more, according to the behavior of the bridge under the load ; the test to consist in putting on a load somewhat heavier than the bridge is ever called upon to hear in the course of your business, note the load put on, the deflection taken by the bridge under that load, and the amount of the recovery after the load is removed ; note also its lateral stiffness and strength ; a series of such records would show conclusively whether or not the bridge tested was maintaining its strength and safety. Stoughton Branch Bridge, over high- way this side of Springdale station; the commissioners regard this bridge with suspicion; they doubt its safety. Attleborough Branch, first two bridges, defective track. Falls Village, bridge over highway beyond Falls Village; a poor structure. A. I received that letter ou the 21st of December. Q. And what was the date of the test which you made? A. It was in January some time. Mr. Putnam. The 7th of January. Q. Have any tests been made of the bridge since that time? A. No tests of that character. Q. How often have you examined that bridge from the street when a train was going over it since that time? A. I have no means of telling how man}' times. I have no record of it. Q. The circular referred to there was a circular dated Dec. 1, 1881, containing two pages of sketches of the flooring of bridges and guard rails and guard timbers? A. I have the circular, but I have no sketches. Q. Did you read this printed circular which was sent out with the letter? A Yes, sir. Q. What did you think of the suggestions made there? A. It is so long since 1 read it that it is not fresh in my mind now. I think it related, if I remember right, to the use of guard rails on bridges. Q. Guard rails or timbers? A. They are all the same. Whether they are timbers or rails, they answer the same purpose. Q. Have the ties of that bridge been put closer together lately? A. I don't know of any change from the time of construction to the date of its destruction ; still. I don't say there might not have been. Q. How far have the ties been replaced? A. I don't know that any have been replaced I don't think any have been replaced. Q. They are the same ties that were put in there eleven yeai A. I don't know. I think they are the same. Q. What i> the width of the openings between the ties on that bridge? A. Well, I never measured them, but I should think they were about six inches. 152 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. How far apart are you putting ties on your bridges now? A. We intend to lay them close together. Q. With how much of an opening? A. As close as they will lie, practically. Q. Half an inch, or more? A. We lay them close together. That is what we are doing on new work, or intend to do. Q. Was any action taken subsequently to the receipt of that cir- cular in reference to guard rails or guard timbers upon that bridge ? A. There were never any guard rails on the bridge ; we have had guard timbers. — a plank. (). Of what size? A. I should think it was a foot wide. That is what we use on all of our bridges. (.). How thick? A. Perhaps three to three and a naif incites, hard pine. We have used them on our bridges with great success on several derailments, and we thoroughly believe in them. Q. That is placed how close to the rail? A. Well, pretty near close up to the rail. You have a drawing here that will show it exactly, that I sent to you within a month, at your request. It may be on that bridge for aught I know : but it shows the system that we use. and we thoroughly believe in it. We have had several important tests of it on several occasions of derailment. Q. Have you any other skew bridge of this sort on your railroad? A. No, not anything. Well, the bridge at Dedham Village I think might possibly be called a skew bridge. That bridge we are now replacing. It is getting a centre support. It seems to me there are about seventy feet. There are two openings. I don't recollect pre- cisely, but I think that is a sort of skew bridge. Q. (By Mr. Stevens.) That is a wooden bridge? A. That is a wooden bridge, Howe truss. The through bridge at Readville where we are crossed by the New York & New England road is a skew bridge, I should think about as bad as this one. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) What are those lattice bridges or through bridges? A. I think they are plate girders at Readville. Q. (By the Chairman.) You have never made any special test of this bridge since January, 1882, immediately after the receipt of the communication from the Railroad Commissioners? A. No, sir, no special test. Q. How often since that time have you seen a train going over it yourself? A. I think I have been under the bridge on an average as much as twice a year. Q. What have you noticed then? A. It was very solid indeed. Q. Any lateral swing? A. I never saw any. Of course there is no great speed there. The station is three thousand feet off coming down, and then there is an up grade. When they start from Forest APPENDIX. 153 Hills there is an up grade ; they cannot get under any great headway, and it is not possible to have any high rate of speed any way. The last stopping place is three thousand feet off, so that it is impossible to get any great speed. Still, there is no limit by rule to the speed on that bridge. There are some bridgea that are limited by rule ; there is no limit to that. Q. Was there a limit to the old bridge? A. Yes. sir. Q. And no limit has been issued in regard to this bridge? A. On the new structure that limit was stricken out. Q. What do you mean by regulations? Printed regulations? A. Well, the regulations for the men — the engineers, conductors and brakemen — are in a book. The engineers have directions to run at a certain speed over certain bridges. A new edition of the regulations was gotten out in 1881 or 1882, and in the new regulations, there had been so many bridges changed, — for instance, we had a bridge at Dodgeville, about three hundred and fifty feet long, which we wiped out entirely by having two arches. Over the Dodgeville bridge and some other bridges the orders were not to go over ten or twelve miles an hour. The Bussey bridge was mentioned in that ; but when the new regulations were made that was stricken out. Unlimited speed over that structure. Q. Have you got a copy of those regulations with you? A. Yes, sir. This was printed in 1881. Q. What time did yon get out there the morning of the accident? A. I think I was there about eight o'clock. Here is the regulation in regard to speed over bridges: u Cove and India Point bridges are to be run over at a speed not exceeding ten miles an hour." Now, in the new edition, "Cove" would be stricken out and there would be only one bridge where there would be any limitation. Cove bridge. I think, was four hundred feet long, and that has been short- ened by brick arches so that it is not much more than ninety feet long now. <). Will you describe as fully as you can what you found there? A. I went out on a special train with all the surgeons and physicians we could get, and my first thought was of the killed and wounded. I think there were very few left at that time. There had been great energy and kindness shown by everyone in the neighborhood. A great many people came there, and they were pretty much all cared for. I looked over the place, and I thought that the first thing t<> do, in order that there might be no mistake, was to send for a photographer. In a few moments I saw Mr. George Folsom, and before I could speak to him about it he suggested it to me, and immediately sent for one, and in a few minutes I saw Mr. Black and one or two others. and I told them to take all the pictures they could in the various 154 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. positions, that they would be wanted. And I saw another man, I for- gel his Dame, who has sent me the pictures; I think they are up here. Then, of course, after doing- all I could there, I had to give my attention to the operation of the road. There were a great many things to lie done in changing the running of trains. Q. Did you make any examination of the wreck before you came into town? A. I went down there and looked it over, but the bridge being underneath the cars I could not tell anything about it. Q. What time did you come into town? A. I think I came into town about twelve o'clock. Q. Do }'OU remember anything about the position of the cars that passed over the bridge? A. I saw them there. I came out again in the afternoon at your request. Q. Now, will you describe what you think was the condition of the cars that passed over the bridge? A. Well, I don't know as I can describe them. I know they were the first, second and third cars. The third car was telescoped high up in the end of the second car. Q. Do you know anything about the trucks of the first car? A. I do not. I did not charge my mind with it. I thought that the photographs would settle that question. Q. How soon were these first photographs taken? A. I saw photographers there while I was there. I don't know when those were taken that you have. The only way of arriving at that would be by inquiring of the party who took them. I saw Mr. Black there, and I saw one or two amateur photographers, and they promised to send me their pictures when they got them finished. I did not know who they were, but they said the}' knew me and would let me have the pictures. <,;. Can't you recall what the condition of those cars on the em- bankment was, — how their trucks were situated, whether the}' had trucks, etc. ? A. I think the second car had no trucks under it. I am not clear about it, I had so many things to think of, and the master mechanic being present to take charge of the wreck, I thought he would notice those things. Q. Did you make any examination at that time as to the cause of the accident. A. Of course I have an opinion what caused the accident, but whether it did cause it or not I don't know ; railroad accidents are so curious. Q. Well, what is your opinion? A. 1 think that something got down from one of the cars. Whether it was a broken axle or a brake beam I don't know, but I am satisfied that there was something went down, and that was the cause of the destruction of the bridge. <,>. What leads you to that conclusion? A. I don't see how it APPENDIX. 155 could have got down in any other way, for 1 believe the bridge was thoroughly substantial. Q. You did not see any murks on any portion of the bridge that led you to that conclusion, did you? A. I did not see any marks on the bridge at all; it was covered up at that time with the ears. I should have stated that the first thing I did when I went out there, or almost the first thing I did, alter I ascertained that the dead and wounded were cared for, was to go to the other embankment and see if the train was off of the track before arriving at the bridge. Q. What did you find? A. I did not find the slightest sign of it. Q. Did you examine the track on the Boston side of the bridge? A. I did look at it there, but I saw nothing to form any opinion about, there was so much wreckage. Q. Did you see any indication of the trucks having passed over the ties? A. I think I did, but I am not sure. I noticed one thing, a piece of rail left in one of the joints that fell down. The rails of that bridge were sixty feet in length, and they lapped over on each embankment ; and I noticed one thing that I thought was curious, that a piece of the web of the rail was left in the joint, — torn out. Q. That was the easterly rail? A. I don't know which one it was ; it was either one or the other. Q. Your judgment that the accident was caused by something dropping from the cars — either a broken axle or brake beam, or something of that sort — is founded upon the fact that the bridge was sound, is it? A. I did believe that the bridge was thoroughly sound. Q. Have you examined those hangers? A. I have not. Q. Do you know where they came from? A. No, sir. Q. Supposing that those hangers came from these points, sustain- ing that floor beam there, what should you say in regard to that? A. I cannot tell whether that is a fresh break or not ; it seems to be covered with mud and dirt. Q. Well, examine both of them. A. That seems to be a fresh break there. <). Do you see any indications of an old break there? A. At that corner there 1 should call that an old break ; but that looks as if it was cvered with mud. I should .say thai was a fresh break. Q. How far through was this one (' Y " ) an old break ? A.I half- way through. I should judge by the appearance that it was broken half-way through. That is an old break. The rest of it looks to me as though it was a fresh break ( " X " ). One fracture is entirely covered with mud, and the second fracture is fresh, all but one- corner, I should judge. 156 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. What portion of the oar? A. That can bo ascertained by exact measurement. I should not think it was more than one- eighth of it. Q. Docs the appearance of those hangers change your opinion at all in regard to the cause of the accident? A. No, sir. There was a train passed over the bridge less than an hour previous ; a train ing of a locomotive and seven cars, coming in the same direction. (,». Had there been any train over in the opposite direction? A. No, sir. The first one down was a train leaving Dedham, I think, at 6.10. This was the 7 o'clock train from Dedham. Q. And there had been no train out in the mean time? A. No, sir. Q. How long was the G.10 train? A. A locomotive and seven cars. (,>. What was the weight of the locomotive of that train? A. I don't know the name of the locomotive on that train. Mr. Richards. It was the " John Lightner." The Witness. It weighed about thirty-two tons. Q. How heavy was the locomotive of this train that met with the disaster? A. About 83.000 pounds. The Chairman. (Referring to a memorandum.) ''Lightner, Rhode Island Locomotive Works, 1872, twenty-nine tons." The en- gine on this train was the fc ' D. B. Torrey," I think. " No. 2, Rhode Island Locomotive Works, built in 1880, thirty-two and one-half tons." Q. How do 3'on think the accident may have originated, and how one thing led to another, etc ? A. Well, there is an iron brake beam that enters into the case; then there is a journal broken off -of an axle. Either one of those two would be sufficient to destroy the bridge under certain circumstances. Q. On which side was that broken journal, do you know? A. I don't know. Q. Where do you suppose that breaking of the journal or the drop- ping of a brake beam happened, — how far on the bridge? A. I don't think it would make any difference where it happened on the bridge, if it happened at either end or in the centre. (). In what portion of the train do you think the original accident was? A. I have no theory. I don't know whether Mr. Richards has located on what car the brake beam belonged ; I have not talked with him about it ; but he has located where the broken axle belonged. Q. Where was that? A. That was car 87. Q. What ear was that on the train? A. According to the brake- man's testimony the other day, it was the fifth car. APPENDIX. 157 O. Is there a question about that in your mind? A. Oh, no; I do not question the location of the ear at all. I don't know as any one else but he knows about the position of the ears in the train. Q. You say car 87 had a broken what? A. A broken journal. <>. You don't know on which side of that car? A. I do not. Q. Describe how you think the accident may have worked. V. u have some theory in regard to it. have you not? A. Well, there are a variety of ways in which it might work. A brake beam might fall through the crevices in the bridge, and tear the structure down. A broken axle might spread the track on the bridge and tip it over. I don't know of any other. I have seen so many tilings done on a rail- road, that I would hardly believe if I had not seen them myself, — the curiosities of railroad accidents. Q. How about the telescoping of the third car into the second car of the train? A. I cannot account for it at all. Q. You saw it. didn't you? A. I saw it; yes, sir. Q. How far had the third car telescoped into the second car? A. I should think it had broken in two or three feet. Q. You can give no explanation of that? A. I can't account for that ; 1 have thought a great deal about it. Q. If the bridge had broken down back of the third car, or when the second 'car was on the bridge, and the second car had struck some of the broken timbers here, and the third car and the rest of the train had come on top of it, — might it not have happened in that way? A. I can't say how it could have happened. Particularly after having heard the testimony of Mr. Reed, I am more than ever in doubt about it He says the forward end of the car went over the bridge all right; and how that third car could get above the line of the sills of the second car I don't know. I can't account for it. <,). Is there any difference in sound, in going over this bridge, be- tween the central portion of the bridge where the compression mem- ber is and this portion from the top of the truss to the embankment? A. I have always noticed that that bridge had a very solid, substan- tial .sound to it. I have a great many times had a sensation at nvy Stomach on a railroad bridge. I have noticed when a boy, where [ used to live, in a part of the road there was a ledge of rocks with some two or three inches of gravel over it, and in the winter time it had a solid sound to it. This bridge always impressed me a- being very substantial. Q. Don't you remember noticing the rattle? A. No, sir; I have always had a good opinion of that bridge, and thought it was very substantial. Q. What I wanted to get at by my last question was this: Whether or not a person going over this bridge might think 158 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. they had got to the end of the bridge from the noise, when they had simply struck this point here; whether there is any difference in the sound in going over that portion of the bridge, as dis- tinguished from that portion of the bridge? A. No, sir; I think the sound is uniform. I have always ridden over it on the end of the train, and I think the noise was uniform from one end to the other; I have never detected any difference. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) If your theory is correct that the train was derailed immediately after it struck the bridge, it would show marks in some way; the ties would show, very likely? A. I have looked at the ties. Of course they have got all kinds of scars on them. I have had the ties saved, so that they can be examined. I could not see them, from the fact that when I went out there the first time they were covered with the wreck. Q. But you know, do you not, with your railroad experience, that if that train went off of that bridge, it would certainly leave a scar, which would show whether it was the flange of a wheel, a brake rod, a brake beam, a broken journal or a broken anything which belonged to it ; the scars are all marked ; each peculiar cause of a scar leaves its mark, so that as a general thing you can go there and say, "There is where a brake rod fell through ; there is where a wheel ran off," — is there anything of thafkind on the ties that would show you that it was a derailed train? A. Yes ; there were scars of wheels on the ties. Q. Now, if it was a brake beam that fell down, I suppose your theory is that it fell down and bunched those ties? A. Yes ; a brake beam might fall exactly into a hole. (). That is very true; but if it did, it would leave a scar? A. There are plenty of scars on those ties. Q. I understand. But I want to know if you have examined your- self those particular scars; or if you said, as you looked at them, •• Here is a general scarring all round." What I want to get at is, if you have come to this conclusion of a derailment of that train from anything which you have seen, which in your railroad experience caused you to say right off, " It was the falling of the brake beam thai derailed the car"? A. I did not know anything about the brake beam until yesterday. I have not examined those ties with that pur- pose. (). I suppose those ties are where we can see them? A. I have ordered them brought into Boston, where any one can see them who likes to do so. They were so covered up by the cars that I could not examine them, and I told the man in charge of the work to have them brought in so that we could see them. Q. Is there only one broken journal in that whole wreck? A. I believe that is all. APPENDIX. 159 Q. I suppose that might have been broken in falling? A. I don't see how it could, being on top of the bridge. The bridge was under- neath the cars, and it was found close to the abutment this way. Q. Have you any evidence that a brake beam broke or fell off? A. Mr. Richards has a brake beam that lie thinks was an element in the disaster ; that is, I suppose he does; I don't say that. He will give his own testimony. Q. Some of those cars are old numbers, — 28, f>0, etc. How was the bottom work of those cars? Was it three or four beams right through from platform to platform? A. 1 can't tell you that; Mr. Richards can. Q. (By Mr. Williams ) Have yon been able to distinguish upon which car the brake beam was broken? A. I don't know that ; Mr. Richard's, 1 think, does. Q. You think that Mr. Richards knows? A. I think he does. Q. In preserving those sleepers, do you know whether any pains have been taken to keep them in their order as the}- were on the bridge? A. That would be impossible. Q. Did you examine the frame- work of the bridge on the south side, with a view to seeing whether there had been any derailment? By the south side, I mean the Dedham side. A. No ; I did not. Q. Do you recall that a portion of the bridge road-bed was visible as the wreck lay there? A. You mean in the street? Q. Yes, in the street ; slanting down from the abutment into the street. It is shown on one of these photographs. A. I did not see any evidence of derailment there ; I did not see any on the other side of the abutment. Q. Did you examine that part of the road-bed that was visible above the wreck on the south side? A. T looked that over; of course there was a great deal of wreckage and confusion all around there. Q. That is a portion of the road-bed shown in photograph No. 1, is it not, that was originally upon the bridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you examine the sleepers of that portion of the road-bed? A. No, I did not. (,). Since that bridge was built, have any special tests ever been math', to your knowledge, besides the one in 1882? A. No, sir. Q. Was there a special test made at the time the bridge was put up? A. Yes, sir. Q. That made two, did it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you the records of that test? A. I think I have. Q. That was made in 1876? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you present when that test was made? A. No, sir. 160 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Do you know who was? A. The superintendent of bridges was present and conducted it. Q. Your superintendent of bridges, Mr. George Folsom? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you understand that in his testimony 3-esterday he referred to the test of 1882? A. No; he supposed he was referring to the first test ; he made a mistake. Q. Was not the memorandum to which he referred the 1882 test? A. Yes, sir. (,). So thai the figures which he gave were for the 1882 test? A. For the 1882 test. Q. Y r ou will produce your memorandum of the test of 1876? A. If I have it, 1 will ; if I haven't it, it can be obtained. Q. After you received that notice from the commissioners did you make any changes whatever in the bridge? A. No, sir. Q. Did you put on any additional guard rails? A. No, sir. Q. You believed there was no necessity for guard rails? A. There was no necessity for guard rails there outside. Q. Do you not consider them an additional security to a bridge? A. No, sir ; I would not put them on if I had my own way. I look upon them as very dangerous things. n. Did you so inform the commissioners at that time? A. No, sir ; but on the inspection of the road in various years I think I have had conversations with the various commissioners about the matter of guard rails, the carrying on of the superstructures, etc. The exam- inations have been going on a great many years. Q. Did you make any written response to that letter from the Rail- road Commissioners which has been read? A. I did. Mr. Kinsley. If we have it, we will produce it. Q. I wish to ask you with reference to one of the witnesses. Mr. Billings was fireman of the locomotive on the wrecked train, was he not? A. No ; I don't think that is the name. Mr. Richards. Yes, sir ; Billings. He is here now. Q. He is the only one of the employees on the train who has not been examined? A. There are two others, Drake and Smith. Q. Have you any heavier locomotive on the line than the " Torrey " ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many? A. I shall have to look at authority. There is no reason why I should remember it. Here is a list of the locomotives on the road : There is the " William R. Robeson," 41 tons. Q. Does that run on the Dedham branch? A. That has been there. Also the " Henry A. Whitney," 45 tons. Q. Has that run over the Dedham branch? A. It has been there. The engines go where they are needed, in case of necessity. APPENDIX. 161 Q. But you have regular engines that run over the Dedham branch, have you not? A. Oh, no. We are changing the character of our locomotives for the suburban travel to what is called the Forney type, double-enders. Q. Don't you have special engines for the Dedham trains? A. We run any engine we see fit. Of course, a special engine is tried to be kept for certain trains ; we try to keep the same men and engines together, but no engine is forbidden to go on any part of the road. Q. Won't you answer the question whether you run regular engines on the Dedham branch ; whether there are engines which are confined in their use to the Dedham Branch Railroad? A. No, sir; we take atn- engine that comes handy. Q. Do you find any others that are heavier than the "Torrey"? A. The '• Thomas B. Wales," 33 tons. The "Whitney" seems to be a heavier one. " George R. Minot," 49 tons ; " George R. Rus- sell," 29 tons ; " William Merrill," — the weight is not here ; " C. H. Wheeler," 51 J- tons. That is the class of engine we are using now. Q. What engines were run over the road Sunday? A. I don't know. Q. That you cau ascertain, probably ? A. That I can ascertain. Q. And Saturday? A. Yes, sir ; on every train. Q. Will you give us every engine that run over the road on Satur- day and Sunday? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who built your other iron bridges? A. The largest bridge we have, which is at Central Falls, was built by the Edgemore Company, at Trenton, N. J. Q. Who furnished the design? A. The designs were furnished by the same company. We told them what we wanted. Q. I simply asked you who designed it? A. Their engineer. Q. How many iron bridges have you on the Providence Railroad now? A. This Bussej' bridge was an iron bridge. Then we go along, and get up into West Roxbury, and we cross two streets, Baker and Cass Streets; and those are crossed by iion I beams. Then we come to the river between West Roxbury and Dedham, and that has iron piers, — cylinders with iron piers. Q. I won't ask you to go jv r the whole road in detail. Can't you sa}', oil-hand, about how i. ai y iron bridges you have on the main line of the road? A. 1 can only tell by counting them up. Q. I won't ask you to take the time to do that, if you can't tell off- hand. A. I can't tell off-hand. Q. Have you built any iron bridges since 1882? A. Yes, sir; one in Rhode Island. Q. Who built that bridge? A. That was built by the Edgemore Iron Company. 1G2 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. At that time yon had received information from the commis- si uers that tl at bridge was of a peculiar construction. Did you take any pains to inquire of the engineer who had charge of that new bridge as to the safety of the Bussey Bridge' A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever call it to the attention of any of the bridge engi- neers with whom you had dealings in 1882? A. No, sir. Q. As far as you know, no bridge engineer has ever been called up i) by the road to give an opinion as to the safety of that bridge? A. No, sir. Q. How long is it since freight trains have been run over that road? A. I never knew that any ever did run there. <). Uo you know the reason why? A. There is no necessity. Q. You have freight running to the stations on the West Roxbury branch, haven't you? A. No, sir; only at Spring Street. Q. Don't you deliver coal at Roslindale? A. No, sir. Q. Has any one ever requested you to allow the building of a side track for the delivery of coal at Roslindale? A. There is a party who has within a few months written to me about putting a coal yard there at Roslindale. Q. Did you allow it? A. No, sir. We have in contemplation putting a second track in there, and I explained to him that we did not know exactly how we stood. Q. Did you write him with respect to that? A. Yes, sir; 1 think 1 did. Q. What was the gentleman's name? A. I think it was W 7 hitte- more. Q. You run ice from the side track at Spring Street station, don't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. All that freight is carried to Dedham, and then over the Read- ville branch? A. Yes, sir. Q. How much farther is that than from Spring Street to the main track at Forest Hills? A. 1 suppose it is perhaps two miles from Dedham to Spring Street. Q. How far from Dedham to Readville? A. A little over two miles ; two and a third miles. Q. Then it is four and a third miles? A. Yes, sir. Q. How far from Readville to Forest Hills? A. I think Readville is eight and a half miles from Boston, — about four miles. Q. Have you, since you opened this Dedham branch, the branch round through Readville, ever contemplated running freight from Forest Hills to Dedham ? A. Well, contemplation — Q. You have never done it? A. I have never known any freight carried there since I have been on the road. Q. Why haven't you done it, — because you were afraid of the APPENDIX. 163 bridge, or because it was better railroading to go up to Dedhara and take the freight by the other road ? A. I will explain it in a few words : At Readville we Lave got a yard and plenty of tracks ; we have nothing at Forest Hills. We keep an engine at Readville, and at Dcdliara there is quite a manufacturing place called Walnut Hill, and it is more to our convenience to take our freight that way. Q. Is the broken brake beam to which you have referred pre- served? A. Yes, sir; it is down at the station. Q. And the two sections of the beam? A. I don't think it is broken. I never saw it until yesterday ; it is bent and cut. Q. Have you ever received any notice, other than the notice of the falling of nuts from the bridge, from any person, relative to the safety of the bridge? A. 1 never had the slightest hint from any one. If I had, I should have paid attention to it. Q. Did not your clerk report what one of the witnesses said yes- terday, — Mr. Bock? A. I saw that this morning. I came directly, 3 T ou may say, from Bussey Bridge here, and I spoke to my clerk about it, and he said he didn't know anything about it. I have asked Mr. George Folsom if he ever heard anything of the kind. He said he thought he had a letter from me relating to this transaction, and I have asked him to find it, if it is a possible thing. Q. Mr. Hewins was the designer of this bridge in connection with Mr. George Folsom. You took pains to ask about Mr. Hewins. Did you take pains to ask people who were competent to give an opinion as to his ability as an engineer and bridge builder? A. Mr. Richard- son, who, I took it, had some connection wiih that concern out there. I had no acquaintance with Mr. Hewins, only just knew him ; and all my communications about him were eminently satisfactory, as a high- toned, honorable man, and competent in his profession. Q. There were nine cars on that train, and how many brakemen? A. Three brakemen and three conductors. Q. Have you any objection to giving the reasons why you are op- posed to guard rails, inside or outside the rail? A. A guard rail forms an admirable opportunity for malicious persons to put in ob- structions, and they cannot be seen by the engineer very well. I have heard of coupling chairs being put in between guard rails, and pieces of chairs ; and I know very well that my predecessor in office and our old master mechanic were very bitter against guard rails. Possibly I entertain some of their prejudices. I certainly, if I had my way, would not use them. Q. Your principal objection, I suppose, is the opportunity they afford for malicious persons to make obstructions? A. They are capital things for malicious persons. Q. So are ties and rails that are lying along the road for repairs. 164 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. A. All those things are elements of danger, and they are used occa- sionally. Q. Is it not a fact that some of the very best managed railroads in this country use them? A. Oh, yes, sir; but what we use we think is a great deal better ; it is three and a half inch plank. Q. But that is not a guard timber? A. Then we have a guard timber outside of that. Q. But you do not believe in guard rails nearer the rail, either in- side or outside? A. I would not put one on a bridge of my own free will. Q. Are you aware that several bridges have been saved by those guard rails? A. I don't know of any. I know that we have saved our trains by the system that we use. Q. By a plank? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Stevens.) Will you explain how any one could place any obstruction between a guard rail and the rail, if the guard rail was placed on the outside where your plank is? A. I never saw them on the outside. All the guard rails that I have ever seen were always on the inside. Q. They could be placed on the outside, just like the plank? A. Yes, sir ; certainly. Q. There would be no place, then, for an obstruction, any more than between a plank and the rail? A. Yes, sir ; it would be a capi- tal place to put in a bent coupling link or anything of that kind, and it would lie there. Q. There would be no wheel or flange to run out there? A. No ; but a wheel would come in contact with any obstacle put in there. Q. The flange would be on the inside? A. I know; but the ob- struction would be on top of the rail just the same. Q. Did you ever have any doubts in your mind in regard to the safety of that bridge? A. No, sir ; I always thought it was a sub- stantial structure. Q. You never contemplated removing it? A. No, sir; I con- sidered it a permanent fixture. Q. You do not recollect stopping there with a party of gentlemen and saying that you supposed something w r ould have to be done, and you thought you would take it out altogether? A. No, sir ; I do not. Q. (By the Chairman.) Did you ever notice, when you were under that bridge, and there was a train going over it, any unusual rattle of the bridge? A. No, sir ; it was a very stiil bridge. Q. The iron didn't rattle more than is customary in the best-con- structed bridges? A. I don't think it rattled so much. It was a APPENDIX. 165 very still structure. Of course, as I said before, there is never any very rapid travelling over it ; it is impossible, in the order of business. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Had you intended to run a double track over that bridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. As it was before the accident? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) "Without changing the other track? A. Yes, sir ; we considered it safe. Q. You say the Edgemore Iron Works are making an iron bridge for use in Rhode Island? A. No ; I say they have built one for us. Q. You told them, or in some way they were told, what was wanted, and they furnished the plans and specifications? A. Yes, sir ; we gave them the specifications of what we wanted. Q. Not giving them any specific design, only the work that it was to do? A. Well, of course there is a great variety of bridges, and our superintendent of bridges selects what he wants. Q. But he selects a regular design ? He does not have a special design drawn for the case? A. No, sir ; no special design. Q. He trusts the manufacturing company to do the work? A. Ye?, sir. Q. With regard to the views of the Railroad Commissioners, — you have exchanged views, I take it, with the Railroad Commissioners a good many times, with regard to the various parts of your road? A. There is an annual examination made. Q. At that annual examination you go over the road with them? A. I think I have never failed to be with them. Q. And you discuss verbally the various questions which arise and the various suggestions that the\ r make? A. Certainly. Q. Do you recollect ever going with them over this bridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you get off and examine it with them? A. The first com- missioner, the one that was on the board the longest, who attended to bridges, was Mr. Briggs. He was always very careful in examining all bridges. I don't think there is an instance where he failed to go under the bridges and look them all over. I have seen him crawl through them. That was mostly in the time when we had wooden structures. Q. Did you ever go over this bridge with him? A. The bridge was constructed in 187G ; Mr. Briggs was a commissioner up to 1880, I think ; the records will show. Q. You have no recollection of going over this bridge with him ? A. Oh, yes ; I recollect Mr. Briggs very well. He examined this bridge several times. Q. He was a practical bridge builder? A. He was a practical bridge builder, and, I think, a civil engineer by profession. 1G6 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Have you any recollection of bis criticising the bridge or finding any fault with it? A. No, sir ; I don't tbink be ever found any fault with it. Q. Have you examined this bridge since that time, in company with the commissioners? A. I tbink that the successor of Mr. Briggs was Mr. Herschel ; I think be examined it two years. Q. Did be ever make any criticism of the bridge? A. I recollect of no unfavorable criticism by Mr. Herschel of that bridge. Q. Then, with the exception of the letter which has been read here, you don't recollect of bearing any criticism from the Railroad Commissioners? A. I never beard any at all. Q. Have any other engineers or practical bridge builders, as far as you know, ever criticised the character of the structure or its design? A. Not in my hearing, or that I ever heard of. Q. Among the reasons for not carrying freight up that way is the fact that it is a heavier grade, is it not? A. That has nothing to do with it ; it is a mere matter of convenience and economy. Q. You noticed, I think you said, that the web of one of those sixty-foot rails was drawn out of the fish plate at this end of the bridge, and the rail brought up on to the bank? A. No; I didn't say that. I said that I noticed something that was a curiosity ; which was, that a piece of the web of one of the long rails on the bridge was left in the joint, and the rail was down, I think, leaning against the wall. The rails lapped over on the embankment. Q. Was that one of the rails at this end of the bridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. On which side? A. I tbink it is the easterly rail, but I wouldn't be sure. It is there now ; it can be seen. Q. Where was the rail when you saw it? A. It was leaning against the abutment. Q. Does it show on the photographs here? A. I don't know; I have hardly looked at the photographs. Q. You don't recollect noticing whether that easterly rail was up on the bank or down in the road? A. I looked over the precipice and saw it there, and saw a piece had been torn out of the rail and left in the joint. Q. Then is it not that westerly rail that you are speaking of, — the one that shows there in that photograph? A. I don't know. Q. The rail that is torn is the easterly rail? A. I understand from Mr. Richards that the rail is up on the bank. I didn't go down into the pit at all. That is the curious fact that I wanted to bring out by Mr. Folsom, but he didn't know it. It seems we shall have to call Mr. Richards. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) You spoke of the Trenton Bridge Com- APPENDIX. 107 pan}*. You must have meant the Trenton Iron Works ? A. I had an impression that there was a Trenton Bridge Company. I know there is a Trenton Iron Company ; I think it is the Trenton Iron & Bridge Company. Q. (By the Chairman.) Do you know what the construction was in this joint here at the top of the junction of those two compression members before the accident? A. No ; I knew it was a casting. Q. Do you know how this cross piece was supported? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know how man}- of these hangers supported that beam? A. No, I don't. Q. Do you know that they were covered up by the casing so that they couldn't be seen? A. Yes ; I knew that they were in the box. Q. Did you ever have any anxiety in your mind in regard to these castings? A. Never. Q. Or think that there ought to be some way of examining them? A. I never had the slightest anxiety about them. Q. Do you think, if you had seen these hangers, that you would have had any anxiety? A. Seen them in the box? A. Yes, their general make and structure. A. No, sir ; I should have thought they would have been good for the purposes for which they were made. Q. You didn't know the construction of the bridge at that point, nor how that beam was suspended. A. No; I am not particularly familiar with bridge construction. Q. (By Mr. Aciiorn.) Was the test made in 1882 made in re- sponse to the suggestion of the commissioners? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was that test in conformity with their suggestion? Was it such a test as they suggested? A. I don't know ; no, I hardly think it was as they suggested. But Ave made the test, and we made a test that was satisfactory to us. Q. But you cannot say that it was what they recommended? A. I don't know what they recommended. Q. The test was made by Mr. George Folsom? A. Yes, sir. Q. The recommendation with regard to subsequent tests was not complied with? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know whether Mr. George Folsom ever had any knowl- edge that such recommendation was made? A. Oh, yes ; it was a matter talked over between ourselves. We meet frequently and talk over our affairs, — the bridge business and stations. Q. (By the Chairman.) Why did you not make subsequent tests? A. Well, the report came in my conversations with Mr. Folsom, that everything was satisfactory and all right, and the bridge was discharging its duty, and there was no need of any further tests; it 168 BUSSEY BKIDGE DISASTER. showed no signs of failure ; its condition was good, and we thought there was uo need of any further tests. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) You could not make such tests except on Sunday, I suppose, could you? A. No, sir. Alfred E. Billings — sworn. Q. (By the Chairman.) Were you on the 7 a. m. train from Ded- ham, Monday morning? A. Yes. Q. What is your residence? A. Dedham. Q. How long have you been a fireman? A. About five years on this road, and one year on the New York & New England. Q. And before that? A. I worked down in East Dedham, in a mill. Q. When did 3'ou first notice anything wrong? A. I didn't notice anything until we got to the Boston end of the bridge. Q. Exactly what happened tben ? A. I had one foot on the ten- der, resting my weight on it, and the other foot in the engine ; and I should judge about over this end of the abutment I felt a shock that very nearly threw me off my feet, and heard a loud snap, and then I raised up and looked back and we had broken apart from the forward car and were running away from it. The forward car looked to me as though it was off the track, and Mr. White, he reversed the engine and was stopping, when I told him for God's sake to go to Forest Hills for help, and we went to Forest Hills. I jumped off and tele- graphed for doctors and fi>r help, and got Mr. Prince to run his train full of passengers up there and we followed right up behind. Q. Which way did that shock throw you? A. Into the engine. Q. What was the nature of the motion of the engine and of the tender at that time? A. Well, I couldn't tell you. Q. Was it in the nature of a stop? A. Yes, sir ; as though it was cheeked like that (striking his hands together). Q. Was it the engine that was stopped or the tender that was stopped, or what? A. I couldn't tell what it was that was stopped ; ] should think it was the tender. Q. Did you notice anything in regard to the forward end of the engine being thrown up on the tender, the engine dropping to the rc:\r? A. No, sir. Q. Would you have noticed such a thing if it had happened? A. I don't know. Q. How soon do }'ou suppose that you looked to see about the con- nection between the tender and the first car? How far from the abutment had you got at that time? A. Probably ten feet. Q. When do you think the engine parted from the first car? A. About a car length from the abutment. APPENDIX. 169 Q. Not at the abutment, but after passing the abutment? A. Yes, I should think so. Q. What did you see of the rest of the accident? A. I could see the forward cars off the track, and one car shoot out to the left and go over the bridge, or go down ; I don't know as it went over. Q. "Which one was that; have you any idea? A. I couldn't tell you ; no, sir. Q. Do you think that any car got on to the abutment and then was pulled back? A. I can't tell you that. We never stopped at all ; we went right straight to Forest Hills. Q. What did you do when you got back? A. Went down and rendered what assistance I could. I helped take out eight ; took one man that was alive from the top of a car. Q. How do you mean from the top? A. Well, he was on top of the whole business, — on top of a car ; I don't know how he got there ; he was sitting in the middle of the car. Q. Was he seriously injured? A. I should think he was. Q. Do you know his name? A. I don't know ; he was an Irish- man, kind of an old man. Q. Where did you go to work? A. I went right down on the Boston end of the bridge there, on this end, down in the street, near the abutment. Q. Towards the front end or rear end of the train ? A. The front end. I worked there a while and then I went to look for my brother. I knew he was on the train. I just happened to think of him and I went to look for him. Q. Did you find him? A. I did. Q. Was he hurt? A. Not very bad. Q. What car was he in? A. In the smoking car. Q. Did you examine afterwards the condition of the cars on the abutment at the Boston end? A. I noticed that the third car was pretty badly telescoped ; that was the last car on the embankment. Q. At which end? A. On this end ; that is the last car that came over. Q. The front end ? A. No, the last end ; well, the whole car was pretty badly telescoped. Q. Had it its trucks under it? A. No, sir. Q. Did you notice where the trucks were ? A. Not from that car. I don't know where the trucks belonged, but I saw one set of trucks lying half-way down the bank, holding by the brake rod. Q. You didn't notice whether they were the trucks of that car or some other car? A. No, sir. Q. And you don't know whether the trucks of that third car were on the embankment or not? A. No, sir. 170 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Nor the trucks of the second car? A. I can't tell you. . Q. Didn't examine it carefully ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you examine any portion of the car carefully to see exactly what its condition was and what caused it? A. I didn't. Q. Have you any idea as to what was the cause of the accident? A. No, sir. Q. Do you think the primary cause was the giving way of the bridge, or the breaking of something on the train? A. I couldn't tell. Q. Haven't you got an idea, an opinion? A. No ; it don't always do to express one's opinion. Q. Well, it will do here. A. I don't doubt that; I don't know whether it was the bridge went down, or what it was. Q. You needn't be afraid to express any opinion which you have in regard to it. A. I should think it was the bridge, as far as I am concerned ; I don't know. I should think, from what Mr. White said, and from what I know myself, that the bridge was going down while we were on it. Q. Now, as to whether there was any cause for the bridge going down. Have you any opinion as to whether the bridge gave way from the simple weight of the cars, or whether there was some derailment or dropping of a brake bar or something of that kind ? A. That I don't know ; but I shouldn't think that the dropping of a brake bar from the train would affect the engine any. Q. Was there any derailment of the engine before it left the bridge ? A. No, sir. Q. It didn't get derailed at all? A. No, sir. Q. Do you think the bridge gave way at all before the engine left it? A. That I don't know ; I should think it had, but I don't know. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Was the snap that you heard on your side or the other side? A. I can't tell. It sounded like beneath me. Q. Have you examined your tender since then to see if there were any marks on the wheels, axles, or anything which would go to show that the engine had hit the embankment on this side? A. No, sir. Q. You take care of the engine, don't you? A. No, sir, I have nothing to do with that at all ; the engineer attends to that. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Your judgment that you began to go down while you were on the bridge is not in consequence of any sensation that 3'ou were going down ? A. No, sir. <,». Nor of any feeling at the time that you were going down? A- No, sir. Q. Nor of any opinion that you formed then, is it ? It is an opinion that you have formed since from the facts that you have heard? A. Yes, sir. APPENDIX. 171 Q. Not merely from facts that you knew at the time, but from facts that you have picked up since, like the rest of us? A. Yes, sir; from my own experience. Q. What was there in your own experience that leads you to think that the bridge began to go down before you left it? A. The strik- ing of the tender. Q. You think the tender struck something? A. I know it did. It struck hard enough to nearly take me off of my feet. Q. You mean that the wheels of the tender struck something hard? A. I suppose so. I don't know what else it was. Q. Was that what caused you to look up? A. Yes, sir. Q. A feeling as if the tender had struck something? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when you looked up you saw you were detached from the train, did you? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the train was off the track? A. Yes, sir. Q. You spoke of seeing some of the cars going off to your left ; you mean j-our left as you looked back? A. No; I mean my right as I looked back. Q. Were those cars towards the rear of the train, or the first two or three cars? A. I can't tell what cars they were. I know they were not the first cars. Q. Did they seem to you to go off the bridge? A. I can't tell what they were going off of; they were going down. I saw them go down. Q. Then when you say you saw the cars go down, you mean you saw the bridge go down? A. No ; I didn't see the bridge at all ; it was the cars that I saw. Q. You looked up as soon as you could after you felt this shock, didn't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you looked up you found that you were loose and that the first car appeared to be off the track, didn't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Could you see the second and third cars? A. No, sir. Q. But wherever you were at that time you were free of the train? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) Do you feel confident that that shock which the tender received could not have been the result of a shock to some other portion of the train, stopping it? A. I can't tell any- thing about that. It sounded to me as if it was on the tender, but whether it was or not I don't know. That was the way it felt to me. Q. Felt as if it was on the tender? A. Yes, sir. Q. Might it not have been from some other portion of the train? A. I don't think it was. Q. Was it in the nature of a jar? A. Yes, sir ; just like going off of a turn-table, only harder. 172 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) You have stated, if I have yon correctly, that from what you saw and what Mr. White said you thought the bridge was going down when you were on it? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you see other than you have described that indicated to you that the bridge was going down while you were on it? A. Nothing. Q. Nothing more than you have described? A. No, sir. Q. What did Mr. White say that led you to believe that? A. He spoke of the forward end of the engine striking something and rising up. Q. Was that shock felt while you were still on the bridge? A. I can't tell you that. On the rail just at this end of the bridge, as near as I can judge. Q. Over the abutment? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you speak of being over the abutment, you mean the upper part of the abutment and not the shelf? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Achorn.) Did you notice anything unusual as the engine passed on to the bridge at the further end? A. No, sir. Q. Which way were you facing when this shock came ? A. Facing towards Mr. White, on the right-hand side of the engine. Q. You were looking forward ? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you looked back could you look by the cars directly behind the engine so as to see the other parts of the train? A. No, sir. Q. There is a curve at the bridge, is there not? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) At the bridge? A. Well, there is a curve all the way around there, I suppose, as far as I know. Q. (By Mr. Achorn.) This snap that you heard, was that a sound that appeared to come from your engine or tender? A. It seemed to come from below. Q. Under the tender? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that came at the same time, I understand, that the shock came? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you state how many cars you saw go down? A. Only one. Q. And that was from the further end of the bridge? A. I can't tell what end of the bridge it was. I should judge it was about middle way. Q. You did not see the smoker? A. No, sir; I didn't see the smoker. Q. The car that you saw go down went towards the left? A. Towards the left, facing towards Boston. Q. Now, can you state, after having seen the positions of the cars APPENDIX. 173 afterwards, which car it was you saw go over? A. No, sir, I can't; I can't tell which car it was. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Can you recall now whether that car which you saw go over had the appearance of runniug off or of toppling over? A. That I can't say. I saw it go out there ; that is all I know. Q. Did it occur to you when you saw it that the bridge was down? A. No, sir. Q. Had it occurred to you before that the bridge was down? A. No, sir. Q. Then there was nothing in the motion of that car which you saw going off the west side of the bridge which suggested that the bridge was down ? A. That was the first thing I thought of, that the bridge was down. Q. You did think of that, then? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) In going over that bridge in the past have you ever noticed any swinging of the bridge? A. No, sir. Q. Noticed any jarring similar to that which you felt on Monday, only lighter? A. No, sir. Q. Noticed an}- jar at all in going off of the bridge? A. No, sir. Q. (By Mr. Achorn.) Can you state where the bell rope was broken? A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember that the bell on the engine rang? A. Yes, sir. Q. You cannot recall now what part of the rope was broken? A. I know there was some rope behind, but how much I don't know. Q. Did you draw the rope into the engine? A. No, sir. The rope was broken off and there was no rope on there when we got to Boston. Q. Then the rope must have broken off near the engine? A. It broke at the bell. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Has there ever been an} T anxiety among you young men engaged in running the cars in regard to the safety of this bridge? A. No, sir. Adjourned to Saturday, at 9.30. 174 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. FIFTH DAY. Saturday, March 19, 1887. The Board met at 9.30. The Chairman. The Board appreciates the anxiety of the pub- lic that this disaster should be investigated with the greatest thorough- ness. It is the intention of the Board to fulfil every expectation and desire of the public in that respect. We have adopted a course in this investigation which We believe is based upon reason, and which is likely to produce the most satisfactory and the most intelligent explanation of the disaster. That course has been, in the first place, to examine the employees of the railroad who were on the train at the time of the disaster ; then to examine the officials of the road who were responsible for the road-bed, for the bridge and for the rolling stock ; then to examine all those people who are represented to have discovered defects in the bridge, from loose nuts or other cause, in the past ; then to examine the passengers on the train as to their ex- perience ; and, Anally, to put on the experts, one of whom was em ployed by the Commission on the morning of the accident, another of whom was employed by the railroad company, and several of whom have made independent examinations on their own account, — giving them the benefit of all the evidence which is before the Com- mission, so that they may express their opinion with a full knowl- edge of all the details of the disaster. We believe that that is the best course to bring about a satisfactoiy result of the investiga- tion. George Richards — recalled. Q. (By the Chairman.) One of the two cars in the middle of the train, either 54 or 87, as I understand it, had cane seats. Do you know which one it was? A. I am not certain with regard to it, but I think it was 87. I did not think it was necessary to put that in. I put in every item that I considered important. Q. Certain passengers know they were in that car with cane seats, and we want to know whether that was the fourth or fifth car in the train. Anything which the road can furnish iu regard to that, the Commission would like to have. One statement which was made with regard to the make-up of the train was, that the first car was 52 ; second, 18; third, 28; fourth, 54 ; fifth, 87. Now, if there is any evidence that will determine that question, what the order of the cars was, whether 54 came before 87 or after it, and also which of those APPENDIX. 175 cars had cane seats, we would like to have it. A. I think the order 54 and 87 was fixed by one of the witnesses. The Chairman. There was something in the testimony which led me to think there was a question in regard to that. Mr. Putnam. There was a question, but that was fixed by a later witness. Mr. Richards. I feel quite sure that 54 had plush and 87 cane seats ; but I am not positive. The Chairman. Will you be kind enough, Mr. Putnam, to furnish us with information on that subject? Mr. Putnam. I will have such inquiry made at Dedham as is possible. The Chairman. Also as to the seats in the cars, whether either of them had cane seats or not. Q. Is this a statement made by you in regard to the cars? A. Yes, sir. The Chairman. The record is as follows : — Car No. 1. Built by Boston and Providence Company, June, 1872 ; had six stringers; last overhauled, Oct. 18, 1882. Car 18. Built by Bradley, July, 1871 ; had six stringers ; last overhauled May 14, 1886. Car 28. Built by Bradley in 1860 ; had cross framing and no middle stringers; rebuilt by the Boston and Providence Company, 1871; last overhauled, Dec. 30, 1885. Car 52. Built by Bradley, 1870; had six stringers; rebuilt by Boston and Providence Company, October, 1884, new trucks, standard axles; last overhauled, March 12, 1887. Car 54. Built by Bradley, 1870; rebuilt by Boston and Providence Company, March 20, 1886; had six stringers, and iron brake-beams; last overhauled when rebuilt; it then had new trucks, with standard axles. Car 80. Built by the Wasson Company, March 1880; had six stringers; last overhauled, Oct. 18, 1886. Car 81. Built by the Wasson Company, March, 1880 ; had six stringers ; last overhauled, March 16, 1886. Car 82. Built by the Wasson Company, March, 1880; had six stringers; last overhauled, Oct. 23, 1886. Car 87. Built by the Wasson Company, February, 1882 ; had six string- ers ; last overhauled, Jan. 11, 1887, when it had all new axles, with 30-inch wheels. When the cars are overhauled, all the draw and buffing gear is exam- ined, screwed and bolted up; all slack taken up, the trucks are removed, every bolt screwed up, every part examined; wheels and axles examined and changed if needed. (Signed) George Richards. 176 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. We have had submitted also a statement by Mr. Folsoin, the superintendent, in regard to the locomotives which went over the bridge on Sunday, the 13th: — Locomotives " Moses B. Ives" and "John Winthrop"ran at 9.30 a.m. from Dedhani to Boston, with six cars; 12.45, from Boston to Dedham, with eight cars; 5.30, from Boston to Dedham, with six cars; 2 p.m., from Ded- ham to Boston, with six cars ; 6.30 r. m., from Dedham to Boston, with seven cars ; 10 p. m , from Boston to Dedham, with eight cars. Mr. Aciiorn. I would like to ask Mr. A. A. Folsom whether two engines have ever been run over that bridge together, either in con- nection with snow-ploughs or in any other way ? Mr. Folsom. I can't answer that question. I am pretty sure they have. It can be easily ascertained. Mr. Achorn. I would like to know if it isn't the fact that two locomotives have been run over the road in connection with snow- ploughs, and that when they got to this bridge one engine passed over alone, and then the other followed with the train ? Mr. Folsom. I will ascertain. Adjourned to Monday, March 21, at 2 o'clock. SIXTH DAY. Monday, March 21, 1887. The Board met at 2.25. Henry A. G. Pomeroy— sworn. Q. (By the Chairman.) Your residence ? A. Highland station, West Roxbury. Q. Your occupation? A. Civil engineer; have been railroad superintendent. Q. Of what railroad? A. New York & New England. Q. How long ag) was that, and for how long? A. About ten or eleven years ago, for two 3 - ears. Q. Since then what have you been doing? A. Following my pro- fession. Q. Of civil engineer? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you at the scene of the accident on Monday last? A. I was. APPENDIX. 177 Q. "What did you find there? A. T arrived there about half-past eight in the morning, coming from Highland station. T saw the cars in the road, and I saw there was nothing I could do to relieve any one there. I commenced to look up on the top of the abutment for some signs that would lead me to discover the cause of the accident. I found on the right-hand side of the southeast corner of the southerly abutment, towards Dedham, a truck, which evidently came out (if one of 'the cars which had gone down, but no signs of any derailment. I also found a brake rod bent like a horseshoe lying across the track quite close to the abutment. It then occurred to me that a brake bur was the cause of the trouble. Since then I have learned that a brake hanger has been found about three hundred feet back from that abut- ment. Q. You didn't find it yourself? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know who did find it? A. It was an emphryee of the road ; I don't know his name. Q. The trucks were how far down the abutment? A. They were on the right-hand side, on top of the abutment. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) What do you mean by the right-hand side? A. Coming in ; I should have said east, — on the easterly corner of the Dedham abutment ; that will fix it. Q. (By the Chairman.) And the brake rod was where ? A. Right across the track, bent like a horseshoe, with the points towards the abutment. Q. Are you sure it was a brake rod? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Is it in that photograph? A. I don't see it. Q. Is it in that? A. No, sir. Q. Is it in that? A. No, sir; it didn't lie so that it could be shown in these photographs ; it lay too flat on the ground. Q. (By the Chairman.) Did you look to see whether there were any marks on the sleepers? A. I did. Q. What did you find on the sleepers? A. No marks at all. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Lock at that photograph, and turn it to the light, and see if you can trace anything there? A. It would take a man with a million-power microscope to see it. Q. (By the Chairman.) Did you make any examination of any other portion of the wreck? A. I did. Q. "What did you find ? A. I found some very bad welding on some links. Q. "Where were they? A. Lying down in the road; I couldn't specify exactly where they were. Q. You mean this sort of a link, a hanger? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Is that one of them? A. Suppose 178 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. take up that tiling whore I left it. about the rod and the hanger. I immediately drt-w this inference from that: that a brake hanger broke, dropped off, and let the brake beam down, was caught by the st'aps and held there until it came to the bridge. When it got to the bridge it caught on the brake rod, and the momentum of the car took the other end along and bent it up in the shape in which I found it; that the brake beam got under the wheels, derailed the cars, gave an unusual shock to the bridge, and threw it down. Q. Did you get any further light on the question out there? Did you make any other investigations? A. That was all the light I could get as to my theory. Q. Tliere were no marks on the sleepers? A. I didn't see any. Q. And you examined them carefully, did you? A. I did, for the very purpose of getting at the cause of the trouble. Q. But the trucks and the brake rod were both on the Dedham side of the bridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you find the brake beam anywhere? A. No, sir. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) You have been in the habit of riding over that bridge for the last four or five years? A. I have ridden over it fur nearly four years past. Q. You have had some ideas about it? A. I have ; yes, sir. Q. Won't you tell us in your own way what you have clone in the way of reporting it? A. I first saw the bridge four years ago next May. I was driving out under it. I saw the bridge had been changed since I had been there previously, and I stopped to look at it and then drove on ; and from what I saw of the bridge I imme- diately condemned it, for several reasons: one was that the trusses were wholly unlike, one on one side and the other on the other, and trusses of different construction don't take strains equally. One will yield on one side and then the other will yield. That gives a rock- ing motion to the engine. I also condemned it on account of the great angle of the bridge being on such a skew. I would condemn any truss bridge on an}' such skew as that. I don't believe a truss was ever made that would stand in such a place. I condemned it also on account of the fact that it took its bearing upon the lower chord instead of taking it upon the upper, virtually putting the bridge up on stilts, as a bridge weakens from its lateral and not from its vertical strain. I considered the bridge strong enough for any ordinary wear and tear, so long as everything went smoothlv. But the first time that there was any trouble on top of the bridge, I made up my mind that it would go down. I have so considered it ever since then. I have seen no reason to change my opinion. If the track was in perfect adjustment, everything might go perfectty straight. APPENDIX. 179 Q. How was the track towards Dedham ? A. The track was in fair condition until last summer, along about August I should think, when I found that in coming around the curve we received, as I thought, too much of a shock. I reported it to the station agent at Highlands, whose name is Ed Keith, I think, and told him that he had belter report that track in town and have them look after it ; it seemed to me out of adjustment. He said it wouldn't do him any good and he didn't care. I told him he need not trouble himself about it, I would attend to it. A few days after I saw the trackmen there and asked them if they wouldn't ask their boss to look at that track down by the bridge ; it seemed to nn that it wanted some ad- justment. I waited two or three weeks and fjund that no change had been made, and then I reported it to Mr. Wheeler, the depot master in Boston. I told him if he didn't fix that track over that bridge they wou'.d have trouble. Said he, " AVhat is the matter?" I said, ' k The outer rail on the curve is too low ; it wants raising." He said, " It had better be attended to." I don't think it ever was attended to. It didn't seem to me to grow any better ; on the contrary, it was growing worse. Two days before the accident, being a week ago Saturday, I came in on the 8.45 train from Highland station, and the shock was so great on those curves that it nearly took me off my feet ; I was standing up at the time, and I told the baggage master that he wouldn't ride over that bridge but a few times more if he didn't have that track fixed. Q. Did you in any way try to guard yourself against any accident that might occur at that place? A. Well, I made it a point to get into the baggage car to come into town, because I considered if the bridge went clown it would go down when the cars were running in- ward ; but going out I felt safer and rode in a passenger car. Q. Do you know what the grade was there ? A. I don't know, but I should say it was over sixty feet. Q. Is this curve that you are speaking of the same that Mr. Den- nett spoke about on Saturday, when he gave his evidence? A. I think not; I think that curve was at Forest Hills. Q. Do you know anything about that from actual observation? A. Yes, sir ; and from riding over it. Q. Well, what of it? A. I think it is a very dangerous place. I think there are all the elements there for a disaster quite as bad as this one. The six o'clock train out of Boston that goes up over the Dedham branch goes through Jamaica Plain at sixty miles an hour. It doesn't slow down very much between there and this curve at Forest Hills ; it goes around there at such a rate of speed that it will almost knock a man down if he is standing up. About two-thirds of the dis- tance on that curve there is a depression in the outer rail on the curve 180 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. and if a piece of the flange breaks off there the train will pile up in Stony Brook. Q. What causes you to think that that train goes at the rate of sixty miles an hour? A. It has been timed at a mile in fifty-seven seconds. Q. Have you timed it yourself? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know anybody who has? A. Yes, sir; Mr. Dennett has. I should judge from rny custom in riding over the road that it did go fully as fast as fifty-five or sixty miles. Mr. Kinsley. Sixty miles an hour is pretty fast. The Witness. I know it is. I shouldn't want to stand on the platform of the depot when it is going by. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) You say that the train that leaves Boston at six o'clock runs sixty miles an hour? A. Yes, sir. Q. How far does it go at that rate? A. Well, it will begin per- haps down at Boylston, it is at its maximum speed when it passes Jamaica Plain station, it may slow down a little by the time it gets up to Forest Hills station. Q. It gets to Dedham from Boston in twenty-five or thirty minutes, don't it? A. I don't know ; I never rode up on it to Dedham. Q. You never have timed it yourself? A. No, sir. Q. Then you got that statement from other people? A. I gave the authority, — Mr. Dennett. Q. If it goes the whole distance from Boston to Dedham, ten miles, in twenty-five minutes, it would have to go pretty slow somewhere, would it not, if it runs pait of the distance at the rate of sixty miles an hour? A. Yes, sir ; it might stop half an hour ; I don't know. Q. There would have to be something of that kind, wouldn't there? A. Very likely ; I know it reaches Highland station about sixteen minutes from Boston ; that is all I know about it. Q. Who is Mr. Keith, whom j r ou requested to report about this track? A. I understand he is station agent at Highland station. Q. How long ago was that? A. Last summer. Q. You have noticed the same defect in the track ever since, have you ? A. It has continued ever since. Q. That defect, as I understand it, was the insufficient elevation of the outer rail on the curve? A. That is what I took it to be. Q. You judged from its effects? A. By the oscillation of the car. Q. The car tends to fall otf more than it ought to in going around the curve? A. Yes, sir. Q. That is a matter of judgment, I suppose, iu the trackmen, is it nut? A. Yes, sir. Q. Different trackmen would have different judgment as to the APPENDIX. 181 amount of elevation the}' should give, or when they have given the proper amount? A. Yes, sir; it is a thing very easily determined. Q. As an engineering question? A. As a track-laying question. too. If a trackman finds that the inner rail is worn on the inner side, and the outer rail is not worn, his outer rail is too high. Q. Then a track layer should be on the watch to see that the sides of his rails are about equally worn? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that will determine the proper elevation? A. Yes, sir; it should, however, be adjusted to the highest speed. Q. It should be adjusted to the highest speed? A. Yes, sir; always. The lower speeds will take care of themselves. We know that a train will not go otf of the track on the inside of a curve. Q. Nor topple over from its being too high on the outside? A. No, sir. Q. Did you examine this truck that you found on the east side? A. I did not. Q. Did you see anything that would lead you to judge whether or not the brake rod that you saw belonged to that truck ? A. There was nothing to connect that brake rod with the truck, because the truck was a long distance from it. It seemed to be a truck entirely by itself, without an}' other appendage. Q. You say " a long distance." I should be glad if you would describe, as well as you can, just where the truck was, and just where the brake rod was? A. I cannot more fully than I have. I said the truck was on the extreme eastern end of the Dedham abutment, and the brake rod lay across the track. Q. Yes ; that I got. But how far back from the abutment did the brake rod lie across the track? A. Right exactly on the abutment, the points of it almost hanging over the abutment. Q. If I understand your idea, it is, that that brake rod loosening, let drop some portion of that truck — I don't know what you call it — which caught in one of the ties when it got on the bridge, where the ties were open, and that led to a derailment? A. No. Q. Please explain it again? A. A brake hanger, which was found, as I understand, about three hundred feet — Q. "What is a brake hanger? A. It is a sort of hinge which holds the brake beam up. There are two appliances, one for holding it up and the other for safety. The brake hanger holds it up. If that breaks off the brake beam drops down and is held by straps. Th:it drops it down nearer the rail, and that would be likely to be held there without inflicting any injury until it struck something that knocked it ofT. If that was hit by anything it would drop under the wheel, and almost instant dei ailment would be likely to ensue. 182 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Have you any conjecture as to what could have hit it and knocked it down ? A. Not the slightest. Q. Won't you explain again, Mr. Pomeroy, how the brake rod is connected with that series of events that you have described? A. Well, I found a brake rod bent like a horseshoe, with the points towards where the bridge was, the arch of it lying up on the track, just about half-way across the track; that is, the track was about midway between the points of the horseshoe. If yon bent it round in this shape you would have made the track come under it. Q. How would the parting of the brake rod let this hanger drop, that you have spoken of? A. It wouldn't. Q. What connection would that have with the brake hanger? A. That is simply a connecting link between the forward brake beam and the back brake beam ; when the brake beam dropped and let this brake rod down so that it would catch in the ground, one point would be held and the train would take the other end and double it ; then it would be broken off, and allowed to fall. It is a small rod, prob- ably half an inch in diameter. Q. In your judgment, would that rod have been curled up and dropped pretty nearly where it started, or would it have started some distance further back and been curled up and dropped in advance of where it was curled up? A. It couldn't have hit anything until it hit the bridge, because there was no mark of any collision. There was nothing there to show what it did strike. Q. What do you suppose it did strike? A. I cannot tell ; my idea is that it struck the bridge. Q. You mean by that, some of the flooring of the bridge ; one of thn ties? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) If it struck the ties would it not leave its marks? A. Certainly it would. Q. If those ties could be found they would undoubtedly show the marks. A. It might have struck point inwards, and made a hole no bigger than the end of your finger. Q. But if that brake rod fell coming towards Boston, and dropped down immediately, or caught in the bridge and was turned into the shape of a horseshoe, so that the ends were pointed towards Dedham, would it not leave on those ties some kind of a mark? A. You have got it wrong there, I think, Mr. Kinsley. Coming towards Boston, I supposed that the forward end of the brake rod dropped just about the time it reached the bridge ; then, being detached, the rear of the train took this end, doubled it up, and left the two points pointing towards Boston. Q. And bunched the ties? Is that your idea? A. Yes, sir; went into some tie or into some obstruction. APPENDIX. 183 Q. If those ties can be found you would expect to find scars upon them, would 3011 not? A. I think likely you would find a hole in one of the sides that would mark it. Q. If that bridge was a properly constructed bridge, would the breaking of the brake rod or brake beam have thrown that train off? A. It might have thrown it off; it might not have thrown the bridge down ; and had there been guard rails there, I think it would have saved the train. Q. (By the Chairman.) Do you suppose that the brake rod be- longed to the trucks you found on the embankment? A. I do not; because there were no marks between those trucks and the brake rod. If this brake rod had been connected with the truck it might have dragged it there ; there were no marks to show how that truck came there. There was not even the impression of a wheel between the rails and the position of that truck, showing pretty conclusively that the car turned up and then dumped these wheels there. Q. Now, with the exception of this matter of the brake hanger, which was found three hundred feet back, according to your supposi- tion, but which may possibly have been carried there, is there any- thing in 3 our mind to show conclusively that the brake rod and the trucks may not have belonged to the rear car of the train, and been torn off when that car was turned from the rails over sideways and then into the street? A. That is very possible. Q. And your theory would depend largely upon what is found upon the cross ties of the bridge? A. Yes, to some extent on that and to some extent — Q. If the first cross ties of the bridge are not found to be marred continuously, your theory is wrong? A. Then my theory is wrong. My idea was that that brake rod was on the fourth car ; that that was the one that was derailed. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Why did you attach it to the fourth car? A. Because that was the first car that was down in the road. Q. It might have been placed on either of the three forward ones as well as on the fourth, might it not? A. Possibly. Q. I mean, it would be perfectly consistent with your theory, would it not? A. No ; my idea was that the fourth car was the one that derailed the train. Q. How would you account for the telescoping of the third car into the second ? A. Because they were crossing that bridge at a pretty good speed. The train broke apart, and when that pull of the last six cars was released, the third car came up in that way and tele- scoped the others. Q. That was after the derailment, of course? A. Yes, sir. Q. You supposed that the truck which you saw at the end of the 1S4 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. abutment without any marks between it and the rail was probably the truck of the smoker, which was rolled sideways over the abutment? A. That was the inference that I drew. Q. Can you conceive of any way in which the brake rod of that car should have been left behind where you found this brake rod? A. Yes ; but it would have been left straight, in all probability. Q. I mean, without any independent accident besides the rolling over of the car, could the brake rod have been left bent in this way? A. No, sir ; I can't imagine how it could. Q. It couldn't have been left bent unless it had met with some kind of a twist before it got there, besides the rolling over of the car? A. No ; from the fact that the brake rod lay up towards Boston with the truck in that position, the car couldn't have left the track where this brake rod was left. Q. That brake rod itself, if it had been where you saw it, would have derailed the cars as soon as they came in contact with it, would it not? A. No, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) That truck that was on the embankment might have been either the forward or rear truck of that last car, might it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. The brake rod may have been the brake rod of the forward truck of that car, may it not? A. I think not, from the position of this one that was remaining. Q. How far back was the truck on the abutment from the brake bar? A. The bridge was on such a great angle that the brake rod was a good deal nearer Boston than the truck was. Q. II ow far, should you say ? A. At right angles with the track, I should say perhaps twent}' feet. Q. Might not a truck be drawn from a car, the brake beam loosened and the brake rod finally catch in the track, even after the truck had separated? A. Yes ; but not under the existing circumstances. Q. I didn't understand how you accounted for the telescoping of the front cars in the train, on the theory that this accident happened by a brake beam on the fourth car getting on to the ties. A. Well, sir, if you have seen three or four boys pull at two ends of a rope, when one gang lets go the others sit down. The effect was the same on this train. The six cars were holding back ; they let go and the others sat down. Q. I want to understand that. Is it your belief, assuming that a train of nine cars parts and leaves the last six cars, that the snap of the engine on the train of three cars is such that it would telescope those cars? A. No, sir; I didn't say so. Q. Then please explain it again? A. I said it was likely the third APPENDIX. 185 car came into the second, and the second into the first. The engine is pulling. Q. Well, I do not catch it yet. I wish you would explain it more fully? A. The six rear cars were coming down hill on a falling bridge. They broke their coupling and released their pull-back, and with the engine pulling forward, it starts up the rear car against the second and the second against the first and telescopes them. Q. The strain back of the third car being released, the third car takes such a jump forward that it telescopes the second car? A. Yes, sir ; that is it exactly. Q. The engine all the time pulling ahead? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) And the hind car going up hill off of the bridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) Have you ever seen an accident of that sort happen? A. I have seen them in almost all possible shapes. Q. Have you ever seen one like that happen? A. 1 don't remem- ber particularly that individual kind of an accident. Q. Do you think that it is possible it should happen? A. I think it is very possible ; it certainly is not improbable. Q. (By Mr. Achorn.) Did the fact that the two trusses under the strain, deflected one nearly four times as much as the other show a weakness in the bridge? A. Decidedly. Q. That is, under the test that was given, if one deflected two- sixteenths of an inch and the other eight-sixteenths of an inch, it would show a weakness of the bridge, would it not? A. Certainly it would. Q. Did you examine the sleepers of the bridge? A. I did not. Q. Now, supposing that the brake rod fell at the bridge as you describe it, on your theoiy would the people in the fourth car have received a shock at that time? A. I should think they would. Q. Would you expect them to report a shock when they went on to .the bridge first? A. I should ; yes. Q. I would like to ask } T ou one question in relation to the Forest Hills curve, whether the outside curve could be elevated enough to meet the requirements that you think it should have, and still allow trains on the main track to pass? A. Yes; at the point on which the load acts it is two-thirds of the way around the curve, almost at the end towards Dedham. That curve could be reduced and made lighter than it is now, easily ; it is too sharp to go around there at the speed with which they go. I think it is about a three-degree curve ; I don't know ; it could easily be changed to two. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Is it the same curvature on both sides of the bridge? A. I am not speaking of that curve now ; I am speak- 186 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. ing of the curve at Fore9t Hills. I think the curve at the bridge is not so sharp as three degrees. Mr. Putnam. I was surprised at your speaking of that as a three- degree curve. The Witness. Oh, no ; that is not so sharp as that. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Am I correct in understanding you to say that there was a brake hanger found three hundred feet from the bridge towards Dedham ? A. So I was told by one of the employees of the road. Mr. Kinsley. I suppose that employee can be found? Mr. Putnam. I will make every effort to find him ; I have not heard of him before. I am very much obliged to Mr. Pomeroy for coming here. Adjourned to Tuesda}', at 10.30. SEVENTH DAY. Tuesday, March 22, 1887. The Board met at 10.30 a.m. George Richards — recalled. Q. (By the Chairman.) How were the rails on this side of the bridge ? Were there any torn off except about ten or fifteen or twenty feet from the bridge? A. There was one rail on the north abutment which belonged on the east side, and it was carried about sixty feet beyond its position. The rail lapped on the abutment several feet, and the north end of it was carried about sixty feet forward beyond its original positiou, towards Boston. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) It lapped on to the abutment how much ? A. I don't know how much ; I should think as much as ten feet. The bridge was covered with four sixty-foot rails. The joints were about the middle of the bridge, and of course they would have gone on to the abutments equally but for the skew of the bridge. I didn't measure the distance there ; I should think it was as much as eight or ten feet from the face of the abutment to where this joint was. I recognized this rail from the fact that there was a piece torn out of the base of the rail, and the piece left in the chair which held the rail exactly matches the part that is gone. The general bending was vertical. There were two long bends in it. From the rear end of that rail there is a part gone ; the rail was broken, but I don't know APPENDIX. 187 how much was broken off. In fact, when I discovered this, the roof of a car had been turned over on to it, and I couldn't get at it ; but I know it is broken, and isn't sixty feet long. Q. (B}- the Chairman.) Have you had that rail measured, what there is left of it? A. No; but it lies there where it can be. I tried to measure it, but I couldn't find the end of it ; it was covered up by the material. Q. The rail shown in photograph No. 4 is probably the rail on the west side of the track and at the north end of the bridge? A. I think there is no doubt about that. Q. And the one which the witness, Mr. Williams, referred to as being between the first and second cars was the corresponding rail on the east side of the bridge at the north end? A. Yes, that is right. Q. And that rail, 3-ou sa}-, was bent, and a portion of it was broken off, and you recognized it b}' the fact that a portion of the end where it was fastened was broken off and left in the chair? A. Yes, sir. It has since been taken out, and I think it has been preserved. The other end of the rail went into the pit below, and I think it has been preserved. I said this rail was broken. To determine that, I should have to look at the end that is covered with the roof of the car ; but I was told b} T one of the employees they had a piece of that rail, and it was broken. The roof was turned over on it before I went to look at the end of it ; but from the position in which the rail lies I feel quite sure of it, from the fact that there were sixty feet in each one of these rails. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) How were these rails fastened down, — with what kind of chairs? A. The ends with Fisher & Norris joints ; the middle with spikes. Q. What is the length of these Fisher & Norris joints? Arc the}- the old style or the new style? A. I don't know how long they are ; the fastening is a single U bolt. Q. Is it the old-fashioned Fisher & Norris joint, or is it the new one which they have lately got out, — an improvement on the old one? A. I don't know the improvement that you allude to. Q When were these Fisher & Norris joints made, — how long had they been there? A. I don't know. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) How far from the end of the rail was that broken piece which was still fastened into the chair? A. That broken piece is a ver} r small piece left in the chair. Q. How far was that from the north end of the rail? The Chairman. The north end of the rail was put into that chair. Q. It was the extreme end of the rail? A. Yes, sir ; and the part 188 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. of the rail that corresponded to that end of the rail was carried sixty feet beyond its original seat. Q. It was the bottom flange which was left in the chair? A. The bottom flange, what we call the base. Q. (By Mr. Pdtnam.) You spoke of this rail being bent verti- cally ; was the convexity of the bend on the upper or under side of the rail? A. "Well, it was bent in both directions, what I call up- wards and downwards. This rail had probably received a very severe shock. On the second car, the forward axle, which was a new axle put in in December (the axle was four inches and a half in diameter), there is a print which can be made by no piece that I can find around there except that steel rail. This rail was probably broken and struck against that axle ; that drove that truck from its position, tear- ing off all the fastenings, threw it to the left, and was the seat of all that immense shock. The rail shows its form on the axle. It was struck in such a position as to throw the truck and place it exactly where it was, throwing it around to the right, chocking against the other truck and causing the telescoping. There is no material to be found there, nor has there been any, which could have made the mark on that axle except that rail. Q. (By the Chairman.) What is the nature of the mark, — how deep a mark? A. Well, it is not eas} T to describe. It is as though the steel rail had been used as a gouge, as the wheel was still turning around, plowing out, as it were, a part of the metal. There are sev- eral gentlemen here who have seen the axle. This was the forward axle of the second car. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) I suppose, Mr. Richards, that after the end of that rail had gouged that axle, it passed over the axle and was stripped up, or did it gouge the under side of the axle? A. It proba- bly went under, from the position of the mark, and the truck must have stopped instantly for a while and been pushed back and pushed on the right-hand side. This mark is on the right-hand side of the forward axle, near the wheel seat. It carried it' as far as that ; the rail was then taken up by some means and carried on to the bank. The train being nine cars was about five hundred feet long, and this shock must have taken place when more than two-thirds of the train had not reached the bridge. The weight of these cars, with their momentum, — the cars weigh probably about eighteen tons each, one hundred and sixty odd tons, — coming fifteen miles an hour, brought up against the end of that rail ; that is, not to speak of another thing, — the curve at the bridge. Q. At that time the engine also was on the train? A. The engine probably broke apart from the shock, I should think ; of course it is uncertain. The train was parted first from the tender, then between APPENDIX. 189 the first and second cars, then between the third and fourth. The fourth car came up on the bank and left the roof; the roof lies there, while the bod}- of the car is down here without its roof (referring to photograph) ; the roof of 87 is on the bank. The question was raised as to the distance from the bridge to the commencement of the curve. There was a straight line above the bridge of fifty-five feet by actual measurement, that is, south, on the Dedham side. North of the bridge the straight line measures forty-two feet. Of course it is only the south curve which could be considered in this particular case. Q. (By the Chairman.) What is the nature of the curve on the south side of the bridge, — how many degrees? A. I don't know ; I never paid much attention to it, only the length of the curve. Mr. Potnam. It is understood to be a one-degree curve. Q. What was the length of these various cars in the train? Were they all of the same length? A. Well, about the same length. The bodies were about fifty feet ; the cars measure over the platforms about fifty-five or fifty-five and a half feet. Q. How far is it from where the rear end of the truck rests upon the track to the rear end of the Miller platform of a car? A. They vary somewhat, but the back end, or the outside end, as we call it, of the truck is about even with the body of the car ; although in some special cars it is carried out further, and in some cars under further, according to the length of the truck. We make cars that have a truck seven feet long, and some five and a half, but the relative posi- tion is about the same. Q. These trucks had two wheels on each side? A. Yes, sir. Q. How far is it from the bearing point of the front wheel of the truck to the front end of the Miller platform? I wish you would make a measurement and let me know. A. There is a variation of two feet on some of the cars. Mr. Kinsley. You can tell exactly on these cars? Mr. Richards. I can tell exactly on any special car. The Chairman. I should like to know about these three cars. Mr. Richards. They are so smashed up I couldn't make the measurements. The Chairman. You can tell about the first two, can't you? Mr. Richards. I can tell about 18, I can tell about 52, and prob- ably 82. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Have you made an actual measurement of the distance from the end of the track on the north side of the abutment to the edge of the abutment? A. I don't understand ex- actly what you mean. Q. You have said that the rail projects over the edge of the abut- 190 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. ment ; that is, runs from the middle of the bridge and then over on to the abutment? A. Yes. Q. Now, have you measured the distance from the abutment end of the rail to the edge of the abutment? A. No ; I have not. Q. That can be easily ascertained, can it not? A. That can be easily ascertained, because the end of the rail, which is undisturbed by the wreck, is still there, and the trains are running over it ; we have only to measure from where the bridge rail begins. Q. Will you be kind enough to make that measurement at your earliest opportunity ? A. I will. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Can you say with certainty which of the cars, 87 or 54, had the cane seats? A. Fifry-four had the cane seats. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Where was the forward truck of the second car found lying? A. It was jammed back against the other truck out to the right, facing Boston, nearly its whole width, perhaps under it twelve or sixteen inches. Q. How far was that from the edge of the abutment? A. About 100 feet. From the rear end of the forward car, which was No. 52, to the abutment, it was 166 feet. Car No. 2 stood back about five feet towards the abutment, and was about fifty feet long, so it would be from 100 to 110 feet. I made the measurements from the rear end of the forward car to the face of the abutment, which was about 156 feet. Q. Now, was the second truck on the second car, the rear truck on the second car, displaced? A. It was near its place; driven back some, driven back perhaps five or six fret. Q. But it held its relative position? A. Nearty so ; a little out of place sideways, and a few feet back of its place. Q. The forward truck was against it? A. Against it and to one side of it, locked into it. Q. And that is the truck which you saj T has the marks? A. That is the truck which bears the marks. A gentleman here has the record of that pair of wheels and when it was put under, and that is the way I locate it as being the forward wheels, taking the original record of when it was put under. Q. You have the record of car 54, have you not? You showed it to me as the cane-seat car. A. Oh, yes, sir. Q. That is certain, is it? A. Oh, yes ; there is no doubt about it ; it is taken from the books. Q. And you have no question but that was the fifth car? A. I have no doubt at all about the cane seats, but as to its position on the train I have to rely on the reports of the train hands, and on what I APPENDIX. 191 sec of the wreck. It seems to me certain it was the fifth car in the train. Q. You are able to identify the top of 87 as on the embankment? A. Yes, sir ; it is still there. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Do you know, Mr. Richards, where the trucks of 87 were found? A. Not the exact spot; they were taken up from below. Q. You did not see them on the ground? A. Well, I saw all there was there, but not to identify them. Q. Not to fix in your mind the place where those trucks were found ? A. No. Q. Did you see those broken hangers on the daj r of the accident? A. The bridge hangers? Q. Yes, sir. A. I did. Q. These broken pieces that are here, you saw them on the spot? A. I saw parts of them ; I saw the castings which had the pieces in them. Q. The castings which had the small pieces, or the castings which had the large, the upper, ends of the hangers? A. The short pieces. They were mostly within the castings, and they must have been the short pieces. Q. Was the casting which they were within the angle block between the horizontal and the inclined member of the truss, or was it the end block of a floor timber ? A. These were right there with the end block ; the hangers were in the end block. Q. Of a floor timber? A. Yes, sir; in the casting where they belonged. The}' hadn't been separated. They had commenced taking off" the nuts to take out the pins, but there is no question that I saw them in the casting as they were. Q. They were upon a couple of I beams, weren't they ? A. No ; the men were at work then separating them. The other parts had been taken away, and they were simply on the pin which was in the casting. Q. You are sure they were within the casting? A. They were in the casting at the time. I tried to see the ends and I could not. I recollect the position in which the}' laid. Q. Then it must have been the angle block between the two members of the truss. There was no casting on the end of the floor beams, was there? A. Whatever it was, — I didn't notice the form of the hangers, but was looking for broken parts and tried to see them, but could not. Q. Was this a large casting that they were in ? A. A large casting ; yes, sir. Q. Where was it? A. It laid, I should say, about six feet from the north abutment and not far from midway of the width of the bridge. I didn't pay much attention to it. 192 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. On which side of the mass of ruined cars was it, — on the east side or west side? A. On the east side, between the wrecked cars and the face of the abutment, but it was laid in such a position that it might have been moved in parting the members. Q. Could it have been moved after the wreck had fallen without being carried over the mass of cars? A. Not very easily. Q. It must have originally fallen, then, on the east side of that mass of ruined cars, must it not? A. I should say it would have been a difficult job to have got it over there ; it would have required several men to do it ; the cars made a full line. (.,). There is no reason to suppose it was carried there ; there was no purpose in candying it there? A. No, sir; I don't suppose there was. Q. What time was it, on the day of the accident, that you saw this? A. This was the next day afterwards, I think. Q. It was not the day of the accident? A. Not the day of the accident. Q. It was the next clay, Tuesday ? A. Yes, sir. Q. The mass of broken cars was still there blocking the road? A. Yes, sir. Q. So that it could not have got over to the other side of that mass without being carried over with great difficulty? A. No; I don't see how it was possible. The Chairman. It was on the east side on the first day. Q. Did you see the other ends of these broken hangers, the ends that afterwards went to New York and have since come back? A. Well, I saw them the day of the accident, but I paid no attention to them. I saw some broken hangers lying somewheres ; I was look- ing intently for other things then, and I can simply say I am quite sure I saw them, probably, before they were taken away. Q. You do not remember where the}- were? A. No; I do not. Q. (By the Chairman.) What do you consider in regard to that break? (Exhibit M.) Is it all a new break? A. This is nearly all a new break ; there is a slight flaw in that ; this is wholly a new break. Q. How about the welding? A. The welding here was imperfect. Of course that is supposed to have been welded through there, but it never was. There is no doubt it was closed up in such a way that you could not see it if it was not welded. Q. What do you say as to these breaks? (Exhibit 0.) A. That has been soiled in the mud ; I shouldn't want to pass judgment upon it. That I should say was a new break soiled by the weather or mud. There is no wear or abrasion of the parts rubbing together as there APPENDIX. 193 would be if it were an old break. I should say that was soiled by the weather or mud. Q. You think that is a new break? A. I should think that was a new break and soiled by moisture and mud. Q. Clear across that? A. Yes, sir. Q. Js that all a new break? A. There is one corner there, a sec- tion, that looks like an old break. Q. All a new break except a little corner here? A. Yes, sir. Q. How was that welded? A. It was a partial weld originally. It was perfect there, a small section there imperfect, there imperfect, aud partially welded here. Q. Do you consider that a good weld? A. No ; I do not. And I never saw a weld made yet anywhere that I felt sure was a good weld until we had broken it. All welds are subject to that defect. They may be good on the outside, but there is no certainty of the weld on the inside. It is hidden from the outside, and the better the weld there is on the outside the harder it is to detect the welding in- side. Parting it shows it is not good welding. If that weld had been perfect it would have torn apart as hard at the weld as else- where. If it had been perfect it would never have parted here. ( ). You have had a good deal of experience in judging of broken iron, have you not? A. I have had some. Q. And you express it as your conviction that these are not old breaks ? (Referring to exhibit O. ) A.I express my opinion that it is so soiled 1 couldn't say ; so soiled by the weather. If it was an old weld that worked a good deal and was away from the weather, it would show some polished places, abrasions. When it is bright and clean it is easy to say what it is. Q. Can you tell by any method known to you of treating that piece of iron whether it is an old or a new break? A. I don't know of any way you could. Q. When was that broken hanger first called to your attention? A. I saw it as I passed by. I was with some gentlemen looking over the place to see what we could find, and we came to this and saw something missing that went in there. Q. When was that; which day? A. It was the day after the wreck, or the day following ; I am not sure. Mr. Putnam. It was on Tuesday. Q. Had your attention not been called to it before Tuesday? A. No ; I had had no time to attend to that. Q. Didn't Mr. Folsom or Mr. Yose call it to your attention before Tuesday? A. No, unless it was Mr. Vose ; I didn't know him till yesterday, and if he called my attention to it, it might have, been. 10 t BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Who had charge of clearing up the wreck? A. From below the bridge ? Q. Yes, sir. A. James Folsom. I went away as soon as I could get clear and hired a rigger to come there with his men, and all the stuff taken from below was lifted up by the rigger, except such things as castings. Q. Who gave instructions to the rigger as to what was to be done? A. Well, all the instructions he had I gave him. He came there wiih a l«.t of men, and James Fols >m — Q. From whom did you get your instructions? A. From the superintendent. Q. Did he give you any instructions that those broken hangers and other portions which might be of value in the investigation were to be preserved? A. At some time that day, or the next day, I couldn't say which, he instructed me to preserve everything that came into my hands that could be of value ; but these didn't pass into my hands at all, but rather through the rigger's and through the bridge builder's (Mr. James Folsom's) gang. Q. You employed the riggers and gave them their instructions, did you not? A. I gave them instructions to go to work and lift up this wreck, and turned them over to James Folsom, so that they could work in concert, as it was their job to take care of it. The general instructions were to get the stuff up. Q. Did you tell James Folsom that portions of the wreck that were of importance in the investigation were to be preserved? A. He to Id me, before I thought of the thing otherwise, before I had had time to think of it, that he had had orders to save all that might be of importance. Q. When was it, — on Monday or Tuesday ? A. I couldn't say ; I think it was Monday. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) The riggers were to hoist the things up on to the bank ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And there deliver them to Mr. James Folsom? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who had his cars and his wrecking gang up there? A. Y^es, sir ; that is it. Q. Was, in fact, all the important iron work of the bridge taken down to your shops and preserved ? A. All that has been removed by the company has been taken down to the shops. There have been a great many pieces stolen away. -Q. That, I take it, is not very heavy iron work, excepting these two pieces that went to New York? A. No ; only small scraps. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Should you consider a hanger safe which .has. a split in the weld, on the line of the weld? A. Well, it would depend upon the position of the hanger and what it had to do. APPENDIX. 195 Q. Well, these hangers? A. Some kinds of hangers are left open, any way. It might be a loop hanger, like a loop coupling. Q. Speaking of these hangers ; if you saw one of these hangers in that bridge with a split in the weld, you would take measures to have a new one put on, would you not? A. I should. Q. Have you examined these hangers which are not broken? A. I did look at them this morning. Q. That has a split in the weld, has it not? (Exhibit P.) A. It is an imperfect weld. Q. You would regard that as an element of weakness in the hanger? A. Yes, sir ; I should judge it would depend on the amount of work to be done. Q. Do you know where these two whole hangers, P and S, were taken from? A. I do not. Q. F.samine P again. In the lower loop of that hanger is a long slit in the weld, is there not? A. Not a slit in the weld, but a failure to weld. Q. Should you say that was a failure in the original welding? A. No ; I should not. Q. It opened afterwards? A. Opened afterwards. There was a slight welding way up in here ; you see a bright spot. It was no doubt intended to weld down to here, not clear up here, but to there. Q. Now, examine that crack, Mr. Richards, on the side of the lower loop of hanger P, and say whether you think that is an old or a new crack? A. Not very old. That is wet; and the edges are too sharp, the points are too keen, to be very old. Q. AVhat do you mean by ''very old"? A. I mean a difference between a day and a year, perhaps. A part of that might have been done by the shock. The edges are all sharp, as near as I can see in there. Q. Can you form any judgment when that crack was made? A. I shouldn't want to, without first breaking it off and looking at it. Q. Now, below the upper loop of that hanger there is another crack ; can you form any judgment as to that? A. It is a joint, and the weld has given away. Q. That is in the line of the weld, is it? A. Yes ; it is. Q. Now, examine hanger S. On the line of the weld of the lower loop there is a long crack, is there not? A. An opening of the joint, not a crack. Q. About how many inches from the end of the lower part of the loop? A. Several inches, some three and a half to four, that is open. Q. From the end of the loop? A. Yes, sir. 106 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Can 3011 say whether that is an old or a new break? A. It looks like the opening of an imperfect weld. Q. Should you say it was old or new ? You see no bright edges tin re, do you? A. No. Q. That would indicate it was an old break, wouldn't it? A. It indicates au old break, or else soiled by water or mud. It would de- pend upon where it has been. It is a very easy matter to make an old break out of a new one. That is a game we have played as a common tiling around the shop, by soiling with acid, or soiling with water; and what we have to rely upon is the abrasion of the parts, or wearing of the parts Here it is impossible to look in to see whether there is any such indication or not. Q. Now, if you were inspecting the bridge and found that break in the weld, you would condemn that hanger, would you not? A. I don't think I should. Q. You think that hanger is sufficient? A. It would depend upon the strain that it was supposed to carry, and I don't know anything abi ut it. I couldn't say whether that is in proper proportion to the load, with a large margin, or not. I am not posted in the bridge business. If that was made to lift up one weight, it might be strong enough, and for another weight it would not be. I haven't heard any one speak yet of the strain that was supposed to carry on these links ; I know nothing about it. If I wished simply to lift up a locomotive that only weighs fifty tons, I shouldn't hesitate to take that to lift it with. If I had got to lift up three or four, it would be quite a differ- ent thing. Q. Have you any hesitation, Mr. Richards, as a mechanic, in say- ing that that hanger is an imperfect hanger? A. It depends on the load to be carried. Q. Would you deem that hanger adequate to carry the load it had to carry? A. I should say it is not as strong as it is possible to make a hanger. Q. On the upper part of that hanger there is a split down from the bottom of the loop, is there not, of two or three inches? A. I don't understand what you are driving at. <4. I refer to that. A. The further down this opening comes the stronger it is, ami the higher up that is welded the more liable it will be i" split apart. You see the idea is to leave it open like a Y. If they had brought it up here, the weaker it would be ; the further down it went, — the longer this Y is, — the stronger it would be, if it finally ended in a good weld. The strength is not in the welding of that ; it is in the perfection of the cross section and nowdiere else, and it has nothing at all to do with this in any way, shape or fashion. True seience would bring that in the shape a line would take, — a small APPENDIX. 197 string drawn on a strain. Yon would not pull a string out of line and assume it would bold its position, neither should you a piece of iron. Q. Now, be kind enough to return to my question. There Ls a crack, is there not, through the lower part of that loop down some two or three inches? A. I don't see any evidence of it. I see evi- dence of a not welding there, but it is not necessary it should weld. Q. I have not asked 3011 that, Mr. Richards, as to the nee of it. I ask you if there is not a crack there two or three inches long? A. No; there is not. Q. You do not call that a crack? A. No. A crack must be in metal that has once joined together and afterwards parted, and there is no more crack there than there is there, in the strict sense of the word, as we call it. Do you call that a crack ? Q. I am not under examination, Mr. Richards. Is that a fissure, we will call it, if you like that any better, in the line of the weld? A. It is probably where the parts came together which were welded below, but there was no welding there. Q. You call that a perfect weld? A. I don't call it a perfect weld ; a perfect weld never fails. Q. Is that the welding line there where that fissure is? A. That is not welded there. Q. It is not? A. No. Q. Then it is a crack in the iron, isn't it? A. Not necessarily ; it can't be a crack if it was never united. Q. Now, look on the other side; do you call that a crack? A. No ; I do not. Q. About the same length, isn't it? A. As near as I can judge. Q. Can you tell whether that fissure is in the line of the weld? A. It is in the line where there are two parts that came together. Q. To be welded? A. To be welded, and were welded below. Q. In other words, it has opened at the welding point, hasn't it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. That is what I have been trying to get at. A. It has opened at the junction of the parts. Q. Now, tell us how long that opening is? A. About three inches. Q. That is on both sides? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Aciiorn.) You say that you think the end of that rail coming in contact with the axle on the second car caused the Shock to the train? A. I do. Q. Now, will you state in what position you assumed that rail to be when it came against the axle? A. It passed over the brake beam. 198 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. It is the long rail that wo are speaking of, the one sixty feet long? A. Yes, sir. Q. That lapped on to the north abutment? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the end was at the centre of the bridge ; that is the rail you are speaking of? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that centre end is the end you are speaking of when } t ou say it brought up against the axle, or the axle brought up against it, is it not? A. A piece of the rail is supposed to have hit there, from the shape of the indentation, and the position of the parts of the wreck bear out the opinion. Q. It was that long rail that you think caught against the axle ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And caused the mark on the axle. Now, will you state in what position yon assumed that rail was when it struck the axle? A. We assumed that the locomotive struck the rail and turned it aside, and the truck of the forward car went outside of that rail, and that is what carried the car so far to the right, ten or twelve ftet to the right, also turning the rail in ; then the brake beam was broken, a section very near the middle of it ; and then there is this mark on the axle, and we can find nothing else in or around the place that could mark it in that way. Q. How long is the piece of the rail that lay between the first and second cars ; that is, of the sixty- foot rail, how much could you find there? A. I don't know ; one end of it is in sight, but the other end is covered up with the roof of a car which lies there. Q. You don't know how long it was, whether it was the whole rail or a part of it? A. No. Q. And you cannot sa}* even that the rail was broken, can you? How do you know but the whole rail is there? A. It don't look as though it was. Q. You cannot say but what the whole rail is there, from any measure- ments, can you? A. No; but I think I can tell the difference at a guess between sixty feet and forty. Q. Have you noticed to see how much of it was covered up ? A. No, I have not; it is there, where it shows for itself. Q. If that rail was carried along as you would assume it was, it was carried along in front of the second car, was it not? or of the first car, — which? A. No ; by the second car. Q. Carried along in front of the second car? Then no car of that train passed over it at al! ? A. No. Q. The hind wheels of the second car did not pass over it, did they? A. Both trucks of the second car were so near together that they touched each other. No wheels passed over that rail, except the APPENDIX. 109 engine and tender wheels ; they could not possibly; all others were held up otherwise. Q. You do not think a journal broke, or an axle, or a brake rod, and that caused the accident? A. I do not know; we are looking for whatever indications we can find. Q. When did you form this theory in relation to the rail bringing up against the axle and causing the accident, the theory you have advanced to-day? A. I have been looking over for several days what matter we had, up the road and down, for whatever marks I could find. When I found this mark I studied that to find what could have marked it. I could find nothing else that could possibly have marked it in the shape it was ; and from the fact I had seen this ra'l on the bank. I studied that, — and I was out there most of the day Sunday and looked over it then, and saw the rail still there, — and was informed that the balance of the rail was found below in the highway, and that the rail was broken. After I had seen it the first time, and before this idea occurred to me, the roof of the car was moved by the wreckers and covered it up, so I can only say, as regards the broken rail, that it is reported broken, and I think, from the space it occupies, both hidden and seen, that there must be some of it gone. Q. Now, will you please state as nearly as 3-011 can when 3-011 formed the theory, when you began to attempt to demonstrate this theory? A. Can you tell me what day I was on the stand here? I think it was the day after that ; I think it was the day after I was called here. Mr. Kinsley. The 16th, Wednesday. Mr. Richards. I was asked to account for the telescoping, and I could see no way to account for it, I could see no way to account for the severe shock. I commenced then studying the wreck, looking for some way to account for that shock, and time developed this. Q. But you didn't think enough of 3-our theoiy to see whether the rail was broken or not? A. I didn't consider it necessary, from the fact that before I brought this up a man told me — one of our men — that the rail was broken, and that a piece was below ; I found it covered, and I didn't care to lift the roof off to see. As the evidence will show for itself, as the rail will show for itself whether it is broken or not, it wasn't necessary for me to uncover it. I had enough else to do. There is no hiding the evidence. There is the rail and there is the axle, and everything relating to it has been preserved, so far as possible. Q. If you had examined that rail, could 3-011 have found anything from that examination, do you think, that would have helped your theory? Supposing you had examined to see how much it was bent, what the nature of the end of the rail was, what marks there were on it, wouldn't it have helped to substantiate your theory? A. If I 200 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. could have seen the rail immediately after seeing the axle, and before it became soiled, very likely I might have found a connection between the two ; but it was too late. Then I might have found a mark on the end of the rail, where, acting as a gouge or chisel, it conformed somewhat to the sears on the axle. Q. (By Mr. AVilliams.) Is it your idea that when that rail broke, the broken end — that is, the south end of the broken piece — was carried under the first axle, or over the first axle of the second car? A. No ; my idea is that that piece is the piece which is found below ; that the engine broke the rail ; that the tender went over ; that the first car turned the rail aside from its fastening and moving it for- ward ; thence going from there, knocking out the rear truck of the first car, it was carried up on to the bank and dropped down. Then the rail was in condition, thrown from its fastenings, to reach this axle. Q. In what condition do 3'ou suppose it to have been? What was the position of the rail according to your idea? A. Ripped out of its place and turned upwards slightly. Q. Which end turned upw r ards? A. The south end of the re- maining part of the rail. Q. That is, the short section? A. No ; not the piece broken off, but the rail which remained, and which was afterwards torn out of its fastening. Q. Then your idea is, it was the long piece remaining? A. What you might call the north end of the rail, the Boston end of the rail. Q. The broken end, too? A. Well, I think that is the longest p ; ece ; I think it must be the longest piece. Q. The north side of the break? A. The north side of the break. Q. That that stood up in some way ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, that caught the first axle of the second car? A. Yes, sir. Q. How would it catch it? How could it, standing up in that way, possibly get a grip ? A. All it required was that the height should be right. The brake beam was smashed, and if it was raised up out of its position it had only got to be raised a few inches to strike the brake beam, and in severing the brake beam it would be carried up the balance. The brake beams, some of them, are as low as five inches from the rail ; but some are higher, according to the style of the brake. Probably the height of this brake beam would be about six inches. Q. So 3'our theory is that the whole of the injury to the axle was made by the north end, the broken end of the rail? A. The south end of the north piece of the rail. APPENDIX. 201 Q. That was pointing towards Dedham, wasn't it? A. Pointing towards Dedham. Q. Now, what I want you to tell me is how that could possibly get into the truck? A. Well, it was torn out by the trucks of the first car, torn from its fastenings, and the end turned inward, and in turning the rail inward the truck went outward (the car went some ten or twelve feet to the right), and the wheels of the second car received this blow which turned the truck round cornenvise, just as it was seen there that morning, — drove it back under the car, tore the other one from its fastenings, and caused the shock which telescoped and knocked the whole mass together. Q. Now, Mr. Richards, do you mean to say that the back truck of that second car was sufficiently strong to carry the forward truck and the piece of rail over a hundred feet, over that road-bed, without being knocked out from under it? If I understand you, the grip on this forward axle was sufficient to cause this whole accident ; that is your idea? A. No; it was a blow of a great many thousand tons striking square against the axle, a little underneath ; and as the axle turned, it gouged out the iron from it, and all there was to make it let go was the crippling of the rail vertically. If the rail could have been confined so it could not have crippled, it would have held ten thousand tons. Q. Then your idea is that having given that blow, the rail was caught up b}' the truck in some way so that afterwards the truck car- ried the rail along this distance? A. There it is ; there is the rail. Q. And that is jour opinion, isn't it? That is what carried the rail along? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, 3'ou are aware, I suppose, that the back truck of car No. 2 was substantially in position? You have so testified? A. Well, I said it was a few feet from position ; but let me explain : The two cars Nos. 2 and 3 were jammed together, and their platforms locked together and bent downwards, and the whole mass was locked so it took us some hours to separate the parts of the platforms and get the truck out. This truck went back, jamming down the platforms, and it had the resistance of the cars behind it. That is a part of the blow which helped tear the platform out of car No. 3. Q. Now, to come back, Mr. Richards, one of two things is cer- tainly true, is it not : Either that forward truck was carried in its place forward on the embankment and then thrown back, or else it was thrown off on the bridge and carried forward by the back truck ? Something must have held that in place to push it forward that dis- tance, must it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, is it your idea that that truck was thrown out of place by that rail ? A. Certainly ; it was started from its place then. 202 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Then the back truck of the car must have carried the forward truck that one hundred feet, mustn't it? A. No, sir; not by any means. Q. How can it be otherwise? A. Isn't there a lot of rods and connections? Wasn't there a three-quarter rod which held the other truck of the first car from going down the bank? Might not these rods, after the shock ceased, have held that for half a mile? Isn't the iron in these rods sufficient to account for it, to hold it up and cany it over? Doesn't the blow striking cornerwise indicate suffi- ciently that the truck was thrown over from the side? Q. One question at a time. I am asking you. I don't know any- thing about this railroad business at all. Is there any rod or iron underneath the car that is sufficient to carry along a displaced truck a hundred feet? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, what rod? A. Well, the truss rod, if it combined with that. Under most cars, or at least under many cars, there are four inch and a quarter truss rods ; either one of them would lift half a whole train up. Those are sagged downwards over posts. Besides that there are the brake rods, which will sustain the pressure of the brake. Those became snarled together in all sorts of ways. Q. Now, on your theor}' it is necessary that that second car should have travelled one hundred and fifty feet without a forward truck? A. Yes, sir. Now, let me state that I have known a car to travel a mile without a forward truck, and with no wreck. The car was coupled to the other cars and well locked ; and if the truck, on a good track, is taken out carefully, it will be perfectly safe to take out the forward truck of any car and draw the car for miles. Q. Notwithstanding there was a blow which was sufficient to knock that bridge down and break the rail? A. No; the removal of the truck alone, 1 stxy. Q. Under these circumstances it is rather peculiar, is it not, that the car should have gone one hundred and fifty feet without a truck? A. Yes, sir ; the whole thing is peculiar. Q. (By Mr. Achorn.) Whether you have any means of know- ing, assuming the rail was broken, whether it was broken at the south end or the north end? A. We have the end which will fix the north end of the rail by its position in the chair ; that would indicate which the north end of the rail was. Q. Did j'ou see the rails on the south abutment, — I mean at the end of the abutment? A. I saw them from the top of the abutment, but not to pay any attention to them. Looking down from the top of the abutment wall the rails were still there with the ties attached to them ; I saw them. Q. Will you state what the position was of those long rails? APPENDIX. 203 A. As I remember it, the rails and ties were still together, forming, as it were, a platform, an inclined plane. Q. The rails were bent down, but not broken? A. I didn't see any breaks. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Do I understand you that that rail must have been pushed by the secoud car, by the end being against the axle, and so carried to the other side of the bridge? A. Not neces- sarily. After the shock that moved the truck, the rail then could change its position, and the trucks, or any part of the car, become the carriage which carried it over. While it was partially in position it would offer a great resistance ; when it was moved some from its position, which no doubt would be done when the rail threw the truck back, then the whole condition would be changed. Q. If the end of that rail slipped up over any piece of iron under the car, it would be ripped up its whole length and carried on? A. ]t would depend on the conditions. If it once got over the axle the chances are the axle would pass along under it, lifting it up from the fastenings. Q. If the car was off the track with the end of this rail sticking up in that way, it might have caught over the axle or over some other rod and been ripped right up and carried along, might it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. You did not mean, then, to say to Mr. Williams that according to your theory the axle which struck the end of this rail carried the rail clear across the bridge and up on to the bank? A. Not by any means ; that would not have been possible. But after striking the rail, it lost its hold ; passing then over some of the parts of the trucks that would easily lift it and draw it from its fastenings, and carry it on, and it then became loaded on to some part of the car. When it received the blow it must have been nearly in a straight line ; but in passing over the axle, changing the whole position and passing some parts of the car trucks under it, that would lift it and draw the spikes. The Chairman. It seems to me it would be a waste of time to pursue further the investigation in regard to that rail until we know what the hidden end of it is, and we are now considerably in the dark with regard to that. I have spoken to Mr. Doane and requested hi in to go out and make an examination of the condition of that rail. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) You had on that bridge these sixty-foot rails, and there was a Fisher & Norris joint at this end ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And a Fisher & Norris joint at the other end? A. I presume there was. I don't know about the further end ; I paid no attention to that. I presume they were all Fisher & Norris joints. 204 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Do you know whether or not there was a Fisher & Norris joint in the middle? A. I do not. Q. Can any one tell? A. I presume the superintendent, Mr. Folsom, can. Mr. Folsom. No, I cannot. Mr. Kinsley. Will James Folsom know? Mr. Folsom. Yes. Adjourned to Friday, March 25, at 10.30 a.m. EIGHTH DAY. Friday, March 25, 1887. The Board met at 10.30. Testimony of Henry Austin Whitney. Q. (By the Chairman.) Your residence? A. Boston. Q. Occupation? A. President of the Boston & Providence Railroad. Q. How long have you been president? A. Since the 1st of January, 1876 ; and during the preceding year, 1875, during the absence of Governor Clifford, I was acting president for about six months. Q. Have any complaints in regard to this bridge as being unsafe ever reached you during your term of office? A. Never, sir, except- ing a notice which I understood came from Mr. Herschel, which, I understand, was addressed to the superintendent, and of which he made mention to me. I never heard an}' other complaint than that. Q. What action did you take at that time in regard to it? A. I can't recollect at this period, but I presume that I agreed with the superintendent that a test should be made of the bridge, which I was informed afterwards had been made by Mr. George Folsom. Q. Do you remember what the report was that he made in regard to it? A. I can't recollect the report, because it was a verbal one ; but had it been otherwise than that the bridge was sound and safe, of course I should have recollected it. Q. From that time on have you had any anxiety in regard to the bridge, or have you taken airy measures especiall}* with reference to the bridge to have it tested ? A. No, sir. I was asked at a meet- ing of the directors, the latter part of February last, I think in con- APPENDIX. 205 versation after the meeting had adjourned, by Mr. Robeson, whether I felt that that bridge was safe, and I told him entirely so, as after the examination that had lately been made by Mr. George Folsom he had spoken to me verbally about it; not by any formal report, simply in conversation about various matters relating to the road. He said that he had been very carefully over it, and he considered it was in a safe condition. I should never have thought of Mr. Robe- son's conversation again but for the accident. Q. Was that the whole of the conversation? A. That was all, sir. Q. Were you conversant with the details of the contract for re- building that bridge at the time it was built? A. No, sir ; I was not. I recollect seeing Mr. Hewins at the station frequently at the time, but I do not profess to have been conversant with the terms of the contract. If I had been, I don't think I should have been much the wiser at that time. Q. Do you remember what tests were made of the bridge after it was built? A. I know that it was tested by a heavy load being run upon it. Q. Do you remember the details of the test, or anything about it? A. I do not. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) I would like to ask Mr. Whitney (I don't know but it has been covered before) if there was ever any report made whereby there was a committee of the directors appointed to look at this bridge? A. No. sir; never to my knowledge. I have heard a rumor of that kind, but I have taken the opportunity of going over the records to see if there was any reference made to it, and there is not the slightest record, and there would have beeu most cer- tainly if there had been anything of that kind. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Did Mr. Robeson inform you that he asked you about that bridge by reason of a complaint that had been made to him? A. No, sir. Q. Did he tell you that some one had expressed fears concerning the safety of the bridge? A. Not to my recollection, sir. Q. What is your recollection as to the occasion of that conversa- tion? A. The occasion of that conversation was that I was making a statement of the proposed improvements of the present year, and I ran over quite a number. Amongst others, there was to be a new station at Stoughton, and, says I, " When I have finished the bridge at Dedham, I shall commence on the bridge over Mother Brook ; then I shall go to the Bussey bridge." And I recollect the remark which Mr. Robeson made, which I asked him if he recollected. lie Baid, " I think you have got about as much as you can get through with this year." It was on that occasion that he asked me if I thought 206 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. that bridge was safe, and I replied that I did, from the fact that Mr. Folsora had very recently told me that he had made an examination of it, and I had very great faith in Mr. Folsom. Q. Did you know that Mr. Folsom had never had any practical experience in bridge building? A. I knew that he had built or superintended a great many bridges on our road, but not as a scien- tific engineer — I presumed not; but I assumed that he had attained great skill and knowledge from his acquaintance with the bridges on our road. Q. Did you understand that he superintended the construction of the Bussev bridge? A. I did not, sir. I have always understood that Mr. Hewins superintended it. Q. Was that your usual custom, when you made a contract for the building of a bridge, to have the contractor superintend the con- struction? A. That was the first bridge I had any experience with. I had just come into the presidency at that time. But I know that since then, when we have had bridges of any importance built, we have had engineers summoned to examine the tests of the contractors, sometimes two or three, especially the bridge that we built at Valley Falls, which has a span, I think, of 365 feet. I was alarmed about it, that very year, if I recollect rightly, owing to a freshet at Worcester, and it occurred to me that it ought to be looked to. I went down there myself, and then got Mr. Minot to go with me, and he made a report, and I made a report to the board of directors, and asked them to go. We went down and examined that bridge, and Mr. Minot made a report that in case of a sudden disaster, like the giving way of the dams above there, that should let some of the debris down against the abutments of that bridge, or against the piers in the centre, they were not ample for the heavy traffic over it ; and I was forthwith instructed to have that bridge replaced as speedily as possible, which was done. I think we employed three, if not four, engineers to examine the specifications of the contractors, the Edge- more Iron Companjr of Delaware, and to see that all was right. I recollect that Mr. George Folsom asked to have some of the members strengthened, made more heavy than was required by what the engi- neer thought absolutely necessary. In regard to this Bussey bridge, as I said, it was my first experience, I think. I had no knowledge about the matter at that time. This bridge that Mr. Minot examined was in part built that same year, and completed the next year. Q. Since then has it been j'our practice to employ some person with special knowledge in the construction of bridges? A. We have built no bridges since that time, except highway bridges. Q. You employed Mr. Minot in that case, who is a bridge expert, did you? A. Yes, sir. APPENDIX. 207 Q. Have you employed him to examine an}' other bridges? A. He built for us the iron bridge at Hazlewood station this summer. The construction of that bridge was under his control. The reason it was put into his hands, however, was that Mr. Folsom had as much as he could attend to at Dedhara. Q. Should you consider Mr. Folsom as competent as Mr. Minot to judge of the strength and Qtness of a bridge? A. I should, for a plain, simple bridge, that went across at right angles. Q. Do you know whether you have any of the strain sheets of this bridge? A. I have asked whether they were in existence, and I have not been able to ascertain that they were. Q. You say you have caused an examination to be made for those strain sheets? A. Day before yesterday, I think it was, I asked Mr. Folsom if they were in our office. He said he had never seen them since the bridge was built ; if the}' were anywmere, they were probably at Roxbury. Q. Will you take pains to make further inquiry, an exhaustive in- quiry, whether those strain sheets are in existence? A. I will, to- day. Q. Was the contract for the construction of this bridge brought before the board of directors? A. 1 think not, sir. The probabili- ties are that it was not, owing to the fact that it was not an en- tirely new structure ; it was more in the nature of repairs of a bridge, than building an entirely new structure. I should rather doubt if it ever came to their notice. Q. When you build bridges now do you have the material tested? A. I don't know, sir, whether we do or not; we have the bridges tested. Q. Do you know whether you employ an inspector, independently of the contractor, to watch the work at the iron works? A. No, sir ; we do not. Q. Take the building of the Dedham bridge, which is now being constructed, do you know whether any of the material of that bridge has been tested? A. I presume it has been tested at the works ; but I don't know, sir. Q. By any one representing the railroad? A. No, sir. Q. As far as you know, it has not been? A. None of the iron work has gone up there as yet ; nothing but masonry has gone up as yet, sir. Q. After you had the talk with Mr. Robeson to which you have referred did you send word to any one regarding the strength of that bridge? A. I never had any correspondence, nor do I recollect of any conversation with any person, except it may have been Mr. George Folsom. 208 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Do you recollect whether the letter of the Railroad Commission- ers in 1881 was brought before the Board? A. I think not, sir. Q. Did you see it? A. I saw the letter. Q. It "was called to 3'our attention? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know whether it has been called to the attention of the board of directors? A. I don't think it has been, sir; except it has been brought out in the evidence here, which they have all read. Q. (By Mr. Aciiorn.) Mr. Whitney, you said that you have not known of any complaint about the bridge or in relation to it. Is it customary for complaints of that sort to be reported to you? A. I think that they would be, sir. Of course, every little detail of the road is not mentioned to me, but as a rule almost everything is brought to my knowledge. Q. Are not those complaints more generally made to the superin- tendent, and taken charge of by the superintendent than by you? A. They are more generally made to the superintendent. Q. Now, in regard to this recommendation for tests by the Railroad Commissioners in 1881, I think you say that came to your attention? A. Yes, sir ; that was called to my attention. Q. Do you remember that the Railroad Commissioners recom- mended more than one test, — continuous tests? A. I had forgotten that fact, sir. Q. Then you cannot give an}* reason why that recommendation was not followed out, and subsequent tests made of the bridge by the road? A. Excepting that there was constant examination being made by Mr. Folsom. Q. Do you consider that examination as made by Mr. Folsom suffi- cient to determine whether the bridge was in a suitable condition for travel or not? A. I did, at that time, sir. Q. You have stated that yon considered Mr. Folsom a competent judge of a simple bridge, in testing it. This bridge is not simple and not at right angles. Would you state that you consider him a com- petent official to make a test of that bridge, and determine whether it was safe or not? A. I did so consider him, sir. I don't think Mr. Fulsom ever liked it. Q. In the light of what has been recently developed, would you now consider him so? A. I think not; I should prefer a scientific engineer for a bridge that is built in that manner. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) What was your reason, Mr. Whitne}', for saying to Mr. Robeson that after you had finished the Dedham bridge you would go to the bridge over Mother Brook, and then to the Bus- sev bridge? A. Because that was the order which we proposed; those came in sequence. Q. What did you mean to do at Bussey bridge? A. That was APPENDIX. 209 not full}' determined. I met Mr. Hewins about six or seven months ago, some time during the summer, on the Common, and joined him, and referred to his having formerly been in our service. He said, "You know I am no longer building bridges; I am in charge of an electric light." " Well," I said, " we shall probably get at your bridge next summer, some time." Said he, " If I can be of any ser- vice to you, I wish }'on would call upon me. I shall not make any charge." I told him I didn't think we should need him, because we proposed to build a different structure. Q. Why were you going to disturb the bridge at all? A. Because we were going to build a double track ; otherwise I should not have thought of it. I had asked Mr. George Folsom if he thought we had better continue that bridge and double it up, and he said no, he should not advocate that, there were too many members in it. And it was that conversation with Mr. Folsom which led, some time last year, — I have forgotten when, we have had this matter of double track before us for a year and a half, — to this remark to Mr. Hewins. Q. Then when you speak of going from one form of bridge to another, you mean that you contemplated preparing the bridge for a double track ? A. For a double track. Q. Not on account of any anxiety which you felt in regard to the bridge? A. Not the slightest. Q. In the last ten years, since you have been president, what bridges have been built, or rebuilt, or removed on the road? A. Well, sir, we have done away with two bridges at Boylston Street by filling up solid, except allowing for one conduit under the road for the discharge of Stony Brook ; — no, there it was diverted entirely to the right, coming towards Boston. Then a very bad place at Forest Hills was rilled in solid, with the exception of two culverts built by the city. Then two highway bridges have been built fur safety during this past 3'ear, one in Attleborough and one in Hyde Park. At Hyde Park the main bridge, the county bridge, has been renewed. The tressle-work over Canton meadows was taken out and the abutments renewed ; and if I recollect rightly, I beams, about sixteen feet in span, were substituted, making two spans of sixteen feet. Then when we come to Attleborough, Hebronville and Dodgc-ville, I think there was one bridge 275 feet long that was done away with, and two arches were put in its place ; and those arches I should think were about seventy feet, — about thirty-flve feet each; and if 1 recollect rightly this long bridge was done away with by filling solid ; and at Dodgeville and Hebronville there have been two or three or four bridges done away with in the same way, by filling in ami building arches. Then we come to the Blackstone River, which is over the border about half a mile. That was the bridge to which I referred as 210 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. having been commenced in the same year that the Bussey bridge was, anil completed the next year. That was an expensive structure, cost- ing about $100,000. About the same time that that bridge was oom- ph !te il. I, with the consent of my directors, had a parapet placed upon the Canton viaduct. That bridge was built by the Edgemore Com- pany, and Mr. Edgemore thought at first that the parapet would be no use whatever ; but on further consideration he thought if a train should strike that obliquely, that might save the train from going off ; and that parapet was built, I recollect, at an expense of about $12,000. Q. Is that a truss bridge or a plate bridge? A. It is what is called a pin bridge, — the bridge over the Blackstone. Q. That means, I take it, that it is an open bridge, a truss bridge? A. Yes, sir ; where the fastening is with pins. Q. And the object of the parapet is to prevent the possibility of a derailed train going over it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who is building the bridge at Dedham? A. It is under the charge of Mr. Folsom. Q. And the iron is being furnished by the Boston Bridge Company ? A. I shall have to ask Mr. Folsom. Mr. A. A. Folsom. Yes ; the Boston Bridge Company. Q. The Boston Bridge Company furnish the material ? A. The Boston Bridge Company furnish the material. Q. That is to be an iron truss, I take it? A. That is to be an iron truss, with a solid floor. Q. Do you know whether it is to be a through bridge or a deck bridge? A. It is to be a deck bridge. Q. What I mean is, whether the rails will be on the bottom chord of the truss or on the top chord? A. I assume that they will be on the top ; I don't know. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Is that a highway bridge at Dedham? A. Yes, sir. We shorten up that bridge very much, too. Q. (P»3 T Mr. Putnam.) Has that been planned and so far manu- factured wholly under Mr. George Folsom's direction? A. So far as I know ; yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Was the parapet on the Canton viaduct ever tested? A. I should have been afraid to have tested it, afraid of knocking it over. It was never tested. Q. You left out a couple of bridges on your list, I think, did you not? A. I did not pretend to give you all. Q. I remember one that you built the past year on the Dedham branch. A. I had forgotten that. The same process of building has been carried on in Rhode Island as here, and we have done a great deal. APPENDIX. 211 Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) The policy being, as I judge, from what you say, Mr. Whitney, to gradually substitute stone arches and short spans for trusses and wide spans? A. Wherever possible, sir. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Did Mr. Folsom explain to you what he meant by there being too many members in this bridge? A. No, sir ; I understood, as I apprehend that you would, not being familiar with bridge building, that it was not simple enough ; it was too complex. Q. He did not explain it to you? That is all I wanted to know. A. I don't think he did. Q. Did you intend to run a double track over that bridge in the condition in which it was, or did you mean to change it? A. No, sir ; I intended to change it, as I stated. Q. That is, to strengthen that truss? A. No; I presumed we should build an entirely new bridge there. Q. (By the Chairman.) Were you aware, when this bridge was rebuilt, ten years ago, that it was the first iron bridge that Mr. Folsom had had to do with the construction of? A. I was not aware of it, sir, at that time. Q. When did you first learn that? A. I first learned it in his tes- timony here before the Commission, as far as I recollect. I dare say he may have mentioned it to me, but it was not impressed upon my memory otherwise. (,). What means have you taken to ensure the new bridge at Ded- ham being a safe structure; and by whom were the plans drawn? A. I presume they were drawn by the company. Mr. Folsom gave to the company, as I understand, what he wanted, — the character of the bridge that he wanted, — and they furnished the specifications under instructions given by him. Q. Is this Boston Bridge Company a company of long standing? A. It has built several bridges for us ; I don't think it is of very long standing. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Who is the agent? A. That I do not know, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) Have you had the specifications examined by an expert in the matter? A. I don't think they have been exam- ined by Mr. Minot ; simply by Mr. George Folsom. The Chairman. I think, under the circumstances, that the Railroad Commission would feel that that bridge ought to be examined by a competent expert. The Witness. We propose to have all our bridges examined very shortly by a scientific engineer. The Chairman. Well, it might save you expense, perhaps, if these specifications were examined by an expert before the bridge is put up. The Witness. They probably will be, sir. 212 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. (By Mr. Pctnam.) I understand that you intend to have the specifications of this bridge examined by an expert? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. George Folsom's service for the road antedated yours some fifteen years, did it not? A. Yes. sir. Mr. Clifford told me, when h, went away, that he considered him one of the most trustworthy and faithful servants that there was on the road ; he placed great re- liance on his judgment, and I have had reason to ever since, from seeing the great care that he has used, as I thought. Q. You consider him now, 1 take it, a thoroughly competent and capable mechanic and constructor? A. I do. Q. (By the Chairman.) Competent to build iron bridges? A. Well, sir, but for the questions which have been raised here, I should have felt perfectly safe in his building the Dedham bridge ; but under the circumstances I should think it would be desirable to call in other advice, in the light of to-day. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Mr. Hewins testified here that he pre- sented the plans of this bridge to Mr. Folsora, and that Mr. Folsom made some suggestions and alterations, and between them both they got up this style of bridge. I take it that, in the light of that evi- dence, if an engineer should give you plans and specifications now for an iron bridge, you would not adopt Mr. Folsom's ideas, would you ? A. I don't think I should, sir. William R. Robeson — sworn. Q. (By the Chairman.) Your residence? A. Lenox, Mass. Q. Your business? A. I am not in active business at present. Q. You are one of the directors of the Boston & Providence Rail- road? A. I am. Q. How long have you been so? A. Since 1867. Q. Have any complaints in regard to this bridge been brought to your attention during your service as director? A. Never any formal complaint ; I might say never any complaint. Q. Well, any expression of anxiety in regard to its safety? A. There was one expression of anxiety, and I asked whether there was any reason. There was something said in regard to additional ser- vice on the Dedham branch, and this remark was made tome: "I have no fault to find with the service of the road except this bridge." Then I asked, " Do you mean it seriously? Do you mean that you have heard any complaint?" The reply was, " None at all ; it is only a fancy of mine." It was said laughingly ; there has been no serious complaint whatever. Q. By whom was that said ? A. By Mrs. Alfred Rodman. There was nothing serious in the conversation at all. Q. Is that the only expression of anxiety in regard to the safety of APPENDIX. 213 the bridge that has come to your ears? A. The only one I have ever heard. Q. Was that in writing? A. Oh, no; it was a laughing conver- sation. Q. Never was put in writing? A. Never. Q. (By Mr. Pdtnam ) Mrs. Rodman is your sister, is she not? A. Yes, sir; sister-in-law or half-sister; hardly that, a connection of my family. Q. (By the Chairman.) Was it that conversation that led you to speak to Mr. Whitney as he has stated? A. When we were speak- ing of the expenses of the road, what we should be obliged to do, in speaking of the double track fur Dedham, if we got to that, that flashed across my mind, and I said to Mr Whitney, " Do you consider that bridge entirely safe?" and his reply was, " I do." There was no further conversation ; never any formal complaint. Q. AVas that at a meeting of the directors ? A . That was at a meeting of the directors, I think, on the 28th of February ; I am not sure. Q. Do you mean that it was while the meeting was going on or after the meeting? A. I am not sure ; I think it was after the meet- ing. We were discussing it informally. I am not quite sure, but I think all were present. Q. Are you in the habit of travelling over that bridge? A. Occa- sionally ; not often. Q. Have you ever noticed anything out of the way in the motion of the train in going over it? A.I never have. Q. Did Mrs. Rodman speak of any peculiarity of that sort? A. Not at all ; she merely said that it was a fancy, from the appearance of the bridge. Q. Did she state it as a peculiar fancy of her own, or as one in which other people joined? A. That was all. It was not a serious conversation. It was merely a remark which she made. Then I said immediately, "Do you know of anything?" The reply was. " Nothing." There was no further conversation about it. Q. Were you a director of the road at the time the contract with Mr. Hewins was made? A. Yes, sir; I must have been, but I have no recollection about it. I don't recall anything in regard to the matter. Q. Was it brought up at a meeting of the directors? A. That I cannot recall, it is so long ago. Q. Is it customary for contracts for the construction of bridges to be brought to the attention of the directors? A. Everything to be discussed is brought before the directors. Q. Have you at any time had occasion to doubt the ability or the 214 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. experience of Mr. George Folsom? A. Never; I had always sup- posed him a very competent man for the position. Q. I hive his qualifications been under discussion at the meetings of the board of directors? A. Never, further than that he was a very competent man for the place. I remember Governor Clifford telling me that he considered him a very competent man for the position. I never had reason to question it. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Let me ask you if there were any iron bridges built during Governor Clifford's administration? A. That I cannot say. Mr. Kinsley. My impression is that there were not ; that they have been built since. The Witness. I think not ; I think they have all been built since. Q. Mrs. Rodman gave you her opinion. Does she travel over the bridge? A. She travels over the bridge, and her family. But this was not any opinion ; it was laughingly said. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Do you recall what Mrs. Rodman said to you? A. Nothing but what I have stated. Q. I don't understand that you have attempted to state Mrs. Rod- man's words? A. What would you like to know? Q. I would like to know what she said about the bridge, if you can recall? A. She merely remarked that she had no complaint to make of the Providence road, except that bridge. Then I asked her if she had any knowledge of, or had ever heard, any complaint of it. She replied that she had not. She was not speaking seriously. Q. Did' she say that she was not speaking seriously? A. She did ; she had no serious complaint to make ; she never heard of any. Q. Did you tell her that you were going to a meeting of the board of directors and would bring the matter up there? A. I don't think I did ; I have no recollection of it. I may have said that I would bring the matter up. Q. Did you, in point of fact, say to her that you would bring it up? A. I don't recall it ; there was no formal conversation at any time. Q. How long after this was it that you spoke to Mr. Whitney? A, That I cannot tell ; a very short time. Q. Were other members of the board present when you made this statement? A. There were. Q. Did you state that a lady had spoken to you about it? A. I didn't speak to the board at all ; I merely asked Mr. Whitney that question. Q. Did you tell Mr. Whitney that a lady had spoken to you about it? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever speak to Mrs. Rodman afterwards about it or send any word to her? A. Never. APPENDIX. 215 Q. Or ask anybody else to do so? A. Never ; there was no serious conversation about it at all. It wasn't mentioned to me as a complaint ; mereh' laughingly spoken of. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) You never did mention Mrs. Rodman's complaint to the directors? A. Oh, no ; not to the directors. I don't know that I thought anything about it. At the time I asked Mr. Whitney we were discussing this change to a double track, and I merely said, " Do you consider that bridge perfectly safe?" I suppose I had it in my mind thru that the bridge might be used in connection with the double track, and it was merely as a matter of expense whether we ought to expend more money in building a new bridge entirely. That was in my mind when I asked the question ; not with reference to this, because I didn't pay any heed to it particularly. Q. If you did say to Mrs. Rodman that you would mention it to the directors, I understand that you didn't say it seriously? A. Oh, no ; I don't remember if I did so ; but if I did it was merely in a laughing way. Q. What was the period of Governor Clifford's presidency? A. I can hardly give you the date. Q. He immediately preceded Mr. Whitney, did he not? A. Yes; and he succeeded Judge Warren ; but the date I cannot recall now. Q. It was some eight or nine years before 1876, ending at that time, was it not? A. I should say so. Q. Then if that Parker truss, the eastern truss, of that Bussey bridge was put in four or five years before this truss, it must have been done under his administration, must it not? A. That I can't recall. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Have you asked any employee of the road or an}' other member of the board of directors concerning this bridge? A. Never. Q. It has never been a subject of remark at all? A. Never. Q. (By Mr. Achorn.) The first truss, the Parker truss, was put in under Mr. George Folsom's oversight? A. I presume it was ; but on those matters of detail I cannot state to you anything definitely. Q. He was occupying the position of bridge superintendent at the time? A. He was occupying that position at the time, and it would come under his care naturally. Joseph W. Balch — sworn. Q. (By the Chairman.) Your residence? A. Jamaica Plain. Q. What is your business? A. President of the Boylston Insur- ance Company. Q. How long have you been a director of the Providence Railroad? A. Since November, 1873. 216 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Have any complaints in regard to the Bus^ey bridge or expres- sions of anxiety in regard to its safety reached your ears? A. Never until since the disaster. Q. Do you remember hearing Mr. Robeson make an inquiry at the meeting of the directors in February in regard to the bridge? A. I do not; I suppose he spoke to Mr. Whitney. We had probably dis- solved and were about leaving. I don't recollect his having spoken in my presence. Q. Did you have any anxiety yourself in regard to the bridge? A. Not the least. I always supposed it to be a very firm, solid bridge. I frequently passed under it, as well as over it, and knew the bridge very well. Q. Did you hear Mr. Whitney state at a meeting of the directors that he proposed to rebuild certain bridges, among which was this Bussey bridge ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you know what the reason for rebuilding was in that case ? A. I presumed it was not on account of any insecurity of the bridge. I didn't understand that there was any special reason, only it would be more convenient to have a new bridge for the new tracks. Q. Were you aware that the bridge was at that time wide enough for two tracks? A. I knew there was a new span put in some time ago. Q. Did you know that it was then wide enough for two tracks ? A. I supposed it was. Q. Was there any discussion at that time as to the bridge, what its defects were, or anything of that sort, in your presence? A. I never heard any. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Mr. Balch, if that bridge was safe for a double track, what was the reason for building a new bridge? A. That I know nothing of; I only heard it spoken of, that they would probably build a new bridge. Q. No explanation came to your ears? A. No explanation whatever. Q. Do you recall having a gentleman approach you in the cars shortly before this disaster and protest against that bridge? A. No, sir. Q. You recall nothing of that kind? A. Nothing of the kind. Q. I would like to refresh your recollection in this way, for I have no doubt you will state the whole truth. Mr. Israel G. Whitney travels on that road, does he not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you frequently sit with him? A. Everyday. Q. You remember nothing of that kind being said when he was sitting with you? A. On the contrary, Mr. Whitney is willing to come up here and testify that he never had any fear of the bridge ; APPENDIX. 217 that the thought never occurred to him ; that when' he was on the bridge he felt quite as safe as anywhere else on the road. Q. I am not asking 3*011 what he said, but what somebod} - else said while you were with Mr. Whitney. A. I never heard it said. Mr. Putnam. I think it is not fair to put that question without naming the person who spoke to Mr. Balch. Mr. Williams. I should do that, if I could. Mr. Kinsley. I want to ask you a question, Mr. Williams. You do not know the name of the person who made that remark ? Mr. Williams. It was a stranger. As I was informed, a stranger approached Mr. Balch and did make a protest against that bridge to Mr. Balch, and Mr. Whitney was sitting with him. Of course, we should have the person, if it was possible. Mr. Putnam. You can name }'our informant. Mr. Williams. I don't propose to do that. Mr. Putnam. I think it would be fair. Mr. Williams. If Mr. Whitney does not recall it I shall be entirely satisfied that it was a mistake. Mr. Putnam. I shall ask the Chairman to be kind enough to call Mr. Israel G. Whitney at some time. Mr. Williams. I am perfectly willing to take Mr. Whitney's state- ment. If Mr. Whitney says that it is not so, we will regard that as a false rumor. The Witness. It is a matter that would have made a great im- pression upon me, because anything of that kind I should not, of course, have forgotten. Q. (By Mr. Achorn.) The question of whether you were to build a new bridge or not at that point for a double track was an open question, was it not ; that is, you had not decided? A. There had been no definite conclusion arrived at ; it was a matter to be looked into. The probability was that a new bridge would be built. Q. Then the statement that Superintendent Folsom has made in this examination, that they proposed to run a double track over it, was not correct? A. I don't think I get your point. I don't think there was anything settled ; or, in fact, that any definite conclusion had been arrived at. It was a matter in embryo, to be determined when we came to it. James A. Folsom — sworn. Q. (By the Chairman.) Your residence? A. 80 Alleghany Street, Boston. Q. What is your occupation ? A. I am foreman of the carpenters' gang of the Boston & Providence Railroad. 218 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Are you an}' relation of Mr. A. A. Folsom or Mr. George Folsom? A. I am brother to Mr. George F. Folsom. Q. When did 3-011 reach the scene of the accident? A. About eight o'clock. Q. Did you examine the cars on the north abutment at that time? A. Not particularly. The crew from the shop had commenced put- ting wheels under the second car from the engine before I got there. Q. How many cars were there on the abutment? A. Three. Q. Any portion of the fourth car? A. The roof of the fourth car. Q. What have you been engaged in doing since that time? A. At first in removing the wreck, and then assisting in building the new bridge. Q. Describe the condition of those cars, beginning with the first one in the train. A. That was on the bank, a little more than the bigness of it one side of the track. Q. What about its trucks? A. No trucks under it when I got there. Q. No trucks under the first car? A. No, sir; they had the end blocked up, and they were blocking up the centre. One end rested on the ground, and the} r were blocking up under the centre of the car. No trucks under it. Q. No trucks under the front end of it? A. No, sir. Q. Where were the trucks of the first car when you got out there? A. They had them partly under the second car, — what they told me were the trucks of the first car. They told me that they took the first truck of the first car, and the second truck lay on the bank, and they had taken that up and got it under the second car in order to remove the second car. Q. Where was the front truck of the first car when you got out there? A. It was under the second car. The}' had put it under there, as I understood it. Q. Put it under the second car? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the rear truck of the first car, where was that? A. That was under the second car. They had put it there. As I say, they had got their second car loaded on the trucks of the first car. They were the only decent trucks there were to load it on, and I suppose that was the reason. They had that done before I got there ; that is, Mr. Richards and his crew had it done. Q. In what condition was the second car? A. The front platform of it was broken considerably. The rear end was telescoped, as the}' call it. The platform was turned up towards the door, the end of the car crushed in on one corner more thau the other, on the roof. Q. On which corner the most? A. Well, looking toward Boston, the right-hand corner of the rear end of the car. APPENDIX. 219 Q. What crushed it in? A. I don't know. I suppose the third car did it. It had the appearance of it, I thought. Q. Any portion of the third car there? A. Yes, sir. t{. What portion of the third car? A. The body of the car. Q. No ; I mean that crushed into the second car? A. It was dis- connected from it when I got there. Q. The third car was disconnected from the second car? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was any portion of the third car left on the second car? A. I could not say for certain. It seems to me that the Miller platforms were entangled together, and, if I recollect rightly, a portion of the third car platform was entangled in the second car platform. Q. Where were the trucks of the second car? A. They were up on the bank near the abutment, — what they told me were the second car's trucks. Q. On which side of the track? A. I could not locate them exactly. They were very near the track, 1 think. Q. On the right or the left, looking towards Boston? A. On the right. Q. And the second car was resting where? A. The second car was on the trucks of the first car. Q. Had they got one or both trucks under it? A. They had both trucks in under it, if I remember rightly, when I got there, all ready to remove the car a little ways down the track to get it out of the way. Q. Where were those trucks, — one at one end and the other at the other? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were those the only trucks under the car ? A. Yes, sir. 0- Were those trucks taken out subsequently, or moved in any way? A. No, sir. I saw them under the car yesterday, in the same position they were when I saw them on the track out there. Mr. Putnam. May I explain this? I understand that the first car was so far off the track that it was practically out of the way, and so it was left there. But the second car interfered with the operation of the track, and, its trucks being disabled, they took the trucks from the first car and put them under the second car, and carried it off of the track, leaving the first car, without trucks, where it is now. The Chairman-. My difficulty is this: When I got out there the first car was out at the side of the track, minus the rear trucks, and the second car had two trucks towards the rear end which looked like the trucks belonging to that car. They were then engaged in rais- ing the front end of the car, so as to get one of the trucks of the first car under it. 220 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Mr. Putnam. You got there before Mr. Folsora, evidently, or before he got to work. The Chairman. I did not get there until eleven or twelve o'clock. Mr. Folsom got there at eight. I was trying to make out what the explanation was. Q, What time was it 3 - ou examined this second car? A. When I arrived there I immediately ran up to the embankment, and Mr. Richards' men were all to work there on that car, and I then went down below and examined things down there, and it might have been half an hour or perhaps an hour before I came up to the top of the bank again, and then the car was all loaded on the trucks. As I passed, I noticed that, and I thought to myself those trucks didn't belong under that car. They were about demolishing the third car altogether to get that out of the way of the track. Then I went down below and went to work with the men on the cars down there and didn't pay much attention to the top of the bank. I was down below all the time, and in my excitement when I arrived there I might not have noticed whether those trucks were under the car at the time I arrived there, but when I came up on the bank again, I noticed that they were. I had nothing whatever to do with the cars up on the bank ; Mr. Richards took care of those. I commenced work down below. Q. In what condition did you find the cars down below? Can you pick out from these photographs the pieces of the various cars and tell us which cars they were on the train in their order? Take photo- graph number 4 ; first, which was the fourth car in the train? A. It was under that roof here. That is what I call number 54. That was the fifth car in the train ; and the fourth was under this. Q. Completely under it? A. Yes, sir. There is one side of it. They were snarled in so together I could not tell. Q. (By Mr. Pdtnam.) Can you tell by the construction whether that piece belonged to 54 or 87? A. Eighty-seven. I see there on that piece the oval, which shows that it was 87. The stove appears in it. Q. (By the Chairman.) You identify that as part of what car in the train? A. The fourth car. Q. Being number what? A. Eighty-seven. Q. Which car is that of which the top shows? A. That would be the fifth car ; number 54. Q. Then the next car was what? A. Number 80. Q. Where is that? A. That is right there, with the roof torn from it and swung round. Q. What was the condition of this fourth car when you got there ? APPENDIX. 221 A. It was very nearly in its present position. (As shown in photo- graph number 4.) Q. And were the other cars abont as they are shown on these pic- tures? A. Yes, sir. This is the next one back of it, number 81. (Referring to photograph showing a full side view of 81.) Q. Is that the way that portion of the wreck appeared ? A. Yes, sir. That is the next one, number 82, and that is the smoker there turned bottom up. Q. In taking away the wreck, what have you found that was of interest as throwing light on the cause or nature of the accident? A. When I went down below I looked for the casting (angle-block). I knew that that was the vital casting in that bridge. I found that, with the floor beam that belonged to it, lying right down on the ground pretty near where the casting was. Then I looked for the location of this top chord and this end post, and when I found that, I made up my mind that that was what struck the blow that threw it in the position where it was. Q. On which side of the wreck did you find that angle-block? Did 3'ou find it on the north side of the wreck? A. No, sir ; it was on the other side, the south side. Q. And how near directly under the position in which it stood in the bridge? A. About directly under it, ten feet south. Q. About ten feet southerly, on a vertical line from the position in which it was? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did }*ou examine that carefully to see where it was exactly, with reference to its original position ? A. Yes, I did. I could point out the position now. Q. You are sure it was ten feet southerly? A. About ten feet ; I did not measure it. Q. I mean southerly rather than northerly? A. Yes, sir. Q. Away from Boston? A. Yes, sir. (Witness indicated on Mr. Philbrick's plan where he found the angle-block, and the spot was marked " X.") Q. How early in the morning did you discover that angle-block? A. I should say it was in the neighborhood of half-past eight. That was the first thing I thought of and one of the first things that I saw when I got down below. Q. You looked for it immediately, and you found it about half-past eight? A. I think about that time, sir. Q. What was its condition? A. It la\ T on the ground pretty near right side up, with one corner torn off as if it was struck a blow that knocked it out of position in the truss. Q. How much of it was torn off? A. I think there were about two inches down and up and six iuches long ecraped right off of the casting. 222 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Was it a dent, or scraped off, should 3*011 say ? A. Scraped off. It looked as if another piece of iron had struck it right there and scraped it right off. It was a rough, not a smooth cut. Q. Was that the only hreak on that block ? A. The lower part of it, the thin part of the casting, the casing that covered these hanger bolts, that was broken off some, where the small bolts went through it that held the lateral rods. They were broken out in places. Q. What was the condition of the hangers? A. I saw two pieces hanging to that pin inside of that casting. It was not a perfect weld. It was a new break, part of it. Q. You are speaking now of the part that remained in the upper casting? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see the other portion of the angle-block? A. I did not, at the time. I was occupied with something else. I saw the end of the floor beam, but I never saw those hangers or looked for them. After I saw that mark on the casting, I didn't think about the hangers at all. Q. Did you examine the break on the hangers at that time? A. Not the first time ; I didn't. After my brother came I took him down and showed him the casting there, and we both examined that and found a place that looked as if it was an imperfect weld. Q. When did you first examine the break on the hanger? A. I think it was somewhere about ten o'clock, — oh, the first time was about half-past eight, at the time I first saw the casting. Q. Did you examine the break at that time? A. I looked at it then ; yes, sir. Q. How did you examine it? A. I merely looked at it. Q. Was it easy to look at it at that time? A. Yes, sir. It was down under the casting. I had to bend over the casting and get down close to the ground to see it. Q. Did you have to lie down on the casting and look over that to see it? A. Yes, I did. The ends were down very near close to the ground. Q. At that time how much were the}' rusted? A. I could not say whether it was rust or red paint that was on the end of them ; but, I think, if I can recollect right, that it was pretty near half of them in the break. Q. The edge -of them? A. The edge of them, if I remember right ; one a little more than the other. Q. Where did you find the floor beam, and in what condition did you find it, — I mean the floor beam one end of which was supported by these hangers and the other by the abutment ? A. I found one end of it on the ground where the hangers were, and the other end up against the wall. APPENDIX. 223 Q. What was its condition? A. It was bent some, and the rods were bent; bnt the truss was complete, only the rods bent. The truss was all complete. Q. I am not talking about the truss now? A. I mean the truss of the floor beams. They all had small trusses under them. Q. I was talking about the beam which ran from these hangers across to the abutment? A. That is the one I mean, sir. Q. The beam itself was in what condition? A. It was bent some, bnt these rods in here were all in. The beam itself was bent. Q. It was not broken? A. No, sir. Q. The southerly end of that was where? A. Leaning against the abutment. Q. How near to its original position? A. Very near. Q. How about the stringer that ran from the abutment to this floor beam? A. It lay right directly nearly vertical under its position in the bridge. Q. In what condition was that? A. That was badly bent; the rods were not broken. In fact, I may say that none of the trusses were broken, only badly bent. Q. How about the beam which operated as a vertical support a short distance from the abutment (referring to the upright post at the north end of the truss), was that bent? A. No, sir; it was not bent. Q. Not bent nor broken ? A. No, sir. Q. How much does that angle-block weigh? A. About four or five hundred pounds. Q. Where is it? A. Out at the shop. Q. Was there anything in the other portions of the iron work of the bridge which suggested to your mind the cause of the accident? A. No, sir ; I did not find anything. Q. What was the condition of the further or southerly truss? A. The further truss was bent right down from the centre down into the street. Q. How do you mean bent? A. I mean the whole middle of it was pulled right in and sprung right down ; pulled sideways towards this main truss. Q. Was the top chord bent or broken? A. Yes, sir; bent. There was only one joint in it that was broken. There were bolts riveted at that bend that we had to cut to disconnect the truss. There was only one joint that was broken. Q. Where was that? A. That was about four panels back from the north end of the truss, forming part of the top chord. Q. Was it wholly broken? A. No, sir ; not wholly. We had to cut the rivets to get it apart entirely. 224 ' BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. The truss went clown as a whole, did it, bending but not break- ing? A. Yes, sir. Q. And bending towards the north end? A. Yes, sir. Q. And how about the uprights? A. The}' all lay on the ground, almost every one of them bent through the centre where the rods run through. Those were eight-inch I beams. Q. Were they also bent but not broken? A. They were bent but not broken. Q. Was any one of them broken? A. I have not found any broken ; haven't seen any. The foot block of the Pratt truss rested up against the abutment. Q. To return to the north truss again. How about the southerly members of the north truss; these two compression members? A. The top member lay in the street, part of it ; that was in two pieces. The first part, the north end of it, lay on the street partly under this No. 87 car, the end of it crushed where that long chord and the weight of the car crushed it, and the southerly piece lay over on the roadside, while one end rested on the wall and the other on the street. Q. Then the upright, the end post? A. That lay over the stone wall. Q. Lay in the field? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was that end post broken? A. No, sir. No members of the chord were broken, only this end of the northerly piece was crushed. (Referring to the north end of the upper chord.) Q. How did the top compression member break in two as you have described? A. I should say that that casting was struck and knocked right out, and there were only the little wrought-iron lugs inside that kept it in place when they put it together. The compression held it together, and when that blow came against the casting, the moment it started, this piece came down in the street, and that coming down threw the other pieces in the position they were outside the car. Q. When that block was started, as you have described, what was the etfect here? A. It disconnected that. Q. At the middle of the top compression member there was a block similar to that at the north end? A. Y r es, sir. Q. Now, going up, what was the condition of the wood work of the bridge? In the first place, what was the construction of the bridge on top of this stringer? A. There was a piece of eight-inch hard pine bolted to the stringer. Q. A piece of eight-inch hard pine run on top of the stringer? A. On top of the stringer, and the sleepers run on top of that. Q. At right angles? A. Yes, sir ; at right angles. Q. What was the condition of this piece of eight-inch hard pine and of the sleepers? A. They were all bolted to the stringers as APPENDIX. 225 the}- laid on the grouml. This one out here was broken and a piece of it was gone at the northerly end. (Referring to sleeper on top of the stringer of the west rail at the northerly end of the track.) As I say, a piece of that was broken off. A part of it — just how much I cannot say, about two-thirds, I should say — was still bolted to the stringer. I c uld not say which end of that truss that piece was gone from ; I do not remember now. Q. Do you remember what kind of a break that was? A. I do not. Q. How about the ties? A. That fender timber on top of the tics I found flown in the street 'under everything. The ties I coidd not find anything of, only pieces. The other ends of these were splintered and scattered about down in the street. Q. The westerly end of the ties at the northerly end of the bridge were in what condition? A. Kindling wood. Q. And the other ends of those same ties? A. They show marks of derailment. They are badly cut up and broken into pieces. Q. Where were those found? A. Down under this pile of stuff here, and down in back of the wreck. Q. Were they torn from their positions on the timber you have spoken of, or were they in position? A. They were scattered all round there. Q. How about the ties on the southerly two-thirds of the bridge ? A. I found them most all perfect, those that went over the truss. 80 far as I found any, I could not find any wheel-marks on them. They seemed to be perfect. Those at the southerly end were all perfect and all right. The rails were still spiked to them, and they hung to the rails. Q. Now, about the rails themselves, beginning at the southerly end? A. There were three sixty-foot rails in length, and two of them were still connected with the sleepers and remained on the ground. Q. Beginning at the southerly end of the bridge, the first rail of sixty fret lapped from the abutment on to the bridge, did it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And in what condition was that rail? A. It is shown in the picture, spiked down, bent vertically, but not sideways. Q. Now, the second set of rails extending from the end of those first rails nearly over to the joint block where the hangers gave way? A. The ends of those rails came out a little under the sixth car. Q. They were the middle rails of the bridge, were they ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were they on the sleepers, or were the}' torn from the sleepers? A. The middle rails were off from the sleepers ; the sleepers lay in zigzags. 226 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Those middle rails were not broken? A. No, sir. Q. Then the rails at the northern end of the bridge ? A. The one running on the west side, the Boston side, was bent very bad. Q. Was any portion of it broken off? A. No break that I saw. Q. Which way was that rail bent, as you remember it? A. I don't know ; I cannot tell that. Q. Think it over and tell me which way that rail was bent. Was it bent vertically, up and down, or was it bent sideways, and if so, to which side? A. Sideways entirely. Q. And to which side? A. I could not tell you unless I saw the rail. I could not explain it to } r ou. Q. Supposing you are standing on the bridge and facing towards Boston, which way did that rail bend, to the right or left? A. It siarted to the right, and then it went round to the left. Q. How do you know that that end was the south end of the rail? A. I know by the inside of the rail that the flange runs against. We can tell the inside or outside of a rail. The east rail on the north end of the track was broken in two. Q. How was that bent? A. I should say the first part of it had short crooks in it ; and the other part the Dedham end of the half, was down facing this abutment, stood right in the corner there. Q. Starting from the middle of the truss where this rail began, and coming towards Boston, describe the condition of the rail and where it was found. A. The half towards Dedham was found down on the street, one end resting up against the stone abutment — against the pier of the abutment. The bend commenced about midway on that piece, turned right up, five or six feet of it, pretty near straight to the broken end, the Boston end of the Dedham half. Q. Did that bend start to the right or left ; that is, coming from Dedham? A. It started to the right, to the best of 1113- recollection. Q. Was that as large a bend as on the other rail ? A. No, sir ; it was a short bend, first to the left, and then the tip end was to the right. The first bend was to the left, and the second, a very short bend, to the right, near to the break. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Were there Fisher-Nourse joints? A. There was a Nourse joint. Q. Were they connected with the rails? A. No, sir; they were torn out. Q. Can you find them now? A. I don't know as I can. The chairs were on there complete at the time. Q. Can you tell us positively if those three sixty-foot rails were fastened continuously in their proper places with the Fisher-Nourse joints? A. Yes, sir ; I know they were. APPENDIX. 227 Q. You know they did not come out from the fastenings after the accident? A. They were not out of the fastenings. Q. Do you know that the rail was fastened there with the Fisher- Nourse joint? A. Yes, sir. Q. What I want to know is this, did the Fisher-Nourse joint break and cause this rail to break? What do you think? A. There was no joint near where the break was on the rail. The rail was sixty feet long, and the Fisher-Nourse joint was on the rail. Q. If the Fisher-Nourse joint broke at the southerly end of the northerly rail on a sixty-foot rail and gave the car a twist, might it not break the rail there ? A. It might. Q. Can you get from the wreck the Fisher-Nonrse joints to match those rails? A. I don't think I can now. But there was no broken chair there. I am very positive I saw a chair lying on the ground connected with one of the sleepers. I thought of it at the time. Q. You and I understand what a Fisher-Nourse joint is ; if I un- derstand it right, a Fisher-Nourse joint does - not require the rail to be bored like an angle joint? A. No, sir ; it only requires a little corner to be cut out. Q. Those joints are in perfect order? A. Yes, sir; as far as I saw. Q. If that train came on to that bridge in a swaying condition, could it have caught on to one of those sixty-foot rails by a joint being imperfect, and twisted it so that it would break out the end of the rail? A. The end of the rail would show that. Q. Don't you believe that that rail could have broken where it was from the fact that a sixty-foot rail was put into a Fisher-Nourse joint which is not made for a sixty-foot rail? A. No, sir; I don't think that has anything to do with it at all. I do not think it would make any difference at all in breaking a rail. I cannot see how it could. Q. (By the Chairman.) This rail that we have been speaking about, the easterly rail at the northerly end of the bridge, was broken where, — how far off? A. Well, the piece that is left, the Boston end piece, measures thirty-two feet ; that would leave it twenty-eight feet from the Dedham end. (At this point the examination of Mr. Folsom was suspended.) Adjourned to Saturday, at 10.30 a. m. 228 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. NINTH DAY. Saturday, March 26, 1887. The Board met at 10.30. James A. Folsom — contimied. Q. (B}* the Chairman.) Mr. Folsom, you had spoken 3 T esterday of the condition of some of the cars, of the rails, of the joint-block and the hangers ; and I believe you had not examined the hangers here? A. No, sir. Q. When did you first see the breaks in the hangers, do you say? A. I think it was about ten o'clock. Q. Did you see both sides of the breaks at that time? A. You mean the upper and lower pieces? Q. Yes. A. I did not see the lower pieces ; I only saw the upper pieces that were fastend to this block. Q. Will you look at those now, and see whether they present the same general appearance that they did at that time? A. Yes, sir; they look the same as they did. Q. How about rust? A. Just about the same. Q. Are you accustomed to see iron broken, iron fractures? A. Well, somewhat, in regard to bolts, small rods and such things as that connected with a bridge. Q. Do you consider yourself capable of judging whether a break is a new or an old break ? A. Well, from the appearance of it, yes ; I think I can judge something about it. Q. What portion of those do you consider as new breaks, and what portion as old breaks? A. I always take it that the bright part of the iron shows a new break. Q. What portion of that ("X") do you think is a new break? A. That part there, and this end here. Q. How much of that break next to the upper eye should you say is new, and how much old? A. I should say that was all new break, except that dark point. Q. How much of the surface is new? A. About one-fifth of the surface. Q. How about this weld? A. I should say that was not perfect. Q. How about the other break on this same piece ? A. That is a new break, I should call it. Q. Now, take this piece (" Y") ; how much of that is new, and how much of it is old? A. I should say two-thirds of that was new, next to the eye. APPENDIX. 229 Q. How far down? Which portion of it is new? A. The out- side portion. The part next to the weld looks new. Q. And the other part farthest from the eye is old, in your opinion? A. Yes, sir. Q. How about the weld? A. Imperfect. Q. How about the weld at the junction of the eye? A. That looks perfect to me, as far as I know. Q. Have you looked on the other side of that? A. That looks perfect. Q. Now, the piece U X"? A. That has started about an inch and a half. Q. Is that an imperfect weld? A. A portion of it is, I should say- Q. Have you ever had any experience in iron work? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever been in blacksmiths' shops? A. Oh, yes, sir, a great deal. Q. Ever worked in a blacksmith's shop? A. No ; I never worked in a blacksmith's shop. I go over to the blacksmith's shop and give orders for what iron I want. I have seen them work, and seen them make welds, but as for doing any practical work in a blacksmith's shop I never have. Q. The information which you have in regard to these breaks is of what nature? A. Experience in seeing breaks. Q. Now, what other portions of the wreck did you find which throw light upon the cause of this disaster, if any? A. Well, I found an iron brake beam which had the appearance of being dragged some distance upon the rail, the mark of a flange of the wheel, as the wheel was turning, grinding into that. It was discolored, show- ing that it was heated from the wheel running against it. It had the appearance of dragging a long ways upon the rail. One end of the brake beam dropped before the other. The brake shoe was off, and that end dropped on the rail, and it struck against the wheel, and the flange of the wheel was grinding into the top edge of it, and it dis- colored it as if it had been heated by the grinding of the wheel into it. That piece of iron was found down under all the truck frames and wheels that went down at the corner of the bridge. It was found on the ground under a pile of the wreckage. Q. This was an iron brake beam ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the size of that? A. It is about six inches wide; I didn't measure it exactly. Q. And how thick? A. I should say it was from three-eighths to one-half an inch thickness in the middle — the web of it. It was the same as the I beam. Q. Under what portion of the bridge did you find that, — near the north abutment, or near the south abutment? A. On the opposite 230 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. side of the bridge, — this " north " and " south " is what bothers me on lhat branch, — under cars 54 and 87. It was under the wreckage of those two cars, where the most of the broken truck frames were and wheels. Q. Do you know to what car that brake beam belonged ? A. From Mr. Richards' statement, I should say it belonged to No. 54. That was the fifth car in the train. Q. What do you know about it yourself? A. That is all I know about it ; I have no knowledge whatever further than that. I could not trace it out, because the truck frames were all broken to pieces, — the truck frames that laid on top of it. I find that there were two sets of trucks that were not broken that had iron brake beams. There were two cars, as I understand, in the train that had iron brake beams. Under them I found the trucks of one car complete, with brake beams complete in them. The other trucks were all broken up under the wreckage of these cars. Q. I don't understand about the other iron brake beams, — what was their condition ? A. Those trucks, as nigh as I can trace out, had fallen under the second car, No. 18. The trucks that were complete — with I beams complete — were up on top of the banking. Those were the first things that were loaded and sent to the shop. Those, as I understood, had iron beams all complete on them. That is, there are two sets of trucks at the shop now with iron brake beams com- plete, and, as I understand it, those trucks belonged under No. 18 car, — the second car. Q. You found one iron brake beam on the ground ; did you find the other one also? A. Yes, sir ; I found the other one. Q. What was the condition of that? A. The other was not dam- aged any, only it was broken from the truck ; the shoes were on it complete. Q. Was there any appearance on this first brake beam which you have described which was inconsistent with its having been crushed or dented by the cars falling upon it? A. It could not have been done, sir ; it is impossible that it could have been bent in the shape it was. Those cars could not have got on it unless it fell on the rail and was dragged some distance. Those two marks of the flange of the wheel were enough to convince me that it had dropped on the earth and been dragged for some distance before the other hanger let go to drop it. Q. How heav}- is this brake beam ? A. Well, two men had to carry it. It is in Mr. Wheeler's office at the depot, or was yesterday. I sent it right in to Boston. Q. Is there any other portion of that brake that throws any light upon the question? A. One of my men, in walking up the track, about 250 feet from the bridge, found a piece of casting that held up APPENDIX. 231 a hanger that held up a brake beam, — half of a casting, only broken ; and he said that he traced all the way from there down to the bridge a mark on the rail, as if something had been drawn on the rail. Q. What man was that? A. One of the men that I had to work out there; I think his name was Fred. Hancock. The next morning when he told me that, it had been snowing and I could not see it on the rail myself. Mr. D. L. Davis, the road master on the main line, was up there that morning, and he said he could trace out distinctly where something had dragged on the rail, and marked the rail all the way down to the bridge. Q. Where does Mr. D. L. Davis live? A. He lives at Readvillc. He is road master on the main line from Boston to Canton. Q. Did you yourself see any marks on the ties, indicating where this brake beam may have struck them? A. No, sir ; I did not. Q. Either on the bridge itself, or on the track south of the bridge? A. No, sir. Q. Did you look for marks on the ties on the bridge? A. I did. Q. What else did you find which seemed to you to throw any light upon the question? A. I don't think I found anything else particu- larly. Q. Anything that you thought might have been the cause of the accident, or that you could not understand how it did occur? A. Of course I formed an opinion how the whole thing happened, but it is mere theory. Q. I mean, was there- any other piece of iron or woodwork that threw any light upon the question ? A. No, sir ; I have not seen anything. Q. What is your theory in regard to the matter? A. My theory is that the truck frames under the first car were the first ones to he derailed. That made trouble under the second car, and that commu- nicated to the third, knocked the wheels out from under the third, and that caused the wreckage of the truck frames on this end of the bridge. Q. Explain that a little more fully. The truck frames of the first car were first derailed. What was the cause of the derailment? Have you any idea? A. That I can't say. I merely think this from the position of the cars, the position of the wreckage, and the iron work of the bridge. Q. Then how did that cause trouble? A. The trucks of the second car, by getting crossways of the ties, or in between the ties, knocked the truck frames out from under the other cars, until, as 1 think, the sixth car met the wreckage on those sleepers at the end of the bridge, and the sixth car fell. I contend that the bridge stood up until live cars passed over it. It looks to me that when this wreckage of the 232 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. truck frames occurred amongst those sleepers on the end of the bridge there, those cars were derailed in front, stopped, and caused that telescoping ; and those two cars that went down the bank, when those other cars were derailed and telescoped, those two cars shot the other way and went over the wall. When the truck frames were knocked out from under the sixth car, that came along and struck this truss, and carried the whole thing down. I judge so from the position of the iron work and the wreckage. As for these hangers, they had to break. Q. The fourth and fifh cars, you think, got on to the Boston side of the embankment and then were pulled back? A. No; I think they were off the track ; they were derailed before they struck the embankment. When those three forward cars stopped, the chuck of the train behind shot those two cars one way, while the forward part of the train went the other way. Q. Knocked the fourth and fifth cars off the track? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where were they then? A. They were just to the abutment. Q. What happened to them then? A. As I sa} r , the stoppage or chuck of the rear cars came against them and forced them to the right, while the other cars went the other way. Q. Where was the front end of the fourth car at that time? A. It was near the abutment. Q. Where was it? A.I should judge the front end of the fourth car was very near the abutment when it started ; that after getting off the rail, when the ends of those sleepers broke awa}*, that started the first car clown, and at the same time the fifth car came along and went right over it and landed where it was ; and the sixth car came and struck the blow which knocked the bridge down. Q. When the front end of the fourth car was at the Boston abut- ment, where was the front end of the fifth car? A. The length of a car behind, about midway of the southerly end. Q. Where was the fifth car? A. That would be nearer the back end of the bridge. Q. And the front end of the sixth car would be just coming on the bridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. When these cars started over the corner of the abutment, the momentum of the train brought them ahead, so as to bring the seventh car where it fell, so as to just clear the abutment on the Dedham end ; then the fourth car went off the bridge to the left, as I understand it, without bringing down the bridge, in your opinion? A. Yes, sir. Q. And it remained for the sixth car to break down the bridge? A. That is what I think. The sixth car struck the blow in going down that demolished that truss. APPENDIX. 233 Q. What do you consider was the condition of the track between the top of the truss — the northerly member of the truss — and the abutment at that time? A. I should judge that that was bent some- what, — must have been. Q. How do you account, under your theory, if the bridge had not given way, for the roof of the fourth car being on the abutment? A. When that car went off, as I sa}*, those sleepers on that side broke down and let that car straight down. When it struck the abut- ment, it struck with force enough to break the whole side in, and throw the whole top of that car on to the embankment and left it. Q. How did it strike the abutment, — sideways, or in the line of the track ? A. On one side ; it knocked off one side, and it struck the pier or abutment. Q. If it had struck the abutment that way, where would the roof of the car have been thrown, — on what portion of the abutment? A. If the front corner of the car was the first to strike the abutment, it looks to me that that would have thrown the top where it was found, nearly on the track. Q. And to the right or left of the track? A. To the right of the place in the abutment where it struck. Q. Then you do not think that this brake beam which you have spoken of had anything to do with the disaster? A. I don't think it did ; I can't think so now. Q. That being on the fifth car, and the original trouble having been caused by the first car running off the track, how do you account for the appearance of the brake beam? A. Well, I think that was something that happened before the final catastrophe. Q. You mean that was dragging at the time? A. Yes, sir; I think so. I think it must have been dragged some distance before it struck the bridge, to be found in the location where it was. Q. Ma}' it not have dragged six months ago somewhere, and then have been put up again? A. No, sir ; I don't think that could have been done by the running of the car without breaking a rail. Q. No; but dragged, and then the car stopped? A. The marks were too new on it. Q. How do you account for the front car being derailed when it left the track, — what caused the derailment? A. I can't say, unless the brakes were put on. The car being a new car, just out of the shop, it was pretty stiff; it had been worked over, the brakes were all put in order ; and I have seen brake beams rise up when the air-brake is put on suddenly. I think it is possible that that might have had something to do with it. The engineer might find he was going rather fast when he was going over the bridge, and put bis band down and put on the air-brake, not thinking much of what he was doing, 234 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. whereas when he got over the bridge he let go of the brake. That is the only way I can account for the derailment of that car. Q. Let go of the brake when he got over the bridge, did you say? A. Yes, sir ; as the} r do sometimes. I have seen them put on the brake before they got to the bridge, and when they got over let go the brake. Q. On that bridge? A. Yes, sir; slack up a little and let the brake off. The brakes were in operation on the bridge. Q. When have you seen that done ? A. I have seen it done at different times when I have been riding over the bridge. Q. With what engineers? A. I couldn't say certain what ones. Q. On what trains? What time? A. I couldn't tell you the time certain, because I ride on so many different trains. Q. Can you recall any one instance when it was done? A. I have rode behind this same engineer when he has put on the brake and let it off before he got to the bridge. Q. Have you ever ridden behind him when he put on the brakes and kept them on while going over the bridge? A. Not to my recollection, in particular. I can't recollect which one it was. I know I always noticed it, because when going over that bridge, as a good many have told me, they have thought what a place that would be to be derailed, — either there or on the banking after leaving the bridge. I have always noticed the trains when they struck that curve after leaving the bridge. Q. But some engineers on that road, you feel confident, have left the brakes on when they have been going over that bridge? A. Yes, sir ; that is, they didn't let go their brake. Q. Has that been done, to your knowledge, within the past year? A. I think it has, but I can't place the time exactly. I have been over that bridge so many times that I can't place the time. Q. Now, in regard to this matter of putting the brakes on, was it j'our idea that the engineer of this train put the brakes on just as he left the bridge, and that that threw the first car off? A. Just as he was veiy near the abutment. To support that theory, he must have applied the brakes then. Q. When he was near the Boston abutment? A. Yes, sir. Q. Would that have been in the ordinary course for him to have applied the brakes at that point? What would have been his object in that? A. As I say, he might have found that he was running a little fast when he came to that place and thought that he would slack up, as they always do when they pass that bridge, because there is a very sharp down grade coming towards Forest Hills. I don't recol- lect now of their ever working steam over the bridge. Q. If he were working steam would he be likely to apply the APPENDIX. 235 brakes ? A. Not while he was working steam ; I shouldn't think he would. Q. Do you think it is reasonable to suppose that he did apply the brake at the Boston end of the bridge? A. It looks so to me. Q. You think that is the explanation of throwing the train off the track? A. I can't think of anything else to take those forward trucks off of the forward car. Q. Unless it is a breaking down of the bridge? A. Yes. I don't imagine that for one moment. I don't imagine the bridge broke down until it was forced down. I can't, knowing the construction of the bridge and everything, and seeing the wreckage as it laid, — the position of everything. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Tell ns what you know about the construc- tion of the bridge. You say you can't imagine that the bridge broke down until it was forced down, because you know the construction of the bridge. Did you know every piece of iron that was put into it? A. I was there when it was put together. Of course there were some parts I can't remember exactly ; but I have crawled through that bridge a good many times and examined every part of it, and been under it when trains have gone over it a good many times. I did not believe for a moment when I started from Boston to go out there that the bridge broke down, and when I got out there and saw that block I decided at once that the blow on that block broke the bridge down. Then I took notice of the bottom members of the truss and the posi- tion in which they lay, and that confirmed me in my belief that those cars were derailed at the Boston end of the bridge and that a car struck that block a twisting blow, and that twisting blow, by striking that corner, broke the casting just where I found it, and the other members of the top part of that truss would lie in that position natu- rally by striking a blow at the corner of that casting. Under the casting was a small 1 beam. That beam laid over near the wall, and it was only slightly bent at one end. Now, if that casting got that blow on that corner that tore it out, it would naturally bend that I beam where it was bent and throw it out where it was found. And certainly those hangers didn't let go and break the bridge down. The bridge did not start there. In the first place, if those hangers had let go first and allowed that floor beam to drop, the truss would not have been in the position that it laid on the ground. Q. (By the Chairman.) Explain why not. A. Because the bot- tom chord of this truss was all complete ; nothing broken about it. It lay on the ground, swung towards the Providence side of the bridge, I call it, — the south side. The centre of it was swung out, just as it should be according to my theory, with the position in which the sixth car laid. I can show you the position of that chord on the other plan 236 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. as it la}- under that car. (The witness stated that the blue-pencil marks on the plan referred to indicated very nearly the position of that lower chord.) Q. The second member of the top chord la}^ alongside of the stone wall of the street? A. The end post on the Dedham end hay in the field on the north side of the wall. When the fourth or fifth car left the track and when the sixth car struck the bridge, the bridge started ; the seventh car was stopped at that time, while the two rear cars, bringing up against that, threw them over on to the floor beams on the other side, which accounts for the position of that truss, — the Pratt truss. Q. What was the condition of the Pratt truss? A. Bent right round in the centre, exactly as if a heavy blow had struck those two floor beams and knocked them right over at the same time that this truss was struck and pulled towards the stone wall. Q. Was the Parker truss pulled in or thrown out? A. Pulled in towards the centre, while the bottom chord was knocked out towards the south a little more than the top chord, of course. It looks to me as if, if those hangers had been perfect, they would have to break when that blow was struck that started that casting, — twisted it off. Q. Now, Mr. Folsom, I want to get your idea clearly in my mind. You think, in the first place, that the first car was thrown from the track by the application of the brakes, or something which you do not understand, — probabty by the application of the brakes? A. Yes, sir. Q. That the next two cars followed it without the brakes giving way? A. Yes. Q. That the trucks of the third car, which was derailed on the bridge, — how was it? A. The trucks of the third car, I take it, were struck and derailed by the trucks of the second car. The trucks of the third car went down with the wreckage, while the trucks of the second car remained on the top of the abutment. Q. The trucks of the second car got in the way of the trucks of the third car? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where? A. On the bridge next to the abutment, and the third car came on to the abutment. Q. How, then, did the trucks of the third car drop into the street? A. They went back under the fourth car and demolished the ti'ucks of that. They were all snarled up in those sleepers that I spoke of. Those second car trucks were right at the edge of the abutment. Q. The trucks of the second car you found at the edge of the abut- ment? A. Yes, sir. Q. On top of the abutment? A. Yes, sir ; on the ground. Q. Back of the third car? A. Yes, sir. They were demolishing APPENDIX. 237 the third car when I got there. Whether they moved the trucks from the position in which they landed I can't say, but there is where they loaded thern from, right on the edge of the abutment. The Chairman. That is not where they were at ten o'clock. A. They might have moved them when they demolished that car. Q. When did you first see them there on the edge of the abut- ment? A. When I went down the bank. That is, I noticed some trucks up there, but I didn't pay particular attention to those trucks, for I was going down the bank in a hurry at the first of it. I didn't pay much attention to the work that was going on up above ; I started down below. I remember of seeing trucks, but I can't locate them exactly. They were near the abutment, as nigh as I can remember, and the men loaded them on a derrick car while I was down below. Q. When did they load them? A. After Mr. Richards got out of the way with the second car so that the}- could get up on that track. Q. What portion of the day was that? A. I think about dinner time ; somewheres aloug about noon time. I am a little confused in regard to the time of loading them. I won't say certain what time it was they loaded them. I know I missed those trucks after a while, and the man who had charge of that derrick car said that he loaded them and they went into Boston either Monday night or the next morning and went to the shop. I think it was Monday night. Q. Are you sure as to the position of those trucks when you first went out there? A. No, sir; I can't say certain about it, because I didn't take particular notice. Q. Do you know that 3*011 did see them again until you saw them loaded on the car? A. I can't say certain that I did. Q. Then you think that the trucks of the third car went down with some of those ties ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the fourth car and fifth car went over the side of the bridge between the top of the compression member and the edge of the abutment? A. Yes, sir. Q. The bridge still standing? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that it remained for the sixth car to strike the casting at the junction of the compression members and carry the rest of the bridge down? A. Yes, sir; that is my idea of it. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) When did this theory which you have just advanced first dawn upon }'ou? A. Well, I was studying on it all the time while I was hoisting up the wreck, picking out the cars, not- ing the location of the iron, etc. Ideas kept coming to me ; I put them all together, and I came to that conclusion last week. Q. Have you told any of the officers or managers of the railroad about it? A. I have spoken to some parties about it, not to the offi- cers any more than to others. I have spoken particularly to Mr. 238 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Sawtell, who acts as foreman. When we were out there, if I saw a point that looked reasonable, I would state it to him, and if he saw an}-thing he would state it to me, and we both agreed. Q. Did you see these links out there on the ground? A. I saw these top ones in the top casting. I didn't notice these pieces. Q. Did you examine these? A. I saw the ends of them as they were down under the castings ; just glanced at them. Q. Had it not occurred to you that that bridge might have been weak? A. No, sir; never. I couldn't believe it. Q. Yesterday morning } r ou said in your evidence here that when you saw that angle block you felt that that was weak? A. Well, if you call that a weak point in a bridge it was weak there. I take it that such a blow as that had to take there was enough to demolish any truss. Q. Now, I want to ask j'ou again, in the most serious manner, and I want a positive and direct answer, when you first heard of the breaking down of that bridge, did it not strike you that you had before in your mind felt doubt about it? A. No, sir ; never. Q. You are sure of that? A. I am sure of that. I felt just as safe in riding over that bridge as I did on any part of that road. Q. Now, I want to ask you about the floor system of that bridge. Was it up to standard, such as it ought to have been ? A. Now, you ask me a question that goes a little beyond me. I don't pretend to be an expert in that matter. Q. Very true, but } r ou have your ideas of a good road-bed? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was that a good road-bed? A. It was plenty good enough for the work it was doing. Q. Did you consider the ties near enough together? A. Yes, sir. Q. And large enough? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) Mr. Folsom, did } T ou examine that com- pression member, the north post of the truss? A. Not particularly. I noticed that appeared to be all perfect except a little jam in one part of the iron. Q. Was it free from dents, abrasions, etc. ? A. Yes, sir ; for it fell clear of the wreck. Q. It did not have any serious dent on it? A. No, sir. Q. Will you explain how the fourth and fifth cars could get down between the abutment and that without marring it? A. Yes, sir ; because, when those cars landed, they were clear of the bridge seat entirely. Q. Your impression is, that those cars could strike that corner of the abutment and go down into the road without strikinsr that com- APPENDIX. 239 pression member, the north post of the truss? A. Yes, sir. They took a start right there and jumped right out. Q. A car is how long? A. About fifty feet. Q. Now, what I want to know is, whether a car, in your opinion, could fall and come round that corner, striking it, and get between the abutment and that compression member and not strike it? A. The rear trucks of that car might have been under it when the forward end started, and when it. started, it would run clear of that and shoot the car right over it. I don't pretend to say that the cars all went through that gap between the abutment and the end of that truss. The fourth car might have had the trucks under one end when it started ; when it got this chuck that I speak of, that canted it that way, and the trucks might have been clear of that. There are no marks there of anything striking it, only that blow on that corner. Q. "Where were the trucks of the third car found, — how nearly in a line with the road, do you know ? A. I could not tell which trucks they were. All the other trucks were down in this pile in the street. Q. You don't know whether they were nearly in a line with the tracks or not? A. Oh, no, sir; they were all mixed up together, in all shapes, those that were down in the wreck. There was no truck whole. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Mr. Folsom, did I understand 3-011 right that you thought this brake beam made marks upon the axle of the truck? A. No, sir. Q. Did you say those marks were on the axle of the second truck ? A. I did. Q. That was the truck to which you referred as the one in which the brake beam must have caught, was it not? A. No. I think Mr. Richards said they belonged under that car which had an iron brake beam. Q. And that was the car in which the brake beam was broken, as you say? A. Yes. Q. You said when you began to testify that when you came to the scene of the wreck that block was the first thing you thought of, and you went down and looked for it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why was that? A. Because I knew the cars were derailed on the bridge, and I was satisfied that the bridge couldn't go right down from any breakage, on account of the construction of that top chord ; and if one of those castings got a blow, it would spread that chord. That is why I looked for that immediately. Q. That you had thought of before, that that must have been the way : that the car struck that block and knocked it out, and the bridge went to pieces? A. I never thought of that block until I got 240 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. to the bridge. I knew they must have struck that top chord if they had been derailed on the bridge. Q. As I understand 3*011, the fourth and fifth cars must have ridden up over the side of the track, over the sleepers and over the left guard, and gone over the side? A. No, sir. Q. If the passengers in the fourth and fifth cars all state that the}' felt nothing like the motion of a car over the sleepers, but merely a shock and instantaneously a downward movement, that would some- what alter your opinion, would it not? A. Not a bit of it. That is just what they should feel. Q. The cars have gjt to pass over the sleepers and guard in order to go over? A. Yes, sir; but how long does it take to do that? They can't tell that they are riding over the sleepers, it is done so quick. Q. I am asking 3*011 if the statements of those witnesses are true that there was no sensation of going over the sleepers, but simply a sinking sensation? A. There would be a sinking sensation with going over the sleepers under any circumstances, because the sleepers were whole back on the other part of the bridge, only at this end of the bridge, where this wreckage occurred, and that broke the sleepers. Q. Your idea is that the fourth car went over that way, isn't it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it not true that while that fourth car was going over, the fifth car must have been dragged out of its place, and verj* severely dragged, too? A. Not necessarily. Q. So that while the fourth car was going over the side, the fifth car, you think, could have been on the track in a very easy position without any jolting? A. Yes. Q. (By Mr. Achokn.) This broken rail broke at what point in relation to the bridge and the abutment? A. Very nearly opposite this casting, I think. I have not measured. Q. Was it broken where the bridge joined the abutment? A. No, sir ; on the bridge. Q. There was a floor beam at the end that you spoke of in your testimony as being bent? A. Yes, sir; they were all bent. Q. One opposite this beam? A. Yes, sir ; that was bent some. Q. In what direction, — up or down, to the right or to the left? A. Up, I think. Yes, up, as nigh as I remember. Q. If a brake beam was dragging, would it not give a shock to the people in the cars? A. It would if it went over the wheel. If it got on the sleepers the people in the cars would feel it ; but if it lay on the rail and was shoved ahead of the wheel, they wouldn't notice it any more than they would putting on the brakes. Q. Is it reasonable to suppose that the engineer applied the brakes APPENDIX. 241 the moment that he thought anything was wrong? Is not that the first thing he would do, naturally? A. Yes, if he thought anything was wrong. Q. Now, if the brakes were applied suddenly, would not that give an extra strain to the bridge? A. Certainly it would, if the brakes were applied on the bridge. Q. If when the engineer first noticed anything wrong he had sud- denly applied the brakes, would not that have a tendency to give a very severe shock to the bridge? A. Certainly. That is why you don't want to put the brake on, on a bridge. Q. It is a fact that brakes have been applied on trains going down over that bridge, and the}' are also applied between Roslindale and Forest Hills on that grade, are they not? A. The}' are supposed to be. It is according to the speed. Q. If that was being done from day to day would it not tend to bring a strain on the bridge that would weaken it? A. Well. I should say it would be a very bad thing for the bridge to do so ; yes. Q. Now, if the fourth car passed in the position that you say it did over the bridge, how do you account for the top of the fourth car being on the right-hand side of the track? A. Simply by the car striking the abutment. Q. Very well ; if it struck the abutment on the left-hand side, would not the top have been carried over on the left-band side? A. 1 don't see how it would be possible for it to be. When the car is going ahead and striking at an angle, that will throw it that way, and the top of the roof will be thrown the other way, won't it? Q. You examined the wood-work of this bridge, you say : whether or not any of the sleepers were rotten? A. They were not rotten. Q. Can you state positively that none of those sleepers were rotten ? A. There were sappy edges on the sleepers. Q. Were not some of the sleepers so rotten that you could kick off pieces of wood with your foot? A. No, sir. I would like to see you try that. There was no rot about them, only sappy coiners that you would find in any wood ; but the sleepers were sound. Every broken piece there is sound wood, — hard pine. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Mr. Folsom, suppose that those hangers had been broken by the engine or tender, what would have been the result? A. I contend that the tender certainly would have been down in the hole under the bridge. Q. What would have become of the first, second and third cars? A. The}' would have gone down into the hole. Q. Why? A. Because they would have had no support under them. Q. What would the breaking of the hangers let go? A. It would 242 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. have let the floor beam go, and that would have let the four sets of stringers go. About fifty-two feet of track would have been left without support. Q. If that fifty-two feet of track had been left without support by tin sudden breaking of those hangers, where would the cars have gone that were then upon the track? A. I contend that they would have all gone down, and the rest of the floor beams would have to go, and the truss would have gone right off' the bridge bodily. Q. Would they have gone to the westward, as they did go? A. They would not have gone off' as they did go on striking the abut- ment. As they struck the abutment, with the speed they had, they would have glanced off that way. Q. Would the effect on the top and bottom chords of the bridge have been different from what it was after this accident? A. Alto- gether different. (^. Explain why? A. Of course it would have gone down by the side of this truss before it broke apart, and going down by the side of that and striking that slanting abutment would have thrown the bot- tom chord right out of the bridge seat and into the street before the truss would have been demolished, and the Pratt truss would have been thrown in the same direction. Being tied to the heavy truss, it could not have been otherwise. Q. Would the bottom chord, in your judgment, have remained whole if the cars had fallen through the truss in that way? A. Yes, sir. Q. Just as it is? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do the marks on the abutment indicate anything to your mind? A. They support my theory. Q. I mean, do the marks on the abutment point to the fourth and fifth cars having struck it outside of the bridge instead of within the track on the bridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Have you any idea how fast this train was going? A. No, sir ; I have no means of knowing anything about it. George L. Vose — sworn. Q. (By the Chairman.) Your residence? A. I live in Milton. Q. Your occupation? A. Civil engineer. < v >. What has been your education and experience as a civil engi- neer? A. Well, I began here in an office in 1848, and when the Lawrence Scientific School started up I went there for a year or two ; then I went to work on the railroad from Portland to Augusta, in Maine; then on the Albany & Susquehanna Railroad; then on the Louisville & Nashville, and I think on the Providence, Warren & Bris- tol (I am not quite sure where that road comes in ; it don't amount APPENDIX. 243 to ranch, any way) ; and then on what is now a part of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, the road from Quincy up to Galesburg in Illi- nois ; then on the Hannibal and St. Joseph ; then on the Nova Scotia system of railways. I left out one road : it is the road which goes from the top of Lake Mcmphraraagog to Montreal ; 1 don't remember the name of it ; I don't remember where it comes in, either. I should think that brought me to about 1860. Then for a couple of years I did most of the editing of a paper here called il The Railway Times." I stayed there until just the close of the war. Then I went to Maine and New Hampshire, on various small pieces of engineering, some railroad work and some other, and stayed there until, I should say, 1869 or 1870. Then I spent a good part of two years in travel- ling around the country to look at bridges, and spent a good deal of time in the best bridge shops then in operation, at Phoenixville, Buf- falo and Keystone, and some in New Jersey, — I have forgotten what they were. Then in 1872 I was appointed professor of engineering in Bowdoin College in Maine, and I stayed there until 1880 or 1881. In those nine years 1 worried the life almost out of the Maine Rail- road Commissioners on account of their bad bridges. I guess I spent a third of all my time in overhauling the miserable bridges in the State of Maine ; there were plenty of them, too, — wood and iron, and wood and iron put together. I did not do that under authority from the State, I did it on my own hook. I commenced because I found it very instructive for the students to look at bad bridges, to show them what not to do ; and I kept at that about nine years. Then I came here to the Institute of Technology as professor of engineering, and stayed there until just a year ago. In the last five years I have been off occasionally to overhaul a bridge somewhere, or a roof, or some- thing of that kind. The last year I have been working on ray own hook. Q. In connection with those various railroads you have done engi- neering, I suppose? A. I have done almost everything, from taking charge of locomotives to building bridges and constructions of all sorts. Q. Have you been employed by the Boston & Providence Railroad in this matter? A. No, sir; except so far as this. I was out there at the Roslindale accident very soon after it happened, and Captain Folsom came along. I told him there was some valuable evidence there, and he asked me if I would be good enough to collect it and send it in to his office. I told him I would. 1 told him distinctly afterwards that I was not in his employ, I was not doing this for any pay ; it was understood perfectly. I did not call myself in the em- ployment of the company in the slightest way. I wanted the mute 244 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. rial brought in for the information of the commissioners, that it might not lie lost. The Chaip.man. I was present at the time, Professor Vose, and was wondering whether you considered yourself in the employ of the Boston & Providence Railroad or of the commissioners. The Witness. Neither. I wanted for my own satisfaction to find out why that bridge tumbled down. That is the only reason I went there. Q. Now, will you be kind enough to state what time you got there, what your examination has been, what you have found, and what the results of your investigations are, in your own words? A. A tele- gram came to the Milton station at just about half-past nine, and I walked right over across from there, thinking I could do that quicker than to go round by the way of Boston, and I got there between ten and eleven ; I can't tell just when. I was an hour and a half, maybe, walking over. I found the dead and wounded all carried off, and I commenced to look around to see what I could see. 1 had never seen that bridge, so it took some time to straighten out the snarl that things were in and to see what it had been like. The two trusses being different, I did not get the hang of it at first, but I did after a little while, and in a very short time after I got there I saw this big casting which was at one of the upper corners of the Hewins truss, which had two broken links in it. I saw that first, which called my attention particularly to the details. Then I looked around to find the rest of those hangers, and they were not far off; I found them. I saw Cap- tain Folsom there and told him there was some valuable evidence there for him or against him ; at any rate, the commissioners would want it. I refer to those four pieces, the two broken hangers and the two broken links (" X," " Y," and " XX," " YY "). I told him by no means to allow them to get out of his hands, they were certain to be wanted for this investigation. He authorized me to collect any parts of the wreck that I thought would be of use, and have them properly taken care of and sent in to the station. So I called one of the foremen and some of the men and pointed out those four pieces, and told all of them to keep their eyes on those four things and not let any man take them without an order from Captain Folsom. That was between twelve and one on Monday. Well, I stayed there, be- cause in the afternoon a good many of the members of the Boston Society of Engineers came out who were interested in the thing. I took a good many of them and showed them those links just as they lay there. I stayed until about dark. I came in with Mr. Hewins ; I wanted to see what he could tell me. 1 went out as early as I could on Tuesday. Captain Folsom was not in his office, but on my way out I. got a note signed by his assistant there, telling his foreman to APPENDIX. 245 deliver to me anything I wanted. The first thing I wanted was the broken links in that casting. I got some of the workmen, and they knocked the pins out and after a while they got them out for me. That was a little after noon on Tuesday, because I brought them in on the train. I went out after dinner and looked for the other two pieces, and found that, in spite of the warning I had given the work- men to sit on them all night, if necessary, rather than have them taken away, they were gone. Then I called all the workmen together to find out where they had gone, and all I could find was that some men, who evidently knew what the}' wanted, had got one of the work- men to get those small pieces out so that they could take them away (and somebody remarked that they paid him a small sum of money for doing it) ; and they were gone. They couldn't very well tell who it was. They said the}' heard two names mentioned. One man was called " Brooks." I asked what kind of a looking man he was. They said he was a good-looking man and rather tall, a little bit of gray coming in his hair. I made up my mind who he was, and I went to his office as soon as I came into Boston and told him that it was very necessaiy to have those things. Mr. Brooks did not carry them off, but he knew the man who did. I told him that I wanted those things ; I didn't want to make an}* more trouble than was necessary, and he need not tell me the name of the man who took them, pro- vided the things were brought back ; that they belonged to the Boston & Providence Railroad, they didn't belong to me or to him or to the Railroad Commissioners, and nobody had a right to take them away. He told me that this man Pri (.chard (I did not know who it was then) felt that he had made a mistake, that be had no business to take them, and gave me to understand that he was ready to bring them back if he knew where to send them. I said, " You may tell him from me that I am authorized by the company to get those things back, and if he will send them back I don't care to know his name ; all I want is those two pieces of iron, and I want them quick." I believe they did not come. Wednesday I could not go out myself, but I sent my son with an order for those two whole links, and he brought them in. Mr. Wellington, I want to say, published in the Boston papers a despatch apparently signed by me in which he made it appear that I was representing the company and trying to cover up something in regard to these links. He worded his despatch and italicized it in such a way as to make it appear that if those things were sent back I would not ask any questions. I took that to the editors of five or six papers and asked them what impression they got from it. They said, '-It looks very much as if the company were trying to do a scaly thing and you were backing them up." It looked to me so. The only reason I put that clause in the telegram to Mr. 246 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Brook9 was to save that young man's feelings. I found he was feeling badly, and I did not want to get him into trouble if I could help it. It wns twisted round to make it appear that I wanted to help the company. Captain Folsom was just as anxious that those things should be brought up here before everybody as I was, — just exactly. It was a perfectly plain case. Q. Professor Vose, before you leave that subject, do you remember seeing me out there Monday morning? A. No, I don't. I took Mr. Stevens for you. Mr. Kinsley was the only member of the Board I happened to know. Q. When you first saw Mr. Folsom, and he asked you to make an examination of the wreck and save such portions of it as you thought were of interest, don't you remember of my being present at that time? A. No, I don't. I didn't know you yesterday when I came in here. I asked who you were. Q. At that time, what did you undertake to do? A. I told Cap- tain Folsom that I would not only see that all valuable evidence was brought in here, but I would do everything I possibly could to find out why that bridge broke down. I told him that distinctl}'. The Chairman. That was said in my presence. I was introduced to you at the time, but you probably do not remember it. The Witness. I saw a great many people that daj', but I don't remember you — with all due regard to you. Q. Now, please go on. A. I did not go around the wreck a great deal after that. I was there a few moments with Mr. Philbrick some day later in the week ; I don't remember what day it was. I thought I had got all the evidence that could be brought in here or that need be brought in, and I have not been out there since. Q. Have you read the testimony as it has been submitted? A. No, sir ; I have not read the newspapers. There is altogether too much trash in them to read. I have not read any of the testimony here to speak of. I thought I would wait until you got through with your investigation, so as to get the thing right end foremost. The " Railroad Gazette" has been bothering me to death to write them something. I told them to wait until this hearing was over, and then they would have the truth. I have been very careful to say very little about the matter. The reporters have gotten very little out of me. The " Advertiser " got this much out of me, that I didn't know anything about it, and if I did I should not tell them. I have been bothered with these disasters fifteen years, and I wanted to find out, if I could, why that bridge broke down. I did not care two cents for the company, the commissioners or anybody else. I did want the company to have fair play, for I see the reporters are premature in all their conclusions. I saw this man Wellington was entirely pre- APPENDIX. 247 mature, and I wanted to do everything that could be done in order that the company should have a fair show, the same as anybody should. Q. From such examination as you have made, what are your con- clusions in regard, in the first place, to the construction of that bridge, as to whether it was properly constructed and was a safe bridge for the purposes for which it was used, and, in the second place, as to the original cause of the disaster and the general course of it. and your reasons for your various statements? A. I think that bridge, in its general plan and in its details, was a standing in- vitation to be knocked to pieces, and I think the immediate cause of the trouble was those broken links. I don't care whether that train was off the track or on it, or whether there were broken axles or not. If those things did happen, they were simply the last straw that broke the camel's back. The thing was waiting to tumble down. That is my opinion of that bridge. Q. Your first statement was that you considered the bridge was a standing invitation to be knocked down? A. Yes. sir. Q. In what respects was its construction faulty? A. In the first place, it was not one bridge, it was fragments of several bridges. It was an old iron truss, a Parker truss, so called, which had been shoved over on the opposite side from that on which it originally stood and the loads applied to it as they never were intended to be applied, so that you did not bring more than half of it into action. I told Mr. Parker, " You were not treated fairly ; you have been dragged into this business." His truss is not a bad truss ; that is, in its gen- eral plan. I don't like it much in its details, but I don't think it had much to do with the matter. The load was applied to four points in- stead of eight or ten— I don't remember. The truss on the other side, the truss which I consider a standing invitation to be knocked to pieces, is a Hewins truss, which, as I see it in the picture, is made up of some long, hollow, built-up wrought-iron beams, fastened to- gether with very imperfect details. My notion is this: Supposing I take half a dozen small blocks of wood six inches long and two or three inches wide ; I can press those blocks together and hold them together without any joint, if I press perfectly true ; but suppose I give them a little twist, they all go at once. That is the way that truss is put together. Now. what we want, and what we have to-day in the construction of bridges, is one stick without any joints ; we make it just as continuous as we can. That is the way we make bridges now-a-days. You can press that as much as you are a mind to and you do not have a collapse; whereas, if you have a truss built in this way, you see there is no proper connection between the parts ; there is nothing but just a bad joint there, so that if you pu9h 248 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. pretty hard, you have that action. (Illustrating.) That is win- I say it was waiting to be knocked to pieces. I think it was a miser- al>le trap at the start. The hangers, I think, tell their own story. They were broken off about half-way, to start with. Nobody knows how long they had been broken. That is the first thing I looked at. Q. Will you tell us how much you consider new break and how much old break in that piece, — " Y "? A. I think it is all old break except a small portion, about an eighth of an inch, on the side of the break nearest the eye. < t >. Was that ever properly welded there? A. I should say that it was not. Q. Did that break present the same general appearance Monday morning that it does now? A. It looks just exactly as it did then, except on that edge. I stood on my head in the mud there quite a while to be sure I saw those things. Q. Now, the other one, " X "? A. I should say that portion was a uew break ; but I should say that that was old along there. Q. What is that? The weld? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was it ever strong? A. I don't know whether it was or not. Q. Is that all new break? A. I don't think it is. I think some- thing over half of it is new break. Well, about an inch and two- tliirds is new break and one-third is old. Q. That is the break nearest the top of the eye across the weld? A. Yes. Q. And the other break? A. I don't know about that. I guess that is new break. It is dirty and I can't quite tell, but I guess it is new break. (Referring to the portion of the break in the lower eye.) Q. Can that be cleaned so that anybody can tell? A. I don't know whether it can or not. The request was made to have it cleaned, but I said, " No ; don't wet it, but have it cleaned by some- body who knows how to clean it without making any change in it." Q. Who does know how to clean it? A. I don't know, but I suggested that Mr. Richards, the master mechanic, should clean it. I thought it would be possible to use a dry brush and not wet it. The moment you begin to wet it there comes up the question if you are not getting up some more rust. The break in the lower eye of " Y " correspouds with the other on the back part in its characteristics. The breaks on the lower end of " X " correspond with those on the upper in appearance. There is no question about that. Q. And the weld? A. Yes. These other links that are not pulled apart are in pretty bad condition, you notice. Q. Do you know from what part of the block this came? APPENDIX. 249 A. Yes, sir ; this came from the opposite end of the same chord where these were. Q. At the south end of the top chord ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Describe the peculiarities of those plates? A. Well, I don't know what to say about them, except to say they are cracked and broken. It looks to me like a very bad weld there, but whether that thing was broken before the bridge tumbled down or broken in falling I don't know. Evidently that crack was not made in falling. Q. You can't tell whether that is a new or old break? A. I can tell by breaking it off and looking at it. Q. As a specimen of iron work, do you consider it suitable to be put into such a position? A. No, sir, not at all ; not in position in any bridge. I don't hesitate to say that right off. Q. Is it suitable iron and strong enough for such a position, assum- ing that it was good iron and properly made? A. Good iron, prop- erly made, will hold a good deal. It is impossible, of course, to say how a load will act on such a thing. That is a one-sided affair. It does not pull as this link does. That is made to pull all on one side. That is all wrong. If you wanted to pull a thing to pieces, that is a good way to do it. Q. The trouble with that is that the sections are not vertically under each other? A. No, not that exactly; but that is eccentric. You see the difference. That thing is made just as much one side of the centre as the other ; that is not. That is all on one side ; you don't get a good square pull on that. Q. What is the tendency of a pull on this end? A. To twist that end off, break it off somewhere, I can't say just where ; but draw a straight line from the centre of that to the centre of that, and the tendency is to pull the thing round. It gives a side pull instead of a straight pull, as there is here. You can see here what sort of work that is. (Referring to " S.") Q. Describe it, please, so that it can be put in the evidence. A. I should describe it as a very badly welded piece of iron. When you see such bad work as that in one place, you are bound to suspect the whole of it, quality of material and all. Q. How about these hangers? If one of them had given way, would the bridge have fallen ? A. Perhaps not. Q. When any two of those gave way, what would have been the effect on the bridge ? A. They would have let the floor down. Q. Let the track down? A. Let everything down except the truss. I consider those the key points of the bridge. If they go, everything goes. Q. Were those things in such a position that their condition could be examined? A. No, sir. 250 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. What portion of those hangers could have been examined? A. A very little of the bottom of the smaller link, as I recollect. There was a little of it yon conld see below, but not much. Q. Could this portion here where "X" is broken be seen? A. No, sir. Q. Could the portion where " Y" is broken be seen? A. No, sir. Q. After the bridge was built, was there any way of getting at those so as to see them without taking the bridge down? No, sir; there was not. Q. Is that a good method of construction? A. No, sir; accord- ing to my notion that one thing alone is enough to condemn that bridge. Suppose I should make a large iron bridge, a pretty complex structure, put it under a wooden cover, and paint on the outside " This bridge is never to be examined," — would that be a good plan? I think not. That is exactly what has been done here. Mr. Kinsley. In that case^ you could take down your wooden cover and examine it. The Witness. Then I will say iron. You may cover it with some- thing }'ou cannot take off. Q. Was there no way of getting into this block ; no way of tak- ing off any portion of the iron or anything so that you could look into this block? A. I don't think you could. I don't think you could make any kind of a satisfactory examination of that angle block or those forgings without taking the bridge down. Q. And yet upon each one of these sets of two depended the floor system of the bridge for its support? A. Yes, entirely. Q. Do you suppose that those irons when they were first sent to the forge presented the appearance of well-made hangers? A. Well, I don't know. It does not seem to me that such bad welding as that could have escaped detection as soon as they were made. It may have. Q. In the general character of their make do they show good work- manship, or poor? A. I don't think they show good workmanship ; they show slovenly workmanship. Q. While you were professor at the Institute, did any of the stu- dents, to your knowledge, ever make any examination of this bridge? A. I don't know that they ever did. I made a good deal of a point of sending the students out to the bridges in the neighborhood to make drawings of them, in order that they might study the real thing, full size ; but I had never seen this bridge myself, and I don't know that anybody ever made a drawing of it. I met one of the students while I was out there, a } r oung man from Providence by the name of Fol- well, — he was a very bright, nice fellow, a college graduate before he came to the Institute, — and he told me that if he was not very much APPENDIX. 251 mistaken I had sent him out to make a drawing of that bridge some years before, but he was afraid he had not made it. He said he had made some measurements, but he thought he did not make a drawing of it. I told him if he had one, to send it to me. He has not sent it, so I guess he has not got it. Q. What is your idea in regard to the cause of the accident, how the bridge fell, etc. A. I haven't any idea at all. I didn't think it was worth while to get one. The cause of the trouble seemed so very evident to me that I did not even lo^k to see how the cars lay or how the truss was twisted. When I saw these hangers I did not care to look any further. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Professor Vose, did you examine the ears at the end of the upper chord by which the chord was fixed into the casting? A. Yes, I did. Q. How deep were they? A. I should say those things might be six inches long and three inches wide. They looked to me very small to give the posts any brace or hold on the casting. Q. How deep did they run into the casting? A. Oh, I shall have to guess at it. I should say they might have run in a couple of inches ; perhaps three inches. I don't know. Q. That was all that held the upper chord into the joint block? A. That was all I could see. Q. Is it not true that if a floor beam did give way and let the train down into the ties which connected the trusses, the breaking of those ties and the strain upon those ties would tend to snap that whole truss out of the joint? Do I make myself clear? A. I wish you would ask it once more, and let me see if I get your notion. Q. As I understand it, the two trusses are tied and braced together. The Pratt truss is tied and braced to the Hewins truss by diagonal rods that run across? A. Yes. Q. Now, if a car, or a number of cars, were let down upon those ties and braces, would not the effect of that be to pull the upper chord out of that joint and utterly destroy the truss? A. Yes; and so I think if anything cut off the lateral braces, the truss would go. Q. Now, I would like to ask you, knowing the stress which this bridge was called upon to bear, the size of the engines and the weight of the cars that were to run over it, whether it is not entirely possible to make a mathematical calculation which shall amount to demon- stration whether the bridge was sufficient for its work originally? A. Well, what are you going to do with those defective welds? Q. {Supposing the material to be perfect throughout and taking the size alone? A. I don't know how to figure on a link that is twisted one side in that wav. I can show you whole volumes of mathematics to show you how to do it, but I don't know how to do it. I can 252 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. figure well enough on those straight links, but when you bend a link on one side and make the pull upon it a one-sided pull, I must confess I don't know how to figure upon it. Q. But, aside from that, you are able to calculate the strength of a certain size of wrought iron to a mathematical certainty, are you not? A. It depends upon what you mean b} T " mathematical cer- tainty." There is still a good deal of guess-work in the making of bridges. I can do what is commonly done by bridge-building engi- neers. I can go through with what is called figuring on the strain to determine the size of iron required. Q. And then you add something, don't you? A. We add about 600 per cent., to cover up what we don't know. Q. Have 3 r ou made any such calculation on this bridge? A. No, sir ; none at all. Q. You spoke of the misuse of the Pratt truss by its having been treated at four or five different points when it should have been treated at eight or ten. Will you explain what you meant by that more in detail? A. Why, that Pratt truss was made with a top chord and a bottom chord, and I think about sixteen vertical posts. It was intended to put say a sixteenth of the load on each one of those posts. But when they put the Hewins truss on the opposite side, they carried across, I think, only four floor beams, instead of eight or ten or so, as they ought to. That is, instead of putting part of the load on each place that was made to bear it, they skipped three or four, did not put any on, and then put it all on the next, and then skipped three or four more, and then piled it all up on the next. Q. Have you examined to see whether that is a double-system truss? A. Yes, it is. Q. Is it not true that as the bearings were made in its construction one of the systems was entirely left out? A. Yes; every other set, of course. Q. Did not that reduce the strength of that truss one-half? A. I cannot quite say about that. You are bringing in new elements of computation. I don't know just what the chord is doing under these conditions. You have thrown out every other brace, but I can't say that you have affected the strain on the chords in the way you speak of. Q. But it does not put the truss to all the work it is capable of doing, does it? A. No; it does not treat it fairly. Q. Do you know how far on to the abutment on each side of the bridge the rails ran? A. No ; I didn't notice that at all. Q. How much supporting power did the whole of that floor work have for a train passing over it at the rate of twelve miles an hour? A. It depends upon what the floor is fixed on to. APPENDIX. 253 Q. "Well, the floor was connected with the abutment? A. Yes. Q. Rested on one end of the abutment? A. Yes. Q. And that floor was made up of several pieces which you have described? A. Yes. Q. That would have some supporting power for a train, would it not, even if the bridge itself gave way? A. Why, no. Q. Supposing a floor beam gave way, would not the floor itself have some slight supporting power to keep up the cars for a time? A. Oh, yes; I suppose it would. In fact you may go further than that. The Providence road have a photograph, which I have seen somewhere, of a bridge which is all gone except the rails and ties ; it is hanging on to nothing, apparently. It is not a very good bridge, though. Q. That would not be possible, would it, unless the ties and rails were fastened together? It would not be possible if the only joint were a Fisher chair, or whatever it is called. A. No ; I should not want to put much weight on a thing of that kind. Q. Under those circumstances the rails would be hardly any support to the train? A. I should think, nothing to speak of. Q. (By Mr. Achorn.) What do you say to this post here, with- out any lateral support whatever? A. Well, it might not need any lateral support. I don't know how big it is. I do not know that there is any objection to putting a post in there without an} r lateral support if you make the post big enough. Q. As you see it in the bridge, should you say that was a good piece of engineering? A. Well, I don't like it. I have seen worse things in a bridge*. It is not a thing to be proud of. Q. 1 would like to ask you in regard to the fact that the bridge was a skew bridge, — would not the fact that the bridge was on a skew make it weaker than if at right angles? A. There is no trouble in making a skew bridge just as strong as any other. It costs a little more. Q. Then, in building a skew bridge you would have to make pro- vision for that fact. A. Yes ; for the dollars and cents. You can build a skew bridge. Mr. Philbrick here has built a very nice skew bridge at Brighton. Q. But it would have to be built stronger, taking into considera- tion the fact that it was a skew bridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. When a strain comes on a skew bridge does it affect the trusses in the same way that it would if the bridge were built at right angles? A. No, sir. Q. The strain comes on one side? A. On this particular bridge, you have got off of the middle truss before you get on to the other one. 254 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. One truss would bear the whole, would it? A. The abutment on the other side and one truss. Q. Do you know what test was made of this bridge in 1882? A. No ; I never heard of it. Q. I believe it was stated in evidence that, under a test at three points, one truss of the bridge deflected a fraction over two-sixteenths of an inch and the other something over eight-sixteenths of an inch. What do you say to such a test as that? What does it indicate? A. You cannot tell what a test of that kind indicates without know- ing what the bridge is like, and the conditions under which it is made. I cannot tell you anything that amounts to anything unless I have all the conditions. Q. Can you infer anything from the fact that the trusses deflected unequally? A. I cannot see how they can help being unequal. One truss is doing more than the other truss is at a particular point of time. Q. The average deflection of one truss was two-sixteenths of an inch, and of the other truss it was eight-sixteenths : does not that indicate a weakness? A. No ; because the track was very close up to one truss and away off from the other. Of course one truss was going to deflect more than the other. The track running right along close to the Hewins truss, it would naturally deflect more than the other one. Q. What should you say if the other truss deflected the most? A. I should want to see it before I said anything ; then I should make a ver}* decided remark. Q. If they are to bear their proportion of the weight equally, ought they not to deflect equally? A. Why, no; not if the load is close to one and away off from the other, because one of them has a great deal more weight to deflect it. Q. Would the hangers of that bridge be subjected to the hardest service of any part of the bridge, should you say? A. Well, I don't know. The I. angers take the load pretty quick and carry it along to the truss. I don't know that they would have the hardest work. The work comes first on the track, the track hands it over to the floor beam, the floor beam hands it over to the hangers, and they hand it over to the truss. It is a link in the chain. Q. What effect would applying the brakes to a train on the bridge have on the hangers? A. It is not a very good plan to put the brakes on when going over a bridge. However, I think any bridge ought to be able to stand putting on the brakes. If it won't, it has got a precious small margin of strength. That is all I have got to say about it. Q. You think that that eccentric hanger was unnecessary? A. I APPENDIX. 255 should not put it in. I don't know why it is necessary at all. I should not put such a thing into a bridge. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) You know there was a bridge fell down in Maine some time ago, don't you? A. Lots of them. Q. There was one in particular that I know about : at Saccarappa, was it? A. At Kennebunk, on the Boston & Maine. Q. There was an iron bridge that fell down? A. There have been a good man}' bad bridges there. Q. I want you to tell me, if you can, whether this particular bridge was built by Mr. Hewins or the New England Company ? A. I think you are referring to the Wells bridge on the Boston & Maine. Q. By whom was that built? A. By this very man Hewins, I am told. Q. Then there was another bridge fell on the Vermont Central, at Waterbury : do you know anything about that bridge? A. No ; I don't know anything about it. Q. Never heard of it? A. I may have heard of it at the time; but I don't remember anything about it. Q. Do you know of any other bridge of the pattern of Mr. Hewins' that has fallen down besides the one at Wells? A. It is commonly called the Kennebunk bridge, and fell in 1882. Q. Do you know of any other bridge built by Mr. Hewins that has fallen? A. No ; I don't. Q. Have you in your investigations lately had occasion to run against this peculiar style of bridge that Mr. Hewins has built? A. No, sir ; this is the only one that I ever saw. This is half a one. Q. Ten years ago was it the rule amongst Grst-class bridge builders to weld the links, or was it the rule to punch the hole through which the pin goes? A. I should say as late as that it was not the practice to weld but to die-punch, as the term was. Q. And now what would you do? A. They would be forged in a hydraulic press. Q. But ten years ago that was not the practice? A. I think as late as ten years ago it was not the practice. In 1872 I was writing a book on bridge building, engineering and other things, and I wrote to about twelve of the best bridge-building establishments 1 could think of in this country, and asked them which was best, to weld an eye bar or to upset it and punch it afterwards, and. I got about as many letters on one side as the other. But the queer thing was this, that one man wrote me and said : i4 You never want to weld anything at all. You must always upset the bars and then punch out a hole, and then you will get something yon can rely upon." This letter came from one of the Phoenixville people. I wrote to one of the Lew- iston Bridge Works people and asked his opinion. He said, "You 256 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. don't want any of those upset bars : you want a weld. The Phosnix- ville people have sent us some upset bars, and we have cut off the ends and welded them on, because we like welding best." That was the difference of opinion at that time. You can do first-class work iu welding, but it is not practised now. It was not ten years ago, to any extent. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Your objection to this truss, as I under- stand you, is that the compression members are not fastened together so as to be continuous, but are kept together by something in the nature of a keystone, which can be knocked out? A. That is one very great objection to the truss. Q. That objection does not affect its weight-carrying power so long as it is kept plumb? A. As long as you keep everything straight and right it will do its work. Q. You have seen nothing in the truss itself to lead you to sup- pose that it had not ample power to carry the weight put upon it if it was kept straight? A. No; that is, I got the general impression that there was iron enough there to make a bridge out of. Q. Ten years ago, can you say whether or not this fashion of truss was frequently used in railroad bridges, — that is, trusses of the same general character, with joint blocks holding the upper members together? A. Yes. The Phoenixville people in their early bridges made up the top chord of short pieces, fifteen or twenty feet long, all run into a cast-iron joint block, but the detail was a great deal better than here. They took a great deal of pains to run parts of the churd into the box and to have decidedly strong lateral bracing. Q. That method of making the top chord with a series of links held together by compression was not infrequent in the United States, was it? A. No, sir ; I don't think it was. Q. You say the Phoenixville Company built them in that way, sub- stantially ? A. They built them in that way, but in better detail aud with a great deal of lateral bracing. Q. Those lateral braces connected the two trusses so that you would have to knock both down in order to get one down? A. Yes, sir. I objected to the bridge across the Kennebec at Augusta, Me., recently on that ground. Q. Was that one of that class of bridges? A. It was built just before the Phoenixville Company came into existence. They don't father that bridge. Q. .Should you regard such bridges as safe against a derailed train? A. I don't know. I think you might make such a bridge as that safe ; 1 should not want to try it. It would depend upon which chord the load was. Q. At the time I am speaking of, ten years ago, the fact that the APPENDIX. 257 upper chord was made in that way and capable of being knocked to pieces by a blow was not considered a fatal defect bv all reputable builders, was it? A. No, not by all builders, but there was a great deal of discussion going on at the time. Q. There was discussion, but nevertheless there were reputable biidge builders who still maintained that such bridges were correct in principle and were still putting them in practical operation on well- managed roads? A. Yes, sir. Q. And under the directiou of respectable engineers? A. Yes, there is one right by 3-011. Mr. Philbrick superintended for the Bos- ton & Maine putting up one of that kind, I think, at Haverhill, and I myself wrote a ver}' flattering notice of that bridge in the paper, praising its good qualities ; but, mind you, the load is on the lower part of that, not on the upper part, so that a derailed train would not cut off all the lateral bracing. Q. In a case of that kind, iu which you say you commended Mr. Philbrick, the upper chord was protected against such blows, and I suppose the details were better carried out? A. Yes. Q. But that was not so in all the bridges of this character which were built by reputable bridge builders at that time, was it? A. No, sir. I can show 3*011 bridges with the weight on the top chord where cutting through the floor would have knocked everything to pieces. Q. Are such bridges still in existence? A. Yes, sir ; I think so. Q. A good many of them, are there not? A. I have no doubt there are plenty of them. They always leave them up until they tumble down. Q. I do not understand, Professor Yose, that you think that in this case the truss failed as the first thing? A. No; I dou't think the truss failed as the first thing. Q. Or that it fell under vertical pressure? A. I have no reason to believe so. Q. Are you able to give an opinion on the quality of the iron of those hangers? A. No, sir ; I am not now. I should want to break them off and look at them. Q. Can you suggest how the qualit3' should be tested? A. Well, it wants to be done with a great deal of care. If that is the very best iron in the world, you can break it so that it will look like a long, fibrous break, or you can break it by another method so that it will look like the best cast iron. It can be tested fast enough to prove what the quality of the iron is ; there is no doubt about that. Q. Can anybody judge by looking at it now what the quality of that iron is? A. I cannot. Q. Uo you believe anybody else can? A. I have my doubts. Q. Then such opinions as have been expressed that the quality of 258 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. the iron is bad must, in your judgment, have been expressed without adequate knowledge? A. I should not want to express an opinion as to the quality of that iron without very careful examination. I can express an opinion as to the quality of the welding, but not of the iron itself. Q. Can you calculate the breaking strain necessary to sunder those hangers in the manner in which they were sundered at the time they were sundered, from their appearance now, assuming such quality of iron as you choose? A. Do you n.en, can I make a calculation as to what will pull a bad weld to pieces? Q. Assuming that what you have called fresh breaks are fresh, and that what you have called old breaks are ohl, and looking at the amount of fresh material which parted when those hangers parted, can you compute the weight that was necessary to part them? A. No ; I don't believe I could. Q. Is that on account of there being a weld in it, or because you cannot compute the power of the iron which is broken off, irrespec- tive of the weld? A. I don't know what to do with that lop-sided kind of an eye on one side. Q. Do you think that lop-sided eye would have occasioned such a break as occurred, any more than a stiaight eye would? A. Well, I don't know ; the answer to that is mixed up with the bad w r eld. That is the trouble. Q. I see your trouble about the bad weld. Let me put the ques- tion perhaps a little more intelligibly. Looking at the break as it actually occurred, can you say that any less force was required to produce that break than would have been required if the eye had been true under the other eye? A. No ; I don't know as I can. Q. Then 3011 cannot say that the lop-sidedness of that eye had anything to do with this particular break? A. No, sir; I cannot say that. I can simply say I don't like it. Q. Can you not calculate the strain, which would be necessary to part those pieces of iron which have parted, judging as well as you can how much of the iron was acting at the time the break took place and how much was already gone? A. I cannot, because of the fact that the part of it which is broken has destroyed the directness of the pull ; it has thrown everything out of kilter. That is the fact about it. I can figure up the power right straight through ; but when it is broken off, there is the bad well and all that sort of thing, so that I don't see how I could. Q. Then the complication of the bad well and the indirect pull make it impossible for you to calculate the breaking strain of that iron as it stood before the accident? A. Yes. <,>. Suppose, Professor Vose, that those hangers were the first APPENDIX. 259 things to go and that they broke under the weight of the engine, can you explain how three ears could have got over on to the abutment under a sufficient check in their speed to create such a telescoping as the evidence shows before the brilge went down? A. No; I can't explain it at all. Q. Is it, then, in your judgment, possible that those hangers should have given way under the engine, in view of the events which subse- quently occurred, especially the getting over of those three cars? A. I don't know when they got over. They evidently got over some- how. Whether it was under the check of the engine or not I don't know. The engine may have come within five hundred pounds of breaking those hangers off, substantially done the damage, and left the actual break to come afterwards. That is not an uncommon thing. Q. Whenever those things did give way, what, in your judgment, must have been the immediate result? A. Well, that lets the floor down and everything on it. Q. And at a speed of ten, twelve or fifteen miles an hour could anything have got on to the abutment which was over these hangers that broke? A. No; I think not. Q. I understand you, then, that the breaking of these hangers would let down the end of the floor beam, that would let down the outer end of the northern stringer and the northern end of the next stringer, leaving a gap of something like fifty feet wholly unsup- ported? A. Yes. Q. Could that gap, in your judgment, be shot by any car going twelve or fifteen miles an hour? A. I should say not, decidedly. Q. Then you would agree that whatever might have caused the breaking down of this bridge it was not the snapping of those hangers by the weight of the engine and tender ? A. No ; I don't say that . I say the engine, being the heaviest load, may have crippled those things so that, while they would stand up for a little while, pretty soon they went down. Very often a locomotive with a heavy train of cars goes over a bridge all right, and soon after a very light train comes along and the bridge goes down. It was really the heavy train that did the damage. I can conceive that those links wore crippled so that they were all ready to go, and when the next train came along they did go. Q. When those links did go, they went down all at once, didn't they, by their appearance now? A. I don't know. What do you mean by " all at once " ? Q. I mean, the floor did not settle gradually? A. No, sir. Q. Thai is, the links did not pull slowly apart, gradually lengthen- ing? A. No. 260 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. But gave way at once? A. Yes; the}' would give way pretty quick. Q. So that if this breaking of the links caused auy settling of the floor at all, it would cause an entire collapse of the floor, wouldn't it? A. I should think pretty quick. Q. Now, if those links gave way, and they were the first things that gave way, and the floor sank instantly at the point where they hung from the upper chord, can you imagine how any telescoping of the train could have occurred, or any portion of the train which had not passed that point could have got up on the abutment? A. No, sir ; I can't see how it could have got up on the abutment. Q. Can you, then, account for the accident as it is shown to have happened? A. No; I can't account for the accident as it is shown to have happened at all. I cannot explain how any one of those cars came where it was found, nor how any part of the bridge came where it was found. It was the most everlasting snarl I ever saw. Q. Supposing that something which we do not know about had happened, and b}' some cause the first car had got derailed just at the abutment, and the second car, having its trucks broken out from under it, had been brought suddenly to a stand, and the third car, driven bj T the weight of the train, had telescoped with the second car, the engine pulling away when the obstruction occurred, and that then the fourth or fifth car had struck that angle block violently, would not that, in your judgment, have knocked the truss down and torn those links out? A. Well, I am sure I don't know. That is a kind of complex question. It wouldn't do any bridge any good for a derailed car to hit that angle block. I can say that fast enough. Q. Is it not your judgment that if a derailed car had hit that angle block it would have knocked it right out and let it down? A. I don't know that it would, if the lateral bracing had held all right. Q. Would the lateral braces have held the truss in place? A. Yes ; I think they would. Q. Judging of that bridge from what you see of its construction, should you think the angle block would have stood a violent blow from a derailed car without going out of place? A. No; I don't think it would have stood much of a blow. If I recollect right, the lateral bracing was fastened on to some lugs on the casting. At the same time, I am not quite sure about that. I have given the opinion that the lateral bracing was all attached merely to the top chord. Q. There would be no lateral braces attached to the angle block, at any rate, would there ? A. It seems to me in getting out these links we had to cut oh" some lateral braces which did come through APPENDIX. 261 and were attached to that angle block. I am not quite sure about it, but I think that is the way. Q. The truss would have been as likely to have been knocked down by a blow on the angle block as by a blow anywhere else, would it not? A. Well, I don't know. If the lateral bracing held all right, so that the truss was kept steady sidewise, you might hit it a con- siderable blow without knocking that truss down ; but if you got the floor out first, then it would take a precious small blow to knock the thing down. Q. But with those hangers as weak as you say they were, and with the weight of that train on the floor beam and a violent blow against the angle block, would not that cause a rending strain which would tear those hangers apart at the same time the bridge went over? A. I cannot answer that question unless you give me some pretty definite information. I can guess that a heavy blow somewhere would do harm somewhere, but I cannot say that those hangers would be broken by an imaginary cause unless I know the conditions pretty well. Q. Taking the condition of the hangers as you say they must have been before the disaster, and the construction of the bridge, which I understand you know, with the weight of the train on one end of the floor beam, the other end of the train resting on the abutment, and the weight of the train then being thrown by a violent blow against this angle block, I ask you if the effect of that blow would not be to drive the angle block and truss one way, and would not the weight of the train force the floor beam through and so part those hangers, in their weak condition? A. I don't know. I should think that might happen. That is all I can say about it. Q. In other words, those broken hangers might simply be a part of the disaster, and not the cause of the disaster? A. If they had been whole and good hangers 1 don't think any blow such as you speak of would have broken thorn. Q. I presume not. If they had been whole and good hangers the derailed train would have gone right over the bridge, would it not, as it did in Vermont the other day, without knocking it down? A. Yes ; I think so. Q. Is it not to your mind more probable that those hangers gave way in some such way as I have described with the bridge, and after the first two or three cars had gone over, than that they parted before the first two or three cars had got over? A. I can't tell, I am sure, whether it is more probable or not. Q. Have you not already said that yon cannot conceive of any way whereby the first two or three cars could get over? A. Yes ; I do say that I cannot conceive how two or three cars could get over. 262 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. You cannot conceive of such a blow leaving the bangers in their present condition? A. I don't think it would do them an}' good. Q. Well, one is conceivable and the other inconceivable, isn't it, to your mind? A. Yes. Q. (By the Chairman.) Taking that drawing of that hanger, with those elements in it, could you not calculate what the strength of that would be? A. You mean, if it was a good weld and good material? Q. Yes; good weld and good material. And whether it would be a suitable piece of iron to put into the bridge in the position in which it was? A. I don't know whether I could tell what the strain on the different parts of that would be or not. It is going to be more on one side of the bar than it is on the other. It is not an easy thing to figure upon it. I am not prepared to say that I could figure upon it and give you an exact result. I could do it easily enough if this bend was under the other, but when you put it off one side three inches or so, I don't know whether I could tell you just what the strain is there or not. I should have to think of that a good while. Q. Are you willing to try to make some figures on that proposition ? A. I will, if you will give me Sunday to do it ; only I may bring you in some differential calculus ; I may bring you in the theory of probabili- ties. I will give you something you cannot understand. I will agree to do that. Q. All we care about is the result. Of course we do not care about any figures, unless you can arrive at something that seems satisfactory to your own mind. A. I can tell you at the start that I cannot do that. Q. Was it necessary to put hangers of that sort into this bridge? A. No, sir ; it was not. Q. Was there anything in the bridge that necessitated that those centres should not be under each other? A. No ; I don't see that there was. Q. If it had been necessary to bring those centres three inches out of line, as the}' are, how would you have constructed the iron so as to be in your opinion safe? A. I will show you how. I would have had a great big fiat link, about a foot wide, to cover all imaginary cases; then I would have cut my holes where I had a mind to. I should have wasted a great deal of material. I would have done it by brute force and stupidity. I would not have made it a subject of computation. I would have put in ten times more iron than ought to have been there, probably, but I would have fixed it so that it would not have broken. You see the point. Q. Could you have got that into the angle block? A. I don't know about that, I am sure. That angle block was fearfully and wonderfully made. APPENDIX. 263 Q. Would you have made the iron to conform to the angle block, or the angle block to conform to the necessities of the iron? A. I would not have had it there to cover those things up. That is what I would not have done. Q. Could you have got along with that sort of a bridge without an angle block that wonld cover thein up ? A. Yes, I suppose you could. You might have had your pair of links outside the whole thing. Q. Would there have been any objection to that? A. You might have had to make the pins a little bigger, but you would have had them all out-doors, where you could see them. Q Supposing the hangers gave way or began to give way when the engine passed over them, and the bridge had begun to fall when the engine got on to the abutment, there is this support here some dis- tance from the abutment? A. Yes. Q. That would not give way necessarily at the same moment that the hangers gave way? A. No. Q. What would be the Grst effect, then, upon the bridge of those hangers giving way? A. Well, the floor would go down right through and I should expect that angle block to be shoved out of place sidewise. Q. And what would happen to this post here? A. I don't know, I am sure, what would happen t$ that. Q. One end of the stringer would be supported at the centre of the truss, wouldn't it? A. Yes. Q. And the north end of that stringer would have lost its support? A. Yes. Q. And the south end of the stringer that goes from the north abutment would have lost its support? A. Yes. Q. Now, supposing the engine is on the abutment and the first car of the train is coming over, when its front end is at the abutment its rear end is where? When the front end of the first car is at the point where the west track meets the abutment, where would be the rear end of the car? A. I don't remember how long the cars are. Mr. Kinsley. Call them fifty feet. The Witness. I don't know what the dimensions are here. Q. Then, when you said that it was impossible for those cars to get across, you did not know how much of a chasm they would have to jump, did you? A. I saw it was a pretty big one. It is from that post to the middle. Q. Supposing that it turns out that at the time when one car is on the abutment, the next car is unsupported and the car behind is on the southern part of the bridge, how much would the second car fall? Would it break away from the car on the abutment and from the car on the bridge, or would the Miller platform support it? A. The 264 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Miller platform would do all that is expected of it, and that is a good deal ; it is a good thing ; but I don't know, I ain sure, whether the Miller platform is up to that or not. Q. You don't know about that? A. No, sir ; I don't. Q. So you are not sure that it would be impossible for it to be car- ried over? A. I don't know about getting a ear over there. I said I thought an engine would drop through. I don't think that you could get an engine over there ; I dou't know about a car ; they go over almost anything. Q. Now, if a car was between this abutment and the centre of the bridge, supported by the Miller platform of the rear car and by the car in front, it would nevertheless have dropped somewhat below that abutment, would it not? A. I think so ; yes, sir. Q. Its truck would naturally strike the edge of the abutment, would it not? A. Yes. This is all guess-work. I should think it might. Q. Then that would give it a sudden stop, would it not? A. Yes ; I think it would. Q. And the rest of the train coming on in the rear would bump into it behind very hard ? A. Yes. Q. When the first car got pushed part way up on to the abutment, the second car coming along would bem about this position, would it not? A. I can conceive that; yes. Q. Then the weight of the train pushing them on would push that one over and this car would strike against the abutment so, would it not? A. I don't know. I think we are getting into the region of guess-work now. Q. Did you see the position of those cars on the abutment? A. I diil. I did not look at them to make out their positions at all. I did not care anything about it. Q. They were off of the abutment? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the reason of the second car being telescoped into the third car and both cars losing their trucks? A. I should say something pushing behind. Q. What made them lose their trucks? A. I should think some- thing must have torn the trucks out from under them. Q. What made the third car lose its trucks in the street? A. I don't know. Q. Was the third car when it went on to the abutment on a level with the abutment, or was it below the level of the abutment? A. I don't know. Q. Was the bodj' of the fourth car, when its top went on to the abutment, on a level with the abutment? A. I don't know. I did not look at any of those things. APPENDIX. 265 Q. Do yon feel confident that it might not have happened in that way ? A. No, sir ; I can't say that it did not. I don't know any- thing about it. Q. You said you had some conversation with Mr. Hewins about this bridge ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you learn from him anything of the details of the bridge? A. No, sir. I wanted to, but I didn't. I came in with him on Mon- day night from the wreck. He told me if I would call at his house on Tremont Street on my way out Tuesday morning he would hunt up all the drawings he had. He didn't have many. He had the strain sheets of the different compression members of the truss, which I didn't care anything about. He thought the details must have been left at the shop where the bridge was made. He did not have the details that would show me what the construction of the bri'lge was. Adjourned to Monday, March 28. TENTH DAY. Monday, March 28, 1887. The hearing was rpsumed at 10.45 a. m. Mr. Putnam. Before going on this morning, I will put in Mr. Par- ker's bid in December, 1875, for completing the bridge with another truss similar to the one which was in already, in which he says : " I will build the duplicate truss for the other half of the Bussey bridge and put it in place, with all the necessary cross bracing, the whole to your satisfaction, for the sum of $3,180, your company to receive the iron at Boston depot and transport free, and also transport free the workmen and tools. Yours truly, C. II. Parker, National Bridge and Iron Works." I also have a note here dated Nov. 13, 187G, from Mr. George Folsom to Mr. Richards, asking for the weight of the engines used in testing the Bussey bridge, and beneath it a memoran- dum by Mr. Richards giving the weight of the two engines with their tenders, — the William Raymond Lee, with its tender, 109,900 pounds ; and of the Moses B. Ives, with its tender, 121,330 pounds. That is a record of the test made when the bridge was put up. I should say I bring this note from Mr. Folsom because I understand he is still too ill to be present himself, and I ask the commissioners to take these memoranda for what they are worth, in his absence. 2GG BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Prof. George L. Vose — resumed. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Have you rend the testimony given by the engineer and the fireman, Mr. White and Mr. Billings? A. No, sir ; I have not. Q. Mr. White and Mr. Billings both said that when they got on to the Boston end of the bridge they heard a snap, and then the hinder part of the engine settled a few inches, and they went up on to the bank. Now, if those hangers there (referring to photograph) had broken just as they got there, would it have been likely to cause a snap sufficiently loud for those men to have heard it? If those hang- ers had broken just at that moment, in your opinion would it have been likeby to have made such a noise that those two men would have heard it, as they say they did? Both agree to that. A. I can con- ceive that they might have heard it. A piece of iron under so great tension as that might go off like a pistol. I should think they might have heard it. Q. (By the Chairman.) Those are drawings of the rails running from a point between five and six feet southerly of that broken hanger block on to the abutment, and this is the abutment, where the line of the abutment would come. Now, do the bends in those rails suggest anything to you as to the nature of the accident? A. Are these the two parallel rails? Q. Those are the two rails that were parallel. This rail is broken here, and those are horizontal bends. The rails were not bent much out of a horizontal line. Both were torn out completely by the acci- dent. A. Well, it is an incomprehensible kind of a looking thing as it stands there. It don't convey any idea to me now. It looks to me as if they had been bodily shoved in that way, puckered up ; but whether that was a part of the cause of the accident or an effect I don't know. The Chairman. That is what we are trying to arrive at. Mr. Vose. I can't enlighten you on that at all. I can't give you anything at all on that. The Chairman. (To Mr. Piiilbrick:.) The ends of these rails would come opposite each other, as I understand, if the rails were straightened out? Mr. Piiilbrick. Yes, sir ; they are both the same length. The Chairman. It was not a broken joint ; they are both the same length? Mr. Vose. I cannot say, where there has been so much driving and wrenching by the cars. It would be mere guess-work, if I did. Q. Did you succeed in making any figures with regard to these hangers? A. No, sir. I did not think when I went away you APPENDIX. 267 wanted it; but still, if you insist on having sonic figures on those hangers, I will make them for you, but I guarantee when they conic here the\- won't convey any idea. It is one of those indeterminate things, where we have got to start by guessing at our premises and work along through very devious methods, and come out nowhere in particular, I am afraid. The Chairman. Very well, then, if it will not throw any light upon the question, we will not pursue it. Mr. Vose. I do not think it will a particle. I would be glad to do it if it would. Q. If you had been called to examine that bridge when it was first built, — that truss, — what would have been your report in regard to it? A. Well, if I had seen those hangers before they were put in, as near as I can judge now by those that were n w but it is. Q. And the latter theory requires nothing more to be added to the known facts than some cause for the derailment of the train? A. Yes, sir. Q. While the other theory requires you to suppose that after fifty APPENDIX. 271 feet of flooring hail dropper! through, three cars were carried over it on to the bank? A. No ; I do not admit that at all. . Q. "Why not? A. Because, as I told you the other dny, I can conceive this thing, that a heavy load like the engine going over theie should take the life all out of these links without actually separating them, but they would want a few small blows to finish up the job, and it might have been the fourth, fifth or sixth car which did it. lie- cause in such cases very often we know the heavy load does not bring the thing to pieces, and the light one following it does. Q. But until those links do go, the fljor system is perfectly solid, is it not? A. If you call it perfectly solid with bad welding and all that. Q. I mean to say, there is no yielding or shaking or giving way of the floor system until those links go? A. No. Q. When those links went, they went all at once, did they not? "When the final break came those links didn't sctile gradually, but went all at once, did they not? A. I guess that is so. Q. Then, whenever those links went, the floor beam which rested on them, and the two stringers, about fifty feet in length, which rested on the floor beam, went right down at once, did they not? A. I should think so. Q. With nothing but gravity substantially to hold them? A. That is all. Q. And a train of cars on top? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, then, if that was the way the thing happened, you have got to asceitain, have you not, how three cars jumped over that place with the floor gone, as you put it? A. Yes. sir. Q. Can yon imagine what could have carried those three cars over after those hangers had given way, and that floor beam had gone? A. No ; I cannot. Q. Can 3"on suppose any force that could have done it? A. No; no forces that you had around there. Q. If the cars were going before the accident at the rate of fifteen miles an hour, that would make about nineteen feet in a second, would it not? A. I will take your word for it. Q. "We will call it twenty if it is more convenient for calculation. The stopping of the second car and the telescoping of the train against it would tend to diminish that rate of sliced, would it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. So that at the time the third car crossed the last fifty feet of the bridge, it would probably be going considerably less than nineteen feet a second, would it not? A. Yes, sir. i > And the length of a car is from fifty to fifty-five feet, so that it 272 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. would take two seconds and a half for a car to travel across that chasm of fifty feet? A. Yes, sir. Q. And it would take something like one second and a half for that floor beam to drop on to the ground after it was once let go ? A.I say yes ; I don't know anything about it. Q. Don't you know how quick a floor beam will drop? It would drop sixteen feet in one second, and forty-two feet in two, would it not? A. It does not say in the philosophies how quick a floor beam would drop held up there by a lot of — Q. What is there to hold it? I assume there was nothing to hold it; was there anything to hold it? A. I think there is a little differ- ence between dropping a brick or a cannon ball, as they do, and drop- ping a floor beam, which is all snarled up with a perfect net- work of iron rods. Q. If it was all snarled up with a net-work of iron rods, of course my question is not a fair one ; I understood it to be clear of every- thing excepting an I beam underneath it. At all events, 3-011 agree that it would settle so rapidly that a car, which it would take five sec- onds to cross that chasm, would not be likely to get over? A. No ; I should think it would have pretty hard work to get over. Q. Did you read the article in the " Engineering News," the attempt to explain this thing? A. No, sir. • Q. Then you are not aware the writer assumes a speed of fifty feet a second and a chasm only twenty-eight feet wide to get his cars over? A. I do not know anything about the figures. Q. (By the Chairman.) Do 3-011 know what the supporting power of a Miller platform is? A. Do you mean, if you couple two cars together and take the support out from under? Q. Yes, from the middle. A. No ; I do not. Q. Has that element been suggested in Mr. Putnam's question to you? A. No. Q. Is it possible that a Miller platform might materially support a car in passing over a space of fifty-seven feet, the cars on either side being supported, one on the embankment and the other on a solid portion of the bridge? A. I should not want to reckon on much sup- port in a thing of that kind. It might help some. Q. What sort of a curve would a car describe that was going at the rate of fifteen miles an hour when the support was entirely with- drawn from it? Would it drop straight down, or would it describe a curve? A. It would describe a curve. Q. What would be that curve? A. In the case of that bridge, or in the abstract? Q. A car with no support, a car going from the edge of a bridge into a chasm without any support at all? A. Well, primarily, say, a APPENDIX. 273 parabola, but a parabola mixed up with all sorts of things on the back of the car, and the dragging on the tracks. If you throw a ear bodily, suppose it to be a small body, off a bridge, it is plain enough what the curve will be. Q Can }'ou give a general estimate as to how far the front end of a car would fall that was running at the rate of fifteen miles an hour, and went over the edge of an embankment or the edge of a bridge, — how far it would fall in fifty feet, say? A. No ; I cannot give any kind of a guess. Q. Without any support at all? A. No; I don't know. Q. Whatever that curve is, the fall would be materially diminished if the car was supported at either end, would it not? A. Yes. Q. And the fall would be lessened in proportion to the amount of support? A. Yes, sir. Q. And those things you have not estimated upon? A. No, sir ; not at all. Q. And are you prepared to say whether a car could or could not have been carried over that broken portion of tht bridge by its im- petus, and by the support which it received from the cars on the abut- ment and the cars on the whole portion of the bridge, if it was carried over so as to strike against the abutment, perhaps, and gradually be forced up on the abutment instead of dropping into the street? A. No ; I cannot understand how such a thing could be done. Q. Are }-ou prepared to say it could not be done ? A. No. There are a good many things I saw out there I would have said could not have been done before they happened. Q. And this may have been one of them? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, if the floor system, taking Mr. Putnam's suggestion, was torn up, if the train was off the track in going over that bridge, — (to Mr. Putnam) I suppose you assume that the front car was off the track, do you not? Mr. Putnam. I do not know that. I have not assumed anything more than the second car was. The first one did go off the track, however. The Chairman. That the sec nd car went off the track, and that that piled up the ties? I would like to follow out your question, which was rather too general, Mr. Putnam. I want to get at the exact sequence in your supposition in regard to it. As I understood it, you supposed that one of the front cars, either the first or the second car. ran off the track on the bridge; that that piled up the th.or timbers somewhat towards the end of the bridge — Mr. Putnam. Not the floor timbers, the ties ; and tore up that rail, this long rail, which went into the second car ; that there was a very 274 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. violent commotion there of some kind, bringing the second car to a stand, and bringing the whole train on to it. The Chairman. What car do you think must have hit this angle block and thrown it out of place? Mr. Putnam. I cannot say. It might have been the end of the fourth car, or it might have been, as Mr. Folsom thinks, the sixth car ; but that one of the cars did strike the truss and knock it down, I take it to be clear on either theory. The only question is whether the truss went before the floor system, or whether the floor system and the truss all went together. My idea is, if you would care to hear it — The Chairman. Yes, I should like to hear. Mr. Pctnam. My idea is that the only question we are considering here is whether those broken hangers were the cause of this mischief, or whether they were simply one of the effects of it. The condition of the hangers I have nothing to say about ; it speaks for itself, and the experts have testified about it. What troubles me is to see how, if those hangers gave wa} T at first, letting this whole mass, the whole floor system, down for the space of fifty feet, the three cars could have got over as they did. Because, whatever happened to cause the derailment happened before the first car had more than got off the abutment. — happened, certainly, before the second car got off the abutment, — for the first car was derailed when it left the abut- ment, and whatever caused the derailment mast have already hap- pened. The second car was brought tea dead stand just this side of the abutment, or just this side of the end of the bridge, or just upon the end of the biidge ; I am not particular about the exact place, but somewhere along there the second car was brought to a dead stand. That telescoped the whole train, and made this violent commotion on the bridge. Now, if the floor system had all gone before that, — and I mean by the floor system the floor beams and the stringers as dis- tinguished from the ties, — if the floor system had all gone before that, I do not see how the first, second and third cars could have got over, if the laws of gravitation continued in force. But I can easil}- see how, if the first or second car had been derailed by some cause which we are not able to discover, when the blow came from the derailed train, which undoubtedly did knock this truss down, it should also have broken these hangers. And ury argument is, or the point that I am endeavoring to establish — not that I care, excepting as a matter of public interest — is, that the breaking of these hangers was a part of the smashing of the bridge, and not the cause of the going down of the bridge ; that the cause was the derailment of the train, and that that derailment was due to some cause which we have not yet dis- covered. APPENDIX. 275 The Chairman. What I want to get at is which car it was. We find that the rear truck of the first car had a severe blow ; that the trucks of the second car had a still mire severe blow, and that the second car was in some way suddenly stopped, so that the rest of the train telescoped into it; that the trucks of the third car dropped into the street ; and that most of the fourth car went into the Btreet, though the top went on to the embankment. Now, what I want to get at is, under your theoiy, which car you think made an opening in the bridge, knocked the bridge down? Mr. Putnam If you ask me which car knocked down the whole system, the truss, the floor system and all, I should say it must have been either the fourth, fifth or sixth, and might have been either, for anything I am able to say. But if you mean by the floor system sim- ply the timbers, — the ties, — I have no doubt that the ties all went to pieces under the second car ; that there must have been some of them under the third car, because the people who were in the third car speak of a jolting, but that the ties were so open when the cars went over them that their trucks would have been struck by, and pos- sibly stripped off against, the abutment, I can easily understand. My point is that the general floor system of that bridge, which hung upon those hangers, could not have gone until the third car, at least, had got pretty well over. The Chairman. When were those rails bent? Mr. Putnam. I cannot tell you that; you must ask something easier. I do not attempt to account for everything. But the idea that the breaking of those hangers and the letting down of that floor preceded the getting over of the first, second and third cars is to me inconceivable, and that is the only point I am making. How those were bent, I am sure I do not know. But there is one thing certain, this rail here was not bioken by sheering against the abutment, be- cause there is no vertical sheer there at all. It was broken by a lat- eral bend, and there is no doubt it was broken before the second car got to it, because the second car took it up by this end, — took up the broken part by this end, — and carried it along in front of it. My belief is the first car was derailed on the bridge, and that the sleepers were pretty well smashed up before the second car got here ; and that the rail was broken by the force exercised by this ami the force of the second car, and finally the end shot up under the second car and threw the car off. But that the whole floor system should have given way before the breaking of the hangers seems to me to be incredible. The Chairman. I wanted to understand your position. Mr. Putnam. I did not care to develop or argue it, or state it fully, until you asked for it. I will endeavor to develop it in examin- ing the witnesses. And, as we have had this discussim, I hope you 276 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. will allow rae to say, that it may go on record, that my interest in the matter is the same as yours, and that the railroad company is as anxious to get at the facts as you are, and not merely to establish any theory. Mr. IIewins. Mr. Chairman, ma} r I ask a few questions of Pro- fessor Vose ? The Chairman. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Hewins.) I have not seen anything of the testimon} r except what has appeared in the papers, and I do not know whether it is quite clear, but I want to get at what your recollection is of the condition of these members that united with the chord where this blow evidently took place and overturned the truss? A. You mean where it united with the top chord? Q. Yes. A. It looked to me like a very bad connection. Q. The condition of the members, I ask about? A. The condition after they fell? Q. Yes, sir. A. It seemed to be very good, as I recollect it. I do not remember there were breaks there on the top chord. I did not notice anything out of the way with them after they fell. Q. Do 3'ou remember of seeing the top chord as it lay on the ground? A. I remember seeing it lying there very well, but I cannot explain exactly how it looked. Q. Do you not recollect that I called your attention to it and stated that that was the piece, and that it was upset down on the ground? A. Yes ; 1 do remember that. Q. And that it ought to be preserved? A. Yes, sir. Q. To see whether there should be any marks that might be dis- covered on the top side? A. Yes, sir, you did. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) You mean the upper chord? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Putnam. It seems to me we saw that. Do you know where it is, Mr. Richards? Mr. Richards. Out at Roxbury. Mr. Hewins. The piece is there now. Mr. Vose. At Roxbury. Q. (By Mr. Hewins.) Then you have not examined that since? A. No. Mr. Hewins. It occurred to me that that was one of the most important things, — as to whether there were any marks on the top of it. The Chairman. Have you seen it yourself? Mr. Hewins. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Are there any marks there? Mr. Hewins. Yes, sir. APPENDIX. 277 Q. Can yon tell what was the condition of the floor beam as it lay on the ground? A. No, I cannot. Q. Well, about thi9 inclined end post? A. What about it? Q. Do you remember of seeing it on the ground? A. Yes, sir. Q. Or what its condition was? A. I did not notice its condition particularly ; no, sir. Q. Do you remember anything about the casting resting upon the bottom, at its foot, on a steel plate, on which the post rests? A. Mr. Andrews called my attention to something in regard to that rest- ing on the bottom, I have forgotten what it was. It was all covered up with rubbish. It did not strike me as of any importance at the time. Q. Did you note the condition of the floor beam at all? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was whole? A. I should say it was whole, as far as I can remember. Q. Do you remember the condition of this piece which was directly under it? A. No; I do not recollect that. Q. Do you not recollect I called your attention to a piece of the track? A. Yes, I do. Q. Saying that that was an important thing to remember? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that it was straight? A. Yes, sir ; I do not remember of your saying it, but I do remember of your calling my attention to it. Mr. Hewins. Now, this is an important thing, Mr. Chairman. That piece at that time was straight ; it is now bent. How it has become bent I do not know, but Professor Vose remembers that I called his attention to the beam there, which was that beam, and it was then straight. Q. Now, if these hangers had broken, what must have happened to that post while the truss stood? A. Which these hangers rest on? Q. The lower chord. A. I do not know, I am sure. Q. You are familiar with the strains of trusses? A. If that post was substantially supported at the time, and the hangers had given way, I should say the post ought to be bent. You might go back and say it was not done, therefore it was not substantially supported at the bottom. I do not know how correct that might be. Q. You saw the I beam of the bridge? A. I saw what you showed me. Q. What purported to be? Well, if that was supported there, that must be crippled if these hangers were firm? A. I do not know, because I do not know whether the counter-rod had hold of them or not; if it had, they would be out of the way pretty quick. 278 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Well, either that post or this counter-rod must have gone? A. Yes ; I should think so. Q. Must it not be so, absolutely? A. I cannot tell on looking now, on this tumbling down, what might happen. Q. Assuming that the truss itself was intact? A. Yes, sir. Q. That these hangers had broken, and that floor beam had brought its weight entirely upon that point? A. Yes. You think it would have been crippled? Q. You think so, do you not? Mr. Hewins. There is no doubt about it. It is unfortunate that it is bent now. But Professor Vose remembers that I called his attention to it then. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Where was that? A. It was right cl^se by that casting, on that side towards the main line of the Providence road. Q. Which way was it lying? A. Near the floor beam. Q. An I-beam? A. I do not know that it is an I beam ; but Mr. Hewins did call my attention to an I beam which ought to have been bent, but was not. Mr. Hewins. Perhaps that is sufficient. The Chairman. It is certain that he saw it. Mr. Putnam. Yes ; one Mr. Hewins pointed out. The Chairman. Professor Vose, will you examine that contract, which is the contract for this bridge, and let us know later whether you consider it in proper form for a bridge of this sort ; if the specifications are sufficiently accurate? Mr. Vose. Do you want it right off? The Chairman. No ; at your leisure. Henry Manlev — sicorn. Q. (By the Chairman.) What is your full name? A. Henry Manley. Q. Your residence ? A. West Roxbury, Mount Vernon Street. Q. And 3-our occupation ? A. Civil engineer. Q. What has been your education as a civil engineer? A. I have attended the Bridgewater Academy ; graduated from the Bridgewater State Normal School ; served in the army ; entered the office of G. Herbert Shedd as a student in 1866, paying a premium, served with him three years as a student, and then at that time entered the office of the city engineer, as assistant engineer, and am there still. I have been engaged in the city's employ on almost all kinds of engineering construction ; and after the first few years drifted gradually into the work of building and caring for the city's bridges, and for about fif- teen years have made the inspection of the iron bridges in the city for APPENDIX. 279 the city engineer which it is required by the ordinances he shall make. Q. What is 3-our position now? A. Assistant engineer. Q. Of the city of Boston? A. Yes, sir. Q. Had you ever examined this bridge before the accident? A. Ouly in the most casual manner, from riding underneath it; I never got out of the carriage to look at it, to the best of my recollection. Q. What examination have you made of it since, and what has been the result of your examination? A. I arrived there on the morning of the accident at a little past half-past eight, perhaps twen- ty-five minutes of nine ; I know I looked at my watch after I had been there a little while, and it was sixteen minutes of nine. I came to the bidge by the way of the highway from Roslindale. The train was filled with my friends and neighbors, and my first inquiry was for their condition. The injured had been removed, and there were none. I saw no injured people of an}' consequence, except as were able to remain on the premises, though I met a large number in coming from my house to the bridge. As I reached the bridge by the highway, I first came to the rear end of the train, the smoking car. Everything was quiet there, and I made my way to the other end of the train by climbing up the abutment towards Roslindale, climbing up over the fill. When I reached the top I looked for marks on the ties for the train being off the track, that being the accident that I most feared in connection with the bridge. I found no signs of any train having been off the track. I made my way then to the forward end of the train on the highway and made further inquiries as to people on board the train ; and after I had learned all that I could in that direction, I set myself at work to examine the wreck and find what caused the bridge to tumble down, if I could. I perhaps, first, should say that I had forgotten the precise construction of the bridge, and it took me a little time, in the confusion and in the state of mind in which I was, — a good many of my friends and acquaintances being injured, — to rebuild the bridge in my mind, if I may express it in that way ; but I gradually did, and recollected the outlines of the thing. I noticed on the Roslindale end of the wreck that the track was substantially whole and inclined against the abutment ; a good many of the sleep- ers—the ties — were in place; and for twenty-five or thirty feet, at least, from the Roslindale abutment there were no marks of any car being off the track. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Will you state that again? You say there were no marks of any car being off the track for twenty-five or thirty feet from what? A. From the Roslindale abutment. Q. Going towards Roslindale? A. No ; going towards Boston. Q. On the part that fell down? A. On the part that fell down. 280 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. The ties were in their places, or a majority of them, and there were no marks of a train having left the track. I made my way forward ami noticed what I supposed to be the top chord lying under a car, partly crushed. I crossed over the train between two cars and came upon the cast-iron joint lock that has been spoken of so frequently. That was lying on the ground clear from the cars a few feet, and sub- stantially in the upright position which it occupied in the bridge, except that it was tipped forward towards Boston, and somewhere near in the position it must have occupied in the bridge originally. The first thing I noticed about that was the fact that the keeper nut on the end of the pin, the large pin running through it, was gone. Q. (By the Chairman.) What nut do 3-ou speak of? A. The large pin that runs through it has a nut to keep it in position, which is known as the keeper nut, and that was gone ; and that the diag- onal rod which takes hold of that pin outside of the cast-iron joint lock had slipped off the pin. Well, I thought that perhaps the nut had stripped off in the fall, and I looked at the pin and found the threads were whole ; and I was considering what bearing that had upon the accident, and, on looking around I found the nut about four feet away from the pin, bedded in the snow, with just the top of it vis- ible. It occurred to me at the time, — I was looking for light, — and it occurred to me that possibly might have been removed by a mali- cious person and have caused the accident ; and I examined the snow around it to ascertain whether snow had fallen since that laid there. I concluded that it had been put in there very recently. I felt of the threads on the inside of it, and they felt rough. It is a cast-iron nut. I finally came to the conclusion that it had been stripped off, the threads giving way on the nut, and it had no bearing on the accident. But a later examination showed me that the threads were .whole on the nut, and I have not been able to satisfy nryself how that nut came off that pin, and have not since been able ; it is an unexplained por- tion of the story to me, still. I noticed further that this cast-iron lock had received a severe blow. The Chairman. Mr. Manley, before you go any further we will have that screw and nut explained more fully. Mr. Doane, have you any drawings which will show that? Mr. Putnam. It is shown in the photograph. (Witness referred to the photograph and pointed out the location of the nut and pin referred to.) The Witness. The further one had slipped off of the pin and lay on the ground. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) The inside one? A. The inside one. The pin apparently had not started lengthwise in the cast-iron lock. The nut had the mark of a severe blow upon it. I have thought since I APPENDIX. 281 perhaps should have looked to see whether it was a right-handed thread; if it had been a right-handed thread, a blow in the direction in which the train was moving would have tended to screw it on in- stead of taking it off. If it was dragged off by something moving, by a moving train, it must have been taken on the under side of the nut instead of the upper side of the nut. The cast-iron angle block has three large strengthening ribs on the top that are possibly an inch and a half in diameter ; I do not know how high, a couple of inches, per- haps. The corner of that rib nearest Roslindale and next the track had received a heavy blow that had scraped off a considerable portion of the metal, perhaps half or three-quarters of an inch in depth and three inches in length, more or less ; I made no measurement ; and in the construction of the upper truss it occurred to me then that it was possible that that was the blow that threw down the main truss. I saw the upper end of the hangers that have been mentioned, but I did not, at that first examination, see the broken ends of the hangers; I did not see the parts of them that were on the floor beam, I did not dentify the floor beam, I did not know which floor beams ran cross- wise and which lengthwise ; I knew there must be one which ran each way from near this point. Something called my attention away from this point at that time, and I made my way up on the bank nearest the Boston end, which I had not seen at that time, and saw the con- dition of the cars at that point in a general waj-. I made no careful memoranda of the facts. I observed the fact that the engine had ap- parently, from having gone on, got over clear, — I was told so, — went over without serious damage ; that the front trucks were under the first car, the rear trucks were gone ; the next car had lost all its trucks, and at the rear end was badly broken, and particularby broken near the top ; the third car, the trucks were gone, and the bottom badly broken ; and also that the roof of the fourth car had landed, apparently, upon the bottom. That gave me the impression that the train was running at a very considerable speed. I accidentally learned at that stage that a train was com- ing into Boston, and. as I had' engagements, I got aboard the train at eleven o'clock and came in. I may say that I came into town under an . impression, strongly, that something must have given way on the train and some portion of the train struck this angle block ; some portion besides the engine, from the fact that the engine was in good condition. I mentioned this fact to Mr. Cheney, an assistant in the office, principal assistant in the city engineer's office, and arranged with him and with Mr. Tinkham, the chief of the draughting department, the principal draughtsman, and with my assistant and another assistant engineer, assistant city engineer, Mr. Howe, to go out in the afternoon ; got a pass from the Superintendent 282 USSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. of Police to go inside the police lines, and we went out on the 2.40 train. On the way we were joined by three or four other engineers, and passed inside the lines, first taking a view at the top of the abutment. And as we reached the foot of the fill in the highway I met Professor Vose, who immediately called our attention to the broken ends of the hangers that we visited. The fact that the hangers had old breaks in them seemed to throw a flood of light on the accident, to my mind, and sufficiently accounted for what followed. I looked at them, and stayed on the premises a couple of hours, and so far as I talked with the people present who were of the party, and with other engineers I saw there, there seemed to be no material disagreement amongst us as to the cause of the accideut ; and from what I have learned since and from the testimony, I have not seen any special cause to change my opin- ion, — that is, that the hangers are the most suspicious part of the whole structure, the part which would be expected naturally to give way first, and that the}' gave way under the engine. It seems to me that, without doing any very great violence to probabilities, it would naturally follow from that fact. Q. (By the Chairman.) Do you think those three cars could have got over, if that was the case? A. Yes, sir; I know that they did get over. It seems to me that if the weight of the engine had snapped the hanger, that there is, or is shown by the plans to be, a post under- neath it, which I take to have been placed there to take the upward thrust of the counter brace which leads down to it. While I am not very familiar with the structure as a whole, yet it seems to me that with the aid of that post, which is directly under the cross stringer, the fall of the floor system may have been delayed long enough for the train to get over it. The testimony of the fireman, which I happened to hear, seemed to strongly confirm that idea, he having first heard a snap, and looking back saw a car — which car he could not say — shoot out to the left. If the hanger gave waj r , that end of the floor beam would naturally drop, to a certain extent, immediately, and might be caught by this diagonal rod and the post, first bj r the post and then by the diagonal rod, and probably by other connections, whether they would be of any use. That would incline the train to the left, and perhaps throw it off the track. The main truss being to the left, some part of the following train might strike the angle block or the joint lock, as was seen at that time, and probably the strong- est connection crosswise of the bridge having gone, that would become a very weak point in the truss, and a sidewise blow there would be less likely to throw it down. The telescoping of the car I could not attempt to account for with any minuteness. It was apparent they were going up hill and were off the track at that point, as I could see APPENDIX. 283 that the stringers near the Boston end of the bridge were torn to pieces badly ; they were evidently off the track. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) You mean the sleepers? A. I mean the sleepers. Of course, they must at some time have brought up yery solidly against the floor of the bridge or the abutment, and the momen- tum of the cars from the rear would strike an extremely severe blow. I do not know precisely how long the 11 >or beam, supported by the broken hangers and with the supports below it, would stay ; but if it held on for even a few seconds, the momentum of the train and the pull of the engine upon it would perhaps account for getting the cars across. It seems to me that any theory which requires that a derail- ment should take place at that exact spot where such a suspicious feature of the bridge existed as the broken hangers must have extremely positive evidence, corroboratory evidence, to make it tena- ble. The broken hanger is a stubborn fact which I find it very diffi- cult to get over, and I am inclined to favor any theory of the downfall of the bridge which starts with it as its starting-point ; I think any theory must start with that. Q. (By the Chairman.) Have you examined these hangers? A. I have, to a certain extent. Q. What is your opinion in regard to the nature of the breaks, whether the}' are new or old? A. There is no doubt in rny mind at all, sir. that the breaks are old, to a considerable extent. Q. Will you specify to what extent the}- are old and to what extent 1hey are new? A. In Exhibit XX, on one side there is a crack, perhaps a fifth or a sixth part of the area. Q. That is on the bar? A. On the bar. On the other side of the same hanger there is a crack that covers perhaps a third part of the area. It has some bright points now, but I do not remember whether those existed or not. I do not think that part of the crack had any part or was doing any duty at the time. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) You saw these before they were stolen? A. I saw them at the place ; yes, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) What is the proportion of those new breaks? A. The new breaks are perhaps five-sixths; the old breaks larger ; in the other one the old break is perhaps a third part of the area. Mr. Kinslky. This (Exhibit) is the mate to it; this is X. Q. So it is the same story with regard to that. How about the weld? A. On this side the weld evidently did not hold, and has not been doing any good for an indefinitely long time. There is nothing there that shows that it would ever hold ; whether it would amount to anything, I could not say. It has not been of any account for a long time past. 284 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Then, in the piece marked "X." does that correspond? Do you make the same observation? A. This is "X." Q. Does that correspond with the fractures in the other part? A. There is more rust here, and that that I call the old break there does not look so plain as this, if this part belongs there, as I presume it does. That may be a new break. Q. Describe it so that the reporter can take it down. A. The break that I call one-third, on this side, in "X," looks like a new fracture ; the other part of the break in " X" corresponds to the ap- pearance of the break in "XX." Q. Now take "Y"; that is "YY," is it not? A. "Y" and " YY." I saw both on the ground, and the hanger was substantially broken in two. There is, or was at that time, — it is not so apparent now, — a strip of metal on one side, perhaps one-eighth of an inch in depth in " YY " and " Y," that was apparently a new fracture. Q. And the rest was what? A. The rest is old fracture. Q. How about the weld? A. The weld is not united, it is torn apart; whether it was ever united or not, I do not know, but prob- ably not ; I should say not. I should say it never had united there properly. Q. Now, how about these irons, these hangers, whether they were well made originally? A. I should say it was a very poor job of blacksmithing, and the design I do not understand. Q. Before you leave the blacksmithing, were the faults in those hangers, which you see now, of such a nature that they could have been detected when they were originall}* put up ; that is, as far as the iron and the blacksmithing are concerned? A. The appearance of the welds and of the joints above the welds is of such a nature as to cast suspicion upon the goodness of the welds throughout. I should reject them, without an}* hesitation. Q. Do you suppose those imperfect welds showed when they were put up originally? A. That is a little uncertain. The appearance of the welding at the point of the V in " YY " here looks like a bad job. It would lead me to suspicion. It is not a good job, — it is not a good job of blacksmithing. Q. Would that have shown when it was first made? A. That would have shown ; yes, sir ; there is nothing to change it. Q. Now, go on with the forms? A. I do not understand why the}* were built or designed in the shape the}* are. If they had enclosed something, — I understand there was nothing between them to keep them apart, — if there had been something between them to keep them apart, it would have increased their strength to a certain extent. But in the way in which they are made now they are but one degree better than open hooks at the bottom. APPENDIX. 285 Q. What do you mean by saying, if they were made with some- thing between them to keep them apart? A. The lower part of the hanger is inclined to one side. They were put in around the lower pin, rights and lefts, as yon see. If there had been any portion of the floor beam which passed between the two hangers to hold them rigidly in their separated position near the beam, it would have added to their strength somewhat ; but as it stands — Q. What was the construct ion? Did the floor beam consi-t of two I beams with a bolt through them? A. I think it did. Q. Where were those hangers, — on the outside of the two I beams, or between them? A. I understand they were between them. They were between them. They were out of sight, to a great extent. Perhaps the outer side could be seen, but most of them could not be seen. There is the same bending action upon the lower part of the hanger that there would be upon a hook ; the welding at the top does some good, but adds an uncertain amount of additional strength. If there had been a spreader in there it would have increased it, but I saw nothing in the floor beam, though I did not examine it with that idea in m}* mind at the time, to know whether there was anything or not. I have since been informed that there was not ; nothing in- tended to be there. Q. I did not understand where that spreader would have come in. Will you please state that more fully? A. (Referring to a drawing.) That would spread out right here, so that the weight on this point would have been in this direction ; there would be something there to resist it and it would tend to give a squarer pull. Q. (Showing a drawing to witness.) There is a drawing; is that the way they were construct' d? A. Yes, sir. (Referring to one of the hangers.) Now, if there had been a long bar between there to hold them apart, it would have helped them some ; and it not being there, I do not understand why they were made in that shape. They were separated at the top, it is true. Perhaps a man might draw them that way, but a man would not build them that way. If there had been a flat piece between the two, if there had been a long bar be- tween them, it would not give any more twist, it would shove tight in between them, it would give a broader support. There is a tendency to pull these two parts together. If there had been something in there — but, however, that would not have been a very serious matter. The breaks in the hangers are very probably, apparently, near the place where I should expect them to come from the weight applied to the bottom of an open hook in that place. (,>. Now, about the building of a bridge with hangers, were those hangers covered up in the block? A. They were inside of the cast- iron block, the whole upper extremity, and the lower extremity be- 286 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. tween those two I beams that met the cross beam, so that it would have been difficult to make any satisfactory examination of their con- dition. Q. Was it possible to make any examination of their condition? A. I do not think it was. It was not possible. I looked at the cor- responding part of the truss, which was still whole that same after- noon, and I could not get at it. I could see a little piece of the hanger in two or three places, but not enough to make any proper examination. Q. Was it possible to see any portion of these hangers where they are broken? A. I could not say with absolute certainty about that, but I think not. Q. In your opinion as an expert, is it a proper way to construct a bridge, with hangers covered up in this way? A. It is not, because there is no need of it. There are essential parts of a bridge, for instance, the foundations, that are necessarily covei*ed ; but in the case of the hangers, it is entirely practicable to put them where they can be seen. Q. Is this method of construction, this truss with the hangers, considered a proper method of construction, nowadays? A. With concealed hangers? Q. No ; with any hangers? A. It is often necessaryto use hang- ers in certain cases. Of course, common sense teaches any one that it is better to put the beam on the top than to hang it on the under side, where it is practicable to do so. Q. In building this bridge, in your opinion, was there any necessity of hanging the floor beam, or could it have been built with the floor beam resting on the top of the truss? A. That question answers itself from the fact that the other end of the same floor beam is on top of the truss. It would have been entirely practicable. It would have required a truss of a little less depth, but it would not have made the proportion of the truss bad. A truss should have a certain ratio between its length and its depth. If the truss had been made shallower it would have been a little heavier, and the floor beams would have been on top. But the diminution in depth would not have been sufficient to make a badly proportioned truss. Q. Are there any bridges in Boston built on the principle of that truss? A. None in the control of the city, and I do not know of any on the railroads. Q. Are there any bridges in the control of the city that are built with hangers? A. Yes, sir; lots of them. We have so little head- room, it is often necessary to use them. Q. And in those cases are the hangers concealed from view? A. No, sir. APPENDIX. 287 Q. In any case? A. Not to my recollection, and I think not in an}- case. I am very sure they are not. There is no chance for con- cealment. Q. Have you examined this sketch of the rails, and does it throw any light, to your mind, upon the nature of the accident, how it origi- nated? A. I have just caught a glimpse of it before. It simply shows that as those joints must have been somewhere near the posi- tion of the hangers — Q. About five or six feet on the Roslindale side of the photograph? A. It looks probable, as that portion of the roadway went down, that. the rails remained under it somewhere near their original position, and they caught in some part of the train and were doubled up by the forward motion. That is all that occurs to me. Some of the other evidence may show that one of them struck the tracks, or something of that kind, but in a general way that is all I can say about it. It looks as though they were caught in some part of the moving train, and these conditions might well follow. And this part being down, it may have drawn the spikes along here, so that the sleepers would have been scraped out, torn out from under the rails, before the ends caught in the moving train. Q. There seems to be a decided bend over the abutment on each side. "Would you have expected those to bend in opposite directions? A. I do not see that there is any good reason why they might not. It is extremely uncertain which way they would take. The train evi- dently had a movement in this direction from the position in which it was found. You might expect that the nearest end of the rail would be carried in thai direction. They evidently went in opposite direc- tions ; I do not know why. Q. Do you consider that the position of the cars on the ■abutment and their condition is consistent with the theory that the breaking of the hangers was the original cause of the disaster? A. Well, sir, there is this difficulty in the way : if you grant that when the hanger gave way the floor beam fell into the street, then it is hardly consis- tent; but if the additional props which were below had helped to hold it for a very few seconds, it is consistent. Q. What were those additional props? A. I do not know abso- lutely except from the hangers — Q. And the I beam? A. And the I beam supported at the bottom in one direction by a round brace with a counter brace to the main truss ; the other way I cannot make out what docs hold it. Q. Is there not another post coming from the lower end of the abutment? A. There is a post where these hangers were, — on the abutment, — resting on the shore at the foot of the truss, at the foot of the inclined post. 288 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. The Chairman. Somebody said that a stringer ran from the abut- ment over there. Mr. Putnam. I dare say I may have spoken of a stringer running from the abutment to the post. The Witness. There is a wooden stringer that comes in there for what it is worth. Q. What is the distance from that post to the abutment. A. I do not know. (Reference had to plans.) It is evidently twenty-six feet from there to there if the truss is symmetrical. The balance would be the difference ; it would differ with each rail, decidedly. Q. Now, what is the distance on each rail from that end post there to the centre of the bridge? A. Half of the whole span. Q. Fifty-two feet on the long rail, and on the short rail how much? A. Just the same. Q. There is where one rail strikes the abutment, and here is the other ; now, it is the difference between that point and the other, is it not? Mr. Putnam. It is about thirteen or fourteen feet. The Chairman. That is about only four feet ; fifty-two feet on one rail and forty-eight on the other. The part of the bridge that dropped when the hanger gave way is fifty-two feet on one rail and forty-eight feet on the other, is it not? What I want to get at is what proportion of the pull was dependent upon that hanger. There were fifty-two feet on the north rail and forty-eight on the other, is that it, Mr. Doane? I understand that from this point here to that point there is fifty-two feet, and that the south rail struck the abutment four feet this side of that. Mr. Doane. I think the distances are fifty-two and thirty-seven feet. The Chairman. Well, this rail struck the abutment there, and you have got to measure out to there, also. The Witness. It does not show on this plan, but one rail reaches the abutment fifteen feet before the other one. A person riding over it who tells about reaching the abutment, on looking out of the win- dow, it would make fifteen feet difference from which side of the car he looked out. It seems to me perfectly impracticable for them to tell how far they were from it within a very short distance. Q. Now, in view of the fact that in passing over, if the giving way of the hanger was the first cause of the accident, and they began to give way under the engine or the first car, is it consistent, — can you explain the cars getting on to the abutment? A. It seems to me, sir, the most probable theory of any that the engine, being the heaviest portion of the train, broke the hangers ; that the floor beam, held up by the hangers, was delayed rn its fall a certain short period, longer APPENDIX. 289 or shorter, by the post underneath it, before it fell ; and that time, taken in connection with the speed of the train, — it seems to me must have been fully fifteen miles an hour, and I think it must have been greater, — would, or might, without any straining of the imagination, furnish sufficient material to carry three cars over under the existing conditions. It accounts, with a reasonable degree of certainty, to my mind, for the fact ; and is more probable, seems more probable to my mind, than that a certain unforeseen, or any unforeseen, accident should take place directly over the point where such bad hangers as these existed. That seems suspicious. It casts suspicion upon the theory that any derailment took place. It is extremely improbable that the two things should come together, as it is necessary to sup- pose they did in order to account for any derailment at that point. The other seems much more probable. Q. (By Mr. Kinslev.) Mr. Manley, had you any experience in the building of iron bridges ten years ago? A. I had had charge of their erection ; I had never designed one. Q. In the light of ten years ago would you have considered then these hangers objectionable, do you think? A. I should have con- sidered them objectionable, and have always considered them objec- tionable ever since I knew anything about it. But they were perhaps considered by engineers in general not so objectionable at that time as they have since been considered to be. The tendency is towards simplicity. Q. I understand; and then it was towards complication? A. Well, sir, the whole matter of the erection of iron bridges is a modern institution, and it has not reached, perhaps, its full development. Its progress has been rapid. Any railroad bridge that is ten years old is very likely to be behind the times, unless it was ahead of the times when it was erected. Q. It is not very likely to be? A. No, sir, of course. At about this time, — perhaps I am not talking now wholly of my own knowl- edge, but I have talked with other engineers and I know that at some time there was a very considerable discussion in the engineering papers of the methods of making bridge trusses. And my impression is that the former had begun to get at the head at that time, and has gained it rapidly since. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Has there ever been a time, Mr. Man- ley, when you have regarded these particular hangers as properly constructed? A. I did not know anything about these until since the accident. Q. I mean to say hangers constructed in that way. Has there been a time when you would have regarded hangers so constructed as 290 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. proper to put into an iron bridge? A. The hangers at the centre, you mean ? Q. Yes; constructed as these are. A. I should not have consid- ered these proper at any time. Q. Has there ever been a time when it has been regarded as proper and good engineering to conceal important parts of a bridge structure from inspection? A. Well, sir, there had not been so many accidents ten years ago as since, and this point had not come into so much prominence as it has since. Engineers who, perhaps, at that time would do that without any fear, would hesitate to do it now. In fact, the vital portions of bridges are often concealed now ; it must be so from the necessities of the case. For instance, the anchors of a suspension bridge are sometimes buried where they can- not be seen ; it is not good practice, but it is sometimes almost next to impossible to avoid it. Q. You avoid it where it is possible ? A. Always. Q. You ride over that road yourself, Mr. Manley, — that branch? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have } T ou ever noticed the effect of that curve on the Roslin- dale side of the bridge? A. About ten da}'S, or such a matter, before the accident, I was riding over the bridge, and a gentleman sitting in the seat with me called my attention to the fact of the per- ceptible motion of the car at that point. He was one of those people who were afraid of the bridge. Said he: '• There! Did you feel that?" And by recollecting I did remember that I felt an undulating motion. Usually I am reading the paper, and as long as the train keeps on the rails I do not mind anything of that kind ; I am not very apt to observe them. Q. Have you ever heard the safet}' of this bridge discussed by peo- ple on the train? A. Very often, sir. Q. For how long? A. Oh, for several years ; perhaps for as long as I have lived in West Roxbury, which is eleven years. I have not heard the bridge discussed by people who knew what bridges were, and I have never heard any person who questioned its strength and gave any intelligent reason for the faith that was in him ; but it is an undoubted fact that the population there have had a very great distrust of this bridge. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) From its looks? A. From its looks. I attribute it to that. It was an ungainly thing to ride over, enough to frighten anybody ; but if he looked at it he would see more in it than appeared at first sight. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Have j T ou seen enough of the bridge or its drawings to know how the floor beams were placed upon the truss? A. Only in a general way, that they rested upon the top of it. APPENDIX. 291 Q. But how they bit the system of the old truss? A. Well, from some source, I have forgotten where now, whether from looking at it I cannot say, I had the idea it was applied to four points instead of sixteen, at which it might have properly been applied. At the same time, that might be a small part of any passing train. ■Q. How many panels had that truss? A. I think sixteen. Q. Is it contemplated that there should be a floor beam over each point of the truss? A. That is the usual and proper form ; yes, sir. The weight it is intended to carry should be divided among those sev- eral points. Q. Now, I ask you as a passenger on the trains over that road whether there are any other elements of danger in the travel over that road which you have thought of? A. Well, sir, there are always people who are timid on railroad trains, and they examine the condi- tion of things pretty thoroughly; and, as it was known that I was an engineer, I perhaps heard more of them than some other people. I often heard different points discussed. Of course, this embankment and the curve the people took notice of; then, an extremely sharp grade leading down to Forest Hills and connecting there with the main road of three tracks. I have often heard timid people say it would be a frightful thing if they should lose control of a train ami it should roll down that grade and strike an express train on the main road. Things of that kind have been before their minds. Then we have been, perhaps, more annoyed than in danger from the fact that between Fovcst Hills and Dedhara there is but a single track and no turnout. There is no place where two trains can pass each other between the two points except, perhaps, they may be side-tracked upon the branch that leads down to the gravel pits ; but for the con- venient passing of two trains there is no opportunity ; and in case anything breaks down, which may happen on any road, we are put to very great inconvenience on that score. Q. Is there any telegraphic communication there? A. There is not, of any kind. Q. From Roslindale? A. There is none. I am not certain whether there is a telegraph station at Roslindale or not ; I think not. There is no telegraphic communication between the stations of the railroad over the branch. Q. The whole branch? A. The whole branch. Q. From Dedham to Forest Hills ? A. From Dedham to Forest Hills. I presume there is at Dedham, but I do not know. Then may be one at Dedham. and probably one at Forest Hills ; but at the stations between, on the branch, there is no telegraphic ommunica- tion. Q. (By Mr. Aoiionx.) I would like to inquire whether you would 292 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. say it was possible to estimate the amount of strain these hangers would sustain in the shape they were in? A. The shape those hang- ers were in, I would not estimate it was safe to put any load on them at all. Q. That is, in the condition they were in. Now, suppose they were in a perfect condition, could you estimate the amount of strain that would come upon the hanger from its position? A. The strain that would come upon them? Q. The strain they would sustain, that is, in the shape they were in? A. That they are capable of sustaining? Q. Yes. A. Well, in a somewhat indifferent way. Q. Could you come as near to it as you could if they were straight and the eyes directly above one another? A. Oh, no, nothing like it. Q. Nothing like it? A. No, sir. Q. You could not estimate? A. No, sir. You could make an estimate that would be worth something probably, but you could not put serious confidence in it. Q. You said that there were other engineers with you when you made this examination. Were there several engineers? A. Yes, sir. Q. And they all arrived at the same conclusion you did, that the hangers gave way and let the bridge down? A. There was not a dissenting voice that I heard amongst them, and have not since. Q. Can you state who those engineers were? A. I think I men- tioned some of them. Mr. Cheney, the principal assistant of the city engineer's office, Mr. Tiukham — I mentioned those because they are both men of very extensive experience in bridges ; Mr. Howe, the assistant of the engineer's office ; and with the party was, — well, sir, there are some engineers who, perhaps, would not like to be brought into this thing. I will say that the engineer at the Old Colony Rail- road, Mr. Morrill, joined us on our way, and Mr. John W. Ellis; I think he is the engineer or superintendent of some road connecting with the Providence. Mr. Kinsley. The Providence and Worcester Railroad. The Witness. And besides that, half a dozen or perhaps a dozen of the younger employees in the city engineer's office ; amongst them were men graduates of the Institute of Technology and of years' ex- perience since then. Q. And you practically formed a party and made an excursion for that purpose? A. We went for that purpose. As I say, I came into the office under the impression that the bridge was knocked down by a blow on the casting, but what gave the blow on the casting I had not at that time definitely attempted to frame in my own mind. I APPENDIX. 293 saw in the first instance that the hangers were broken, but I had not discovered the flaws in them. Mr. Kinslkt. You need not take time to go over that again. We have got that all down by the shorthand reporter, and it will save time if yon will not repeat it. Mr. Achorn. I only wanted to get the names of the engineers that were with him. Mr. Kinsley. He has mentioned some of them before. Mr. Achorn. I simply wanted to get their names and to know that they agreed with him. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) How Ions: have you been familiar with that bridge, Mr. Manley? A. Well, I will not say I was familiar with it all. Q. I mean to the extent you have testified to, of going over it in the train? A. About eleven or twelve years. Q. Have you, in the course of that time, driven under it frequently ? A. Very often, sir. Q. You were more or less familiar, from that, with the construction of the bridge? A. From its general appearance ; yes, sir. Q. It attracted your attention, did it not? A. Certainly. Q. You knew it was a bridge with two different kinds of trusses, and it had a very considerable skew? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ever criticise to yourself or to anybody else the mode of construction of that bridge before the accident? A. Yes, sir. Q. What defects in its construction did you criticise before the accident? A. I never have liked a truss connected in this manner. Q. You mean the two different kinds of trusses? A. No, sir ; what I may call the Hewins truss, with a heavy top chord and end post on separate bases without any good connection. Q. The lack of continuity in the upper chord? A. That was the principal thing. Q. That you criticised ? A. That is the principal point, the prin- cipal point to be seen. The details of the diagonal bracing I never followed very carefully ; that is an important matter in a skew bridge, with a sharp skew like this. Q. The question whether a truss of this kind, with a top chord and an end post in independent pieces, was good engineering or not, was a moot question among engineers, was it not? A. Yes. sir, in times past; but the solid, continuous chord people have very much got the better of it in later years. Q. Recently, yes, sir ; but as long ago as ten years, respectable bridge builders and respectable engineers built bridges of tins kind and contended that it was a good mode, did they not? A. Well, they built them in the mode in which any one looking at this might 294 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. suppose it was built; but I think that good bridge builders have usu- ally made a more perfect connection than existed in this case. Upon looking at it I had no idea that so imperfect a connection existed. Q. So far, then, as 3-011 could judge of this bridge by looking at it, it was a style of bridge which you did not like, but which respectable bridge builders and respectable engineers have said was a safe kind of a bridge? A. Each truss taken separately. But it is entirely out of the usual course to have two trusses of two different designs in the same bridge ; that would excite remark. Q. I was dealing with the Hewins truss, because you confined your- self to it. So far as the Hewins truss was concerned, what I have said was correct, was it? A. It was, with the exception that I think it is extremely uncommon to build that kind of a bridge as a deck bridge, with trains running so nearly to vulnerable points without ex- tremely careful guards in case of derailment. And that, as I may say, was my principal thought of danger on that bridge, — in case of a derailment, — the thing that occurred to me first when I saw it was down. Q. That is, that a derailment would be likely to knock the dis- connected truss to pieces? A. Yes, sir. Q. I take it that the fact that the two trusses were of different kinds, connected in this way, can hardly have had an} thing to do with this accident? A. I think not, sir. Q. Or have increased seriously the danger of the bridge? A. The}' may have been of two kinds and yet perfectly good, I suppose. Q. And the fact that the weight on the smaller truss instead of being distiibuted over sixteen panels was concentrated upon four of them, would not, necessarily, provided the weight was not too great, make the construction a bad one, would it? A. I think that was a bad piece of construction. This accident did not affect it, but an imaginable accident, perhaps, might have done so. Q. Would there be any other effect than that the truss on the east side would carry less weight than it would have if its floor beams were distributed more evenly over it? A. I can imagine that a train might get off the track and bring a much larger weight upon one of the four points than it was ever intended to carry, and it might fall from that cause. Q. Still, the weight brought upon one point would be carried, by the truss system, to the rest of the truss, would it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. It would mislead, would it not, to say that all the weight was brought upon four points and not upon sixteen? A. That is, that the point of the application of the weight was upon four and not upon sixteen points? Q. Would it not be misleading to suppose that the weight left on APPENDIX. 295 the four points did not distribute itself through the truss in the same manner or to the same extent? A. No ; it would not distribute it in the same manner, by an)' means. Q. Not to the same extent, but in the same manner? A. Not in the same manner. Q. How would it differ? A. It is a double system of trusses. It might be carried by one system and the other might not be doing anything. Q. But it would be carried through? A. It must, or else the bridge would go down. Q. Except there is too great weight put upon it? A. If it does not do that it will go down. Q. And it does that whether the application of the weight is at four points or at sixteen points? A. If it does. Q. But less economically ? A. No, sir; it brings a strain upon the truss which it was never intended to bear, on certain portions of it. It is entirely wrong. Q. At the same time, as long as too great weight is not put upon it — A. If it does not break down, it carries it through ; that is all I can say. Q. Something had been said about the nuts being off of sonic of the ties which extended from the upper to the lower chord of this Parker truss, — the nuts dropping off of the bottom chord of the truss. What did those nuts support when they were on? A. I remember that there was a cast-iron brace across the bottom, sus- pended by rods that just held up the weight of the round bars making the lower chord. There were such rods as those. Q. They simply held up the weight of the lower chord? A. Kept it from sagging. Q. They did not take any part of the strain of the load on the bridge? A. No, sir. Q. Then the absence of three or four nuts there would not have any effect whatever on the strength of the truss, would it? A. K would cause these rods to sag a little more than they would other- wise. Q. There were sixteen of the ties, were there not? A. I am speaking of — Q. Perhaps I am speaking of a different thing from what you are? A. Those I referred to were on the Hewins truss. Q. I am speaking of the Parker truss. There has been some testi- mony that nuts were from time to time missing? A. On the Parker truss? Q. On the under side of the Parker truss ; and I asked you what, in the construction of the Parker truss, these vertical rods to which 296 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. these were attached, the rods on which the}- were, what purpose they served ? A. I do not know of an}-. Q. If you are not familiar with the construction of it, I will get it from somebody else? A. I do not know of any that would be an essential part of it, — vertical rods. Q. The vertical members of that truss were compression members, were they not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the tension was on the diagonal? A. Certainly. Q. So that if there were an}-, they must have been essential? A. I cannot imagine what you mean. Q. Nothing, at an} r rate, that could enter into the strength of the truss? A. I do not know of anything; I do not see how they could. Q. Did you ever express your views, with regard to this bridge, to anybody connected with the railroad? A. No, sir. Q. Of course, if you had had any serious apprehensions on account of it, you would have done so? A. I should. The truss, to look at, — an engineer looking at that truss would say that it was put together with intelligence ; that where compression strains came on the truss, members were put to meet it, and where tension would naturally come on the truss proper, to a certain extent means were provided for meeting it ; that the size looked as though they might be sufficient ; the details could not be seen. Q. And the objections which people who are not educated engi- neers made to that truss would be just as likely to be made to the best possible truss, would they not? A. Well, hardly that ; hardly that. The whole appearance of the truss, from riding under it, was frightful to people not accustomed to bridges. I have had people who visited me, on riding under it, say they did not know they went over any such looking thing as that, that they would not have dared to do it. Q. Those things which disturbed them were not the weak points in the bridge, were they? A. No, sir; not at all. Q. They were rather, perhaps, the strength of it. Now, Mr. Man- ley, you say that upon the breaking of these hangers you think some- thing must have supported that floor system ; but the onby thing you indicate is that I beam, I believe. A. That is all that I know. Q. Can you not see all that there is in that photograph? A. I can see all there is in the photograph, I hope. Q. You can see in the photograph all that there is in the truss or was in the truss? A. No, sir ; I cannot see the back side at all. Q. Can there be anything in that truss that would support that floor beam that is not visible in that photograph? A. I do not know ; probably not. Q. Will you look and see what there is? A. I have looked at APPENDIX. 297 that. There is nothing on this end of it, as appears here, except this vertical I beam. Q. Does it not appear very plainly that there is not anything else to support that floor beam but this I beam? A. It does, this end of it. Q. The first diagonal brace is on the hanger? A. "Well, the diag- onal brace I spoke of, I was looking for something to hold up this break. Q. There is nothing? A. It held it through the eye beam. Q. I misunderstood you, I thought you meant — A. Not directly. Q. There is nothing but that eye beam to prevent it from dropping right down to the ground? A. Except that and the hanger. Q. Those hangers gave way all at once, did they not? A. I do not know about that. Q. Looking at those breaks, is it possible that those hangers should have given way so as to let the floor down any distance without giving way altogether? A. On by the very shortest distance. Q. "Would it be a sixteenth of an inch? It might be a sixteenth of an inch, or a hair. Q. Not more than that? A. More or less. Q. Did not that go all at once? A. "Well, no, sir; it might not. Q. I do not mean drop all at once ; I do not mean it might not be some time in rending it? A. "When a crack is started, it acts very curiously. It may be extended a little every time weight goes over it. It is conceivable. I am g ring now into fine theory, perhaps, but it is conceivable the train went over it and snapped that thing so that a crack was heard and it did not break the whole thing completely off, but it got off very quick. Q. But until the whole thing was broken completely off, it would not sag, would it? A. Only this very moderate distance. Q. Would it any appreciable distance? A. It might a sixteenth of an inch. Q. Not enough to tear up the track? A. No, sir. Q. Not enough to have caused this accident? A. No, sir. Q. Then, if these hangers caused this accident, the first thing was the breaking of these hangers, and the letting of the floor beam down on to that I beam? A. Yes, sir. Q. And with nothing but the I beam to support it? A. 'Well, perhaps a ragged remnant of the hanger. Perhaps this little short piece may have held on, or this one side. Q. Could there have been any drop if that held on? A. Only this trifling one I speak of. Q. Do you mean such a drop as to cause the smashing up' of the floor? A. Oh, no. 298 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. The smashing up of the floor must have been very early in this disaster, must it not? The first car having got off the rails, and the second car having been stopped close to the bridge, if not on the bridge, all that must have happened after the breaking of the hangers, on your theoiy, must it not? A. The whole of it happened afte that, sir. Q. And after the material settling of the floor? A. It was prob- able. If this beam here had sufficient strength to give way gradually, the whole matter might have been going on at the same time. Q. Now, suppose that to be a six-inch I beam, hinged at the top and the bottom, and of a length equal to the depth of that truss, which I think is sixteen feet, — (Mr. Doane — About thirteen feet) , — suppose that I beam to be a six-inch I beam, hinged at the top and the bottom, thirteen feet long, how much resistance do you think that would offer to the weight of the train crossing? A. It may be a matter that may be computed. Q. I mean aside from computation. A. I would not undertake to estimate ; I do not know very well. Q. I expected you would say it would amount to nothing at all. A. Oh, no, it would amount to considerable. Q. Would it delay the falling clown of the floor system materially? A. Oh, yes ; yes, sir. Q. Would it not have crippled right up? A. It would perhaps cripple if the cars were heavy enough to bring it down. I have a somewhat indefinite idea of what that would carry, but it would cany something, and something quite appreciable. It would delay matters very decidedl}', I should say. Q. You would expect to find that I beam pretty well crumpled up if that kept up that whole floor system while three cars were going over? A. It might, or there might be something on the bottom here, that I do not understand, that came away and left that substantially whole. I do not know what condition that was in, have not seen it since, and do not know anything about it. Q. Supposing that the I beam was an insufficient support, there is nothing else to prevent that floor going down, I understand you? A. I do not know of anything. Q. And if the floor did go down, you cannot see how those cars could have got over? A. I am not absolutely certain about that. I have not gone into any computation of time, — of speed in relation to whether they could have pulled over there ; but they evidently did. Q. They evidenth' did. What we are at is to see whether this could have been the cause or whether there may not have been some other cause. Now, if the floor was all gone, can you conceive APPENDIX. 299 of three cars, each fifty feet in length, going over that place? A. With the floor all gone? Q. Yes. A. Hardly; I should not expect that. Q. I mean if the floor timber dropped and the stringers dropped with it? A. If the floor timber had dropped right vertically out of the way, I should expect to see the cars go down at an earlier period on that train than they did. Q. The track stringers are truss beams whose ends rest on these floor beams, are they not? A. Apparently. Q. And these ends rest one on the post and the other on the abut- ment? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then, when they went, the floor beam would go too? A. When the floor beam went this end would go. Q. The ends resting on the floor beam? A. They would be all in one boat together. Q. Now, the third car is represented by everybody as having rattled over the ties on the bridge. Can you imagine any ties there to be rattled over after that floor beam and this stringer had been let down by the engine going over? A. I do not see how it should affect the ties unless the previous scraping of the forward cars had taken them out of the way. Q. Would not the ties be knocked right off by the first car that went over them ? A. I do not know but they were ; they might have been. Q. They would not be likely to hold a car up, — the ties and the rails? A. Certainly they would. Q. Without any stringer under them? A. Oh, with nothing under them? But they are resting on something else ; and if this drops down, everything, — they would not. Q. But I say if the floor timber dropped down and carried the track stringers with it, the cars could not have got over on the sleepers without the rails? A. The rail resting on the bottom, and that rest- ing on nothing? Q. Yes. A. Certainty not. Q. Then the fact that the third car got over, rattling over the sleepers, would indicate that there must have been something there to support the stringers at that time, would it not, and they could not have gone down at that time? A. There is the matter of time that comes in and the speed of the train. If there was sufficient speed on the train, and a little delay, even if this gave it but a few seconds or a very short time of delay, I would look at the time necessarj- to get this train over in this broken condition. The thing must have gone, of course, as we know, pretty soon after that; pretty soon after that car got over, or half-way over. 300 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Well, if the train was going fifteen miles an hour, that would be nineteen feet a second, and that would give you two seconds and a half, would it not. for a fifty-foot car? A. Perhaps so. Q. Then the checking up and the stopping of the second car and the telescoping, that would diminish the speed and increase the num- ber of seconds to each car, would it not? A. That is all very true, with the assumption of that rate of speed ; but that is an assumption. There are certain things about it that indicate greater speed than that, to me. Q. I put you the question on that assumption because that is the only testimony we have as to speed. A. With that assumption the time is correct. Q. That would make fifteen seconds with accounting for the retar- dation of the second car? A. I do not quite follow you. Q. I mean going over. A. Two and a half seconds for each car would be about seven seconds. Q. And that is without allowing for the retardation by the derail- ment? A. Yes, sir ; at fifteen miles an hour that is the rate at which the train was moving, undoubtedly. Q. It would get down to something less afier the stopping of the second car? A. Yes, sir. Q. It would take ten or fifteen seconds, would it not? A. It might ; of course there would be the momentum of the balance of the train shoving up from behind. Q. You think that I beam could have held that up for ten or fifteen seconds without being seriously crippled? A. I do not know ; I presume it did. Ten or fifteen seconds? Nd ; I do not say as much as that. Q. Well, for ten seconds? A. I do not know the length of time. I do not know how much that will sustain ; it is a matter which re- quires a little mathematical computation. Q. Without crippling? A. Without crippling; yes, sir. If the bottom gave w r ay gradually and lowered it down two or three feet it might endure for that time. Q. Then you think, on the whole, it is more philosophical to sup- pose that I beam held that weight for that time than to believe there was derailment from some unknown cause? That is the amount of it, is it not? A. That is about the point; yes, sir, probably. And the further fact that there is a great deal of improbability — Q. Derailments from unknown causes are not infrequent? A. Derailments are not infrequent. Q. And from causes that do not get discovered ? A. I presume so. I am not so familiar with railroad derailments as to give an opin- APPENDIX. 301 Ion. But the coincidence is too convenient altogether, the supposition of a derailment over such a very damaging piece of iron work. Q. There certainly was derailment? A. Some say there was. Q. There was derailment the very instant after this happened? There was derailment before the cars got on the bridge? A. Before some car, I do not know which. Q. Before the second car got on the bridge? A. The ties indi- cate that fact. Q. And the fact that one of the rails was scraped up by the second car? A. There is no doubt there was derailment in some stage of the proceedings, and a general smash ; the precise order of the event I presume this inquiry may determine better than I can. Q. You would rather suppose that a six-inch I beam carried three cars over this bridge without buckling rather than that this derailment was caused by some accident we do not understand? A. I would rather suppose that this arrangement of the I beam helped to lengthen out the time that was available for the forward part of the train to scrape ashore than from any other cause ; I think it is more probable. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Do you know whether that I beam was braced or not, the one that holds up the stringer? A. No; it was in use as a column. Q. It was not braced itself? A. It could not have been, if that photograph is correct. Mr. Putnam. I am showing Mr. Manley a photograph which I will mark " V." Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Examine this photograph marked "V," and look at the double I beam in the right-hand corner leaning against the abutment, and state if you can say what it is. A. It is a trussed floor beam ; that is the most I can say about it. This is look- ing towards the Boston end? Mr. Putnam. Yes. The Chairman. You and Mr. Manley misunderstand each other. Looking toward Boston from the south side, from the Roslindale side? Mr. Putnam. Yes. The Chairman.' Do you understand? The Witness. Yes, sir. Q. Is not that the floor beam on which the right-hand end rested on the abutment and the left-hand end hung in these hangers? A. It is quite possible. Q. From its position, is it not obvious? A. It is probable ; yes, sir. Q. It is just where that floor beam would have fallen, and it is 302 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. where you saw it? A. It very likely is; I have not a very vivid recollection about it, but it is probable. I will take your word for it. Q. I want your judgment. A. 1 do not know, but it is probable it is. I would not give any judgment in answer to that. Q. But you, as an engineer, familiar with the ground and familiar with the construction, could tell whether it must not be that? A. I never saw the photograph before. It very probabl}' is ; 1 certainly could not dispute it. Q. Well, there is the seat of the north end of the He wins truss, up here is the seat of the north end of the Parker truss, this is the buttress about in the middle of the bridge, there is car No. 7 in the middle of the road, there is car No. 6, and from its position towards the abutment and towards the car, from its neighborhood to the bridge seat, I ask you if it is not the floor beam which was hung to these hangers? A. It looks as though it was. The Chairman. Is there any other truss floor beam in that picture ? Mr. Putnam. There is a truss stringer, but no other floor beam ; there is a broken-up stringer. Q. Now, Mr. Manley, just look under that floor beam with those four iron rods and tell me what those are? A. They look as though the}' might be ; they are the lower chord of the Hewins truss. Q. It is the lower chord of the Hewins truss, is it not, without any doubt? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that, looking at the other photograph, has a joint which appears directly under the I beam? A. Yes, sir. Q. And there is a cast-iron casting appended to the lower end of the I beam, is it not? A. The lower end of the I beam? (Re- ferring to the large photograph.) I do not know ; it looks like it. Q. Well, that shows that, at an}* rate, does it not, the floor beam and the truss went down together, and that the floor beam did not go down by itself before the truss fell ? A. It shows that this chord reached the bottom before the floor beam did. If it has not been disturbed, that would indicate that. Q. It indicates that the lower chord of the Hewins truss reached the ground before the floor beam did? A. Yes; I presume that is true. Q. Then it shows conclusively that the hangers did not absolutely give way and let the floor beam down before the truss went over? A. Not at all. Q. Either, then, the whole truss went down together, including this floor beam and the hanger, or else your theory that the I beam supported the load is true ? A. That would come into play. The other end of that beam, — how is that? Is that on the truss or on the abutment? APPENDIX. 303 Q. On the abutment. A. Is it secured there in any way? It might have held for an instant, until they got ahead of it. There are ways enough to account for that. The Chairman. What is there to show that the floor beam might not have fallen upon the lower chord of the truss and rested there until the chord gave way ? Mr. Putnam. Only that the floor beam falling thirteen or fourteen feet above the truss would naturally break it. The Chairman. With the track and the whole arrangement of it and the cars being thrown oft* to the left of the connection with the abutment ? Mr. Putnam. If the floor beam went, it certainly did not carry any cars with it. It went right down, unless it was supported, as Mr. Mauley says, by that I beam. That is quite consistent with Mr. Man ley's theor}'. The Chairman. Is there any iron-work in the middle of this bridge ? Mr. Putnam. I do not know. If Mr. Manley can answer, I wish he would. Q. (By the Chairman.) Were there not braces right across from the lower chord to the other? A. There is a certain amount of diagonal bracing in the floor system, — where it was or must have been or what it would be I do not know. (>. Was that sufficient to support that truss floor beam, provided there was no weight upon the truss floor beam, simply its own weight? A. It might have that effect. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Was there anything there that could catch that end of the floor beam? A. This might have caught for an in- stant, or caught in that little rod. Q. Would that be likely to throw it on to this chord? A. It might. The Chairman. That floor beam would not have come down by itself with all this wood-work on it? Mr. Putnam. It would leave the wood- work, and the wood- work might come on top of it or not. My point is, that whenever the floor beam went down the chord went down. The Witness. If it dropped free and clear. It might have been hung, or not. There is a little rod there ; I do not know what these are. There may have been something that caught, I do not know what. I do not believe it did go down ; however, it might have gone down and struck on the lower chord itself. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) How could it strike there? A. It might strike on the edge of this wall, and that would throw it in there, giving this end a free drop. 304 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. The Chairman. Mr. Manley's theory is that that end was sup- ported and this would go down first. The Witness. Then it might sail off in this direction ; but that is pretty wild speculation. Mr. Putnam. It is simply illustration ; but I ask everybody if it is not so. Q. Now, would it not rather conflict with your opinion if it turned out that that beam was not buckled at all, but sprung right out straight and whole? A. Not necessarily. Q. Do you think it could have supported the weight of the floor beam with the four truss stringers and the three cars without buckling? A. One at a time it may have done so ; I do not know how strong it is. Mr. Putnam. It is a 6-inch I beam. Mr. Doane. A 5-inch I beam. Q. Could it have supported that weight without buckling? A. I do hot know, sir ; I think it htdped it. Q. Do you think it could? A. I think it helped the beam. Q. Did it not do the whole? What else was there ? That was all after the hangers were gone? A. Certainly, until something else gave way. Q. Do you mean to say that a 6-inch I beam, in your judgment, supported the weight of this heavily trussed floor beam, and the four heavily trussed stringers that rested on it, and the superstructure of the road on that, and of three cars going over at the rate of speed that they did, without buckling? A. It appears to me it must have had a sufficient amount of supporting power to have lengthened out the time necessary for the train to scrape ashore. Q. You assume it must have? A. Yes, sir; I am forced to that conclusion. Q. And you are forced to it because you will not admit the possi- bility of a derailment? A. The derailment story is too handy al- together to come in at the point where these broken hangers were. Q. It is about as bad as an alibi, is it not? A. I will accept a pretty wild theoiy that will agree with the view that these things gave way before I will accept one that has some points in its favor that has to admit something else ; because that is the most material point of evidence in the whole structure, to nry mind ; I cannot get over it in any way. Q. If there had been a derailment of the first car, and a derailment of the kind to tear up the sleepers and the track, it would have caused all that has appeared here, including broken hangers, would it not? A. It might ; it might very well ; yes, sir. Q. And yet you think it is more probable that that little skunk APPENDIX. 305 should support that load? A. That little skunk would do consider- able. Q. You call it a wild hypothesis? A. No ; I do not call it wild, it is the best one I have got. Mr. Putnam. I think we have got your views, Mr. Mauley, and you have been very candid with us. If you can tell us how much those bright fractures would support, I would like to know. The Witness. You have got too much supposition in that matter. When a crack is started I will not guess as to the strength of the bal- ance of the remaining iron. It is in the very worst condition to break. When a break is started it has got a leverage on the immedi- ate fibres. I will not say that with a crack like that it would be safe for a cat to go across on it at all. I would not go into it at all. Mr. Putnam. I should like to know what that amount of iron would sustain. The Witness. Put in a plain bar, it is eas}' enough to compute. Q. Then you can compute what would have been held up by the amount of iron remaining after this crack? A. If it had had a fair chance. Q. Assuming it had a fair chance? A. You are assuming impos- sibilities. It did not have a fair chance. Mr. Putnam. Well, let it go. George L. Vose — recalled. Q. (By the Chairman.) Professor Vose, have you examined that contract? A. Yes, sir ; I have just read it through. Q. Will you give your opinion in regard to that? A. In the first place, it says the bridge shall carry three thousand pounds to the run- ning foot besides the concentrated load on the driving wheels of eight thousand pounds. It should have said, I suppose he meant to say, substantially, the concentrated load of eight thousand pounds on each one of the driving wheels. Then there is a blind clause there in which he says the tension truss shall sustain so much, and then the compression truss shall sustain a proportionate amount. I do not know what that means. But looking at the whole specification, I can say this, you might get a bridge out of it, and you might not. There is no drawing, nothing to show how the thing is to be put together, nothing that covers these hook points in this whole thing. I have seen lots of specifications of that kind. You might get a bridge out of it, and you might not get any bridge at all. Q. Were the requirements sufficient? A. Yes, as regards the strength, ten thousand pounds to the inch, the requirements are right. The requirements in regard to the elasticity and quality of the iron are all ri BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. The Chairman. Mr. Putnam, if it is agreeable to you, I think we will adjourn until Friday of this week, at which time we will have Professor Swain and then put on Mr. Philbrick and Mr. Doane and close the hearing on Friday or Saturday, I hope. I postpone the hearing until Friday, in order that we may be able in the meantime to look through the testimony and see on what points it may be defec- tive and on what | oints we may desire to fill up any gaps. Adjourned until Friday, April 1, at 10.30 a.m. ELEVENTH DAY. Friday, April 1, 1887. The Board met at 10.30. Walter E. White — recalled. Q. (By the Chairman.) When you left Roslindale did you know how much steam you had up? A. When we were standing there by Roslindale 1 believe we had 105 pounds of steam. I would like to say that a few days before the accident, the Friday before the acci- dent, I had another stack put on my engine, and she didn't steam well with it, because it was four inches smaller in the waist, and she wasn't steaming very brisk. She was making from 90 to 105 pounds of steam with the stack, but what steam I had when I got to the bridge 1 don't know ; I didn't notice ; I have no idea. It was less than that, because she would lose all the way down. Q. How much less than 105 pounds, should you think? A. Be- tween the stations she would go down to about 90 or 95 pounds. Q. Were you using all the steam 3*011 bad from the time you left Roslindale? A. No, sir; very little steam. Q. At the time you started ? A. The way I started from that sta- tion, as 1 came down — by the order of you commissioners we are to stop short of that crossing. I came down with the brake fully on, so as to be sure to stop short of that crossing. Q. Of which crossing? A. Of the street crossing there at the Roslindale station. We have had orders to. And I applied the brake and put it on full head, so as to be sure to stop short of the crossing. By doing that way it makes the train very bard to pull. The brakes don't give way easy ; they run quite a ways, some- times further than others, before they are let off. I al\va} r s, in start- ing from that particular place, hook my engine up and give her steam APPENDIX. 307 enough to start with. Sometimes she won't start at all, and I have to strike it down a notch or two more. When she starts, [f she is going ahead too fast, I shut off; if she is going still faster, I put the brake on ; and if not, if she is going too hard, I work steam, as I did this morning. Q. Exactly what did you do that Monday morning? A. That Monday morning I was working steam ; when the accident happened, I wasn't running over twelve or fifteen miles an hour. Q. How much did you put on? A. I put on just a little, perhaps two or three notches, just enough to start the train with ; and then probably I opened the throttle a little more after I got the train started. I generally go down slower there than I do anywhere else. Not that I was afraid of the bridge, but it was the surroundings, — a kind of poky hole. Q. How far open do you think you had it? A. I had it open probabl}- two or three notches ; just gave her the least mite of steam. Now, I want to make this thing as plain as I can. This morning (to- day) I had a train that I had to work my engine hard all the way. I had to work her smart, and I was four minutes behind my time. I had to work her hard all the wa}-, for the very reason that some of the brakes had been fixed, and they had not been adjusted as they ought to have been. Some of the brakes would bear harder against the wheels than others. Some were solid against the wheels, and they got too hot to work easy, and I had to work pretty hard to get up speed at all. We have all these conditions to contend with. Another morning, perhaps, the train will run along smooth and eas}\ <_,). How was the train running on the morning of the accident? A. Not so hard as it was this morning ; it was uncommon bad to-da}\ Q. Were the brakes working all right on the morning of the acci- dent? A. They were all right, as far as I know, at Roslindale. Q. And there were no automatic brakes? A. Straight air on my train. Q. (By Mr. Stevens.) You don't use the automatic at all on that branch? A. One trip, I do. We have some trains that have all au- tomatic brakes, but all the cars are not fitted for it ; they are getting round to it as fast as they can. Q. Do you know whether any of the brakes were applied by hand that morning? A. 1 shouldn't say they were. Q. Did you notice any of the cars after the accident to see whether the brakes had been set? A. No, sir; 1 didn't. Q. What is the distance from Roslindale station to the bridge? A. I shouldn't say it was a great deal mure than a quarter of a mile ; it 308 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. might be a quarter of a mile and might be a little more ; it is about all on a curve. Q. On what do you base your estimate that you were going only aboul fifteen miles an hour? A. Well, as near as my judgment can tell. Take me on the engine and I can tell pretty near what I am going. Perhaps it might have been a little less and might have been a little more. I can judge pretty near what speed I am running. I don't know how I can explain it. Q. When you looked at the results of the accident afterwards, didn't it seem to you that you must have been running more than fifteen miles an hour? A. No, sir ; not by the position of those three cars, that run about the length of the cars off the bridge. Q. The first car ran about how far? A. Only a little over three car lengths, where it stopped. Q. It ran its own length, didn't it? A. It ran its own length. Q. And how many more? A. Two cars besides ; it ran a little more than the length of three cars. Q. Where was the rear of the third car, — how far from the abut- ment? A. Not but a few feet, if I remember right. Q. Do you remember seeing the top of the fourth car on the abut- ment? A. No, sir ; I don't. Q. Are you very sure that you were not going as much as twenty miles an hour? A. Yes, sir ; I am. I should say I was not. Q. You were running with steam on? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were your brakes set at any time after you left Roslindale? A. Wei', they don't let off very readily. I run down there quite a piece before the brakes are all let off. Q. How far did you run before the brakes were let off? A. Some- times they will not let off for more than twice the length of nine cars ; sometimes they let off sooner ; sometimes not so soon ; sometimes I have an automatic brake in the train. Q. In this case was there any automatic brake on the train? A. I don't know whether there was or not ; probably there was. We have the cars arranged so that they can use either the automatic brake or straight air. The brakemen attend to that ; I know nothing about it. Q. You don't know, then, whether or not there was an automatic brake on any car of the train ? A. No, sir ; I should think there was ; there would he likely to be some automatic cars among them. Q. Which car would have been automatic, if any ? A. I can't tell ; it might be in one place and it might be in another. Q. After you left Roslindale did you apply the brakes yourself at any time? A. No, sir. Q. Do you feel confident that just before you went on to the bridge, or just as you went on to the bridge, you didn't apply the brakes? APPENDIX. 309 A. I am sure I didn't apply the brakes. The last time I applied the brakes was at Roslindale station. Q. After leaving the bridge, when did you first apply the brakes? A. I didn't apply any brakes that morning after I left Roslindale station. I couldn't apply any brakes when my engine was broke away from the train ; I was disconnected. Q. You didn't apply them when yon felt the jar, and before or at the same time that the train was breaking away from you? A. No, sir ; I didn't have time. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Was there any other reason for the train drawing hard at that time in the morning, besides that the brakes were liable to cling to the rail? A. You take any cold morning when the cars have stood out all nightlong, the oil gets cold, they pull hard. and it is hard work to get up any speed on them until they have run quite a ways. I will tell you a little incident. Last winter I had a car that had stood out on a very cold clay in a snow-storm. They put that car on the train and the wheels wouldn't turn round. The oil was chilled, froze in so hard that the wheels wouldn't turn round. I get trains under different conditions every day. Sometimes, as I tell you, I have to work steam smart to get any speed at all, even down hill. Then at other times they will go along a good deal easier. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Was the tender full of coal and water that morning? A. It wasn't full of coal ; it had been water-ed. The coal was probably about half out; probably thirty hundred or thirty-live hundred of coal. Q. But the tender was full of water? A. Yes, sir; the tender was full of water when I started from Dedham. Q. You started your engine from Roslindale with a train of nine cars? A. Yes, sir. Q. And went down that grade at the rate of fifteen or twenty miles an hour? A. Yes, sir. Q. You got on to the bridge and got fairly over when you heard a snap? A. No, sir ; I didn't hear any snap. Mr. Putnam. He didn't say he heard any snap; it was the fire- man who said he heard a snap. Q. But you felt the tail end of your engine go down a little? Mr. Putnam. I don't think he said that. A. No, sir ; I didn't say that. Q. You saw the forward end go up? A. Yes, sir. Q. You got on the other side of the abutment and looked back and saw those cars behind, with the exception of three, going down into the street? A. No, sir; I didn't see the cars when they went into the street. 310 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Very well; you saw the three cars that came up? A. I saw the two first cars that came up ; the third car I didn't see. Q. What I want to get at is this: Do you suppose that if you were running only fifteen or twenty miles an hour you could have hauled those three cars up that incline with your engine? A. I don't know as there was much incline ; I didn't feel an} 7 incline. I didn't feel as though I was going down when I went over the bridge. Q. No ; but you saw the front of your engine going up. What I want to get at is this : I have no doubt that 3011 are thoroughly confi- dent that you were only going at the rate of fifteen or twenty miles an hour ; and I want to know if 3-ou think if you were going only fif- teen or twenty miles an hour your engine would, with that rate of speed, have brought those three cars up on the Boston side of the bridge? A. I think it would, under the conditions. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Do you know when you let go from the cars? A. Yes, sir; I do. Q. Where were 30U at the time you let go? A. Right to the abutment. Q. How far on the abutment? A. Right exactly on it. When the shock came that is the time that I consider that I left tbe train. Q. Do you know exactly where you were when 3'ou felt that shock? A. I was looking round, and I saw it on the forward truck, felt it there, then on the drivers ; then I turned round as quick as lightning and saw the car when it struck and it jumped up. Q. Do 3-011 know exacts where you were when you felt the shock on the forward wheels? A. Yes, sir; I was about the length of my engine on the bridge, looking this wa3'. Q. That is, you felt the rise of the forward wheels before you got off of the bridge, did you? A. Yes, sir; as 1 was coming right on the abutment. Q. Just as you j^ourself were coming on to the abutment, or the forward wheels? A. Just as my forward wheels were coming on the abutment. I was looking out, and I saw the engine jerk up. Q. Just as the forward wheels came on to the abutment? A. Yes, sir. Q. On the right hand or the left? A. I can't tell about that ; but the shock was heavier on the right-hand side. Q. That is the side you stand on? A. That is the side I was sit- ting on. Q. That, you think, is the moment when the first car broke loose? A. When the tender got over. The car didn't break loose until the tender got over the bridge. Q. How do you know that? A. Because I was looking back, and I saw the cars when they jumped. APPENDIX. 311 Q. Had all the cars broken lose when you looked back? No, sir; there was no part of the train broke loose until that car came to the abutment; that was the very instant that it parted. Q. Then, as I understand you now, when you looked back the first car was still attached to the tender? A. Yes, sir ; everything was going smooth when I first looked back. There had been no jump ; because I saw the car just before it came to the abutment. Q. Did 3'ou see the car jump? A. Yes, sir ; I did. Q. Did you see it break loose? A. I didn't see it when it broke loose. Yes ; of course I was looking at it, and I saw the instant the car jumped. Q. Did you see where the car was at that moment? A. Yes, sir ; it was right to the abutment. Q. Did you see the rear trucks fly out from under it? A. Yes, sir ; I did. Q. How r did the rear trucks seem to go from under it? A. The one on the west side of the track. Q. The one on the west side of the track flew out suddenly? A. Y r es, sir ; suddenly. Q. It didn't gradually drag out? A. No, sir ; it didn't drag out ; it flew out, the way I looked at it. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) You were late that morning, were you not? A. A little later than usual. I am always late at Forest Hills. Q. How late were you that morning? A. Well, I was there about seventeen or eighteen minutes past ; I am due at fifteen min- utes past. I never got there on time. I would have been late into Boston that morning, if I had ever got there. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Did you see where the rear of the first car was when the second truck flew out from under it? A. It was right there on the abutment of the bridge. Q. Had the forward trucks of the second car got off the track at that time ? A. Yes, sir ; it was running on the ground — the forward trucks were. Q. Was it running on the ground before it got loose from the engine? A. That is when it went off the track ; it all came at once ; the first truck parted at the same time that this car jumped up. That is the time the truck parted. Q. That is, you think that the truck parted the moment that the first car struck the ground? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was that the first truck or the second truck? A. The first truck. Q. Did you see the second car at all? A. Yes, sir. Q. When the first car left the abutment where was the second car? 312 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. A. The first car came a little in advance of the second car, and when I saw the second car it was sliding on the rails and no wheels under it. Q. Sliding on the bridge or on the bank? A. This side of the bridge, on the iron ; well, I don't know as it was on the iron. It was s iding on its bottom. Q. With no trucks under it? A. No trucks under it. Q. You only saw the forward end of it, I suppose? A. I saw the whole of the second car. Q. Should you say that the whole of it was without trucks on the rail? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know what became of those trucks? A. No, sir; I don't. Q. Don't you know that the trucks of the second car never got away from under it, but were carried simply toward the rear? A. No, sir ; I don't know anything about it ; when I saw the second car there were no wheels under it. Q. That is, it looked so to you? A. That is the wa}' it looked to me. • Q. Was it attached to the first car? A. No, sir ; it wasn't. Q. It was separated? A. It was separated from the first car. Q. Was all this before you put on steam and started for Forest Hills? A. Just as quick as I saw that, I shut off. The instant that I saw that my engine jumped I shut her off. I saw I was running away from them all the time, and the first impulse I had when I saw it was to stop. So I threw her over and reversed her, and she was running reversed when I saw this car. Q. When you saw the first and second cars in the way 3-011 have described, you were reverstd and were moving comparatively slowl}-, were you? A. I slowed clown considerably ; I didn't come to a full slop. Q. The actions of the first car that you have described were before you put on steam and ran for Forest Hills? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see anything of the condition of the third car? A. I didn't see the third car at all. The first car came in such a way that it intervened so that I couldn't see the cars, being on the right-hand side. <,>. Did you see anything of the rails being torn up? A. No, not until I came back there ; then I saw the rails were out. I didn't see anything of that kind — didn't notice it at the time. Q. If there were any automatic brakes on the cars, would the}' be likely to be the new cars in the train? A. I don't know about that. 1 don't know whether the new cars come with the automatics on them or whether they are put on at the shops. I couldn't say as to that. Q. (By the Chairman.) Are you confident that you saw that APPENDIX. 313 second car? A. Yes, sir; I think that that second car was sliding right on its bottom. Q. Do yon remember distinctly seeing it so? A. Yes, sir; I do. Q. Before yon went down to Forest Hills? A. Yes, sir; before I went down to Forest Hills. I think that car came sliding right along. Mr. Billings (fireman) — recalled. Q. (By the Chairman.) Do you know how much steam you had on that morning when you left Roslindale? A. About 110 pounds. Q. How much at the bridge? A. I couldn't tell you. Q. How much steam did you intend to keep up? A. As much steam as I could get — 130 pounds. Q. Could you get 130 pounds on that engine? A. No, sir; I had not since I left Dedham. Q. It was increasing all the time, was it, from the time you left Dedham? A. No, sir ; decreasing. Q. What did you start from Dedham with? A. One hundred and thirty pounds. Q. Do you remember how much steam the engineer was using after you left Roslindale? A. No, sir; I couldn't tell you. Q. Do you know whether the throttle was wide open or not? A. No, sir ; he don't very often pull it wide open. Once in a great while he does. Q. Well, in that place is it customary? A. No, sir. Q. How wide? A. Oh, three or four notches, or two or three notches, somewheres along there. Q. What do you know about the action of the brakes that morn- ing? A. I don't remember anything about the brakes that particular morning. Q. Do you remember any remark about their not working prop- erly? A. No. sir. Q. Do you remember how they worked when you left Roslindale, whether they retarded the train or whether you had any sensation of that sort? A. No. sir ; not on that morning, I don't remember. Q. Were the brakes applied, to your knowledge, at any time between leaving Roslindale and the time of the accident? A. No, sir. Q. How fast do you think you were going when you crossed the bridge? A. Twelve or fifteen miles an hour. Q. Are you very confident you were not going faster than that? A. That is as near as I can judge. Q. Wasn't it over that rather than under it? A. No, sir ; I don't think it was. I think it was less, if anything ; less than fifteen miles. We were not going near so fast that morning as we generally do. 314 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Not near so fast? A. No, sir. Q. How fast do you generally go? A. I think twelve miles an hour — ten miles an hour. Q. What? A. About Gfteen miles an hour any other morning. Q. I don't understand. A. We weren't going quite as fast this morning as we generally do. Q. On the morning of the accident? A. Yes, sir. Q. At what speed were you going on the morning of the acci- dent? A. I think about fifteen miles an hour; between twelve and fifteen. Q. How fast do you generally go? A. Ten or twelve miles an hour, as near as I can judge. Q. I don't understand. I thought you said 3-011 were not going so fast the morning of the accident as 3-011 generally go? A. I mean the other way. I am turned round a little ; that is all. Q. Now, what do 3-011 mean? A. I mean we weren't going quite as fast the morning of the accident. Generally mornings we would be going about fifteen miles an hour. We were not going quite as fast that morning, because we didn't have quite so much steam. Q. Does the amount of steam determine how fast \'Ou are going? Doesn't it depend upon the amount of steam you are using? A. Well, no ; I shouldn't think it would. He wasn't going as fast as he could have gone with that amount of steam. If he was a mind to he could have gone faster a good deal. Q. Yes ; but the speed is determined by the action of the throttle, isn't it, how wide open that is ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see the second car in the train after you left the bridge? A. No, sir ; I didn't see the second car. Q. Did 3*ou see it after 3-011 got back to the bridge from Forest Hills? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do 3-011 remember whether there were an3 T trucks under it then ? A. There wasn't. Q. Are 3 r ou sure of that? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were the cars all on a level with the track? A. I can't say as to that. Q. That is, was the end of either one of the cars raised up or tipped up in an3" way? A. I couldn't tell you. Q. Is that the way the cars looked ? (Showing photograph.) A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you notice with regard to that second car, which looks as if it was raised up at the rear end? Was it raised up so when you got back? A. I couldn't tell 3-011. One car is naturally higher than the other one an3- wa3 r , because it has a monitor top and the other has not. APPENDIX. 315 Q. The third car is lower thau the second car? A. Yes, sir; would be, any way. Q. If there had been trucks under the rear of the second car, do you feel confident that you would have seen them? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Can you not jump off of your engine with safety when it is going at the rate of twelve or fifteen miles an hour? A. No, sir ; I shouldn't want to. Q. (By Mr. Stevens.) Don't you run any faster than fifteen miles an hour at any time after leaving Dcdham? A. Oh, yes, sir. Q. Couldn't you run as fast down that hill as you could anywhere between Dedham and that place? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Aciiorn.) Will you state how this grade affects the speed of your train? That is, supposing you came out of the cut at Roslindale and the steam was shut off there, would the momentum and grade increase the speed of the train? A. Yes, sir ; it would be apt to. Q. Then the train would be running faster at Forest Hills, would run down that grade faster, even with the steam shut off, than it would before it reached the bridge, wouldn't it? A. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Mr. A. A. Folsom, I have understood at the previous hearings that all those cars were provided with straight air and not automatic brakes. Mr. A. A. Folsom. There were undoubtedly automatic brakes in that train. We can furnish you with the history of every car. Mr. Kinsley. We have got the history of the cars, but it does not state that fact. Mr. A. A. Folsom. If you desire to know that fact we can give it to you. I think that the forward car, No. 52, had an automatic brake on it. Mr. Kinsley. Is Mr. Richards here? Mr. A. A. Folsom. No, he is not. Mr. Kinsley. Can } T ou tell positively? Mr. A. A. Folsom. No, I cannot. We will ascertain how the fact is and put it in. The Chairman. Whether they were automatic or straight air, they were at this time practically only straight air brakes? Mr. A. A. Folsom. Yes, sir. That is what they are obliged to do on a train that has both automatic and straight air brakes. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) You heard that snap, I understand from your evidence given the other day ? A. I did, sir. James Folsom — recalled. Q. (By the Chairman.) Did you have charge of removing the wreck on the embankment? A. I did not; Mr. Richards did that. 316 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Do you know about what trucks were placed under the second car? A. The trucks of the first car were placed under the second car to take it to the shops. Q. Do you know whether there were any trucks under the second car after the accident? A. I do not ; I can't say. Testimony of Prof. George F. Swaix. Q. (By the Chairman.) Your residence? A. Boston. Q. Your occupation? A. I am associate professor of civil en- gineering at the Institute of Technology. Q. How long have yon been so? A. I have taught at the Insti- tute of Technology for five years. Q. And been associate professor for how long? A. For one year ; assistant professor for two years before that. Q. What has been your other education as a civil engineer? A. I have studied civil engineering both in this country and abroad. I have made a particular study of bridges in that time, spending con- siderable time at all the large bridge works in this country for the purpose of studying their processes of manufacture and their methods of design. I have had some experience on hydraulic work besides. Q. What was your education in Europe? A. I made a particular study of bridges. Q. At what? A. At the Polytechnic School in Berlin. Q. What has been your practical experience in the construction of bridges? A. The time I have spent in bridge shops on my own ac- count, examining their methods of manufacture and their methods of design. Q. How much has that been? A. I make it a point to spend a certain portion of every summer in that way, perhaps three or four weeks, at the different works. Q. In examining bridges that have already been constructed, what have you done in that line? A. Only on my own account. I always examine any important bridge that comes in nry way. In my travels about the country I make it a point to go to all important bridges in process of erection, for the purpose of examining them. Q. Had you ever examined the Bussey bridge, so called, before the accident? A. No, sir. Q. Have you made an examination of the wreck, and if so state fully what the result of your examination has been, and what conclu- sion you have reached in regard to the cause of the accident? A. Yes, sir ; I arrived at the wreck on the morning of the accident, about noon, and I examined it quite carefully, and I found what I concluded was the cause of the accident. I think it was caused by APPENDIX. 317 the failure of those hangers at the hip-joint of the west truss, — the failure of those hangers and the post under them. Q. Please explain the position in which you found them, their con- dition, and all the circumstances which to your mind tend to show- that that was the cause of the accident, and also what the course of the accident was. A. I noticed, in the first place, that those hangers that came from the hip-joint were in a very bad condition, one being almost rusted through, and the other being partially cracked ; and on examining the other block in which the hangers were still intact. I noticed that they were arranged very eccentrically on the pin, and that eccentricity led me at once to believe that that was the cause of the accident ; and a few rapid calculations showed that that eccen- tricity would have very great effect in increasing the strain on those hangers. The way in which the truss fell seemed to me to point in the same direction ; and subsequently all the testimony has simply strengthened my conclusion. Q. What was the nature of your calculations in regard to the eccentricity of those hangers? A. I made a calculation to see what they would bear. Q. And what was the result of that calculation? A. I found that the two hangers which were not broken, the ones at the south hip- joint of the north truss, would not bear probabl}' more than 25,000 pounds apiece, one of them perhaps a little less. It is impossible to tell, of course, with exactness, even if they were sound. Q. And what ought they to have been capable of sustaining in the position in which they were? A. I have made a calculation of the load which would come on the two hangers which broke, taking the weights of the engines as they have been stated in the testimony. I found that the load which would come on that joint would be about 47,000 pounds, live load, and perhaps 9,000 or 10,000, dead, making nearly GO, 000 pounds total load on those two hangers. Of course, at that joint the post will bear a portion of the load and the hangers the remainder. Q. Which post do you mean? A. The I beam which was directly under the hip joint. That would bear a portion of the load, and the hangers would bear the rest. Q. What was the size of that I beam? A. It was a five-inch I beam, one-quarter inch web, two and three-quarters inch flange. Q. They were capable of sustaining 25,000 pounds apiece? A. If they were sound, they would probably sustain from 20,000 to 25,000 pounds apiece. Q. You mean that is the utmost limit? A. Yes, sir. A less load than that would break them, if applied a sufficient number of times. Q. Do you mean by that a dead weight or a live weight? A. 318 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Well, I mean that if a certain load less than that were applied a cer- tain number of times. Of course, there would alwa3 T s be a certain portion of the load which would be dead, coming from the truss. The remainder of it would be live load, coming from the weight of the train. The sum of the two would be the total load on the hangers. Q. Then, what is the conclusion which 3-011 arrived at from that? Would the bridge, if those hangers had all been well made, have been a safe bridge? A. No, sir ; it would not. Q. Is it a bridge that you would have passed as a safe bridge when it was originally made? A. No, sir; I should not. A. How long would you have supposed that such a bridge as that would stand? A. Well, that would be a ver} r difficult thing to arrive at, because it depends a great deal upon the quality of the iron, and nobocby could predict in these cases just how man)- repetitions of a certain load would break a certain piece of iron. It might have lasted ten, fifteen or twenty years. I couldn't predict with exactness. It depends upon the number of trains that go over it a day. Q. But if all those irons were only strong enough to sustain 25,000 pounds apiece, and the load that j'ou estimate of those trains was 30,000 pounds on each of them, how could they stand up at all? A. The post underneath them would support a considerable portion of the load which came on that point. Q. Would the rest of the bridge help them out also? A. Yes, sir ; the stiffness of the floor and various other things would help to a small extent, not very much, in the original condition of the bridge. Q. At the time when this bridge was built, ten years ago, would it have passed a scientific examination? A. I don't think it would ; no, sir. I should not have passed it, if I had been called to examine it. Q. Would it have been considered by the average bridge expert of that day a suitable bridge? A. Not if he had correctly understood the importance of the eccentricity of those hangers. Q. How many men do understand the bearing of that eccentricity? A. That I can't tell you, sir. Q. How many men can estimate it? A. I cannot tell you how many could, but it is not a very difficult problem ; it is quite a simple one ; it is just like a hook. Q. How long since there has been a recognized solution of that problem? A. From fifty to a hundred years. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) In bridge building? A. Yes, sir. Iron bridges have not been built as long as that ; but the Chairman asked how long a scientific solution of the problem had been known. Q. Very true. But has it been known as applied to bridge build- APPENDIX. 319 ing? A. Yes, sir; it has been known as applied to bridge building for a good many years ; I cannot tell how long. Q. (By the Chairman.) How long Lave iron bridges been used by railroads, or come into fashion in place of the old-fashioned wooden bridges? A. They were used by railroads when railroads were first built, in the twenties of this century. Q. Ten years ago did the leading bridge building companies have any engineer in their employ, as a rule, who knew anything about the eccentricity of such hangers, and about the bearing which such eccen- tricity had upon the strength of the bridge? A. They certainly should have had ; there is no reason wiry they should not ; they ought to have had. An engineer would avoid such hangers, as a rule, and he would not make a hanger either of that design or in that way, unless he was forced to do something of the kind by the construction of the rest of the bridge ; and that could be avoided. Q. Was it necessary in this case to have those eccentric hangers? A. No, sir; I don't think it was necessaiy. It was necessar}' with the pins directly under each other ; but the pins need not have been arranged in that wa}' ; the floor beams might have been supported in a different way. Q. What do you suppose led to the hangers being eccentric? A. Because the pin in the chord was put through at right angles to the axis of the bridge, and the pin in the floor beam was put through at right angles to the axis of the floor beam, which made the two pins at right angles with each other, and in order to get the two hangers over those pins, it was necessaiy to make them eccentric. Q. How could it have been avoided? A. It could have been avoided by making the hanger of a different pattern, or not support- ing the floor beam on a pin, — supporting it on a plate ; in various ways it could have been avoided. Q. Was there any advantage in supporting it on a pin that would counterbalance the disadvantage of the eccentric hanger? A. I don't see any ; no, sir ; that disadvantage of the eccentric hanger is a very serious one. Q. What do you consider was the quality of the workmanship of those hangers? A. I do not consider it was good. Q. Well, how bad? A. Well, that is what is called a loop weld. That hanger was made at both ends with what is called a loop weld. A loop weld is a bad thing ; it ought never to be put in a vital part of a bridge, because the pull on the hanger tends to open the weld directly. A hanger in that position ought to be made without any weld at all in the manufacture. It ought not to have been made with an eye. A loop weld is put by good engineers now only in unim- portant parts of a bridge, such as wind bracing and counter rods. 320 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Was the iron, aside from the welding, suitable for such hangers? A. I don't think the iron was of very good quality. Still, the area of those hangers was such that if the hangers had not been eccentiic they would have been amply strong. Q. Was the workmanship of them good or bad? A. I don't think the welding was good ; but still the very large strain which would come on them would naturally tend to open the weld. Perhaps it would be very difficult to make a weld that would bold in those places. As I said before, a loop weld is a bad thing, especially in a case like that. Q. You examined those bangers at the time, did you? A. Yes, sir. Q. The broken ones? A. Yes, sir; and the sound one. Q. Did you examine both portions of the fracture? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did you find them? A. Out there at the wreck. I examined all four hangers, in fact. Q. In what position did you find them with reference to the train ? A. I found those hangers which were broken on the east side of the cars which were lying in the street, and near the abutment. Q. Between the cars and the abutment? A. Yes, sir. Q. In this hanger, " P," what was that break there caused by? A. I think it was caused by the weight on the hanger, and that would tend to break it on this bend. Q. Was that strain due to the eccentricity ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you any idea whether that is a new or an old break ? A. I should say it was an old break. Q. Can you tell definitely about it? A. I examined it there. I should think a large portion of it was an old break ; some of it is new, evidently. The pull on that hanger would naturally tend to open that weld there. I think it has been gradually pulled open, and gradually tending to break at this point, just as the other hanger which has broken has finally broken off at this point. Q. Will you examine these breaks on '* Y" and "YY," and state what portion of them you deem to be new and what old breaks? A. I think that (" Y ") is an old break, all except a little strip along the edge nearest the eye. Q. About what portion of the whole area there is new break? A. Well, I should think not more than from one-fourth to one-fifth ; 1 can't tell exactly ; it may have rusted some in the mean time. It has all rusted ; even the part which seems to have been broken new seems to have rusted considerably. Q. How about that welding? A. The welding is evidently not perfect. APPENDIX. 32 L Q. Now, the others, — "X" and " XX"? A. That welding is not good. Q. How much of the breaks was new and how much old? A. That is almost all new break, on both sides (referring to "XX"). There is a small portion of it that is defective iron. I cannot tell exactly whether there was an old break there or not ; probably there was a crack. But that is almost all new break, I think. Q. Did that break in the place where you would suppose it would break as the result of the eccentricity ? A. That broke through the eye ; but no man can tell where an eye bar will break. The eye of a bar should be made as strong as the body of the bar ; if it is not, yon will not obtain the full strength of the bar. It has broken ex- actly as I should suppose it would in breaking through the eye. In fact, I have made some calculations on this hanger, and I should judge that it would commence to break through there, according to the results which I have found. Q. Were those breaks simultaneous, do you suppose? A. That I cannot tell exactly ; but as near as I can make out from the appear- ance and the figures that I made, it would tend to break right here; and it seems to me that the break there is rather more fibrous, per- haps, than any other portion, which would tend to show that it rather started there, and the rest went off more suddeni}'. It is extremely probable, from the shape of that eye, that it would commence to break in that way, if it broke through the eye, as it did. Q. Could the eccentricity of those hangers have been avoided, as shown in that diagram? A. Well, these pins are at right angles, exactty as they are in the bridge. In order to make that connection those eyes must have been eccentric, or else they would have to be made slanting, in which case the boring of this pin hole at the top would have been very difficult to accomplish. A hole is never bored obliquely through a piece in that way. Q. You cannot avoid eccentricity in that method of construction? A. No, sir. Q. Could you avoid it entirely in building a bridge of that sort? A. It could be avoided by making the connection with the floor beam in a different way. Q. Is there any objection to making it in a different way? A. 1 should say there was great advantage in making it in a different way, and avoiding that eccentricity. Q. What are the advantages and disadvantages in having a floor beam hung, instead of resting on the truss? A. The only advantage that I can see would be that it might be desired to get the load low. The great disadvantage would be that it introduces another link into the structure. Instead of resting the floor directly on the truss, 322 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. where it is finally to be supported, 3-011 hang it and introduce another link into the structure. You sec, the weight of the train rests on the stringers, the stringers cany it to the floor beams, and the floor beams cany it to the truss. The floor beams resting directly on the truss, the transmission is direct, without any intermediate part. In this structure the hangers must be inaccessible. (.,». Was that an element of objection to the bridge? A. Yes, sir. (,>. How serious an element of objection? A. Well, if the hangers were perfectly made in the first place and amply strong, there might not be any great disadvantage in making them inaccessible, if they are well painted and well preserved, covered from the weather; but it is always better to make every part accessible, so that it can be in- spected at any time. I think that is the rule that is followed now by the best builders, as nearly as possible. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Was it ten years ago? A. That princi- ple was observed ten years ago. Bridges were not built then as they are now, and parts were sometimes made inaccessible. Still, every style of truss in which the post is enclosed renders the inside of the post inaccessible. I don't remember to have seen a bridge of this kind in which the load rested on the top, and in which the floor beams were suspended from the chord. Q. (By the Chairman.) Will you state that once more? A. I don't remember of ever having seen a deck bridge with this kind of chord, in which the floor beams were suspended from the chord instead of resting on top of it. Q. Ten years ago, would the experts of those days have passed that bridge with hangers, no matter how well constructed, enclosed in cast-iron blocks, so that they cuuld not be examined? A. Do 3011 mean symmetrical hangers or U11S3 mmetrical? Q. Could you tell from the outside whether those hangers were symmetrical or not? A. No, sir; you could not tell from the out- side. If any one looked at that bridge, he would be led to suspect that the hangers were not symmetrical. By observing that the pins were at right angles, a person would have suspected that the hangers were not symmetrical ; and if he could have found out that there were two hangers instead of one, then he would have been sure that they must be unsymmetrical. Q. That fact could have been detected, could it not? A. By look- ing at the end of the floor beam, from the under side, it could prob- ably have been seen that there were two hangers ; 3-es, sir. Q. Ten years ago would such a bridge as that have been passed b} r what was considered in those days a good expert? A. You mean with the hangers as they were there? APPENDIX. 323 Q. On the supposition that tliey are well made. A. But unsym- metrical ? Q. Yes, but unsyrametrical. A. Well, sir, I can't tell. Some engineers might have passed it. Some might have observed the ec- centricity ; some might not. At an)' rate, any engineer examining that bridge would have been forced to say that there were certain vital parts which he could not see. Q. And, therefore, what would have been his report? A. Well, I don't think he would have made any definite report to pass the bridge ; he couldn't have done it, unless he chose to stake his reputation on the parts that he could not see. Q. Would you to-day pass a bridge with hangers that you believed to be insufficient, and which were not eccentric, but which were open to the objection that they were covered up, so that they could not be examined from time to time? A. That would depend something on what I knew of the bridge and its buiiders. In many cases I should, especially if I could see the original plan of the bridge, and make sure that the hangers were, when first made, amply strong. Still, I should state in my report that those hangers could not be examined. Q. Well, what does that mean? A. Well, it would simply mean that at some future time, when the bridge is worn out, those might 1 e the first parts to go. We don't know just how long an iron bridge will last, but it will not last forever. I should in many cases, if I could see the original drawings, pass a bridge which had hangers concealed, if I knew the builders. Q. Would you pass any bridge which had hangers concealed, if they were eccentric, like this? A. Probably not. Q. Would you have passed this bridge, with hangers made as they were, with the strength which they show, being eccentric? A. I certainly should not. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Not ten years ago? A. No, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) When you examined the wreck itself, did you see any other possible cause for the disaster? A. Well, I saw those hangers, and they were quite enough to satisfy me. I did not notice any other cause for the disaster at that time. Q. Have you any doubt as to whether those hangers were the original cause of the disaster? A. There is no doubt in my own mind, — no, sir ; not at all. Q. Have you attempted to account for the engine and three ens getting over the bridge on to the northern embankment, on the theory that those hangers were the original cause of the disaster? A. Yes, sir; I have tried to account for a good many things: tried to account for all the facts which have been brought out in the testi- 324 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. mon}- ; and I think the}- are accounted for as well on that basis as on any other. Q. How would you account for the cars getting over oil the north embankment? A. In the first place, those hangers, with the post under them, would not yield at once ; it would take a few seconds for them to go. Q. The hangers themselves? A. Yes, sir. The}' would not go in an instant ; they would go very quickly ; but the post under them would go in a longer time. Q. Would they go with a snap? A. I think very likely the hangers would go with a snap. The post underneath them would take a longer time in bending and going; and during that time the iloor, lateral rods, etc., the rails and the stringers, would help hold up the train, which, if it was going at the rate of twenty miles an hour, would be going neaily tnirty feet a second — twenty-nine feet a second ; it would only take about six seconds for the three cars to get over. Q. What is the supporting power of that I post? A. I think that I post would bear about 35,000 pounds ; it is impossible to tell exactly, of course. You may take two I beams of exactly the same length and size, and one will bear half as much again as the other ; it is impossible to tell exactly. They may bear from 30,000 to 45,000 pounds; as near as I can make out, I should place the strength at about 35,000 pounds. Q. You mean before it would begin to bend? A. The ultimate strength ; yes, sir. Q. How far would that strength be assisted by the floor system? A. Well, that is pretty difficult to tell. The wooden stringer on top of the iron stringers was, I think, continuous over the joints of the iron stringers, and would therefore help hold up the load to some extent, together with the rails. I can't tell how much, but it would add something to the strength of the system. Q. What would be the action of a train upon the floor system, after those hangers gave way? Have you figured out what would happen to that floor system there? A. I don't think I could understand all that would happen. Q. The hangers giving out, where would the floor system give way? A. It would first commence to go down at the point where the hang- ers were attached. That would throw the cars first to that side, and would, very naturally, I think, throw them up against the upper chord and against that joint block. That sinking would be delayed by the gradual yielding of that post, and by the extra support afforded by the floor system itself. Q. Have you seen the drawing of the rails that ran on to he Bos- APPENDIX. 325 ton abutment? (Showing drawing to witness.) Those were CO-foct rails, terminating on the abutment, and running on to the bridge ; and the northerly rail was found in the street; the southerly rail was broken at this point; a portion of it was found on the abutment, and this portion was found in the street, was it not? A. I did not notice those rails particularly. Q. How would you account for that? A. Well, sir. it is impossi- ble to account, I think, upon any theory, for the exact position of each piece and the exact occurrences which would follow that acci- dent, any more than if you set a conflagration going in a lot of frame houses, you could tell what would happen ; a simple gust of wind might make all the difference in the world. Five miles difference in the velocity of the train might make considerable difference in the phenomena when this bridge was broken. It seems to me natural that a train going in that direction should have bent that rail up in that position, and this one in the same way. If that had been struck by a train going that way, it would have been bent round in that position, it seems to me, very naturally. Q. Then it was not the weight of the train that bent them in that direction, but the momentum of the train? A. It looks as if, being bent round that way, it must have been the momentum of the train. That should have bent it in just that direction. Q. These rails came to a point about five or six feet on theDedham side of the bridge, where the broken hangers were, — they ended about there. If ihose hangers were the cause of the disaster, what would have been the effect upon the end of those rails, — would they have stuck up or would they have gone down? A. Well, sir, I don't think I could tell exactly. It would depend upon the relative strength, to some extent, of the fastenings and of the spikes. Probably it may have stuck up at that end. Q. Do you know what the supporting power of a rail is, if you keep it in position? For instance, lay a rail across there, and support it at each end, can you tell how much it would support? A. Yes, sir; it could be calculated. It would depend upon the size of the rail. Rails are very different in area and weight. Q. Is it considerable? A. It is quite considerable; yes. It would depend, of course, altogether upon the span. A rail of fifty- two feet span would not support very much ; that is, extending from there to there. Q. Still, it would hi quite considerable? A. Yes ; it would lend a good deal of additional support to that I post, I think ; although it must be remembered that that engine got over that point in a veiy short time, and that after that there was simply the train load, which was very much smaller. Now, I think that, even supposing there 326 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. were no supports at this point on the rails, if the two rails extended from the centre joint in that truss to the end here, those two rails, together with the wooden stringer on top cf the iron stringers, would tend very considerably to support the train. Q. The condition was this : The two rails stopped there, and then they went sixty feet from there over to here. A. I cannot calculate exactly how much that would support. It would depend upon how the ioint was fastened and how much that fastening could hold. I think iu any case the rails and floor would support a considerable portion of the train load itself, after the engine had passed. Q. After it began to go down, what would be its supporting power after that I post began to bend? A. Then the floor would very soon go, the rails and the stringers. Q. Don't you suppose there was an actual settling of the bridge when the engine left the bridge? A. Yes, sir ; it commenced to go, 1 think, when the engine left the bridge. Q. And that I post must have begun to bend then? A. The I post began to bend, and perhaps this lower chord commenced to give a little ; these diagonals commenced to yield to some extent, and the whole bridge to deform slightly. Q. Did you see that I post under the joint block in which were the broken hangers out there that day? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was its condition? A. It was bent. Q. How much bent? A. Oh, bent quite considerably ; I could rot tell exactly. The length of that post was twelve feet and six inches between the castings. I should think between the two ends, as it was bent, it might have been nine feet; that is simply a guess. I could make a sketch to show better. It is out at the shops now ; it can be seen. Q. Considerably bent 5 A. Yes, sir. Q. How do you identify that I post? How are you sure that that I post was not under some other hanger? A. From the position in the wreck I concluded it was that post. I did not pa}- very much attention to it at the time. I noticed that post there, and one at the other end. I identified it the other day at the shops. I am sure that that I post is bent. I identified it, and examined it at the shops three days ago. Q. Where did you find it the morning of the accident? A. I can't remember exactly; it was somewhere among this rubbish. It did not make a great impression on me then. When I first got out there I saw an I post which was bent just in that way. I did not know just the construction of the bridge, and I did not know exactly where it came from, but I identified it the other day, to make sure. Q. What do you find there? (Shewing photograph.) A. That is APPENDIX. 327 the floor beam which rested on that joint block, and under it is t lie lower chord of the bridge. Q. Do you see any I post there? A. No, sir ; there is one I post just behind that joint which is not bent. I don't think I noticed that at the time. Q. Do you see the I post in question in that picture? A. No, sir; I do not see it. I noticed those more particularly the Wednes- day after the accident, when I went out there. I saw there were two I posts that were bent. Q. What is the I beam which you see there which is not bent? Where did that come from? A. It is exactly the same thing in length and size as this I beam under the joint block. I examined that particularly at the shops the other day, because I noticed that Mr. Hewins said that the I beam was not bent when he first saw it. Now, I myself, a couple of days after the accident, when I went out, mistook another one for the I beam under the joint block. There is another I beam which runs across from the lower chord to the abut- ment, which is exactly the same length and size, which is not bent. It is at the shops now, and can be seen. Q. How do you identify that as being a horizontal beam, and not a perpendicular post? A. You can identify this as a vertical I beam, because it is connected with the casting at the top. Now, it is connected with the casting on top, and you can see both of those vertical I beams out there. Q. What is the condition of the horizontal I beam? A. The horizontal I beam is not bent at all. Q. Is it connected with anything? A. Not connected at all with anything ; it simply shows two holes through it, where it was trussed. It is the horizontal I beam which went across from the lower chord and formed part of the wind bracing. There were horizontal trusses, composed of short bars and two bars running through the I beam, like this. Q. If the hangers gave way, the floor beam which was supported by them would have fallen, the northerly end first, would it? A. Yes, sir; that would fall, commencing here. Q. What would it strike in its downward course? A. That is pretty hard to tell, sir. Q. Would you expect to find that above or below the bottom chord on the ground? A. That would depend altogether on the way the rest of the truss came, and the way that lower chord went. This end of the floor beam would be delayed in falling, of course, as I have said, by the gradual yielding of that vertical I beam, and by the support afforded by the lateral system of the top chord ; if that lower 328 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. chord wont down first before the I beam got down, the floor beam would fall on top of it. Q. What would there be to carry down the bottom chord after the hangers gave way; what would be the strain upon it? A. Well, I think that, after the hangers gave way, the train was thrown to the left, against the upper chord, and knocked the upper chord out of shape ; and of course the lower chord went right down then, probably in a few seconds. Q. In a few seconds after the hangers broke? A. Well, the whole thing occurred so suddenly, of course, you cannot specify just the time it would take. As soon as the upper chord went, the lower chord would go almost immediately. Q. Have you any means of knowing which way that I post went over, — whether it went out or in? A. Yes, sir; bent outwards, throwing the lower chord in. Q. It bent outwards, throwing the lower chord in? A. Yes, sir. If that is the I beam, and this is the lower chord, if that I beam bent outward it would naturally tend to throw the lower chord in rather than out. Q. Would it not be sufficiently strong to bend that lower chord and throw it in at all? A. I think as soon as the upper chord was gone, the lower chord would be rather pliable, and a very small thing might determine which way it would be thrown. There would be considera- ble force to that I beam ; if the load is thirty-five thousand pounds, as I have stated, that would be a considerable load, and it would tend to throw the lower chord one way or the other with very considerable force. Q. Have you ever made, or do you know of any experiments hav- ing been made, to test what the effect of a Miller platform is in sup- porting a car over a chasm? A. No, sir ; I don't. Q. Whether it is so strong that it would support it under any cir- cumstances? A. I don't know of any trial that has been made on that point. Q. Do you see anything in the condition of the wreck of the cars and of the bridge that seems to you inconsistent with your theory that the accident was caused by the hangers breaking? A. No, sir ; I don't. Of course, I can't explain every little point, as I have said before ; nobody could explain everything on any hypothesis,. There is nothing inconsistent that I have seen, as far as I can see, with the breaking of those hangers. Q. Have you made a study of the question of the floor systems of bridges? A. Yes, sir. Q. What do you think of the floor system of this bridge ? A . Well, I should not build a floor system like that exactly, with so many parts, APPENDIX. 329 and with castings at all the joints, although it was a very common construction ten years ago to use cast-iron a great deal more than it is now. Engineers prefer now to connect the parts directly with each other, without any cast-iron blocks. Q. You are talking about the truss? A. The floor was also sup- ported on cast-iron joint blocks; the floor beams were trussed, and the stringers were trussed, and both the floor beams and stringers had cast-iron connections at the joints. Q. How about the cast-iron blocks in the truss itself, — were the}' properly made? A. Yes, sir; there was no defect in them that I could see. Q. Were the " lips" (if that is the technical name of them) sufli- ciently strong and deep? A. I don't think that they would have caused any trouble themselves. They might have been made a little deeper, but still I think they were enough to hold the chord in place. I df safely, whether it is in the interest of economy or not? A. Y^es, sir. I do not mean to say that an iron biidgc is a dangerous thing, not at all; an iron bridge can be built perfectly safe and secure. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Have you ever examined or had brought to your notice the stone arch bridge which the Providence Railroad Company has built within two or three years down at Dodgeville? A. No, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) Did you make any examination into the cause of the bridge at Watcrbury falling? A. No, sir. Q. Or of the bridge at Wells, Me.? A. No, sir. This is the first case of the failure of a bridge which has happened sufficiently near for me to examine it personally. Q. How about the testing of a bridge? What is the best method of testing a bridge? A. The best method of making sure of the safety of a bridge is to have ii built by- responsible parties and under good supervision. The testing of a bridge after it is built does not amount to very much. If a bridge holds up a train of cars, it does not follow it will hold it up again. Q. Is the test of a bridge wit'i dead weight much guarantee that it will carry a train going at fifty miles an hour? A. No, sir; that does not follow any more than it follows that if a bridge holds a cer- tain train once it will hold it again. The shocks and vibrations of a train passing over a bridge at speed very greatly increase the stress in certain parts of the bridge ; and in testing a bridge, in any event, it should be tested by passing a train over it at a high rate of speed. But still those tests do not amount to very much ; they do not show anything. Q. (B3' Mr. Kinsley.) What does show something as to an iron bridge? How would you test it? A. I do not know of any way of testing it after it is built, and making sure by the test that it is all right. Q. So you would test it in building? A. I would make sure it is APPENDIX. 333 built by proper parties, that the plans are well drawn, and that the parts are property proportioned ; tliat is the onty wav. Q. Would you examine the parts as they are being put together at the furnaces? A. I would examine the pails as they are put together in the bridge builder's shop. It is not the custom to examine all the iron for a certain bridge, unless it is a very large contract. Large contracts now, especially where steel is used for bridges, are made in such a wa}' that the railroad company, or the contractor, lias an inspector at the steel works ; but it is not common with ordinary iron bridges to supervise the manufacture of the material. That is ordered by the bridge company from responsible manufacturers, and the inspector is simply at the bridge shops to see that the parts are well put together, and to see whether the iron, as it is put into the bridge there, looks all right, and that it is well fastened, and that the rivets are all right, that the sizes are what are called for in the drawings and specifications, and that the workmanship is satisfactory. Q. Could these devices (the hangers) have passed the eyes of a competent inspector, do you think, ten years ago? A. Well, sir, as 1 say, an engineer might very largely underrate the importance of that eccentricity, unless he happened to have looked into it, and unless he understood it from his studies. A bridge engineer would avoid such an eccentricity, as it were by instinct. Q. (By the Chairman.) As something he did not know about? A. As something to be avoided. I do not think any one would have liked those hangers. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Is it not a fact that t< n years ago there were a large number of bridges built in various parts of this country that had the element of eccentricity largely embraced in them? A. I do not know of any case where hangers have been used of that shaj.e. The principal eccentricity that gets into a bridge is where the pins go through the different pieces. They do not always go through the centre of gravity, and in that case there is an eccentricity. That is well understood by engineers, and the specifications require it should be taken account of in the calculations. I never saw a hang r eccentric before. Q. (By the Chairman.) Assume an iron bridge is originally properly constructed, what test should be applied to it subsequently*, or what examination should be made? A. Well, it is a good thing to test it with a load of locomotives to satisfy the popular mind, but it does not show anything. An examination of the bridge should be made to see that all the parts are sound, that the nuts have not worked loose, and that even thing is in good shape, and well painted and kept in repair. 334 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. And would you examine for cracks? A. Yes, sir ; examine all the parts. Q. How can you tell about crystallization? A. You cannot tell about crystallization. Q. Have you got to wait until the bridge breaks down before you can tell about that? A. It is an open question as to crystallization. I do not believe in crystallization myself; that is, I do not believe that originally good iron, if exposed to loads under the elastic limit, will crystallize. I think there is very little proof that iron which is originally not crystallized does ctwstallize under repeated loads. I do not know of any satisfactory proof that it does crystallize under re- peated loads which are sufficiently low. Q. How can you tell whether iron is crystallized before it is put into a bridge? A. Well, the only thing is to have the iron well made ; have it made by a good maker. You cannot tell; you cannot look into the iron. Q. You may have crystallized iron put into any bridge? A. You may possibly have iron which is partially crystallized, crystallized to some extent ; but if jou get your iron of good parties, there is no danger. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Cannot you get iron which you are per- fectly sure is not crystallized in its manufacture? A. Yes, sir; you may be almost perfectly sure. I could order iron to-day from various companies, and I should not have the slightest fear that any portion of it was ciystallized. Q. And if you had any doubt about it you could, b} r getting the component parts, yourself tell whether it would be crystallized in its manufacture or not, or tend toward crystallization? A. Well, sir, there might be certain phenomena that might occur in the making of that iron which, under certain abnormal conditions, might make it crystallize. Q. But, at the same time, 3-011 can give an order to-da}' to certain iron bridge companies, and be almost positive, as positive as you can be of anything, that there will be no crystallization, can you not? A. Certainly. Q. (By the Chairman.) Now, you saj' you do not believe crys- tallization takes place, unless the bridge receives blows beyond its elastic limit? A. I do not know that it will then, sir; I do not believe it will then. The United States board for testing materials found only one case, in all its investigations, in which iron had apparently become crystallized by the repeated application of loads very much beyond its elastic limit. Q. How much allowance do you make in building a bridge? How many times the actually required strength do you require for the iron? APPENDIX. 335 A. It depends on the portion of the bridge that you are considering. Certain portions of a bridge are much more exposed to vibration, shock and jar than other portions. Now, the floor of a bridge is the part that is most exposed to that. And the loads, besides, on the floor are liable to be very greatly increased beyond what they would be if the train was standing still, when the train is in motion, on account of the fact that the springs on the locomotives and on the cars cause them to sway back and forth and throw more weight on one side than on the other, and the connecting rods are not parallel but are at right angles, and the wheels are not perfectly balanced, so that the load on one wheel of an axle may be much greater than on the other. Now, that is allowed for by engineers by adding a certain percentage to the calculated stress on a piece to allow for the impact, or the eflect of this vibration and shock and jar. The percentage varies with the part of the bridge you are considering. For the floor it is very great, a large percentage, 50 to 60 per cent. For floor hangers it is 100 per cent., by the best engineers. For the chords of a bridge it is very small, 15 or 20 per cent. Q. These hangers, then, if they were to be subjected to a load of 30,000 pounds, — an estimated load of 30,000 pounds, — ought to have been capable of carrying how much? A. How do you get at the 30,000, sir? Q. I thought you said the load upon each one of these hangers was 30,000 pounds? A. In the actual bridge? Q. In the actual train. A. Well, let me see. I said the load on that joint was about GO, 000 pounds, — 57.000 or 58.000 pounds. Now, if the vertical post b.;rc 35,000, that would leave 20,000 or 25,000 on the two hangers. Q. Twenty-five thousand on the two hangers? A. Yes, sir. Q. Would you have allowed in building this bridge for the support of that post, or would you have built the bridge so that the hangers would have been sufficient to support twice the weight they would naturally be called upon to support without the post? A. I should not have put the hangers in at all. Q. What ought to have been the estimate for those hangers? A. They ought to have been estimated for the actual load that would come on that joint, plus a percentage, which would vary from 50 to 100 per cent. It is 100 per cent, now with the best engineers ; ten years ago they did not allow but 50. Q. The weight on the joint was G0,000 pounds, was it not? A. Yes, sir ; about. Q. Should the hangers have been made strong enough to support 20,000 pounds? A. They would at the present time ; these arc made strong enough to support that much. Ten years ago they did not 336 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. add quite as large a percentage, and sometimes they added a small percentage. These hangers, if the load had been symmetrical, would have come within the limits prescribed in the specification. Q. You mean if the}' had not been eccentric? A. If they had not been eccentric. The specification called for 3,000 pounds to the run- ning foot of that bridge. That would bring about 78,000 pounds on that floor beam, of which about three-quarters would go to this truss, which would make about GO, 000 pounds on that truss of live load, and addim r in the dead 3-011 have about 70,000 pounds. The area of these two hangers, without adding any percentages, — the area of these two hangers would be about eight square inches, which would bring it between 8,000 and 9,000 pounds to the square inch, if they were symmetrical. Q. And they would have been sufficient without making any extra allowance? A. Without making any extra allowance ; yes, sir. The specification, as I read it in the paper, did not call for any extra allowance, and they would have come within the limit. The limit called for 10,000 pounds to the square inch, and that would have brought only between 8,000 and 9,000. Q. Were those specifications, in your opinion, suitable specifications for a bridge? A. Well, sir, I should hardly call them specifications. They were simply the offer of the bridge company for the bridge. They did not go as much into detail as specifications do now. As re- o-ards the load, 3,000 pounds to the running foot, they were in advance of the practice ten years ago. The practice ten years ago was not to allow r as great a load as that on a truss ; and they showed an advance over the practice ten years ago in allowing 3,000 pounds to the run- ning foot. And as regards the stress, 10,000 pounds to the square inch, they were all right. They did not allow anything for the impact on the different parts of the truss. That is- a thing which has come up within the last ten years. Q. (By Mr. Ktxslfa.) They did not know very much about it then, did they? A. They did not practise it very much then; they did some, but not to the extent they do now. Q. (By the Chairman.) We had here the other day a Mr. Lock- wood, who explained to the committee about the hammer-blows of a locomotive driving-wheel ; have you ever made any examination into that question? A. Well, sir, that is a question which it is pretty hard to examine into except by experiment, I think, because each locomotive has its own peculiarities, just as each person has. The thing has been studied to some extent in Eur pe ; that is, the difference between the loads on the two wheels of the same axle has been studied by running locomotives over scales and finding out how much more load came on one side than on the other. APPENDIX. 337 Q. Is it anything like a blow? A. Well, it is in the nature of a blow, you might say, but not exactly a blow. It is a little different; it is not exactly like a .sudden blow ; it simply is an increase of the weight on one side beyond what it is on the other. Q. With reference to each wheel, is it not simply a rapid increase of weight on the tire at one time, and a rapid decrease at another? A. Yes, sir ; I think it is. Q. How about the sideway motion by reason of the wheels on opposite sides not running together? A. That causes, of course, a side vibration — a lateral vibration — of the engine. Q. Has that been tested? A. Not that I know of. It depends to some extent on the way the wdieels are balanced. By properly bal- ancing the wheels that motion may be reduced considerably. Q. What is the theory of the counterbalancing of an engine wheel? A. It is based on the centrifugal force of a revolving motion, and the balancing is in such a way that there shall be no tendency for the wheel to fly in any one direction more than in another. Q. Is the counterbalance only for that purpose? A. 1 think that is the principle. I do not think of any other reason. If there were no counterbalance, the wheel would revolve very unequally, be apt to leave the track, sometimes jumping up and going down, and the small inequalities of the track might cause the wheel to leave the rail. Q. Is it simply to counterbalance the crank and crank rod? A. To make the wdieel revolve as if it were a uniformly revolving sym- metrical mass. Q. And does it exactly counterbalance the weight of the rod and the crank? A. The different works have different ways of counterbalancing ; the}- have different formulae that they use in different methods. Most of them do counterbalance to a considerable extent, but none perfectly, that I know of. Q. (By Mx-. Kinsley.) Are they not doing awa}- with the counter- balance in some locomotive works? A. I do not know that they are; I do not see how they could. Q. (By the Chairman.) Did you read Mr. Lock wood's testimony? A. I did not read his paper thoroughly; I glanced over it. Q. You did not go into it to see whether his c inclusions as to the force of the blows were corrector not? A. No, sir; I do not think it is exactly like a blow. But as regards that, as I say. engineers take account of it by adding a certain percentage which is pretty well definitely fixed. These experiments in Europe show thai in cer- tain locomotives the pressure on one wheel might lie increased 10U per cent, above what it would be if it were uniformly distributed on the two wheels; that is, one wheel might be entirely loaded, and the other wheel entirely unloaded, under certain conditions. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGIN*i£RU~ 338 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. The lateral strain of an engine has never been measured? A. It Ins never been experimented upon, that I know of. Q. Is that an element which is provided for in building a bridge? A. Yes, sir; the lateral bracing of a bridge is always made ampl\ r strong, or should be, and in well-constructed bridges it is. Q. In this bridge was it made sufficiently strong? A. I think so. I have not made any calculations, but it strikes me that the lateral bracing is quite sufficient. Q. Was there any necessity in this bridge to support it by hangers rather than by placing the floor beams on top of the truss? A. I do not know any reason why the floor beams could not have been placed on top. Q. Would the height of the truss have been too much decreased thereby? A. Well, it would have been decreased if the track was kept at the same level, of course. Q. The other truss, as 3-011 remember, was an element in the matter. In order to save the other truss, was it necessary to build this truss in this way? A I do not know why this truss could not have been made with the floor beams supported on top, and then have had them supported on the other truss. They were blocked up on the other truss ; castings put under them to bring them to the level at which the}- were. Q. Could they have been blocked up still further with safety? A. I do not see why not; I think so. But the height of this truss might have been diminished Q. Could it have been diminished without injuring its strength? A. Certainly. Q. How much? A. It could have been made of any dimensions. The dimensions could have been assumed at the starting point, and the truss calculated for that shape. Q. How about the other truss; have you examined that? A. Yes, sir ; I looked into it some at the scene of the wreck. Q. What do you think of that as a truss? A. It was not a truss that was built as a truss would be built now. Q. Was it a suitable truss to be used at the present time? A. I should not consider it a good truss ; no, sir. Q. What were its defects? A. Well, in the first place, the load w^s carried on to it in such a way that only one system was brought into action. Q. How many systems were there? A. Two; and the connec- tions were not made in the best manner. I did not examine it very much in detail, but the connections were not made as they should have been for their ample strength. Q. What was the result of carrying the weight only upon one sys- APPENDIX. 339 tcm and leaving out the other? A. It increase 1 the stress on the diagonals and posts of that system and left very little on the other S3" stem. Q. Did it do any more harm than it would have done to have used both systems at a double pressure? A. Do you mean to have loaded the other system at the same time? Q. Yes; with equal loads. A. No, sir ; if the other system had been loaded also, there would have been more load on the truss, and the stresses in the chords would have been greater. That truss bore only a small proportion of the load on the bridge. Q. Was it possible with such a truss as the Hewins truss to carry floor beams across to the old truss, the Parker truss, so as to use both its systems? A. Not very well, unless the floor beams had been raised in the Hewins truss at the points intermediate between the joints, which would not have been very easy to do. Q. Should there be broken joints for rails on bridges or not, — I mean uneven alternating joints? A. I do not think that makes very much difference. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) You say you spend some of your time in examining different bridge-building works, etc. ; what particular bridge manufactories have you examined within the last few years? A. 1 have examined almost all the large ones in this country. Q. Have you examined the New Jersey Iron and Steel Company's Works? A. At Trenton ; yes, sir. Q. What is your opinion of the work they do? A. I think it is only within a few years they have been building bridges to any large extent ; thev make iron, the shapes of iron required. It is a first-class company. Q. They take orders from bridge builders or anybody else for cer- tain quantities of iron? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you consider them a first-class company? A. Yes, sir. Q. I believe the company is the same in its ownership as the Tren- ton Iron Works, is it not? A. Yes, sir ; the works are at Trenton. Q. Have you ever had yourself any practical experience in build- ing iron bridges? A. I have never been connected with any bridge works. I have made a good many designs for bridges, but they have not been built ; they have been designs simply. Q. You never have furnished any designs that have been built? A. No, sir ; the bridges are built by the bridge companies, and I have never been connected with any bridge company. Q. Have you furnished designs for bridge companies to build? A. No, sir ; those are made by their own engineers. Q. What I want to get at is this : have you ever furnished any 340 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. designs for any bridge company which has built bridges after your designs and put them on to railroads? A. No, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) Was the eastern truss, the Parker truss, sufficient, in your opinion, to have carried a second track? A. I have not figured it, but I should not think it was. Q. Would it have been better to have placed the single track in the middle of the bridge, if you were going to have 011I3' one track? A. I do not know that there is any reason why that should be done if the truss in itself at this place is strong enough to hold the proportion that will come on it. I cannot say whether, in this particular place, placing the track in the middle of the bridge would not have over- loaded the Parker truss ; I have not figured that at all. Q. Do you feel confident that the Parker truss was not sufficient to stand the extra track? A. No, sir ; I do not feel confident ; that is simply my judgment. I should have to figure the details. Q. How long has it been since they began to make provision in iron bridges against the injurious effect of derailment? A. That I cannot tell definitely. I suppose there are a good many roads in dif- ferent parts of the country now, a good many bridges in different parts of the country now, that have not adequate provision against derailment; but I think fully* fifteen years ago, and probably longer ago, the leading roads made adequate provision, although they' have ever since that time been increasing their safety in that direction by making their floors closer and stronger. Q. Ten years ago was it considered an element of danger in a bridge of this sort that the truss was above the floor system, — stood above the rails? A. No, sir; not that I know of. It would, per- haps, be considered objectionable, in case there were not adequate provision against derailment ; for in that case a train off the track might strike against the upper chord, which is composed of these pieces simply abutting against the joint blocks, and would, therefore, tend to throw these out. It certainly would make it easier to knock the truss down in case a train did get off the track. Q. Was that a thing which a good bridge builder would have guarded against ten years ago? A. I think that would have been understood; yes, sir. As I say, I have never seen a bridge which was built, of that kind, in which the floor was hung from the upper chord. I do not know of an}-. Q. You do not know of any anywhere? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know of any that was built at that time which has since been taken down? A. No, sir; I do not. Q. In a properly constructed bridge, made of good materials, what are the dangers to be guarded against? A. Well, sir, I should sav APPENDIX. 341 the principal clangor was that the train should not be kept on the track, or that if it got off the track it should not be carried across the bridge without striking it and knocking it down. Q. I mean from long use in a series of years, how is the bridge likely to give out? A. We have not had experience enough to be able to tell how a bridge will really give out, wear out. Bridges have been renewed, and bridges have fallen down by reason of defects in construction ; they have been renewed, and they have been taken clown by reason of the increase of the weight of the rolling stock beyond that for which they were designed. But I do not know of any case in which an iron bridge, a properly constructed bridge, has actually worn out in use. Q. What are the most general faults in iron bridge building as seen in this Commonwealth? A. Well, sir, I do not know as I could answer such a general question as that. Q. Are there not certain things which you tell your students about as being general faults, and faults that are to be found in bridges in this vicinity? A. Yes, sir; there are a good many, but the}' are so many and so various that I really do not know, if I mentioned any one, that I could point to the particular bridge where that fault was shown, except in some few cases. The general principle could belaid down that they must be constructed so that no part would sustain more than the proper limit. That would include everything. I think, perhaps, the proper stiffening of the bridge, the proper stiffening of the compression pieces, and the proper arrangement of the joints, so that the pieces that abut against a pin, or are connected by a pin, are not strained at that point beyond the proper limit, so that the pins will never wear loose. That is an important point. Still, 1 could not lay down any general faults that are often found. Q. Are most of the bridges in this vicinity satisfactory bridges, or are they unsatisfactory bridges, in your mind? A. So far as I have examined them I do not remember any bridges that are unsatisfactory. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Did you examine the iron work of this Hewins truss? A. I examined the portions of the wreck that were there on the ground. Q. Did you notice the quality of the tension work ? A. So far as could be seen on the ground. I did not examine any of the breaks, the places where they had been broken apart. Q. Did you observe the general quality of the work of the tension rods, and the adjustments and fastenings? A. Yes, sir ; 1 noticed that. Q. Was it not of a very good quality? A. Yc*, sir; it seeme I to me perfectly satisfactory. The eyes seemed to be of good shape. 342 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. The Phoenix Iron Company, from which I understand it came, is a company of very high standing, is it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. A bridge company, I think it is? A. Yes, sir; bridge and iron, both. Q. Did you examine the quality of the iron of which the compres- sion parts of the bridge were composed, and the workmanship? A. I examined that superficially ; yes, sir. I did not make a careful examination of the qualit}' of the iron. Q. Did it appear to be good work? A. Appeared to be ; j-es, sir. Q. I understand you to say that the Trenton Iron Company, from which it came, is also a concern of high standing? A. Very high, indeed. Q. The only defect in this bridge, which has any relation to this accident, is the defective design of these hangers, is it not? A. If lhat includes the fact that they were inaccessible ; yes, sir. Q. I understand that if they had not been defectively designed, their inaccessibility would not have been a danger; it was only a source of suspicion ? A. It would have been a source of suspicion. Q. And not a source of danger, if they had been properly de- signed? A. In the first place, no. Q. Then you agree that the eccentricity of those hangers is the only defect in that bridge which has any casual relation to this dis- aster? A. So far as I could see, that is the cause of the disaster. Q. And that, you think, is a sufficient one? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you give a more definite idea than you have of the pro- portion which the strength of those hangers, as actually designed, bears to what they would have if the eccentricity were removed ? A. Those hangers have about eight square inches in their area. If they were made of good iron, and were properly welded so that they would break in the body of the bar (always supposing they did not break through the eye, but that the eye is so designed that they will break in the body of the bar), they would probably have borne 50,000 pounds to the square inch, which would be 400,000 pounds for the two. As actually designed, I calculate they would not have borne together, if sound, more than 50,000 pounds. Q. Then they are only one-eighth as strong as the same amount of iron put into a properly designed hanger would have made them? A. About that ; yes, sir. Q. And the only important difference between the hanger as it should be and the hanger as it was is the eccentricity? A. And the loop weld. I should not put a loop weld on a hanger like that. Q. Well, if the loop weld were so as to bring the strain on the middle bar, there would be that difference in the strength, would there? A. Yes, sir. APPENDIX. 343 Q. And as I understand you, the effect of this eccentricity is to continually work open the weld, or start it? A. The effect of the eccentric pull is to open the weld ; that is the tendency of it. Q. Then it mny very well be that when these bangers were originally put in the welds all appeared closed? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the effect of the eccentricity would lie to cause the weigh! of the bridge to open them in the manner in which they are shown to be open. A. Yes, sir. Q. So that it is fair to presume that when those hangers were put in they exhibited no defects then, except the defect of design which you have alluded to? A. Yes, sir. But I would emphasize the fact that their inacessibility would, in my mind, constitute a considerable defect in the structure, so far as my own judgment goes. Q. That would be potential, rather than actual; that would be a thing to give you anxiety? A. Yes, sir; it would be a thing you never could be sure about. Anything might happen, you could not tell what. You could never see the hanger, and you would never be sure that it appeared in proper condition. Q. But if you had seen the hanger before it wa*s put in, and had been satisfied with the quality of the iron and with the design of the hanger, the fact that it was concealed would not cause you serious anxiety afterwards, would it? A. Not very serious, — no ; at any rate, until I began to have suspicion that the bridg> was wearing out. Q. And the concealment had nothing to do with the disaster, ex- cepting that it prevented the gradual wearing of this hanger from being observed ? A. Yes, sir. If those hangers had been in sight, the cracks, the opening of the welds, would have been seen. Q. But if they had been of proper design they would not have come to pieces where they were? A. No, sir, if they were designed without a loop weld. Q. Now. this great difference between the strength of symmetrical and unsymmetrical hangers is rather a nice point of engineering, is it not? A. Well, sir, I should not call it an obscure point at all. Q. I did not say obscure, I said nice. A. As far as any point in connection with calculating a bridge is nice, that is nice. It is :i very simple matter. Q. Do 30U think it was so obvious that any respectable bridge engineer, ten years ago, would have been sure to see it? A. En- gineers would avoid such a thing as that, but an engineer might very easil} 7 underrate its importance, if he never had happened to think of it in that way. He ought to be able to calculate it, though. Q. Do you think it was a familiar fact to engineers generally that there was this enormous difference between a direct and an indirect 344 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. pull upon the hanger? A. I think most of them would appreciate that. Q. It is very seldom indeed, is it not, that hangers are made with this eccentricity? A. Yes, sir ; an engineer avoids that. He feels instinctively that it is a bad thing. Q. So very little opportunity has been given to know the difference between indirect and direct pulls? A. Well, it is just like a hook. In designing a hook in machinery, that thing has to be taken account of, — the very same thing which would come in in these hangers. Q. They do design hooks and do use hooks in machinery, do they not, which have an indirect pull? A. They take account of this ; tiny take account of the eccentricity. Q. Then, 3011 think that if the design required an eccentric hanger, the eccentricity ought to have been taken account of, ami four or five times as much material put in? A. Certainly. Q. Do you think an engineer inspecting that bridge a month ago would have detected this source of weakness, and have condemned it on that account? A. That would depend upon whether he happened to suspect that the- hangers were unsymmetrical. Q. Would he be likely to suspect it? A. I should think so. If I had been examining that bridge, the ver} T first thing which would have attracted my attention would have been that the pins were at right angles to each other, and I should at once have commenced to think : Here are these hangers ; they form a vital part of the bridge, and it is very important I should know how these are arranged on these two pins. Here are the pins at right angles to each other, and I should at once suspect there might be an eccentric- ity there. At any rate, I should want to know what the shape of those hangers was and how they were made, and I should try to exam- ine more in detail. Q. Do you think your mind would have been as alive to it a month ago as it is now? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, do you not think 3 r ou are an exception in that respect? Do yon think most engineers would have thought of it a month ago? A. I think so. The very first thing that struck me when I saw these hangers was their eccentricit}-. Q. When you saw the broken hangers? A. I did not notice it on the broken hangers, because I only saw the upper part and the lower part, and I could not see how they were attached on the pin ; and I went on the other side of the truss to the joint blocks on which the sound hangers were, — the hangers that did not break. — and pointed it out to some of my students. (^. Had you ever seen that bridge before? A. I have been over APPENDIX. 345 it, and I think I did once go under it. but it was a good many years ago, and I haven't any recollection of it at all. Q. It would not surprise you to hear that a competent engineer had inspected that bridge within two years and pronounced it safe, would it? A. I should have my doubts as to his competency. Q. Do you think you would have had a month ago? Would you have had doubts a month ago as to his competency? A. Well, not knowing about the bridge a mouth ago, I should not have known anything about it. Q. Do you not think that your attention, like everybody's else, is more wide awake to the danger of eccentric hangers than it was a month ago? A. Most certainly, but a month ago I was perfectly aware of the effect of eccentricity, and I know it is taken account of in various specifications, and it is a fact that a bridge engineer should have in mind all the time. Q. I have no doubt 3011 understood it, but my question is this: Whether you think the engineers of the country generally were as well aware of and as wide awake to the dangers of eccentricity in hangers as you were? A. I sent a sketch of these hangers on the day after the accident — Q. Please answer my question, which applies to a time before the accident. A. Well, as I said before, I think an engineer might very likely, if his attention had never been called to it, underrate the im- portance of it. Q. (By the Chairman.) What was it you were going to say? A. I received an inquiry from a friend of mine, who is an engineer at the Trenton Bridge Works now, the day after the accident, with regard to the cause of it, and I just sent him a little sketch of those hangers. I did not say anything about it ; I simply said that was the shape of the hangers, and what I believed caused the accident. I got a letter from him in reply at once, saying that was sufficient to account for it in his own mind. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Do you mean he is an engineer of the Trenton Bridge Works, or of the New Jersey Steel & Iron Com- pany? A. It is the same thing, I believe. I do not know exactly which concern he would designate himself as belonging to. Mr. Kinsley. These hangers were manufactured by the New Jer- sey Steel & Iron Works, which are called by the public very often the Trenton Iron Works. The same parties own both works ; it is like the Ames Company of North Easton, and the Ames Company of North Bridgewater, which has parts of its shovels manufactured in each place. I understand that these hangers were made by the New Jersey Steel & Iron Company. Mr. Putnam. It is the company which Mr. Swain said stood high. 346 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Mr. Kinsley. Yes. Mr. Swain. I never knew there was more than one company. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) In giving the probable resistance of that five-inch I beam under the load, after the hangers were broken, yon stated its supporting power, I think, at thirty-five thousand pounds? A. About that ; yes, sir. Q. That is its theoretical supporting power with both its ends firmly fixed and with a stationary weight? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that weight would crush it? A. Yes, sir. Q. With the slightest vibration of either of its ends, of course, it would go long before that weight, would it not? A. I do not think very much. That is its strength for something midway between flat ends and hinged ends. It is nearly what it would bear according to the ordinary formula for flat ends. There is a difference between flat ends and fixed ends, — a little difference. Q. Is not that taken out of the formula for fixed end support? A. Yes, sir; flat ends, we call it; that is, where the ends simply bear flat against two parallel plates. There is a little difference between flat ends, or fixed ends, and hinged ends, — as distinguished from hinged ends. Q. If the bearings were tilting, it would not bear anything like such a weight as that? A. No, sir. Q. Even stationary? A. No, sir. Q. Still less if the load was moving? A. The vibration would undoubtedly tend to make it go at something less. Still, that thirty- five thousand may be lowered. As I said before, you cannot predict exactly what the I beams will bear. These may have borne from thirty to thirty-five thousand. Q. Now, afier the engine had g me over there was nothing like thirty-five thousand pounds hanging there at airy time? A.. No, sir. Q. Now, if this I beam had been capable of supporting anything like thirty-five thousand pounds, the whole train would have gone over safety? A. The engine must have started it. Q. But when it is once started it is gone, is it not? A. It takes a very little time to go. Q. Once out of perpendicular it has no strength left, has it? A. Some records of tests of the compression pieces show they will bear a maximum load for two minutes before they go, and then they go without any addition to the load. Q. Before it is bent, but not after it is bent? A. It bends gradu- ally, and after it gets to a certain limit it goes. Q. If the engine bent it, its resisting power, after it was once bent, was substantially gone, was it not? A. Yes; it would go at very little. APPENDIX. 347 Q. After the engine had bent it, the cars would carry it down very quickly, would they not? A. They would cany it down very quickly if there was nothing else to support the track. Q. You have mentioned nothing else to support the track, except- ing the track stringer. A. The track stringer and the rails and the lateral braces, which would naturally tend to support the track to some extent. And then the ties project beyond the end posts, and as the track stringer went it would take hold of the end posts and help to support. Q. Have you examined the construction of these track stringers? A. Yes, sir. Q. In all our examination thus far it has been assumed by every- body that these track stringers simply abutted against each other, and were independent of each other ; is that your assumption? A. That is the fact with regard to the iron part of the track stringer, but not with regard to the wooden part. Q. You say it is the fact with regard to the iron part? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, suppose it should turn out that these iron track stringers, instead of abutting against each other, were separated at the ends by a small block of cast iron. A. Yes, sir ; they were. Q. And that into that small block of cast iron was riveted the ten- sion bar of each stringer; you understand that to be the construction? A. The pin took the tension bar of each stringer. Q. So that the two track stringers adjoining each other were linked together, were they not, by a pin going through their tension bars and through a block of cast iron which separated them? A. I have forgotten whether that is the case with regard to that block ; I do not remember whether the pin went through the block. Is that so? Is it a fact ? Mr. Putnam. I ask you whether you have observed it. You have been studying that track system ; I have not. Mr. Swain. Yes, sir ; I have some sketches here which I think will show it. (Witness referred to his sketches.) Yes, sir, that is so ; the pin went through the casting. Q. Then the effect of that would be that the track stringers, instead of simply abutting against each other, so that when the floor beam was taken away from under them they would fall, were linked together, so that when the floor beam was taken away from under them they would simply sag, would they not? A. Well, they would come apart ; they would tend to come apart there and break the con- tinuous wooden stringer that went on top of the iron. Q. Would they have anything like the same tendency to part, linked together in that way and that linking extending through the 348 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. whole bridge, that they would have if they simply abutted against each other and abutted against the adjoining stringers? A. Yes, sir ; they would have almost the same, independent of that upper wooden stringer that went across on top of the iron. It would be almost as easy for it to go apart as if it simply abutted, because there is no lower connection between them, no lower chord. Q. Looking at this drawing, which represents on the left the short truss extending from the abutment to the upright end post; then the •26-foot truss extending from the upright end post to the angle block ; and then the 26-foot truss extending from the angle block to the next joint in the horizontal member of the truss, those trusses being three of the track stringer; assume the track stringers extending across the bridge are linked together in the same way ; and assume, further, if you please, that the end of the track stringer on the abutment is bolted down to it, and that at the point where the track stringers rest upon the floor beam they are bolted through it, do you not think that there would be a good deal more to hold up the ends of those two track stringers at the point where they meet on the floor beam than if all these track stringers were simply abutting against one another without being linked together? A. Very little, unless there is a piece in there (A, B). Q. (By the Chairman.) Though it would drop, would it not hold together? A. It would. not drop, perhaps, on to the ground, unless it pulled this off. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) It would tend to drop, but how far would it drop? A. Probably it would break apart, or else pull this end off, or else this here. Q. It would not drop of its own weight, would it, if there were no train? A. If there were no train there, that would not stand, except so far as this upper chord, possibly, would hold the weight. It would not stand there unless there were wooden track stringers on top of it. It would sag ; if it were held firmly at both ends, of course it could not go all the way down to the ground, but it would go down. Q. (By the Chairman.) How far would it sag and what would be its strength as a continuous chain? How strong would that joint be? A. Well, it would sag until the whole thing got out of shape and pulled these upper chords. It could not sag very far without pulling these two stringers apart from the casting. If the two ends are fixed it could not sag very far without pulling the two stringers apart from the casting. Then the upper chords would be disconnected, and the whole thing would go clown. The upper chords, that is, the iron parts of the stringers, would be disconnected from the casting and the rest would go, and it would sag just as it would if it were a continu- ous chain, of which the lower chord was the length. But before it APPENDIX. 349 did that it would not be held at one end, so it could do that ; it would pull off from the other floor beam at the middle joint of the bridge. Q. Would it pull out from the ends, or would it, break in the mid- dle first? A. I sliould say the iron I beam forming the upper part, the upper chord of the track stringer, would come apart in the middle as soon as it sagged down ; and the block against which they abutted in the middle would be left free, so that the stringers would all go to pieces. Q. (By Mr. Potnam.) What should free the block ? A. If those two stringers are held at the two ends and they are going to sag, the length between those two ends measured along the upper chord must be increased, if it goe* out of a straight line, must it not? Mr. Putnam. Yes. Mr. Swain. This would pull the upper chord of the stringers apart from the block, would it not? Mr. Putnam. If 3-011 ask me the question, I should saj- it would press the upper edges of those stringers into the block, and pull the lower edges away from it. Mr. Swain. Yes ; but it would very soon pull the upper edges out if it deflected very much. Q. That is, after a certain amount of deflection they would come out? A. They would all come out, and the two I beams which form the upper part of the stringer would be disconnected from the rest of the stringer. Q. Now, I ask 3-011 whether it would not take a very considerable weight to compress those so far as to squeeze out that block, the other two ends remaining (ixed? A. It would certainty take some weight, I could not tell how much. Q. Would not the fact that the floor beam was bolted up through the track stringer, so that the upper side of the floor beam had a ten- denc3* to keep that block in place, prevent to some extent the going to pieces of the stringers? A. Well, if the floor beam was perfectly free to go down, I do not think that would have much effect. Mr. Putnam. I am assuming that the floor beam is bolted to the track stringer with the upper side of the floor beam under the block. Mr. Swain. Under certain conditions the weight of the floor beam would be simply a part of the weight which is tending to break these stringers. Q. Would it not have a tendency to keep the block in place? A. No; it would be simply a portion of the weight which is tending to pull that middle point down. (.1- It would be a mere load, then, and no help. Now, is it your judgment, Mr. Swain, that this construction of the track stringers did not help at all to get those cars over, as compared with the construe- 350 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. tion which we have been supposing all the time, of track stringers entirely independent of each other? A. Yes, sir ; it did help some ; I have no doubt it helped some. But what helped more was the con- tinuous wooden stringer on the top of your iron. Q. You think that helped more? A. Yes, sir; I think that helped more . Q That track stringer on top would help more by keeping this joint from separating than any other wa} r , would it not? A. Yes, sir ; it would act, as it were, as a beam. Q. You do not think that track stringer was in itself a continuous beam, do you? A. These track stringers were not broken — I mean the wooden portions — at the points where the iron ones were. Q. They were not scarfed together or made into a continuous beam in any way? A. No, sir; but they were bolted through to the iron portions of the track stringer, and therefore helped to bind the two together. Q. They were of no service at all, excepting so far as they were over joints in the iron? A. No, sir ; they simply served to splice the iron. Q. It simpby served to splice this very joint, then? A. Yes, sir; that is it. Q. Then, the wooden track stringer was of no service, except so far as a portion of it may have been over this joint? A. It served, by being over that joint, to aid the track stringer, to keep it from falling. Q. Do you not think, Mr. Swain, that the fact that these track stringers were linked together in the way they were had more to do with the slow falling of the bridge floor than the presence of that little I beam had? A. Well, sir, I really could not make any definite statement as to that. They all had their effect. Just how much, whether one-half was due to one and one-half to the other, or three- quarters to one and one-quarter to the other, I am sure I cannot sa}\ They all added, and also, as I said before, the fact that the ties pro- jected over the end post and would catch on the end post. Q. (By the Chaikm.vn.) What did you mean by that? I did not understand it. A. These ties are projected over the end post. As the floor beam goes, these would also go, and these would come down and catch on the end post. Q. Were these ties bolted down? A. Yes, sir; the}' were bolted down. Q. Describe what scar you found on the joint block. A. I noticed that the lower portion of the joint block, from the holes where the wind braces go through, was broken off on the inside, which would tend to show that a load had come down on those wind braces and APPENDIX. 351 broken off the easting before it broke the wind braces. Perhaps it did not break the wind braces at all. I also found a scar on top of the joint block, that has been referred to in the testimony. Q. What was that due to? A. Well, I should think it would be due to one of the cars being thrown sideways, as the floor wont down at that point, and scraping against the chord and hitting-tl.e jo-int block. Or, possibly, an axle may have struck it ; I cannot tell. One of the pieces of the upper chord is scraped very much, near one end, as though some iron had been scraping along it, as would naturally be expected. Q. When these stringers went down, do you suppose they parted at the middle, or did they hold togel her there and pull the ends apart? A. I should think they parted in the middle; and 1 noticed that those that are out at the shop still have this wooden stringer over the top, and that would naturally be broken about here, as it was. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Do you mean to say you saw the broken piece, the wooden stringer? A. I did not notice that the first day I was out there ; but one day I went out there, and under — I think it was — the sixth car or the seventh car was a stringer which I took to be the stringer which had rested on this joint bbck, and that had the wooden stringer on top broken off a couple of feet from the end. And all the stringers which are out at the shop show the wooden stringers broken oil" at the end ; all that have the wooden stringer on them at all show the wooden stringer broken off very near the end of the iron stringer. Q. (By the Chairman.) How about building a bridge as much askew as this one was? Is there any inherent defect in such a bridge? A. No, sir. It is a little more difficult, a little more costly, to build a skew bridge than it is a straight bridge. The connections are more complicated, and the bracing has to be made a little different; but it is just as possible to make a perfectly secure skew bridge as a perfectly secure straight bridge. Q. So far as this bridge was a skew bridge, was it properly built for a skew bridge? A. I should think so; yes, sir. I could not tell exactly how it was fixed to the abutments, or exactly how the diagonal bracing went, but I should judge it was perfectly satisfactory in that respect. <,>. (By Mr. Putnam.) You spoke of a speed of, I think, thirty feet a second ; in giving your speed did you make allowance for the stoppage of the second car and telescoping of the train which occurred just at the end of the bridge? A. No, sir. I simply made the statemeut that a speed of twenty miles an hour would be thirty feet a second. C^. Did you not assume that was the speed at which those three 352 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. cars went over? A. I think I simply made the statement that a speed of twenty miles an hour, which would be thirty feet a second, would cany three cars over in six seconds, or something like that. (,). Then I ask you if you made allowance for the fact that the second car was stopped somewhere near this end of the bridge, and the third car was telescoped into it, and for the retardation caused by that circumstance? A. I was not making allowance for anything, sir; I was simply making the statement that twenty miles an hour would cany the cars over in that space of time. Q. Then you did not mean to give it as your opinion that they were carried over in that space of time? A. No, sir. Q. (By Mr. Hewins.) You referred to the fact that there are fome marks upon the horizontal member abutting against the joint block, showing that something had, perhaps, rubbed against it, or rolled against it, before striking the casting? A. Yes, sir; I saw those. Q. If I understood you correctly, you meant to say that those marks were on the inner side of the horizontal member? A. I think they were ; yes, sir. I think they were on the inner side of the top chord nearest the joint block. Q. Now, suppose those marks were on the top side instead of on the inner side, how would you account for the marks being there? A. Well, I meant the top inner side. Was not the top of the inner chord one of those I beams ? Mr. Hewins. Yes. Mr. Swain. Well, then, I meant the top inner side. Q. Then whatever struck that casting could not have struck it from the side, but hit it endwise ; that is, longitudinally with. the truss? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you familiar with the action of iron under strain, where it is tested to rupture? A. To some extent. Q. Large bars or small bars? A. I have not had very much ex- perience with that. Q. Did you ever see an eye-bar broken, with one end upon a pin, as it would be in a bridge? A. I do not recollect that I ever saw an eye-bar broken. Q. Then you could not say what would be the effect upon the pin ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know 7 that loop eyes, as I think you have called them, have been used in the past to a considerable extent by bridge builders? A. I never happen to have seen a loop eye used for a hanger. I have seen a great many loop eyes used for wind braces, and they are used now. APPENDIX. 353 Q. I mean for main tension bars on a bridge? A. No, sir; I never saw a main tension bar with a loop eye. Q. Then 3*011 never saw one of those broken for a test? A. No, sir. Q. Can you tell the quality of iron from the appearance of its frac- ture, without knowing anything about how it was broken? A. No. Q. You would not undertake to judge? No, sir; except you might be able to tell there was bad iron, you might not be able to tell. You might be able to tell in some cases, you might see flaws, you might see defects. Q. I am speaking of the quality of the iron. A. Yes, sir. Q. It is a fact, is it not, that the appearance of the fracture is very much modified by the manner in which the iron is broken? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know why cast iron for compression members lias gradually been displaced by cast iron for the joint blocks, and they in turn have been displaced in bridge structures by continuous members of wrought iron? A. Because engineers have generally come to feel distrust in cast iron on account of its being much more easily broken by shocks, blows and jars, and being more liable to inherent defects. Q. Do you know that these changes have been brought about, to a considerable extent, at least, by the fact that they are cheaper in cost? A. Yes, sir ; certainly. I do not know just how much difference in cost there would be between a cast-iron column twenty feet long and a wrought-iron column. I have not made the comparison. Q. Do you know it is cheaper? A. I think so. Q. Very materially? A. I think so. Q. I wish you would explain, if you can, what your theory is as to what may have struck that casting and how it got there? A. Well, it simply seems to me that the end of that floor beam goiug would naturally throw the train off on that side. Some of the cars would be derailed on that side, I should think, and would naturally lean over against the bridge and scrape along. Q. Whatever did it was on top of the chord, was it not? A. It may have been canted over to one side. Those cars were tipped over, and you cannot tell just what happened. Q. With the wheels on the track? A. If the floor beam went down in this position, the cars were in that inclination even supposing they were on the track. They would be inclined, and they might easily scrape along the top ; this is not on the very top, it is on the top inside corner. Q. The top of the chord was a sort of gutter, was it not ? A. Yes, sir ; I think so. Q. And was it not inside of that gutter that you saw these marks? 354 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. A. Well, I thought it was on the outside. I did not notice these marks at the time of the disaster; I simply noticed them in the yard day before }'estcrday, and I concluded from the way the paint was that that was on the top inside. Q. (Sketch shown witness.) Assuming that to be a section of the chord, will you be so kind as to indicate by the letter " a" where these marks were? A. I simply noticed the chord in the shop day before yesterday, and I noticed on one corner those marks ; and casually looking at it, — I did not look to see exactly where it was, because I did not think it to be of so very much importance, — I took it to be there. It may possibly have been on one of those others. Q. Assuming that 3*011 are in error, and that b c is the vertical through the centre of the chord, and that the marks on the upper chord extend from d to e, a being toward the track, how would 3-011 account for them? A. Well, I do not know. Q. What part of the train could possibly get there and do it by yourtheor3 T ? A. I could not tell how that train would be twisted about, or how that chord piece would be twisted about, in its various endeavors to get down. The journals were some distance above the chord, and I think it might possibby be that the journal m'ght have scraped on the inside above d, but I am not positive about that. That is one of the things I cannot sa3 T about. Q. You were asked some questions about whether a lower main brace could not have been put in and the floor beams rested upon the upper chord instead of being hung underneath? A. Yes, sir. Q. That would have produced a greater deflection in the truss under a given load, would it not? A. Yes ; it gencralby would with a proper proportion of the pieces. Q. And on a sharp skew- like this, that would have made more of a rolling motion in crossing the bridge by the locomotive? A. Yes ; but the difference, I think, would have been very small. Q. That would have been its tendency? A. Yes; but it would be very small ; I think a difference of a foot or two. Q. Was the truss upon the eastern side of the bridge, in your opinion, overloaded by the peculiar manner in which the load was put upon it? A. I really cannot say about that. I have not made any figures with regard to that truss at all. Mr. IIewins. Perhaps there is no objection to my stating, at this time, that when this bridge was built it was understood that when the bridge should be double tracked, a new truss was to be put in place of the one on the eastern side. Mr. Putnam. I think it was so stated b3" Mr. George Folsom in his testimony. APPENDIX. 355 Q. Ts your estimated reduction of the strength of these hangers a pure calculation, or the result of actual experience in testing? A. It is a result of calculation. I do not know of any other banger having been made like that, much less any having been tested. Q. (By the Chairman.) Placed, as these hangers were, in this cast-iron block, was there anybody, except the persons who saw them originally put in, who could form any estimate of their strength? A. No, sir. Q. Then, if a bridge is built in such a manner as this was, is it necessary to rel}- upon the good judgment of the builder or the expert who had charge of it, — the persons who had charge of its original con- struction? A. Yes, sir; or on the person who is superintending it for the parties who are having it built. Q. The persons who have charge of its original construction? A. Yes, sir. Q. And can an}' person who examines that bridge thereafter, form any certain, correct opinion in regard to its strength ? A. Not from an examination of the bridge alone. If he could see the plans, and if the plans would show just how those were arranged, then he could have calculated it. Q. But he could not tell whether the}- were good iron? A. No, sir. Q. He would have to rely for that upon the reputation of the works where they were made, or the testimony of the person who examined them before they were put in? A. That is it. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) I would like to ask whether the figures. 3'ou have given us as to the supporting power of those hangers are based upon the ultimate supporting power, or upon the power with a repetition of the load? A. The ultimate power, the ultimate sup- porting power, the ultimate strength. Q. Will you repeat what the ultimate strength of the hangers is? Twenty-five thousand, I think you said, for each. A. Something like 2">,000. It is a thing that cannot be figured exactly, because it would depend to some extent on the play of the pin in the top of the hanger. If that pin fitted exactly, so the hanger would be obliged to hang just as it is there, it would have a certain strength. If that pin would turn a little, so the pin below could come underneath, it would make a different strength. Now, with those two hangers together, both on the same pin and coming to a centre, there would not be any tendency to tip; but one being broken, the other one might turn u little in the socket. On the supposition that both hangers were sound, and both hung in an upright position, as they are seen there, the ultimate strength is from 20,000 to 25,000 pounds. They are not 35(5 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. both of the same dimensions : one is something like 18,000 or 19,000 pounds; 18,000, perhaps. Q. If the one broke, would the other be stronger by reason of the breaking of its mate, that is, have more supporting power? A. It might possibly be a little stronger than it was before, because then it would be allowed to swing a little on the upper pin, providing that pin had a little play. Q. You estimate 50,000 pounds as the ultimate supporting power? A. Yes, sir ; I do not think the two would bear any m<>re than that. Q. The post, I understand, you put at from 30,000 to 45,000? A. Yes, sir. Q. That would be from 80,000 to 100,000 pounds. Now, how does that differ from the supporting power with the constantly re- peated load? A. The supporting power with the constant^ repeated load would be considerably less. It would be, perhaps, not more than three-quarters of that, and even less. Q. So that on those figures this bridge was practically carrying with every locomotive that passed over it its wh »le suppoiting power? A. Almost ; yes, sir, very nearly. Edmund H. Hewins — recalled. Mr. Hewins. I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, in relation to what appears to be a discrepancy of recollection in regard to the I beam column, which was under these broken hangers, that I think Mr. Swain must be mistaken as to the beam which he saw, for I am very positive that the beam which I pointed out to Professor Vose was the b am in question. How that beam got bent afterwards into the shape that it now is I cannot explain ; nor have I succeeded in ob- taining a satisfact >ry explanation, or what seems so to me. There was a small part of the beam, as I saw it lying there, concealed by the wreck, and is not shown by the photograph to which Professor Swain referred. The beam which is indicated there as being straight, I recollect very well, and it was not confounded in my mind with the one which I believe to be the column. In relation to loop eyes, it has been the practice of large building concerns to use them. 0/ course I do not mean to say I think they are as good as hydraulic-forged or die- forged eyes, but they have been used to a large extent by large bridge builders. Mr. Kinsley. Name them, please. Mr. Hewins. Perhaps I ought not to say large builders, because there is only one which I recollect now to have used them, I don't know its name, but at Buffalo, the Union Iron Works, it is. I know they had special appliances for miking that form of eye, and that they used them to a large extent. APPENDIX. 357 Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) That the only one? A. That is the only one I recollect now. There are two or three other things which, as they came up in the evidence, I thought I would speak about, but I do not recollect what they arc now. Q. When you built this bridge, Mr. Hewins,did you have a regular plan and specifications made out for the bridge you proposed to build? A. No other specification than has been presented to you. Q. Only this letter? A. Only that ; later the plans were made in detail. Q. Have you got them? A. I have. Q. Will you bring them here? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now. I want to understand this thing thoroughly. The Boston ami Providence Railroad Company contracted for a bridge, and all that ever passed between you and them in writing was your letter to them; is that it? A. I think so ; yes, sir. Q. They never gave you any contract ; they never told you what they wanted? A. I think that letter was the result of negotiation with them as to what the bri Ige should be. Q. (By the Chairman.) Did you ever put hangers like these into any other bridge? A. I do not recollect any individual instance, and presume I never made hangers that wore precisely like those ; but I have made tension bars, as the}' should properly be called, in that same manner, though where they are I cannot recollect. And I have tested them in testing machines, and I know from those tests — [ cannot give the figures, for I have no record of them — that the red. c- tion of strength is very much less than has been stated, — from actual tests. And I would suggest that one or more hangers be made, as near like these as possible, and that they be taken to Watertown and tested to determine that thing. Q. You say you have made tension bars or hangers similar to these for other bridges? A. Yes, sir. Q. To support the floor beams? A. I cannot recollect now the particular uses to which they were put ; but I do know that in order to make tension bars with eccentric eyes, ami to ascertain what their proportion should be, knowing that it would take more iron to obtain the same strength, I made tests, and in that way determined, some- what roughly, a rule ; and in proportioning these hangers an allowance was made for that, which I then believed, and now believe, to have been sufficient. Q. When you made these hangers, had you any test made of the effect of such eccentricity ? A . That is what I meant to say ; yes, sir. Q. You had had it made before these hangers were made? A. In my experience of years before. Q. Where were the tests made? A. At Keadville. 358 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) By what company? A. By myself, the New England Iron Works. Q. (By the Chairman.) Where are the records of those tests? A. There are no records. I thought I had them, but I searched for them and did not find them. Perhaps it is proper to say here that at Readville I had the use of one of the best large testing machines, per- haps the most accurate and reliable machine at that time in the country. And I believe there are few engineers in this country, and none in New England, who have destroyed as much iron as I have in making tests. Q. You made tests of eccentric hangers at Readville, at the New England Iron Works, before yon built this bridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. In order to see what the strength of these special hangers would be : A. Oh, no, for some particular use to which I wanted to put them. What that use was, I have no recollection. Q. In order to test what effect eccentricity had upon the strength of the iron? A. Yes, sir. Q. What conclusion did you arrive at with regard to it? A. What the rule was, or what extra allowance of iron must be made I find no record of, and I cannot recollect now. Q. Did you know at that time, or do \ on know now, that the prob- lem is a problem that'has been solved scientifically, mathematically? A. No doubt men have made mathematical calculations upon it. Q. Do you know what the result of those mathematical calculations is? A. I do not. Q. Did you at that time know anything about the mathematical problem ? Had you ever attempted t > work it out ? A. I did attempt to work it out' myself, but I depended more upon my practical tests than I did upon any theory that I was able to form. Q. Did you ever test iron with the same defect of eccentricity that these hangers had? A. 1 think so. Q. Do you know? A. I know that the bir was straight on one side ; the direction of the bar was tangent to the pin, as it is in this case. Q. Is there any other element that enters into the strength of these bars, except that, that one side is straight? A. Well, of course the strain was more or less convex, Q. Was there anything that you did boforo you made these irons that could properly bo considered as a test of the strength of exactly such hangers as these? A. I never tested hangers with exactly these dimensions. Q, Did you ever test the hangers of exactly the dimensions of any hangers that you put into any of the bridges? A. My tests were made upon hangers of the actual size of construction, intended for APPENDIX. 359 construction. What the dimensions were I cannot recollect, but I think somewhere in the neighborhood of the size of these. Q. Have you ever put any other hangers into bridges, which were eccentric, and which you have not tested exactly as they were made? A. At the time I made those tests they must have been, although I cannot recollect the instance, for some particular purpose ; and it was just as easy for me to make the tests of the actual size intended to be used ; and while I do not recollect it, I have no doubt the same size precisely was used. Q. May you not also have put in other hangers of not exactly the same size, and without any special test, just the same as these were put iu? A. I do not recollect of any ease. Q. Well, is it not important that you should look over your records and find out now, owing to the statement that you have heard here to-day in regard to the weakness of these hangers? A. Yes ; I think very likely it is. Q. Are there any such hangers in Massachusetts? A. Not that I know of. Q. Are you sure whether there are or not? A. I have no recollec- tion of any. Q. Can you say certainly, whether any of the bridges which you have built in Massachusetts have such hangers in them? A. lean say I do not believe there are. Q. Is there any way of your finding out with absolute certainty about that? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you be kind enough to do so, for the benefit of the Com- mission? A. Certainty. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Do you know of a single bridge in this country that has such a hanger in it, Mr. Hevvins? A. I cannot tell of any instance ; I cannot recall it now.. Q. Or of a bridge that ever had such a hanger? A. I cannot re- call an instance. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Do you know whether there are any that you cannot recall? A. I know that I have made hangers or tension bars with eyes eccentric. Q. For bridges? A. I think it must have been for bridges, but I cannot recollect the place where they are or ever were. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) By tension bars, do you mean hangers for bridges? A. I mean a bar under tension. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) These are what you call bars under ten- sion? (Referring to the hanger exhibits.) A. Thai is a tension bar. Q. To be used as supporters of a road-bed? A. Yes, sir. Q. Like these? You have made them and put them into other bridges? A. With eccentric eyes; yes, sir. 360 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Why did you use this mode of forging the links instead of what you call hydraulic-forged eyes? A. For the reason that at the time those were made I found no dies of a size to fit this case. I sought for them, and if I could have found them I should have had them die-forged. Q. On account of the size of the pins, then, it was necessary to have those done by simple turning, iron welding? A. Well, not on account of the size of the pins, but the proportion of the eye includ- ing the pin arid the bar. They have dies for larger pins, — larger pins than these. Q. Then a die is something more than a hole punched ? A. Oh, yes ; all the tension bars of the same bridge were die-forged. Q. Were you not aware that this kind of welding does not secure as much strength in the weld as the other mode by which they are hydraulic-forged, as you call it? A. Certainly. Q. Did you make allowance for that? I believed I did. Q. You personally supervised the erection of the bridge, did you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you personally saw these hangers put in, did you not? A. I have no doubt I did. Q. You saw them after they came from trie shop? A. I presume so ; I have no doubt. Q. At that time did they show the gaps in the welds which appear now? A. As I have no positive recollection of having looked at them, although 1 believe I did look at them, of course I cannot state from recollection that they had any such appearance. But I know certainly that I should not have put them in without examining them, and without having them, apparently, so far as I could see, perfect. Q. Then you are satisfied, are you not, that at the time you put them in, the welds had not started in the way they appear to have started now? A. Most certainly. And, in addition, my representa- tive was at the works all the time, and it was his duty, and I believe he performed it faithfully, to inspect every piece of iron that went into the structure with the utmost care. Q. Then you have no doubt, have you, Mr. Hewins, that these pieces, when made, were well made, according to the design? A. I believe so. Q. And you are satisfied, I take it, that the starting of these forg- ings is due to the eccentricity of the eyes? A. Not that. Q. I do not refer to the breakage of this accident, but to the start- ing of the welds, which, I believe, appears in the eyes which have not broken as well as in those that have? A. I believe that was started APPENDIX. 3G1 by the fracture. I believe that weld was partially open, as it now seems to be, at the time of the failure. Q. Do you mean that the two welds in "S" were, in your opinion, started at the time of the failure? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the weld in " P"? A. Yes, sir. Q. You think, then, if these hangers had been taken out before the bridge fell that these cracks in the weld, starts in the weld, would not have appeared? A. I think so. Q. Did you build some bridges on the extension of the Boston & Maine Bailroad in Maine? A. Yes, as engineer for the New Eng- land Iron Works. Q. About what year was that? A. I think it must have been in 1870 or 1871 or 1872, or somewhere along there. Q. And how many did you build there? A. I do not recollect, but there were three or four. Q. Did you build any other iron bridges in New England between 1870 and 187G? A. I am trying to recollect the date when the Waterbury bridge was built; I cannot recollect its date, but it was between those dates. Q. What kind of a bridge was that? A. There were three spans of 140 feet each, through bridges. Q. What kind of a truss was used? A. It is what was called a single intersection track truss. Q. Like the old truss in this bridge, except a single intersection instead of a double? A. Yes, sir ; except in its outline ; except that the end post would incline. Q. That had a continuous upper chord, I suppose? A. No, sir; cast-iron joint blocks. Q. Like this? A. Yes, sir ; and there were two spans of 150 feet each, also, on the Central Vermont Road, built since. Q. (By the Chairman.) The same bridge? A. No, sir; at another place. Q. The Waterbury bridge was the one that fell down under the test, was it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Did you build those that you refer to? A. Yes, sir; two spans of 150 feet each ; they were built at different times, I think in succeeding years. Q. After this one went down ? A. Yes, sir, afterwards. Q. What sort of bridges were those? A. Well, those were, in their outline, very similar to this Bussey bridge, except that they are thtough bridges instead of deck bridges. Q. When did you build those? A. I cannot recollect the date; I can ascertain it and give it to you, if you like. 302 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Was it before the Busscy bridge? A. Before the Bussey bridge. (.,). What was put in place of the Waterbury bridge that went down ? A. I rebuilt it. Q. Did you rebuild it in the same form, or different? A. In the same, precisely. After the failure, the president of the road appointed three commissioners, as he told me, each unknown to the other and unknown to me then or since ; that they each investigated it on their own account and made their reports independent of the other ; that the design was correct, the proportions were correct ; the only pos- sible thing they could account for was bad iron. And the president of the road authorized me to replace all the tension iron in the bridge with new, and I did it. Q. And rebuilt the bridge? A. And rebuilt the bridge. Q. Did it stand then ? A. It did. Q. Is it there now? A. Yes, sir. Q. How about the other two? A. The other two are there, I suppose. Q. All these were built before the Bussey bridge, as I understand? A. All before the Bussey bridge, if I remember rightly*. Q. Do you recollect any instances in which parts as important as these hangers were out of sight? A. I have no doubt there were, although I do not know that I can recad, at the moment, the fact. Q. How about those two bridges in Vermont which were built on similar trusses ; were the floors hung? A. The floors were hung be- low. Those are through bridges. Q. Are they hung from the lower chord? A. They are hung from the lower chord, suspended from the pin and lower chord. Q. Do you mean that the floor beams do not rest on the lower chord, but are hung below it? A. Hung below it; }'es, sir. Q. How are they hung? A. They are hung by the round bar ex- tending up over the pin, forming an inverted U, straddling the floor beams and going over washers under the floor beams, with nuts on the end. Q. Then, if those nuts should strip, it would go, would it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why did you not put those hangers on the outside of the truss, and make them solid stirrups instead of eyes? A. I do not know that I can recollect now just why I d d not make them differently ; it is a prett} r hard tiling to do. Q. Does it not strike you now that it would have been more simple, strong and conspicuous construction to have put the whole hanging apparatus outside of the truss, instead of covering it up in APPENDIX. 363 that angle block? A. Undoubtedly it is better to have every part as open for inspection as possible. Q. If these bangers were what gave way and did cause this disas- ter, it is simply they were improperly designed and were out of sight; those two things together, was it not? A. Please leave out " im- properly designed," and let it go as out of sight. Q. Well, their being out of sight would have done no harm if the design had been good, would it? A. ''Improperly designed," per- haps, is not a good word ; they were badly designed, perhaps. Q. Undoubtedly. I am willing to accept the designation of " badly designed." There is an unfairness about " improperly " ; I should not have used it. A. Undoubtedly, in the form in which they are made they would require more iron to obtain the same strength than in some other possible form. There is no doubt about that. And I certainly believed then, as I do now, that provision had been made for that, and that extra material had been put in. Q. There was no economy or saving to you in putting them in this way as compared with putting them on the outside, was there? A. No, sir; the only reason that suggests itsilf to my mind now is, that it was putting the parts more compactly together. (^. It would not have cost you a dollar more, would it? A. I cannot see why it should. Q. And the fact is, I take it, that you did not dream there was the smallest danger? A. If I had dreamed it, I certainly should not have put them there. Q. I judge from what you say, Mr. Ilewins, that you still think- that the falling of the bridge was not occasioned by the breaking of the hangers ; if so, will you please explain why? A. Well, there are marks of something haviug traversed some portion of the length of the upper chord, on its upper side, in a trough on its upper side. I cannot conceive of any portion of the train that could have made those marks, — and I assume that whatever made those marks struck the casting, — I cannot conceive how any portion of the train could have done that so long as the wheels were upon the track. There is no portion of the truck that extends far enough from the rails to do it. Now, whether it was a wheel that was over there, or what, I do not know ; but there was something out of its alignment as well as out of its level. <,). That is, before the joint block was struck the truss knocked clown? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you think that the hangers could not have gone before the truss was knocked down? A. I believe that the blow that struck that casting broke the hangers. I believe it also drove the whole truss on end. There is evidence of that shown upon the iron now. 364 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. The wall plate, resting upon the bridge seat at the Boston end, shows that the casting which rests upon it was knocked off, as I believe, by this same blow. Q. Then, as I understand you, you think that the blow which knocked out the joint block, and knocked down the truss, came end- wise and knocked the truss endwise, the whole truss? A. Yes, sir. Q. With such force as to knock the bed plate at the north end against the abutment? A. Knock off the lug which projects upward to prevent motion and allowed the casting at the end of the inclined end post to slip off from the post against the stone, against the upright part of the abutment,. Q. And you think that must have been after the cars had been de- railed? A. I do not sec how any portion of a car hit it otherwise. Q. Why should not a derailment have been occasioned by the breaking of the hangers? A. If those hangers broke, and the floor beneath dropped, it seems to me it must have dropped a considerable distance to have caused derailment, to have obtained a sutficiant incli- nation of the floor beam to have caused the wheels to leave the track ; so that the truck would have gone down inside of the main truss instead of on top of it. Q. As I understand, this grinding of the main truss by the wheel of the car is south of the joint block, is it not, and not north of it? A. Yes. sir; south of it. Q Why should not the derailment have been occasioned by the breaking of the hangers, the settling of the floor, the raising up of the two ends of the stringers which ended a little way south of the joint block, so throwing off first one car and then another? A. Undoubt- edly that would have ultimately caused a derailment. It would also have caused a blow against the inner side of the truss, not on its front side ; the trucks would have dropped down inside of the truss, and not have got on top of it. Q. These places upon the top side of the truss indicate there was a train off of the track before the track had sunken any? A. I think so ; and that blow, in my opinion, is sufficient to break those hang- ers. And there is another thing which is evidence to my mind that these hangers have had an undue strain, which is that the form of the hangers wdiere they clasped around the pin is imbedded in the iron. Q. Into what iron? A. Into the iron of the pin. And you cannot get such an impression as that upon a pin broken by a straight pull unless by an illegitimate strain. There is no other pin on the bridge that shows such a mark. Q. You think that that mark must have been caused by a blow, and not by a steady strain? A. I believe by a blow. A mark would have been shown by a steady strain which was sufficient to break the APPENDIX. 365 bar ; that is, assuming it to be a perfect bar. Such a mark would not be shown upon a pin unless by a strain sufficient to rupture a bat of somewhat that proportion. Q. Which pin is that mark on? A. The pin at the lower end of these bangers through the floor beams. Q. Where is that pin? A. At Roxbury. Q. Is it separate by itself? A. It is in its place, or was a few days ago. Q. In its place in the beam? A. It was a few days ago. Q. It could be taken out and brought here, I suppose? A. It could ; >es, sir. It was partially in its place ; it was not clear in. Q. You think, then, it does not argue any imperfection in these hangers that the}* should have broken under any such blow as you suppose struck that joint block and carried down that bridge? A. I think they should break under that blow. Q. Even when they were fresh? A. Yes, sir. Q. Explain why and how. A. There are two ways in which it might have broken. The one which seems to me to be the most reasonable is, as I described the other day, by the leverage of the beam. If it was done in that way, it was not so sudden a break as if by an instant blow. Whether that blow produced a sheering strain upon those hangers that might have broken it, or whether it was in the fall when the beam acted as a lever with a very short bite, — either one of those two ways. Q. The position of the floor beam shown in the photograph with its abutment end upward and leaning against the abutment and its upward end on the ground on top of the bottom chord does not indi- cate that it could have fallen in such a way as to use this leverage to break these hangers, does it? A. I think it does. If one end remains up and the other goes down, there has got to be some lever- age. Q. Does it not depend on which end remains up or which goes down? A. No, sir; it would make no difference which end remained up, the leverage is the same in amount either way. Q. And it would take a very short time and it would require move- ment through a very short space to break them, would it? A. Yes, sir; very short as compared with the whole fall. Q. Supposing the hangers did break 6r»t, can you understand how the three cars got over? A. Not satisfactorily ; and yet I can con- ceive that it is possible, perhaps, knowing that they did get over. Q. In the absence, then, of any positive evidence of any derailing cau-e, do you think it is safe to infer that there was a derailment before the hangers gave way? A. I do not think I understand the question. 306 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Tf the hangers broke under the weight of the engine, they would cause a derailment, would they not? A. Ultimately. Q. And you think it is conceivable that three cars should have got over before the bridge went down? A. In view of the fact that they did, yes, sir; but I should have been surprised. (,). But we are trying to get at what happened first, the breaking of the hangers or the derailment? A. Certainly. Q. Now, I ask 3011 whether it is necessary to suppose that a derail- ment preceded the breaking of the hangers in order to account for the three cars getting over? A. I do not think it is. Q. Then the fact that the three cars got over is not conclusive evi- dence, in your mind, that derailment preceded the breaking of the hangers? No, sir. Q. But the fact that the cars appear to have gone along on the top chord southerly of the joint block before the bridge went down is, to your mind, evidence that derailment occurred before the breaking of the hangers, is it not? A. It is evidence to 1113- mind ; 3-es, sir. Q. Well, what do you think was the fact? A. I think there was something off the track. Q. Before the hangers broke? A. Before the hangers broke. Q. Suppose the hangers broke first, how would the cars get over? A. Well, the stringer S3stem in itself, the iron and the wood bound together as they were, would have been of some help to getting over ; how much, I do not know ; some. Q. Were the stringers connected together by their tension rods being fastened to some link in the wa3 7 I described in my question to Professor Swain, this morning? A. With the same pin, you mean? Q. Yes. A. Certainly ; made a continuous stringer from end to end of the bridge ; not a continuous beam, I do not mean, but a con- tinuous stringer. Q. And the effect of the tension rods being connected together by a pin in this way was the same as if the stringers had been linked together with a cast-iron bar between them to keep them apart, is it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was the end of the stringer S3 T stem anchored to the abutment on the north side? A. That I do not know. I cannot recollect whether it was or not. Q. Have 3011 any opinion about it? A. I cannot say that I have, positively. Q. I mean, reasoning from probabilities in the construction? A. Well, it is very likely. Q. Was that the end of the bridge that was anchored?' A. That end of the main truss was anchored. Q. And the other end was free? A. The other end was free, with APPENDIX. 367 allowance for expansion and contraction. If the stringers were fast- ened at the free end, it would have been at the northern end. t>. Was the stringer bolted to the floor beam? A. I think it was ; I cannot recollect positively the detail of that connection, but I think it was bolted. It was, at least, so fastened to the floor beam that it should not slide in either direction; whether it was bolted down solid to it, I cannot recollect. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Mr. Hewins, you have, I suppose, mem- oranda of all the bridges you have built, have you not? A. No, sir ; I have not. Q. You arc going to furnish ns a list of the bridges which have these hangers? You told Mr. Crocker you would do that? A. I think you misunderstood me, because I do not think I can do it. If I can find the record, I certainly will. Q. You have been a manufacturer of bridges for ten or twelve years. Is it a fact that you cannot give a list of the bridges you have made? A. Certainly. Q. That you do not know the bridges that 3-011 have made? A. Yes, sir. Q. That is queer. Well, can you give us a list of the bridges which you have built in Massachusetts? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Kinsley. I wish you would do that. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) You have not been in the bridge business of late years? A. No, sir. Q. For how many years? A. About ten years. Q. And you are now in what business? A. The electric light business. The Chairman. We have communicated with the New Jersey Steel and Iron Company in regard to this bridge, and have n from them the following letter. Mr. Hewins. 1 want to ask you one or two questions about this letter before you leave. This is from the New Jersey Steel and Iron Company ; the Trenton Iron Works, we understand, are practically the same thing. (Reading.) Office of the New Jersey Stef.i. and Iron Company, Tkenton, N. J., March -J l, 1887. Edward W. Kinsley, Esq., Railroad Commissioner, 20 Beacon Street^ Boston. Dear Sir: — In response to your request for a statement of any facts within our knowledge bearing upon the construction of the Bussey bridge, we have to say: The Bussey bridge was built in part at our works by tin; Metropolitan" Bridge Company, of which Mr. Hewins was tin- engineer. We had no interest in that company. Mr. Hewins had been tin' engineer of the New England Iron Company, and soon after die closing "fits works applied to us to form a bridge building company, with himself as engineer. 368 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. This we declined to do. lie (hen stated that he had already taken contracts for certain bridges, and asked us to afford him the use of such of our tools and men as he might require to do the work himself, under the charge of his own superintendent. We agreed to this, and to a schedule of prices for the use of the tools and men ; and Mr. Meade, formerly of the New England Iron Company, was placed by Mr. Hewing in charge of the work as his superintendent. Under this arrangement we supplied a part of the iron for the bridge (about twenty tons), but Mr. Meade had the entire charge and control of the manipulation, the forging, fitting and inspection of the work. At that time we had no bridge shop, and were not builders of rail, road bridges. Our tools used by Mr. Meade were such as we had for our miscellaneous repairs and beam work. We have no knowledge of the plans, specifications or strain sheets, which we never saw. Yours respectfully, Fred. J. Slade, Engineer. Q. (By the Chairman.) Ts that a correct statement, Mr. Hewins, of jour connection with the New Jerse}' Steel and Iron Company? A. That is as I recollect it; yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Putnam ) Did you purchase the iron yourself, Mr* Hewins, for this wotk at the Trenton Iron Works? A. Yes, sir. Q. You got it there or in the market? A. Some of it was made by the New Jersey Steel and Iron Company and some of it by the Phoenix Iron Company. I do not recollect that any was gotten anj-- where else ; I think not. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Is the Phoenix Iron Compan}' and the New Jersey Steel and Iron Company the same thing? A. No, sir. Q. (By the Chairman.) The Phoenix Iron Company is where? A. At Phoenixville, Pa. Q. (B\ r Mr. Putnam.) All the tension iron of the bridge except these hangers came from the Phoenix Iron Companj', did it not? A. Yes ; and I am not certain but they furnished those. I do not re- collect whether they were furnished by the New Jersey Steel and Iron Company or by the Phoenix Iron Company. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) Was your work at the Phoenix Iron Com- pany, or your dealing with them, the same as with the New Jersey Steel and Iron Company? Lid you send your man there? A. No, sir ; I sent no man there. Q. Did they make these things for you by contract? A. Yes, sir. Q. The Phoenix Company worked by contract? A. Yes, sir; I bought the beams from them and made the specification. Q (By the Chairman ) Now, are you quite sure, Mr. Hewins, these hangers came from the Trenton Iron Works? What was your object in going to the Phoenix Company ? A. Because they had facil- ities for die-forging. APPENDIX. 369 Q. Was there any die-forging in these hangers ? A. No. Q. Then did you get these from the Phoenix Company ? A. The iron may have come from the Phoenix but was forged at Trenton. Q. They were not made at the Phoenix Works ? A. No, sir. Q. (By Mr. Pctxam.) They had no dies suitable for such hangers? A. No/ Q. Nobody had. that you knew of? A. I did not succeed in find- ing them ; if I had, I should have had them die-forged. I tried to do so. Adjourned until Saturday, April 2, at 10 a.m. T W E L F T II DAY. Saturday, April 2, 1887. The Board met at 10.30. Testimony of Edward S. Piiii.drick. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Your residence? A. In Brookline. Q. What is your occupation? A. Civil engineer. Q. How long have you been in business? A. Forty years. Q. Have you given any special attention to the subject of bridge building? A. Yes, sir ; I have fur the lust thirty years. Q. Have you given any special attention to the subject of railroad engineering? A. Yes : more to that than to any other department. Q. For how many years have you been practically engaged in rail- road engineering? A. Well, all the lime, more or less, although I have had other practice at the same time. Q. That is, during the whole forty years of your professional life? A. Yes, sir. There was a period during the war when I was in the government service, when I was nut engineering. Q. state what your training and experience on the subject of bridges has been. A. I began to make a study of iron bridj 1853. It was when they were first introduced, I think, in America. I thought I could foresee their need from the inefficiency of wooden bridges, and at different intervals, when I was not otherwise employed, I went to see the principal iron bridges in America which were then on the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, built by Mr. Latrobe. Those are principally of the Fink & Bollman type of skeleton tmss. About that time one of that class of trusses came to pi< ^. went to wreck, under a train at Zanesville, Ohio. I did not go on the ground, but I 370 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. followed it, and got all the information I could about it, and came to the conclusion that I did not want to stud}' that kind of bridge for the sort of practice which I should like to be engaged in in New Eng- land. I found that that was the only kind which had been developed in America, and I went to Europe to see what the practice was there, and spent a year studying their practice, went through some of the largest shops, and visited a large number of their largest public works. On ray return to this country in 1860 I began to design iron bridges, and built the first one from my own desigu in 18G0, and have been at it more or less ever since. Q. Where was that? A. It was on the Boston & Worcester Railroad, about five miles from here. Q. At Brighton? A. Just beyond Brighton station. It was the only truss bridge which the Boston & Worcester road had. I was then in their employ, in charge of their outside repairs, track and bridges. I rebuilt all their little bridges from here to Worcester. That was the onl}- truss bridge on the road. Q. What was it before, — a wooden truss? A. It was a wooden Pratt truss, about 100 feet span. Q. Skew? A. Yes. It was probably almost exactly like this. It was a crossing as oblique as that is. Q. What kind of a bridge did you build there in 1860? A. I built an iron-plate girder bridge, which is still in use. Q. Is it strictly a truss? You spoke of it as a truss. A. It was a Pratt truss before. I built a plate-girder bridge, 98 feet in length, which is still in service. Q. Have you ever built any truss bridges? A. Oh, yes ; I have built nearly a hundred of them siuce, — iron trusses. Q. Where have you built them ? A. In every State in New Eng- land, I think, and in eastern New York, too, — scattered all about. Q. Various patterns of truss? A. Well, various sizes and shapes, to meet the circumstances of each case. I have generall}' adopted the riveted style of structure for the short spans. I think that is the only proper method for short railroad spans. Q. What do you call short spans? A. Up to 100 feet, if at right angles, and perhaps a little above that if oblique ; and for the floor system I think all railroad bridges should be riveted, — the floor, cross beams and track stringers, no matter what the trusses may be. That has been my practice. Q. How do you distinguish riveted work from ordinary truss work? A. It is merely in the method of attachment of the parts. The European riveted work is quite different from American riveted, in one respect : the European lattice bridge resembles more our old plank lattice, which we used for road bridges all over the country APPENDIX. 371 thirty or forty years ago, some of which are still In existence, with numerous intersections, — close lattices, pinned together at every intersection. The American riveted iron bridges have fewer intersec- tions, so that the strains are more definite, readily computable, and more simple in construction. Q. And alike, I suppose? A. Well, not necessarily alike; that depends upon the amount of load to be carried. Q. Is not the material more distributed on the lines of strain ? A. It can b'3 more definitely distributed by the American method, because there are fewer intersections, and the load on the floor is transmitted t > the truss at definite points ; and in the American sys- tem the lattice members are brought to bear upon these same points, •which we call panel points. In the European method the loads are not so well distributed upon the truss from the floor, I think, as in the American. In their larger structures in Europe they follow the same idea however, for long spans. Q. Have you used any of the familiar types of truss, the Pratt truss, the Howe truss, and others which have been spoken of here? A. The Howe truss has never been built in iron, except in the Ashtabula 1 -ridge, I believe; but I have used several kinds of truss in the larger spans besides the riveted structures in the truss beams themselves, but I have always had the floor system riveted. Q. But you have built bridges in which the truss itself was not riveted and was in separate parts, like this one here? A. Yes; 1 built a bridge at Haverhill some ten years ago, constructed by the Phceuixville Iron Works, and the general outline of the truss is simi- lar to this Parker truss. The Linville truss, they call it; that was the name of the inventor. In that bridge, which is the only bridge of the kind I ever had to do with, I used the cast-iron joint blocks for the sake of cheapness, because the trains were limited to a walking pace ; it was near the Haverhill station, where they were obliged to stop. The track laid on the lower chords, and there was no dangei of disturbing the upper chords by the contact of trains. There were six plate-iron track stringers applied to the two tracks. I have never used less than six in the last ten years in double-track bridges. Q. How many trusses? A. Two trusses, one on each side. Q. Those, you say, were of the pattern called the Linville truss? A. Yes, sir; similar to the Parker truss on the east side of the Bussey bridge, in its general outline. Q. But, I understand you, with its top chord not riveted together': A. The top chord was made of Phumixville iron cylinders, and the vertical struts were also Pboenixville iron cylinders, similar to what Mr. Hewins used in this western truss, coupled on east-iron joint blocks. 372 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Then, the construction of the top chord is more similar to that in Mr. Ilewins' truss than the Pratt? A. Yes, sir. Q. But the system of the panels is like the Parker truss, I sup- pose? A. Yes. Q. I understand you that generally you have built riveted work, and have avoided the ordinary form? A. That was simply where I was connected with shorter span bridges. If I had been building longer spans, I should not have built riveted trusses ; but I should have built riveted floors in all cases. Q. But for long spans you consider the ordinary form of truss suitable? A. The American form, I should say ; and there is a great variety of them. But the method generally used in America is to use pins and eyes in connecting the tension members, and that, I think, is perfectly admissible and proper, and the best way for long-span trusses with tension members. Q. And the compression members? A. I think the compression members ought to be made riveted, similar to that in the Parker truss on the east side of this bridge. Q. The Parker truss on the east side of this bridge was a riveted truss as to all its compression members, wasn't it? A. Not the posts ; the posts were rolled beams ; the top chords were riveted, an inverted trough. Q. Outside of your practice, bridge building in the United States has been largely the ordinar}' truss, even on short spans, has it not? A. It was until within ten or fifteen years ; but I think about 1870 they found that the short span, built with pin-and-link connection did not stand, that they were all tumbling to pieces, and nearly all bridge builders abandoned them about that time. Q. That was the time they began to abandon them? A. They abandoned their construction ; but all bridges of that kind were not abandoned, of course, — some wore out and tome tumbled down. (,>. They all began to abandon them at that time, didn't they? A. I don't know about that, because I was connected with only one or two shops. < v >. Wherever the} 7 came under your influence, they abandoned them, I suppose? A. That did not extend far. Q. You have examined this Bussey bridge? A. I never exam- ined it before its fall. (,». Since the accident? A. Since the accident I have. I would Bay, however, that I was familiar with it before its reconstruction in 1876. I knew the Parker truss quite familiarly. I was requested by Mr. Parker himself, about 1872, perhaps, to inspect it as a sample of his workmanship ; he wanted to get some other work through me. I went out there and made a careful study of it. I have never seen it APPENDIX. 373 since until it fell, except to ride over it and see it from the cat windows. Q. At that time there was a Parker truss on the west side and a Pratt truss on the east side? A. A Pratt truss on the east side, if I remember right ; I am not positive. Q. It was an old wooden truss, probably? A. Yes, sir. Q. Does the fact of the two trusses being of different kinds neces- sarily make the bridge weak? A. In this cast-? Q. In any case. A. I think it might be guarded against by proper care, if the trusses were adapted to one another in panel length, but it is a very unusual thing ; I don't think I ever saw a i like it before. It is entirely uncalled for. Q. Did you take any notice of it at the time you went and saw the bridge in 1872? A. That is the time when they had a wooden truss. Of course I saw that one was wooden and the other was iron. Mr. Parker said he put in the iron one as a sample, and he hoped to get an opportunity to renew the other one. Q. Since the accident you have examined the remains of the bridge? A. I examined the wreck; I was there on Monday after- noon. From curiosity. I drove over from my house, from profes- sional interest in the matter ; but the police prevented me from mak- ing any inspection of the work. I finally got up on the embankment on the Pvoslindale side, outside of their lines, and by a little innocent strategy got through their lines as far as the abutment, so that I looked down upon the wreck to study it, which I did for an hour, nearly. I could not get down on the street. Q. AYhen did you get there? A. The next morning I went out. at your recpiest and on behalf of the corporation, to get at the facts. It' it is proper, I will say here, for the information of the commissioners, that I was requested by Mr. Putnam to examine the wreck and en- deavor to ascertain all the facts of the cause of the accident, which I have done as far as possible. Q. Will you be kind enough to state the results of your examina- tion and the methods of it? A. Well, after getting a general glance of the wreck, by which I could see what the bridge had been in its principal characteristics, I began to look for signs of derailment. I saw that the bridge would be likely to fall very soon after derailment upon it, from its general character; but I found no such signs on the further side of the bridge. I looked, the next day, carefully for signs of derailment on the sleepers, as far as they were visible, which wi s as far this way as the middle of the bridge ; but I found no signs of derailment on any of those sleepers :t s far as the seventh ear of the train, which was about as far as I could trace them. My attention was then directed to the principal members of the truss. I saw from 374 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. the position of the wreck that the eastern truss had been pulled over sldewise, which did not indicate any weakness ; and I saw from the position of the wrecked bridge and train, at once, that the trouble probably originated near this end of the bridge; otherwise the train could not have got as far as it did. I looked at the principal members of the truss, and I found that the tension members, as far as the}' were visible, were perfect, except such crooks as might be attributed to the fall. Q. State here, if you please, what was the quality of those tension members? A. They appeared to be first-class work. Q. As to material, as well as workmanship? A. As to material and as to workmanship. I have not made any computations, but I have built so many bridges of that length that I can tell at a glance whether they are subject to suspicion, and those did not appear so. Q. Then you would judge that that truss, excepting for objections to its design, was well constructed and sufficiently strong as to mate- rial? A. As far as I could see then, it appeared to be good work- manship. I looked into the compression members, which next attracted my attention. It was some time before I could see the characteristics of the structure ; that is, how the floor was attached to the bridge. I found that the floor was hung to this western truss, and rested on top of the eastern one ; and my attention was drawn by some one — I have forgotten who now ; it may have been Mr. Doane, whow as with me — to the fact that the hangers at the north- ern end were broken. I first happened to see the hangers at the southern end, which were not broken ; they were still in the castings, coupled by their pins, but so covered up with the castings that I could not get much idea of their shape. Q. Were they also coupled to the floor beams at that time? A. Yes, sir. I could not see much of them, except that there were such castings there. I went to the eastern side of the train and looked at the other hangers. I found those were broken. 1 found the joint block that belonged to the northern end of the horizontal part of the top chord of the western truss lying on the eastern side of the train, with the links in it; those suspension links to which the floor had been hung. The lower ends of those links were missing ; I could not find them. I made inquiiy, and Professor Vose told me afterwards that he thought they had been cribbed, carried off by somebody ; but the ends that were left there, the upper ends, were still in the joint block. I could not see their fractured ends very perfectly. They were down close to the ground in the mud. One of them had actually fallen into the mud, apparently, and was daubed with it. It was only by getting my head down into the mud that I could see the fractures at all. I did not satisfy myself on that point. For that reason I APPENDIX. 375 asked to have them preserved, and hrought .into the office. A as I saw them in the oflice I detected the peculiar form, which I had not seen on the ground. Q. That is, the eccentricity? A. Yes; they were all hrought in. I had an opportunity to see them here for the first time about the middle of the week, I think it was, and as soon as I found that form and examined the nature of the fracture of the broken ends, I con- cluded that those broken ones had been gradually breaking for a term of years ; I could not tell how long. Q. You judged that from their form? A. From the nature of the fracture and the form. The nature of the fracture showed that they had been a long time in being broken, in my opinion, and the form would justify such a theory. Q. Explain that, please? A. Well, because the line of tension between the centres of the pins did not go through the centre of the metal, came outside of the bar entirely, and as soon as the tension was applied, that part of the member which is outside of the direct line of tension would endeavor to get into it, just as a crooked rope will endeavor to turn towards the line of tension when you pull at both ends. That will create a bending strain in the shaft of the bar and in the end of the link. Q. Would it have a tendency to start the weld by which the rings were formed? A. Yes, it would tend to open them; actually had done so, apparently, to a certain extent. Q. From what you see here 3-ou would not judge that those welds had always had the open appearance they have now? A. No; I think the}' were gradually opened by that transverse tearing motion. After arriving at these conclusions, from such observations as I could make here, I made some computations as to what the effect of the actual loads would be on those links. I found that the passage of the engine which they ran that morning, the -'Torres,*' I think it was, would bring a strain on those links of about 57,000 pounds, in- cluding the dead had of the floor. Heavier engines would produce more strain. That strain I found would bring, in consequence of the peculiar form of these links, a stress upon one side of the metal beyond its limit of elasticity, in all probability. Of course the actual limit of elasticity of any bar of iron is not definitely known until you try it, but the probable limit of elasticity of the bar I put at 25,000 or 30,000 pounds to the square inch ; not more than that, perha] I found the probable strains that were likely to occur upoi e side .»!' the metal, whenever an engine of that weight passed, would probably come up to the elastic limit. That at once condemns the bar. It will begin to break, — it will not snap olf at once, — because the tension was concentrated on one side of it. A transverse strain on 376 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. the bar creates a tension on one side, and the total load on the bar would, if it were straight, distribute the tension throughout. With every effort that is made to get into line there is a transverse strain which concentrates the tensile strain upon some part of the bar, some of the fibres near the edge. That would give a strain beyond the elastic limit whenever any heavy engine passed. In all probability, whenever an engine gave a lurch, that would bring the whole force on that side. It might not occur every time an engine went over, but it nii.ht occur once or twice a week. In that way the fibres would begin to yield slowly, month after month, year after year, as they appear to have actually done from the different ages of the different parts of the fracture. There was still enough metal left in one of those liuks to hold an ordinary train, under some circumstances, perhaps ; but an engine never passes over a bridge twice alike. That is, although it may affect the truss in the same way at different times, it cannot affect the floor S3'stem twice alike in any two passages, if at any speed. One appeared to be nearly whole until the recent break, and the other was nearly gone. There was perhaps about the value of one eutiie hanger left that Monday morning before the train came there. Q. Would that have been enough to support a train? A. Some- times it would have supported it and sometimes it would not. It would depend upon the way the engine rolled on its springs and the way the cylinders happened to act at that particular point. Q. If the strain had been direct, do you mean there would have been enough iron to support the load ? A. Yes ; perhaps not safely, but it might have supported it a good many years longer. Iron fails when it is brought anywhere near its elastic limit by repeated trials. That is, it is sure to fail after a certain number of trials ; we do not know how many. It will carry a heavy load one day, and a lighter load applied continuously, day after day, may break it down. It might carry a weight of ten tons one day, where five tons applied day after day would break it down in five years. Q. Then, any series of tests by putting heavy loads on the bridge would not have been likely to have prevented such a disaster as this? A. I think a heavy load applied a week before might have broken it down ; perhaps a year before. It is impossible to tell. It is a pecu- liar case. If it had not broken it clown we should not have been much wiser. Q. And it would not have been very likely to have broken it down if applied six months before this time, would it? A. I cannot judge now, for I cannot tell how it looked six months before. Q. I mean looking at it as it is now? A. There is no method by which I can form an opinion of its condition six months ago. APPENDIX. 377 Q. The question I meant to put was, whether a heavy load applied in the way in which a test is ordinarily made, by putting locomotives and tenders on a bridge, might not have been borne with safety, when a moving train might make such blows as would tear away the links? A. A constant succession of moving trains might ; not the first one, perhaps. Q. Then, my question was, whether the testing of this bridge by simply putting an extra heavy load upon it would necessarily have carried away these links before this accident? A. Well, it depends, of course, upon how heavy a load you put on. They might have been broken, I have no doubt, two days before the accident, by put- ting on twice as much load as the daily practice applied. Q. Two locomotives with their tenders is about as severe a test as could be applied to that bridge, is it not? A. Two locomotives and tenders yoked together would make a heavier load on that bridge than one. Of course it depends upon the weight of the locomotive alto- gether, and the concentration of load upon its driving wheels. Q. Then the running over the bridge of one of those heavy double- ender fifty-two ton locomotives is about as severe a test as it could possibly have had, is it not? A. Yes; except for the element of time. If repeated every clay it would constitute a test. Q. You heard the testimony that they had been in the habit of running those heavy fifty-two ton locomotives over the bridge, did you not? A. No; I did not hear that. That would constitute a test, but it would prove nothing at all. It would be a test for the moment, that is all. Q. Whether or not, it would be as good a test as could be applied ? A. Xo ; I don't think it would. Q. What better test could there be? A. An examination of every bar of iron in the bridge. Q. I mean, the best that could be applied after the bridge is built? A. I don't think any load test amounts to anything except to satisfy public clamor for a while. Q. The Railroad Commissioners some years ago recommended a test of this bridge, and that it should be repeated at intervals of six months or a year. It was tested immediately by a load. I ask you whether a repetition of that test from six months to six months, or from year' to year, would be any better test than running over that bridge with a fifty- two ton locomotive from time to time? A. It would depend upon how heavy a load had been placed upon it when they made those special tests. Q. Could they make any heavier load? A. They could have piled up a load of rails on the floor, and then put a locomotive on the bridge also. 378 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. But no test that could be made with locomotives would be more satisfactory than the running of one of those double-enders over the bridge? No; two engines could not be got on the bridge together. Therefore, b} T yoking two locomotives together 3-011 do not strain the bridge any more. Q. (By the Chairman.) What is the length of an engine? A. About fifty feet, with the tender. Some are longer than that, — sixty feet. Most of them will turn on a fifty-foot turn-table, but they will hang over the ends. Q. What was the length of the bridge? A. The bridge was 104 feet. What I meant all the time was these floor timbers and these hangers. You could not get two locomotives on these hangers. That was the point I had in mind. Of course the tension members of the trusses would have been strained with two locomotives more than with one ; these hangers could not have been. That is the idea I had in my mind. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Assuming an ordinary locomotive to weigh from twenty-nine to thirty-two tons, which was the weight of the " Torrey," it would be a pretty severe test to run one of the fifty- two ton locomotives over that bridge, would it not? A. Well, it would be the severest test which was likely to occur in practice. That is all I can say. Q. Now, will you go on and state what results 3 - ou arrived at as to the cause of the accident? A. Well, I could not find any circum- stantial evidence, any parts of the wreck, which led to any satisfac- tory solution of the problem, but the breaking of those hangers. Those hangers had evidently been, one of them nearly broken off' and the other partially broken off before that day by a gradual process ; so it is reasonable to suppose that they were subject to over-straining and growing daily weaker. That is, they were bound to break sooner or later, and it is reasonable to suppose that they did break then be- cause there was not metal enough left to leave any margin in support- ing the daily traffic. Moreover, there are the surrounding indications ; the appearance of the wreck, the position of things, can all be reason- ably explained by supposing those hangers to break first, and by no other supposition that I have heard of so reasonably and so probably. Q. If there had been a derailment of the first car by some inde- pendent cause close to the northern end of the bridge, would not the consequences which have followed have been likely to follow? A. In a general way. There would have been a wreck. Q. Would not the hangers have been broken and would not the first three cars probably have gone over, and the bridge have gone down just as it did? A. If the hangers were so nearly broken as they appeared to have been, they might, perhaps, have been finished APPENDIX. 379 by some blow during the collapse, but I do not think that is so prob- able. I do not think there would have been much strain upon the hangers after the truss was disabled. After the truss was dislocated the strain upon the hangers would have ceased in an instant Q. If the truss had been dislocated by a diagonal blow tending to the northwest, would not that blow itself have been likely to bring a strain upon the hangers which would break them? A. No; the top of the hangers could not move with the end of that casting except directly outward in the direction at right angles with the rail. Under any such blow as that they would simply swing on their lower links, — be hinged there. Q. Would not the outer corner of the block have caught upon the under surface of the floor beam and so made a powerful leverage against the hangers? A. No ; I think the motion by which the truss was dislocated would have been directly at right angles with the track ; must have been. Q. I mean, would not that action of the low r er surface of the joint block upon the upper surface of the floor beam have prevented the hangers turning on their pivot? A. I think the}' would both go to- gether at first. There was nothing to prevent the floor beams from yielding endwise. Q. You said it would turn on a pivot? A. After it was out it would. As soon as the truss was dislocated it would, not before. Q. Can you explain the getting over of the three cars upon the theory that the first thing to go was the hangers? A. I think it is quite probable they were sustained by the falling wreck. There were a good man}' bars of iron which were competent to hold the cars up for a few seconds, one car at a time, each one falling lower in succes- sion and finally getting so low that the fourth car could not mount the wall. In the first place, there were the track stringers themselves (Pro- fessor Swain drew your attention to that point yesterday), formed of two rolled beams, bolted together, on top of which was a timber, a hard pine timber, bolted down and breaking joints with the iron beams, having joints alternate with the iron beams, and lapping on to them. They appear to have been pretty firmly bolted together. That would make that top member slightly coherent. Moreover, there is a small post which has been referred to a good many times at that point under the floor beam, which would have held something, although it must have failed very early in the course of events. But then the whole course of events to which I have been referring did not last over ten or fifteen seconds, probably. Then there was the horizontal bracing attached to the main truss and passing diagonally across underneath the floor. That would have held up a little, though not much ; that is, it would have served to delay the fall somewhat. 380 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. How about the linking together of the track stringers? A. That would make a continuous joint, as it were, while such cohe- sion lasted. There was a great deal of cohesion of the bottom members of the track stringers until they were straightened out. It would require more than a foot of fall to straighten them out. Q. (By the Chairman.) Explain, if you please, what you mean by the bottom members? A. The bottom members of the track stringers. (In illustration, the witness made a sketch : Supposing the support at " B" had been withdrawn by the breaking of these links, the two floor beams would drop ; the two ends resting on that support would tend to drop at once, hinging upon the points " A" and " C." The continuity of the lower member passing round through " A," " B " and " E," and across the bottom to " C," being unbroken, that would form a tension member to support any weight on the chain until the point "B" had fallen to the level of "D" and " E." Then the chain would be continuous in that way. These points would be two or three feet further apart by that time, when this triangle had straightened out into a straight line. Before it got to that, either the connection of the upper members at " B " would have to give way, or the connection of one straight beam with the other would have to give way.) Q. (By the Chairman.) Was there any secure connection between the rolled beams which constituted the track stringers and the block which held the pins? A. There may have been a temporal connec- tion which served to hold it for a few seconds, during which period the chain would be along the line of the top members. Q. Then the connection at that point had probably given way be- fore these were pulled out at the other end? A. Yes, sir. I think that dropped before the anchorage failed. Q. Then it dropped to the level of '-D" and "E" before the question came of pulling out at the abutment or giving way there? A. By the time that the point " B" had fallen to the level of "D" and ; ' E" the top member would have been separated, with a gap two or three feet long in it, over which the wheels of the cars would not have passed. Q. Might they not have jumped it? A. Hardly, I think. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) So that "B" did not fall to the level of "D" and "E" until the cars had jumped over? A. I think a car bod_y might have been dragged or shoved over the gap. Q. What, then, do you take to have been the course of the occur- rences? A. From all that I can gather, from the evidence I think the links broke under the weight of the engine ; the tracks did not have time to settle far enough while the weight of the engine was on APPENDIX. 381 the bridge to prevent the engine getting over, but it did settle far enough to attract the attention of the engineer. He felt the forward end of the engine come up, he said, against something solid as he was leaving the bridge. Q. What do von take that something solid to have been? A. The ground; terra Jirma. Q. You don't mean that he actually struck the ground? A. I mean the support of the ground. He felt something solid under the foward part of his engine when he was sinking at the rear end. He did not perceive the sinking, but he felt the sensation of going up in getting on to terra jirma. That is, when he struck terra Jirma he felt a shock there. Q. What do you take to have torn off the trucks of the first and second cars? A. Well, the derailment occurred, I think, directly ■when that floor beam sank. Q. How do you suppose the derailment occurred? A. Well, the dropping of the floor a single foot, and perhaps less, would derange the alignment of the track, break up the lateral braces and the track would get out of line. Moreover, it would pull apart at that joint. There was a joint within five feet, so that there was no continuity of iron there ; the rails would pull apart some inches, a truck would get in a little obliquely, and, being pushed ahead at the same time, tear the rails out of their fastenings, as very often happens in cases of de- railment. Q. What do you infer from the fact that half of the eastern rail was found up on the bank ahead of the second car? A. I think both those rails got entangled at their south ends in the truck of the sec »nd car after its derailment, and that the south ends of both of those rails were carried forward, and bent as we found them, the wheels ripping them up from their fastenings, and, as the truck went along, it carried the whole rail forward. I do not think the eastern rail broke until the whole length of it was torn up from its fastenings. It was broken by bending, as is evident from the fracture. Q. Half of it fell into the street, and the other half was carried otr by the second car? A. That might easily have occurred. It broke about that time. Which way it would fly depended upon the last impulse that it got. Q. What do you suppose took off the rear truck of the first car with so much violence? A. That truck does not appear to have been much of any disabled, but such dislocation of trucks always occurs in cases of derailment, when there is a speed of over six or eight miles an hour; they often fly out in directions which cannot he fores,.,]]. Whenever a truck gets derailed and turns cornerwise, its own mo- mentum, with that of the cars that are connected with it, st 382 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. oat, and it follows the line which its wheels happen to point, and jumps in any direction it happens to fanc}\ Q. What do 3011 suppose to have heen the first portion of the train which was derailed? A. Directly over the last thirty feet of the bridge. Q. I mean, what was the first truck that went off the track? A. Probably the second car; but I think there was not much delay before those before and behind it went off, from the strain on their trucks or their couplings, if nothing else. But I think the obstacle encountered by drawing up this rail was what broke the coupling of the engine and created the -telescop ng, by the momentum of the rear cud of the train which crowded into it at the same instant. I suppose at the instant the derailment occurred the train had suffered no check. The check was produced there suddenly by that derailment ; the wheels wei - e unable to advance, they were choked by the ends of those rails and tore the rails up, which required great force. That is sufficient to account for the telescoping on the track and for the uncoupling of the engine. Q. That would reduce the speed of the cars very considerabby, would it not? A. Certainly, it would reduce the speed of all of them. Q. So that the number of seconds required to get those three cars over this gap cannot be accurately estimated? A. Could not be computed at the full speed of the train as it was before the accident. Q. Assuming the speed of the train before the accident to have been twenty feet a second, what should you take to be the average speed at which those three cars went over, taking into account the check caused by the derailment ? A. It is impossible to form much of an opinion about it, sir. It is mere guess-work. Q. Still, assuming the speed before the derailment to have been such that it would have required seven and a half seconds to get the three cars over that space, it would be safe to saj- that it would require fifteen seconds, having in view the check, would it not? A. I think it might take fifteen seconds, assuming that the speed was only fifteen miles an hour in the first place. While on that subject I would like to say that I think the evidence of the train men can never be relied upon in such cases very definitely unless the}- have taken defi- nite observations of the speed, unless some other reason had occurred to fix their attention on the speed directly before such an occurrence. Q. The fact that the passengers sa}' that there was no unusual speed, — what should you think of that? A. Well, I should not place much dependence upon that, because I do not believe passengers are always thinking about it, unless something occurs to attract their attention. Q. If, however, those who were thinking of it say that they noticed APPENDIX. 3S3 no unusual speed, — what weight should you attribute to that? A. Well, I never place much weight upon passengers' estimates of speed, I have found them so wild when they have given a judgment. Q. I only speak of their judgment as to comparative speed. Sup- pose they say that in their judgment they were going no faster than usual, what should 3-011 say? A. I should say that no passengers on that line or any other such line have any means of judging within fifty per cent, of the speed they are running one day as compared with another, when the track is in good condition and the rolling stock in good condition. Q. You think the difficulty in making a comparison between one day and another is as great as the difficulty in comparing one rate of speed with another? A. Unless the track is pretty seriously out of order. On a rough track they can judge of it, not otherwise. Q. Are there any circumstances aside from the testimony which will enable you to form any judgment as to the rate of speed? A. Well, I don't think those cars could have been telescoped in that way without a speed as great as fifteen miles an hour. My impres- sion is it was rather more. Q. At the moment the cars were telescoped there had been a de- pression of the forward end of the train which would increase some- what the momentum of the cars behind, would it not? A. No ; that would form an obstacle. The first effect would appear in the obstacle. There would not be time enough for an increase in the momentum. The first effect would appear in retardation. Q. The slope of the southern fifty feet of the bridge would not be enough to increase the speed at all? A. No, sir ; that would be can- celled by the next fifty feet sloping upward. Q. The force of the telescoping would be helped by the next fifty feet distance sloping upwards, would it not? A. It w r as too small a distance. There was only one pair of wheels on it. It would not effect much. Q. Have j'ou made any computation as to the force required to drag those cars the distance they were dragged after the telescoping? A. I have no means of computing that. Q. It is all guess-work, is it? A. It is all guess-work. We do not know what the resistance was. Q. Was there, in your judgment, any fault in this bridge which contributed in any way (as a cause, I mean) to this accident, except- ing the bad design of those hangers? A. Only in a degree ; a slight modification, perhaps. Q. I say, as a cause? A. No; as a cause, I have not been able to find any other. 384 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. The material was good, as I understand 3*011? A. I cannot say it was good. Q. Not of the hangers, but of the bridge? A. As far as I can judge it was good enough. Q. As to the work, should 3*011 judge that it was of excelleut quality. A. As workmanship, I should. I cannot judge of the tenacity of the iron except by the reputation of the maker. Q. So far as appearance goes it was good, was it? A. Yes. Q. So far as 3'ou can judge, the bracing and the cross-bracing of the floor system were all-sufficient? A. Well, I think that is a little more than I could say. Q. Qualify it, then, as far as you please. A. The}' were sufficient to carry the loads. Q. There was no insufficiency in them which tended to produce this accident? A. There is no clew to having any such insufficiency act as an agent in this accident. There is a possibility, but no clew in the circumstances which I have been able to see. Q. There is no evidence of any insufficiency in that bridge which contributed to this accident except the bad design of those hangers, is there? A. Not that I have seen or been able to find. Q. Can you judge of the quality of the iron of the hangers from any inspection? A. No inspection which I have been able to make would enable me to form an opinion as to the quality of that iron. Q. I understand you that it is quite a sufficient cause for this acci- dent that those hangers, however well made and of however good material, from the character of their design and from the mode in which they were made, would naturally lead to all these results. A. Well, I think material of extra fine quality — costly material — might have been put in there. Steel, of course, might have been put in there, which, perhaps, might have made them safe ; but with the ordinary quality of good bridge iron I think it was a necessary conse- quence of their design. Q. At the time those hangers came from the shop, and were put into the bridge, I take it there would be nothing about them to indi- cate, even to a man with a good degree of professional skill, that they were wrong, excepting their design, from the mode in which the rings were made by welding instead of by dies? A. I think it is probable that this casting — of course I can't judge — Q. I only ask you to say if it may well have been so? A. Yes, it ma} T have been so ; it is quite possible, — probable. Q. Then, if I understand you, in all probability, if an independent engineer had inspected that work, he would have found nothing wrong about it ; that is, nothing to do with this accident, excepting a matter APPENDIX. 385 of engineering design, in the form of those hangers? A. I think that is very probable. Q. Now, as to the general merits of this style of bridge, I suppose, Mr. Philbrick, you have an opinion, and I have no doubt the commis- sioners would be glad to hear it, irrespective of its effects upon tins question. A. Well, I think it had two faults, invited other means of destruction besides the one that actually caused it. I don't know that they are material to this case ; I don't think they are material to this particular disaster. Q. I will ask 3-011 one question more: Having in view the char- acter of the material and workmanship, and assuming that Mr. Hew- ins was the engineer employed to build this bridge, do you see any indications that the work could have been better done if he had em- ployed some other contractor than himself? A. Under his design? Q. Yes. He being the engineer, do 3-011 see that any harm has come from his also being the contractor? A. That is a question depending upon the constitution of the human mind, which I do not — Q. No ; it depends upon the constitution of this bridge. Do you suppose that another contractor, under his design, he being the super- intending engineer, would have made a better bridge than this? A. I think it possible that he might. Q. Do you see an3 r reason to think that he would have? A. Not without altering the design. Q. I ask you to assume, in my question, that Mr. Hewins is the engineer, and that the bridge is to be built from his design? A. What I meant to indicate was that possibly an engineer might have pointed out that defect in design, and had it altered, if it had been brought to Mr. Hewins' notice. Q. That is an objection to my question. T would like to have you answer my question as I put it. I do not want to mislead you, but I ask you, whether, assuming that Mr. Hewins was the engineer of the bridge and the designer of the bridge, and that he had employed another contractor to build the bridge, under his design, do you think that another contractor would have built the bridge any better than he seems to have built it? A. Not without altering the design. Q. So far as workmanship goes, you can testify that the work is as well done as if another contractor had built it? A. Yea. Q. (By the Chairman.) You said that, on examining the wreck of this bridge, you saw that the bridge would be likely to fall in, because of the derailment, and therefore you looked in the first place fur evidence of derailment? A. Yes. Q. What were the features in the bridge which led you to the con- clusion that it was dangerous in case of derailment? A. I saw that 386 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. it had an open floor, and that in case of derailment the wheels would have nothing to rest upon of any consequence to support them. Q. How do 3-011 mean " an open floor"? A. That the sleepers were not long enough and not numerous enough to give continuous support to the wheels, and that there were no track stringers outside of the line of the rails to support the ends of the sleepers, if a derailed car should travel off a foot or two from the rail. Q. You say that the sleepers were not long enough, — in which direction? A. Well, except the first panel length of the bridge on one side, they were very short. They were interrupted by the top chord of the bridge coming up about to a level with the rail, cutting off the ends of the sleepers, so the}" could not be more than a f ot outside of the rail. Q. And that, you think, was too short a distance? A. I do. Q. How far ought they to have come beyond the rail? A. I think they ought to have come six feet beyond the rail. Q. How far did they come in this portion of the bridge before you get to the top chord? A. I have been unable to see how far that Mas ; but they had nothing to support them, so that I don't think they were of much value. Q. Where they did extend, were they supported? A. They had nothing under them. Q. How far apart were the sleepers on the bridge? A. They were twenty-three inches from centre to centre where I measured them. I measured them in two or three places among the wreck, by the scars they had made on the track stringers under them. Q. And what was the size of the sleepers? A. I measured one or two, but I have forgotten now. I have a note of it (referring to memorandum). The spaces between them were fifteen inches in the clear. They were eight inches wide, making twenty- three inches from centre to centre. I did not measure their height; they might have been six or eight inches deep. Q. Do you think that was the average? A. So it appeared to be. I measured it in two places ; it appeared to be the general rule. Q. What is your opinion as to the proper opening between the ties on that bridge? A. Not over six inches in the clear. Q. You say " not over six inches." Would four inches be better? A. Yes. Q. Is it best to go less than four inches? A. I don't think it is a great deal of consequence less than six inches, if the sleepers were hard wood. Q. Were those hard wood? A. They were hard pine, as near as I could judge about it. I am not positive ; they looked like hard pine. APPENDIX. 337 Q. Then about the other arrangements for safety in the floor sys- tem of this bridge, — what were they? A. I don't think they were of much efficiency. There was a plank spiked to the ends of tiie sleepers outside of the rail. Q. How far was that from the rail? A. I did not take any note of that ; in fact I don't know whether J saw the plank; I saw the scar on the sleepers where it had been attached, but I did not measure it. It could not have been far from the rail, between the top chord member and the western rail, because there was only a foot of sleeper outside the rail. Q. What was the size of the plank? Did you measure it? A. I did not measure it. It may have been three inches. Q. Three by ten has been the testimony about it. A. Very likely that is right. Q. Was that plank notched to the sleepers? A. I cannot say. I did not see the plank itself; it was split up. I did not see it except at a distance ; did not examine it to see whether it was notched. Q. Did }-ou discover anything that would keep the sleepers in place, except the spikes? A. No; nothing but the spikes. Q. Was there any guard timber except this plank? A. There was, at the extreme end of the bridge ; I did not see any elsewhere. Q. What was the nature of that timber? A. It appeared to have been spiked or bolted on to the ends of the sleepers. Q. Would that have done any good in case of derailment? A. No, sir ; I think the sleepers would have broken off before the wheels reached it. Q. Inasmuch as they were not supported? A. Yes. Q. Were there any guard rails on the bridge? A. I did not see any trace of any. Q. Now, what is your opinion in regard to the expediency of pro- viding a bridge with guard rails between the tracks? A. I think it is a proper thing to do, — a measure of prudence. Q. Do you consider that the danger that somebody may place an obstruction between the guard rail and the track rail is a serious danger? A. No; except in cities where there are great throngs of boys, it might be ; but in ordinary cases I should not think it of much consequence. It is not necessary to put a guard rail so close to the rail as to invite that sort of thing. Q. How far would you put it from the rail? A. It need not come within six inches, and still be efficient. It would not keep wheels on the track in that case, but it would prevent them wandering 80 far as to get a truck cornerwise. Q. In the city of Boston would you hesitate to put a guard rail upon bridges? A. Well, I think I should put it on; but I would 388 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. keep the boys off. Boys ought not to be allowed to walk over rail- road bridges. Q. Would you put a guard rail on the outside of the track? A. I never attached much importance to that. I have generally bolted a timber down to keep the sleepers in place. I do not think that adds a great deal to the prevention of trucks drawing out of line. Q. How about this timber; would you notch it as well as bolt it? A. Certainly ; I always notch them down to keep the sleepers in place. Q. How about the derailment of a train coming towards a bridge? Would a guard rail bent out have a tendency to bring the train back towards the track, and carry it safely over? Is it any advantage to have a guard rail at an approach to a bridge, in order to turn towards the track a train that has been derailed? A. Yes; I think it may be an advantage. It is not always sure, but it is a safeguard that may be efficient sometimes. Q. Is there any harm or any danger in it? A. I don't think there is any danger that is material. Q. Then, would you place at the beginning of a bridge, on the embankment, before you reach the bridge, a guard rail on the outside, bending towards the track at the bridge, and on the bridge itself a guard timber, and not a guard rail on the outside? A. I have never been in the habit of placing a guard rail approaching a bridge on the outside of the track. It is generally applied inside the track, con- verging to the centre on each side. Q. And you think that accomplishes all that is desired? A. Yes. It is a great deal more efficient there than it is outside, because in case of derailment the wheels strike that guard rail with their flanges bearing on the ground, and have the whole height of the rail to rise over to get over it. If it is on the outside, the bearing flanges are on the ground, and the treads of the wheel are up, and would be more likely to rise over the rail. Q. But, on the other hand, if you place a guard rail between the tracks, you can only allow for a derailment equivalent to half the distance between the tracks; whereas, if you put it outside, you can allow for a still greater derailment, can you not? A. I think if a wheel gets off over three feet from its track, it is not so easily diverted again ; there is not much to lead it into the straightway again. Q. Still, would it do any harm to have it out there? A. No, sir; no harm. Q. If a train had been derailed on this bridge, would there have been any chance of the train getting over without tearing the bridge down? A. I cannot say, because I did not inspect the bridge before APPENDIX. 389 the disaster. I don't know exactly how it was located, but I think there would have heen a very small chance. Q. On the supposition that the openinga between the ties were Gfteeu inches, and that the ties were not fixed by any notched beam, but only by spikes, would there have been any reasonable hope that a derailed train could have been carried over that bridge? A. I think it is possible that if the three-inch plank were sound and - and the sleepers strong enough to bear up the weight without their ends breaking down, so long as a wheel remained close to the rail, it might have been sustained by that plank. Q. That would have been only the wheels on one side? A. I suppose the plank could have been applied on the other side ; I don't know. Q. Was it? A. I don't know ; I did not see it. Q. Suppose a train in coming towards Boston had run off the track towards this Hewins truss, the wheels on that side might have been supported on that plank, might they not? A. Possibly. Q. How about the other wheels which would then have been between the two rails, would they have had any support on any plank? A. I did not see any trace of any plank there. Q. Would they not have dropped down between the ties, and cut and ripped up the bridge? A. I think they would have destroyed the bridge, if there was no support there for them above the ties. Q. Now, in regard to this matter of testing bridges by applying heavy loads to them, is it a fact that a heavy load applied to a bridge as a test, instead of being of value as a test, might in reality have weakened the bridge, so that it would be more likely to fall down the next day than it was the day before? A. If the bridge was sound, and the amount of testing load not extravagant, it would not be likely to be injured. Q. In the case of this bridge, with its eccentric hangers, might not the very load that was put upon it as a test have really opened those hangers still more, and made that bridge weaker after the test than it was before? A. Yes; that is possible, with that peculiar construc- tion of the bridge. Q. What are the relations between the test of a heavy load or weight upon a bridge and the test of a bridge by running a train over it, — which is the best test? A. Well, a quiescent load can be easily followed out through every member of the bridge to the point of sup- port on the abutment. We can compute the strain with gnat .•• 1- tainty, as to how it would be applied and how it would affect every member of the bridge. A moving load we cannot; a large margin must be allowed for uncertainty as to the exact manner in which a moving train affects the bridge. 390 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. In ordinary bridges do you say that you would not apply the test of a dead weight as a means of giving assurance of safety of a bridge, — that you would give that up? A. I should not feel any more assurance of safety after having done so than before, irryself. Q. Could you get in practice any information in regard to the Strength of an iron bridge by making a dead-weight test? A. Noth- ing that I should consider of any value as applied to its use. Q. Is there any test of an iron bridge that can be made by weight- ing it, or by running trains over it, that in your opinion would be of value? A. Only by careful inspection by a person fully qualified to judge of the signs of depreciation. Q. At the time the train was running over it? A. Yes, and by examining the parts. Q. I understand about the examination of the parts, of course ; but is there any other means of testing the strength or forming an opinion of the strength of a bridge? A. I think a person fully qual- ified, an experienced person, can judge somewhat; at any rate, he would be capable of detecting certain weaknesses, if they existed, by watching the lateral disturbances in the bridge under the motion of the train, and the amount of deflection. If the deflection was exces- sive it would be a point of suspicion which he would follow up and trace to its origin. Q. Would you take that deflection simply with a moving train, or would you take it with dead weight? A. I think it is better to take it with a moving train, because it is greater under a moving train than it is under a still one. Q. Then, your examination of bridges would be to examine all their component parts and the general method of construction of the bridge, and an examination of it under the test of a moving train, to see what its deflections were? A. Yes. I should, in the first place, compute the actual strain upon every member of the bridge under the regular traffic, and the extreme traffic to which it is likely to be exposed, and see if metal is provided ample in quantity to meet those strains. Men who are experienced in looking round bridges can de- tect the gradual depreciation of the parts from wear. Q. In 1881, the Board of Railroad Commissioners reported that this bridge was of peculiar construction, and that it ought to be tested from time to time. Supposing that in 1882 you had been called upon to examine that bridge, what would you have done? A. I should first have satisfied myself that there was sufficient metal in every member to resist the strains which were likely to be brought upon it by the traffic. I should have been obliged to compute those strains from the actual loads which were likely to traverse the bridge, and I should have examined the pattern and workmanship of the parts. I APPENDIX. 391 think if I bad been there while this bridge was in use, I should have reported that certain vital parts were invisible, and I could not form an opinion about them. Q. Could you then have discovered the eccentricity of those parte ? A. lam in doubt whether I should have been able to, because I did not see the bridge when it was in position. I doubt whether I could have done so. Q. Would it or not then have been your report : " There bein» cer- tain vital parts in this bridge which cannot be examined by me, I rec- ommend that it betaken down"? A. I should have recommended that it be disused, propped up at once, before another day. Q. Should every bridge which has vital parts which are covered up, and of which you can form therefore no estimate as fco its workman- ship, its strength or the nature of its construction, be condemned? A. It ought to be condemned for use until the structure was modified. Q. What do you think the speed of this train was? Aside from the testimony that we have had that it was about fifteen miles an hour, what would have been your estimate as to the probable speed of this train. A. Well, my only means of judging are the effects of concussion, stopping the train, and the effect of the shock created by it. I think that it may have been anywdiere from fifteen to twenty miles an hour. I can't define it. Q. Not over twent}' miles an hour? A. I have no reason to sup- pose it was. Q. You have spoken of the defects of the floor S3'stem of the bridge ; you have said that you knew that the extension chords of the bridge were of good workmanship. How about the compression members, their design and construction? A. Well, it is a style of compression member which I have used and which I consider proper in certain places, but I do not think it was adapted to that place. [ do not think it had anything to do with this disaster, however. Q. No; 1 only wanted to get at the quality of the bridge. I ap- preciate that that was not the thing that gave way. apparently. Have you ever seen a bridge with compression members of that sort, with the track on the top member? A. No; 1 never saw it done before. Q. Do 3'ou consider that a safe or proper method of construction? A. I do not consider it proper. Q. What is the danger? A. The top chord is subject to being abused by any mishap to a train, and such abuse would be very likely to destroy the bridge. Q. If it was struck a slight blow, what would be the result ? A. I think it would be very likely to destroy the bridge. Q. The immediate result would lie that the differenl sections would 392 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. be thrown apart? A. I think that if the blow struck anywhere near the joint, it would be likel}* to throw both members out together. Q. How about the iron work itself in those compression members, and their construction? A. They appear to me to be of good mate- rial. I could judge somewhat by their fracture when they were -torn in the fall. It looked as if it was good enough material for that pur- pose. It is a very strong form of compression member, a corrugated cylinder, which is the strongest theoretical form. Q. The hangers themselves you have examined, have you? A. Yes, sir ; I have examined Ihem here. Q. Do. you agree with the testimony that has been given by Pro- fessor Swain in regard to the age of the fractures ; that is, as to how much of them was an old fracture? A. I did not watch the points that he was pointing out, but as far as I could follow him, from being seated a rod or two from him, I think I should agree with him. In my opinion, the fracture of one hanger was nearly all old, all but about one-quarter of one side ; and the fracture of the other one was comparatively recent, through all but about perhaps one-quarter of one side. Q. How about the workmanship of those hangers, aside from the design of them? A. I should not think of the workmanship of the west poition as being particular!}' bad ; it is not of the best. It did not strike me as being particularly bad. Q.. Are there any portions of those hangers where there would be a great strain, which are apparently necessarily weak? A. Yes; I think that is the fault of the design, not of the workmanship. I can- not form any opinion of the quality of the iron without testing it. Q. What do you estimate to be the difference in strength between a hanger with that eccentricity and a hanger in which the point of support was vertical, without eccentricity? A. The same amount of iron Q. The same amount of iron. A. I made it between four and five fold. Q. That is, if those hangers would support 50,000 pounds, a hanger in which there was no eccentricity would support 200,000 pounds? A. Yes, of the same size. Q. Can you make a drawing showing the coupling of the Miller platform ? A. The hook ? Q. The hook ; yes. A. I have never happened to have a draw- ing in my possession. I don't know anything more about it than any one wdio looks at it ; but I can give a general sketch of it. Mr. Doane. There is something near it. (Showing the sketch.) The Chairman. What is the depth of it? Mr. Toane. It is about five or six inches, up and down. APPENDIX. 393 (Mr. Philbrick made another drawing of the Miller platform, which he handed to the Chairman.) Q. You have spoken about the supporting power of the rails, etc. Would the Miller platform have any power in supporting ears and carrying them over that abyss? Of course, if the car dropped straight down, it is very evident that it would not support it at all. There is nothing, in that case, to prevent that Miller platform from going right down, is there? A. No, sir. Q. If, however, the cars got into that position, would the Miller platform support them? A. Well, the ears as they appear to have been actually there, jammed together, one of them on top of the other, — I think one car might hang on the other for a while ; I have no doubt that the forward end of the second car was so supported. I understood Mr. Richards to say that it was found with the body on the ground ; in fact, the platform showed it to have been so by the way it was broken. I think that might have been supported for a while by the hind end of the car. When the forward truck of the second car was shoved back, these two platforms came together by one being shoved over the other. They were entangled there, so that it took some, time to get them apart. Mr. Putnam. The first and second cars were eight feet apart. The Witness. I do not consider it important whether it was the first or second. Any two cars jammed together are capable of sup- porting each other for a little while ; but the wheels must be under one end of the one which is supporting, and must be under the other end of the one which is supported. Q. Did you notice whether there were any chains in the Miller platform? A. I did not notice. The Chairman. Were there, Mr. Folsom? Mr. A. A. Folsom. No, sir. Q. The third car was thrown up on the Miller platform of the second car, and they were so entangled that they did stick together ; but in case that had not happened, would those platforms bite to- gether so as to help support the car? A. I don't think the couplings and draw-bars would afford any support. Q. Did you notice any of those draw-bars to see whether they were bent up or down in any way? A. I noticed one on the forward end of the second car was bent up. Q. Does not that tend to show that it was put to a supporting strain? A. It looked to me that it had fallen to the ground, and got bent up by striking on the ground. The whole platform was bent up in that way (illustrating). Q. Do you know how much of a drop is required in order to let a 394 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. truck fall out from under a ear? A. No, I don't. I don't think they are all alike. I am not familiar with the length of the bolt. Q. How do you estimate the effect on these sixty-foot rails that came to the noith embankment, and which terminated six feet from that block where the broken hangers were? What was the effect upon that when the floor system gave way? In the first place, were those rails at all bent out of a horizontal line? . A. Yes; they were bent horizontally, but not out of the horizontal plane ; they were bent in the hotizontal plane, not (Hit of it to any extent. Q. Therefore they did not bend down? A. Not to any extent. They were bent down a little ; not of much importance. Q. When this floor system went down, therefore, they did not go down, did they, unless they were torn away? A. Well, I think they went down as soon as the}- got the weight of the wheels upon them ; but they would not otherwise. But there were wheels on them all the time. I think they must have been laid preUy nearly in contact with the track stringers. Q. When they went down, one portion of them being supported on this abutment, if they went down so, and one got bent down so, that would still show, would it not, in their present condition? A. If they did not flare, it would ; but I think their present condition is proof that they were torn out of their fastenings before they settled much. Q. And turned over on their sides? A. Yes. Well, they were twisted up after they left their fastenings. I don't know how the} r went; nobody could follow them. They were ripped out of their fastenings before their supports went down much. Q. What I want to get at is how the rail parted from that floor system? The floor system did go down. A. I can't find any defi- nite clew to answer that question ; it is a matter of supposition merely ; but I think it is very likely to occur by a truck getting a little cornerwise, tearing the rail out of place, and then the truck was shoved forward by the momentum of the matter behind it, which would carry the ends of the rails with it, and tear them out of their fastenings ; and, as the truck advanced, I think the sleepers went with them. <,>. (By Mr. Putnam ) Whether the settling caused by the giving way of the hangers would be likely to cant up the two ends of the rails? A. I cannot trace that action as anything very definite. It is possible ; but I think there is another point which might have acted as an agent in carrying those rails forward. The first wheel that struck in between the sleepers, as soon as the joints of the rails were separata! from their neighbors, would tend to slide the sleepers all up in a heap, and carry the rails along. The wheels would drop on APPENDIX. 395 to the sleepers at first, and the pushing of the Bleepers may have started the rails until they caught in the truck or truck timbers somewhere. Q. (By the Chairman.) Would you not have expected that the rails would have been bent in the same direction? A. That .1 follow necessarily ; they might not have been able to go in the same direction. There were the wheels to prevent them. They must have been pressed out of their fastenings when they went in that direction. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Did you examine the curves in the track at the approaches to this bridge on the north side? A. Merely to give them a glance ; not particularly. Q. Was there anything in them to cause any apprehension? A. No, sir; the track was in good order at both ends. Q. The fact that those two curves are on the other side of the bridge, at the distance at which they were, would not lie, in your judgment, an element of danger in connection with the bridge? A. No, sir. Q. Yon say you would condemn any bridge which had an impor- tant part which was out of sight? A. I should condemn it for use until that was examined and found sufficient. Q. Plow about the foundation of an arched bridge, or the piers of a long truss biidge? A. That is not a part of the bridge : it is the foundation. That is another tiling. I was talking about a frame structure. Q. Then you do not call an arch a bridge? A. I do not call the foundation of an arch a bridge ; no. I was speaking of an iron frame ; all my remarks were limited to an iron frame. Q. I suppose you mean to limit your remark to a member which is not only important, but which carries upon itself a good deal of the weight of the bridge? A. I said " vital," I think, at the time. Q. (By Mr. Hewins.) I suppose, Mr. Philbrick, this question of concealment of vital parts of a bridge would apply as well to a wooden bridge as to an iron bridge, would it not? A. Certainly. Q. But it is customary in almost all woolen bridges, is it not, for some portions of the main truss to be concealed, where they [>a>s through a socket, where they pass through the chords? A. It is to be presumed that rolled iron and straight iron is all alike. 1 don't think that is an unwarrantable assumption. ([. Exactly; but some portions of the main truss which are vit:d parts of the structure arc concealed from view, and the pins, where they would be likely to break, if they broke at all. are where they show the screw threads, are they not? A. 5fes, sir; but those are easily judged by the portion which extends through the nut-. V. 396 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. can judge always there whether the iron is properly proportioned, and what the size was. C^. You can undoubtedly determine what the thing was, but its present condition is what I am asking about. A. I can't see any connection with the question at issue here. Wooden bridges are rarely built upon a thorough^ mathematical analysis of strains ; I don't know that they ever were. Q. Yesterday, there was in Professor Swain's evidence, if I remember correctly, a statement that iron bridges could be built perfectly safe from the effects of derailment. In the case of the Haverhill bridge, do you think a derailment there sufficient to cause a collision with one of the posts would be a safe thing to have? A. I don't think it would destroy the bridge. I don't suppose Professor Swain meant safe from all injury, but safe against the destruction of the bridge. There was a post of a similar truss over the Hudson River at Albany, the first iron bridge which was built there, which was knocked out by a derailed engine ; one of the Phoenixville posts was knocked out of its place ; the driving wheel of the engine struck it, I believe, — I have forgotten what part of it, — and not only knocked out that post, but bent the tension members considerably. But the bridge did not fall. It was repaired at small expense. This Linville truss was a small plain truss, with double sections. Q. You would uot care to risk it again ? A. I should not care to be on the engine every time. I think it would be a needless risk. But it would not be likely to destroy the bridge, if the speed was limited, as it is there. Q. Then you think that taking out a post from the Haverhill bridge would not b3 likely to bring the bridge down? A. No, sir; I don't think it would, — any one^ post, except the end post. Q. But you have stated in relation to the joint-block which is c n- nected to these floor beams by means of its hangers, that if the joint block were knocked upwards, it would turn upon the pin through the floor beams as a pivot? A. If the truss were dislocated, of course. Q. Now, will you please explain how that can be without producing a big leverage and straining the links? A. If there was any great force applied by which it was torn, there would be great force brought to bear upon the pin ; but I do not see how any such force could be exerted except by a very heavy weight. After the truss was dis- located the weight of the joint block would not be sufficient to break the links. That would be the only force that could act after the truss was dislocated. Q. That joint block could not turn upon that pin as a pivot, except by force, could it? A. It could not turn far; no. APPENDIX. 397 Q. And a violent force ? A. That would depend upon bow tight it was coupled. Q. Assuming that the top of the floor beam was in immediate con- tact with the joint? A. If it was a tight joint it could not turn upon it, but its own weight would not be sufficient to break the links. Q. And it could not turn any appreciable distance, could it, without bringing a heavy leverage upon the pin, and of course a consequent strain upon the links? A. No; it could not turn far if it was in immediate contact. Q. Have you ever observed the behavior of iron under strain where the strain was sufficient to rupture it? A. Oh, yes, sir ; I have broken a great deal of iron in testing machines. Q. Have you ever noticed the effect upon the pin? A. I have never broken it by means of pins in links, that I know of. Q. Then, have you any opinion as to what the effect would be upon the pin? A. It would depend entirely upon the bearing sur- face of the pin in relation to the parts which yield. Q. Assuming it to be a perfectly sheer strain, not a bending strain ? A. I say it would depend upon the amount of resistance in the parts which yield. If the bearing surface of the pin were ample to break the part which actually does yield, that part would be fractured ; but if too small to do that injury, such bearing surface would be indented. Q. You would not be surprised to see an indentation on the pin? A. No ; I think it might result in good work. If brought to fracture b}' over-strain I think there might be such indenture in the pin. Q. Could you state how much of an indentation you would expect to see? A. I should expect to see flexure rather than indentation. Q. Assume, if you please, that the pin is in solid hearings close to the bar? A. "Where flexure would be out of the question? Q. Yes. A. Well, the amount of indentation would depend entirely upon the resistance developed by such indentation compared with the resistance developed in the fracture; the ratio of the power of resistance at those two points. Q. With pins and bars properly proportioned to each other, would you expect to see any indentation in the pin unless there was an undue strain brought upon the bar? A. No ; I should not. Q. Now, to apply it to this particular case, if the pin which was :it the lower end of those hangers does show material indentations, would not that convey to your mind, or would it not be some evidence to your mind, that those bars had been unduly strained ? A. No. I think I saw the symptoms which you call indentations. I referred them to another cause. I may be wrong. Q. I should be glad to know what that came is. A. Well, there has been a slight chafing upon that pin, and I should think it might 308 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. be the effect of abrasion. The eyes were so placed that they would collect all the sand and dust that was kicked up by the train, and there would be a slight abrasion from motion. Q. In which direction could there be motion? A. Well, which- ever way would be allowed by the other parts of the structure. I cannot tell, now that it has all tumbled to pieces, but I think the pin and the link both show signs of abrasion. Q. Suppose the I beams upon which those links were came close up against the links, so that there was no room for motion endwise on the pin? A. Well, there might have been room for motion endwise of the floor beam, and the floor beam may have moved sidewise slightly. Q. Assume, if you please, that that is rigid? A. If it could not move, it could not abrade. Q. Have you examined sufficiently to know whether there was any chance for motion or not? A. No. I merely saw signs of abrasion. Mr. Hewins. I don't know as it is proper for me to state that there was no such room ; that the links filled the space entirely between the beams, and the beams were so secured to the casting that there was no chance for the beams to m ive. Q. In that case would you not, if you had ever seen pins receive such indentations from strains, think that that might reasonably be, the cause? A. Well, if it was impossible to have the effect of abrasion, I should attribute it to over-pressure. Q. Have you noticed the marks' that were on the top of the top chord?. A. The scratches, you mean, of the member? Q Yes. A. Yes. Q. Can you account for them? A. Yes; I think some part of a car body scraped against it as it was moving along before the truss fell. Q. What part of the body of a car was there that could have made the marks? A. Well, the car-truss attachments to the car body would be directly over that chord, I believe, the heavy bolts to which the car body truss is attached. Q. Could it have been those parts which broke the piece off from the casting? A. I could not answer that question without looking again at the casting, because I did not have it in mind when I have observed it. I have forgotten exactly where on the casting the points were broken off. Mr. Hewins. It seeni3 to me important that it should be ascer- tained, if possible, what did make those marks on the top chord, and then whether that may have been, perhaps or probably, the cause of the injury to the casting. The Witness. I think very probably it may have been one thing APPENDIX. 390 or another thing. I don't know what importance can attach to the fact whether it was one thing or another. Mr. Hewins. They being in the same direct line, it might perhaps be assumed that it was the same thing, in the absence of any other information. Q. Is your estimate of the strength of those hangers based upon any actual experiment, or merely upon theory? A. No; merely upon what I know of the resisting power of iron. Mr. Hewins. I would like to renew the suggestion that I made yesterday, that two hangers or tension bars be m ide, one with straight eyes and one with eccentric eyes, and taken to Watertown and tested. I think you will find quite a different result from what has been stated. The Chairman. There is no question as to the strength of a bar with eyes vertically under each other, is there? Mr. Hewins. The evidence here, as I understand it, has been more a comparison between two eyes, — how much stronger one would be than the other, — and I think the only way of getting a satisfactory result would be by making two bars. The Chairman. The commissioners propose to ask that this hanger that is not broken shall be tested. I do not think it is worth while to have another hanger made. Mr. Hewins. That is entirely for you to decide, of course. This hanger which now appears to be whole evidently has been over- strained, and might not show when it is tested as good as if it had not been over- strained. The Chairman. How could it have been over-strained? Do you want to have that joint block brought here and examined? Mr. Hewins. Perhaps it could be more easily done by going to the place where it is. Mr. P1111.BRICK. I think it weighs nearly half a ton. Q. (By the Chairman.) Have you examined carefully, Mr. Phil- brick, the character of those indentations on the joint block? A. I saw a little piece broken off of it about as large as my two fingers, very near the corner, but I do not remember definitely whether it was exactly in line with the scratch on the top chord. That was what Mr. Hewins asked me, which I was unable to answer. It is on the inside of the bar, however, next the train. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) I suppose you would think. Mi'. Philbrick, that the blow that knocked that bridge down was a blow on that eat- ing, very likely? A. Either on that easting or veiy near it. Q. The most effective blow to knock the bridge down would In- one on that casting? A. Yes, sir ; but it might have been by a blow within a foot or two on either side. 400 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Q. Would not that show a dent on the truss? A. Oh, there are a good many dents on the truss. Q. Sufficient dents to be the marks of the blow that knocked the bridge down? A. Yes, sir. I don't think it would make much of a dent if it were wood. Wood would not indent iron. Wood might not have left any very marked trace upon that mass behind it. A. dent would merely show what made the breakage, whether it was iron or wood. Mr. Hewins. I think that casting and the chord which rested against it should be examined so as to have their relations clearly understood. It is hardly practicable to bring the chord here. The Chairman. The Commission desire to close the hearing to-day, if possible. If you desire, Mr. Hewins, that Mr. Philbrick and Mr. Doane should examine that, we will ask them to do so before Monday and report then ; but I think that the examination might go on to-day independently of that question and simply hear their report upon it on Monday. Mr. Putnam. How about the tests of those links? Would you have those tests made without suspending the hearing for the result? The Chairman. I thought it could be put in as so much evidence after the hearing is over. Mr. Putnam. I do not care. I thought, perhaps, } - ou would have that done before the hearing was closed ; that is all. The Chairman. If there should be anything developed in regard to that which necessitated the reopening of the hearing, it could be reopened ; but we would like to have it considered that the hearing was practically closed to-day. I think that these questions in regard to the joint block are, perhaps, a waste of time uutil the experts have made a special examination of it. Therefore, we will discontinue that line of inquiry at the present time and give Mr. Hewins an opportunity to ask the experts some questions on Monday morning, if he desires to do so. Mr. Philbrick. I cannot tell how this opening was occasioned on the sound hanger, but it may have been by some illegitimate strain during the fall. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Can you imagine any illegitimate strain that could have come upon that s und hanger? A. Yes ; the same as the one upon the one that is broken. Q. (By the Chairman.) You say that it was the effect of some illegitimate strain during the fall: where does that show? In the opening of the weld? A. In the" opening of the weld. One of these hangers may have received more strain than the other, and I think would have done so by the leverage, if there were any. APPENDIX. 401 Q. Is that a new opening of the weld there? (Referring to " S.") A. I cannot tell from this examination. Recess until 2.30. AFTERNOON SESSION. Professor Swain — recalled. Q. (By the Chairman.) Have you made an estimate as to how fast a train starting from Roslindale, on the grade between R dale and the bridge, would get going at the time it struck the b provided the brakes were not working against the wheels? A. Yes, sir ; I have made an estimate this morning. Q. What was your method of calculation and what is the result? A. Well, sir, 1 took the grade at fifty feet to the mile, as given me by Mr. Doane, and assumed the resistance of the train at ten pounds to the ton, which is the average figure assumed by engineers : and on that basis the result gives a velocity of about twenty-one miles an hour that that train would have attained under the force of gravity alone, and the resistance, without the use of steam or brakes. Q. Does that allow for any of the brakes being out of order and clinging to the wheels, or anything of that sort? A. No, sir: it is simply taking the average resistance of a train moving at the average velocity. I think it is fully large enough in this case, because this figure of ten pounds a ton is based on a velocity of about thirty or thirty-five miles an hour. The resistance of a moving train ini with the velocity, and at thirty miles an hour it is about ten pounds to the ton on a straight line. I have taken it at ten pounds to the ton. Of course if the brakes were on, the resistance would be in- creased. There is a slight increase in the resistance due to curvature, but that is very small. I have considered that ten pounds per ton would be sufficient to include that. The resistance of curvature, if I remember right, is about half a pound per ton per degree of curva- ture. That curve there is, on the average, 1 think, about a two-de- gree curve; itvaiies from point to point. That would mak< e pound due to curvature. I think that nine pounds at a velocity of twenty miles an hour would be sufficient for the resistance on a straight line, so that ten pounds is sufficient for both. I give these figures from memory, but 1 think Mr. Philbrick and Mr. Doane agree with me. Q. Of course any imperfectly working brake, any brake that rubbed against the wheels, would throw that out? A. Would increase the 402 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. friction and make the velocity correspondingly less. On the other hand, if steam were used it would increase the velocity. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) You assume that the train is at a stand- still at Pvoslindale? A. Yes, sir. Q. And on a down grade? A. Yes. Q. And that the brakes are removed and it is allowed to start? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you say that by the time it reached this bridge it would have acquired a speed of twenty miles an hour? A. Under these data; yes, sir. Mr. Doane has given me the distance from the station to the bridge. Q. Does the number of cars enter into the calculation? A. No, sir ; it simply depends upon the resistance in pounds per ton. Q. That is, one car would get the same speed- that a long train would? A. Yes, sir, provided the resistance were the same in either case. Q. The weight of a single car affects the engine, does it not? A. Simply the grade. Q. That is, the locomotive would go no faster than one of the cars? A. No, sir ; simply the grade. Q. Does not a good deal of friction enter into this calculation? A. Yes, sir. This friction causes the retardation, and the resistance is estimated at about ten pounds to the ton on a straight line. That is, if a locomotive is pulling a train it would have to exert a force of about ten pounds for every ton it pulls to keep in motion at a velocity of twenty miles an hour. Q. Then the weight of the locomotive and train does not enter into the speed it would attain? A. No, sir; it does not enter into the question at all. A pound weight will fall with just the same velocity as a ten pound weight. Q. Certainly it will, if gravity only is involved ; but when friction is involved does it not make a difference? A. No, sir. The resistance is taken as so much per ton, so that one ton would move just as fast as two tons. Thomas Doane — sworn. Q. (By the Chairman.) Your residence? A. Charlestown, Mass. Q. And your occupation? A. That of civil engineer and sur- veyor. Q. What has been your education and experience as civil engineer and surveyor? A. My scholastic opportunities were slight. I at- tended school in my native town on Cape Cod until nineteen years of age at a private academy ; then through five terms, at the English APPENDIX. U)3 Seminary nt Andover, Phillips Academy. I entered tho o!lin fence about Bnnker Hill Monument, and there kindled the B patriotism, perhaps. I then went on to the Fitchburg Railroad as rodman. and was there during its construction. After that was com- pleted I went on to the Vermont Central Railroad, in charge of a division. I took my pay in stock of the Vermont Central Railroad, and lost my first earnings, about $1,000. But it taught me a good lesson in money matters. I then went on to the Cheshire Railroad, in 1847. and was there until 1849. in charge of a division ; ami at that time made my first acquaintance with Mr. Pbilbriek, who was then on an adjoining division of the Rutland Railroad. I then came to Charlestown and Boston, and opened an office for general business, where I have had charge of street work, sewer work, gas works, bridge building, pile-bridge building, etc ; a general miscellaneous business, with a good deal of land surveying, in 1863 I went to the Hoosac Tunnel as chief engineer, remained there four years, going through the experimental part of that work. I then, through political influence chiefly, left the Tunnel and went to Nebraska, where I spent four years in extending the C. B. & Q. system into the State of Nebraska, building about 240 miles of railroad, and acting both as chief engineer and superintendent. I returned from Nebraska in 1873. and was appointed consulting engineer of the Hoosac Tunnel and Troy & Greenfield Railroad. I had to do with finishing the tun- nel, and ran the first locomotive through it; and remained on tho road about four years, completing the widening and reconstruction of the Troy & Greenfield Railroad. Soon after that, in 1879, I was appointed consulting engineer and acting chief engineer of the North- em Pacific Railroad ; and I was on the line of that road for a year, locating one or two of its principal divisions. I then returned, in 1880-81, to my oflice practice. I have hem engaged in that sub- stantially ever since. My work has been largely, perhaps, in c >n- nection with railroads. 1 have been fully occupied, I think, all of the time; and in connection with experience, these has been, of course, a contemporaneous study. Q. How far have you been engaged in bridge building? A. I have had to do with the erection of a great many bridges — screw- pile bridges, Howe truss, wooden truss and iron bridges — on the various public works with which I have been connected. Q. In superintending them, or in what capacity? A. In superin- tending the work generally, making the contracts for the b and in superintending their erection, and in judging of their suffi- ciency after completion. I have not set myself up especially as an 401 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. expert in bridge building, excepting as to my general experience in that line. Q. Have you been emplojed by the Commission to investigate this accident? A. I have. Q. At what time? When were 3*011 first notified? A. I think I was spoken to on the afternoon of Monday, the day of the accident, and went out to the scene of the accident, I think, by the 10.05 train, Tuesday morning. Q. Will you state what you found, what sort of an examination you made, and what the results of your examination were? A. I encountered a rope drawn round the scene, and I had not provided myself with a pass from the commissioners, but a policeman happened to know me and let me through, and I proceeded to examine the bridge ; first, as to the character of its construction before it fell, and I then made an examination of the various parts of the bridge. The south, or right-hand truss (perhaps I will speak of it as the Boston end and Dec] ham end, and right and left hand) — Q. Right and left hand coming in? A. Coming in. The charac- ter of the right-hand truss was evident; it was plainly to be seen from the wreck. The other truss was more or less covered up bj r the cars, track, etc. ; but I soon found the nature of the bridge. One of the early things I discovered was the skew-back at the top of the northerly inclined post, which was lying on the right-hand side of its location in the bridge, quite a little distance away, ten or twelve feet, I should say, and about eight feet from the northerl} - or Boston abut- ment. I examined the two hangers which were enclosed in this casting, and which are here marked, I think, " X" and •' Y." I could see the breaks by looking in at the top end, as it lay, and I put in my hand and felt the breaks, but I didn't look in at the other end which was near the ground. I soon found what duty these hangers were to perform, and that one end of a floor beam was hung upon them.. I very soon asceitained the dimensions of the bridge by measuring the inclined post and the top chord, and also by measuring the length of the bottom chord. I found the panels to be twenty-live feet long, and the whole length of the truss from e; d to end one hundred and four feet. I measured the length of a floor beam, which went entirely across, and ascertained the breadth of the bridge from truss to truss to be twenty feet; the height of the right-hand truss, the Parker tnis-s to be thirteen feet from centre to centre of the pins; the height of the Ilewins truss I have not estimated exactly ; but it is somewhere between sixteen and seventeen feet, I think. One of the early points in my investigation was an examination of the tics on the Dtdham end of the bridge, that part of the bridge which had not been destroyed. These ties were still attached to their APPENDIX. 405 wooden stringers, for some distance down the incline, from the Dedham abutment to the ground. A good many more of the ties were under the car which hud not fallen to pieces ; all of these tics I examined. 1 could find no evidence of derailment up to that point. By measurements, I got an idea of the Boor system, and made draw- ings and measurements of most of the important pints of the bridge. I have made no computation as to the sufficiency of the Hewins tru68. My impression was that it was sufficient as to its ch irds. I made up my mind that the hangers broke under the weight of the locomotive, and that that was the original first cause of the accident. I judged from the appearance of things, from the way the cars were thrown upon the Boston abutment, that the speed of the train must have been, as it seemed to me, two or three times as great as has been stated here, — from thirty to forty miles an hour. The fact that the train was so splintered, and that so many of the cars went ashore, led me to feel that there must be some mistake about the speed, <>r Bonio misunderstanding. Another thing as to the speed, I suppose that the snap that Mr. Billings, the fireman, heard was the break of this hanger which has been shown here ; and the space that elapsed between the breaking of this hanger, provided it were under the middle of the driving wheels of the engine, and the time when the forward truck of the second car reached the broken banger, was a distance of seventy-eight feet. There would be about seven feet between the centre of the two locomotive wheels and its junction with the tender. The tender is about eighteen feet long; the next car, the first car in the train, about fifty-one feet long; and some three feet more to the forward truck of the second car. This forward truck still had a distance of twenty-two feet to travel from the broken hanger to the abutment, making a total distance of one hundred feet. An axle has been spoken of by some of the witnesses as having been bent. That was shown to me by Mr. Richards in the Roxbury shop yard. The axle was bent very near the wheel. It could not have been bent by any contact with a rail, in my judgment. In the same plane in which this axle is bent there was a tearing of the flange of the wheel for about one foot in its circumference, and it evidently had been in contact with the abutment of the bridge ; and, as I under- stand, this wheel and truck went ashore. There is B distance of one hundred feet traversed from the time the hanger broke until that car wheel struck the abutment ; and it seems to me it could not have been a great many seconds in doing it. 1 think that as Boon as the banger gave way, the floor beam which it sustained gave way. and its left end settled down, while still upheld at its right-hand end resting upon the abutment; that this gave a lurch to the train towards the left, and probably at about the time the rear truck of the forward car 406 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. crossed it, as it seeins to me. I think that then this front car was going up hill from the wreck, and that when it crossed the face of the abutment its front truck threw down the right-hand rail upon its side ; that then that front truck was derailed and passed over to the south side of the track. I judge that this was the case, because the other end was thrown to the left. That would give the car as a whole, with its momentum, a tendency to the right haul of the track, where it finally landed. My impression is that, while crossing this chasm at the hangers, the rear truck of that front car was dropped out of its place. The king bolts of the cars are somewhere about three feet long. I don't suppose that it dropped far enough to let it entirely out ; but if it dropped a foot, or less perhaps, it would be easily bent, and the car would let go its truck. I think those trucks probably g<>t crosswise of the track, and that that, with the oilier or front truck, threw down the right-hand rail upon its side, towards the right. As to the bending of the two rails which were involved in this calamity at this end of the train, it seems to me that they could not have been bent into this shape b}* being caught in any way in the ti ticks or wreck, and so pushed up into the shape in which we find them. If they had, I think those Dedham ends would have been crooked, vertically or otherwise ; when, as a matter of fact, six or eight feet of those rails at that end are still straight. Another reason why I think so is that those rails were bent in opposite directions, which could not have been the case on this supposition, for they were tied together by ties, which would oblige them to open and shut like a parallel ruler until their spikes gave way. I think the right-hand rail was thrown on its side towards the right, bent over the edge of the abutment, and hammered by the trucks and car bodies until it was bent down into the ruin below and broken off at the edge of the abut- u ent. It seems to me that the other rail, this left-hand rail, being still fast on the Boston shore, and being against the truss of the bridge, or nearly so (perhaps quite so), near its Dedham end, that the train pressed against its middle part, and pushed it over to the left ; and the cars, one after another, were thrown into this sack formed by this rail, and so it was bent into the shape in which we find it. It is my impression that the couplings of those cars would carry a ear without its truck; that is, that a car having its trucks would carry the next car without its adjoining truck. The Miller couplings are hooked together. They are made very strong. They are kept in hook by means of very strong springs at the inner en Is of each, pulling against the hooks to keep them in place. I think there are also springs crosswise to keep them in hook also, for we know that it takes the whole strength of a man oftentimes, and some- times of two, to unhook a Miller coupling ; so that under any circum- APPENDIX. 407 stances it would be almost impossible for tbe books to slip up and down out of each other, because of the firm manner in which tbey are held together; and, being so strong, I think they would help to the train connected, and drag the various parts along until some part of them went against tbe abutment. I think that the bridge, by the inclination of tbe floor system towards the left, allowed the train to sag down against the tup chord of tbe left-hand truss and against this skew-back, which is at tbe top of tbe inclined post. Some parts ..f the car bo:lies, some parts of the boxes of tbe journals of thi and perhaps some parts of the treads of the wheels even, may have passed over that corner of this; casting which was adj >ining towards tbe Dedham end. The break of that easting is of this sort. There is a flange on that edge, which I should think was an inch to an inch and a quarter thick, with an elevation over the rest of the casting of perhaps an inch to an inch and a half. That was torn away, eaten away, — " chawed off," to use a slang phrase, — not by any one Mow. but by, I think, numerous blows, for a distance of four inches parallel with the track, and to a depth of perhaps one inch at the Dedham end of tbe casting, on which the ruins of the train would impinge. It was not a clean fracture, evidently was not broken off by one blow. The lower truss chords were found out of place somewhat. They lie to the right hand of their position in the bridge before it fell, and I think they were pulled into that position by the horizontal connection of the chord with the abutment at that point. There is an I beam connecting that joint with the abutment, and, I think, as it fell it revolved on this abutment as a centre until it landed the chord in the street where it was found. Q. Did the transverse bracing tend to cany that chord to the right? A. Wherever it was connected with the lower chord of the Parker truss it would have that effect, because I suppose the northerly truss gave way first, and its fall dragged the other down. I examined the floor system as well as I could, and measured the location of the \[<-s upon the rail stringers, and took notes of all I could find. I measured tbe lengths of the longest ties with the guard rail upon them, — or rather guard timber, there were no guard rails properly, — which I can give you if you wish. Q. You need not give us the particulars with reference to each rail, but sufficient to show what you have, and then state what the general result is and how accurately you made the measurements? A. I made the measurements exactly, within half an inc I measured twenty-two ties. Perhaps I should state that they were not probably twenty-two independent ties. They may have hen the two ends, in some cases, of the same tie ; but they represenl jusl as truly the sizes of the ties and the spaces apart. I measured 22 ties, 40S BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. 14 of which wore 8 inches wide and 8 of which were 10 inches wide, and they were all 6 inches thick. I measured 22 spaces between the tics, — not from centre to centre, but between the ties. These 22 spaces averaged 1.22 feet, or about 15 inches. The least space in any case was a distance of .95 of a foot, and the greatest was 1.50 feet, — 18 inches. These ties extended over fully one-half, I should think, of the length of the bridge. The others were so involved in the wreck and so broken up that I could form no judgment as to any derailment. I suppose, of course, there must have been a derail- ment upon at least all that part of the bridge north — that is, tow- ards Boston — of the broken hangers, but I could ascertain nothing. The route of the forward trucks of the first car upon the Boston abutment could be plainly seen upon the ties ; at the edge of the abutment I could see they were six inches or so to the right of the track, or of the right-hand rail. Q. In regard to the guard timbers? A. I have a record here of one tie, six by ten inches ; its total length is ten feet and four inches. The distance from the right-hand end of it to the right-hand rail was nineteen inches, and this end had no guard or protection of any kind. The distance between the rails, from centre to centre, was four feet eleven inches. The distance from the left-hand rail to the first edge of the guard timber was thirty-four inches, and the breadth of this guard timber was twelve inches and its height was six inches. Q. Where was that, — on what portion of the bridge? A. That was on the part of the bridge towards Dedham, between the abut- ment and the top chords of the Hewins truss. Q. Can you state where the guard timber was? A. Well, sir, I don't think I have any record of that. I don't know that I measured it at all. You mean the four by eight or ten guard timber which has been alluded to? Q. The guard timber which you spoke of just now. A. That was on the outer end of the tie. Q. Is it this one that is shown on the photograph? A. It is the one which is shown on the Dedham end of this photograph No. 5. Q. Was that notched down? A. I think it was not notched. It was a timber which had been used somewhere else before. It had notches in it, — on its edge, I think; but my impression is that it wasn't notched down on the ties. Q. How does it show in the photograph? A. The corresponding one on the Boston edge of the bridge is not notched down, but it shows some old notches in its edge. Evidently it had been used in some other place before. Q. What was the value of this rail in that place? A. Nothing, APPENDIX. 409 sir, except to hold the ties endwise of the bridge Bomewhat. It had no value to prevent a train going overboard, or to hold it up provided the train got out so far from the rails. Q. Was it spiked through into each tie? A. My impression is that there were screw bolts, perhaps every third or fourth tie. I am not quite certain about that. Q. Do those screw bolts show in this picture? A. Yes, Bir, they do. Q. Were there any other fastenings on the intermediate {':■ you think, or do you know? A. I should judge from the photograph that every second or third one was bolted with a screw bolt, bu! as far as I can see the others were not. They may have been bolted by spike bolts. Q. Then, about other guard rails or guard timbers? A. I made no measurement of any others. I don't remember of any oth< But it has been said that there were timbers called guard rails adjoin- ing the top chord of this left-hand truss. Q. You didn't see that? A. Well, sir. I think I did; but I don't remember enough about it to tell you its size. Q. Were there any guard rails? A. No guard rails. If you mean iron rails laid between the track, there were none. Q. Were there any outside the track? A. None outside. Q. What is your opinion of the floor system of that bridge ? Wae it a satisfactory floor system? A. It was not a satisfactory floor system. I don't think it was calculated in any way to carry a de- railed train across, but rather to wreck it upon the bridge. I think such a timber as has been alluded to, four inches thick, laid near the rail is worse than nothing; better have been away, in my judgment. I think that a wooden guard of that sort easily catches the v^r of a wheel and gives it a jerk, a yaw. which it wouldn't get otherwise, and makes tkings worse instead of better. Q. What was the relative height of the track and the top of the truss? A. They were just about on the same level ; must have been within a few inches of the same level. Q. Would it be your opinion that, if a train got derailed on the bridge, that three-inch plank at the side of the track woul 1 he a bene- (it or injury? A. So long as the wheels were al aolutely upon it, it might carry the train across. Otherwise it could have no beneficial effect, as it seems to me, unless in the simple matter of keeping the ties in place. And it would have no efficiency of that sort where the ties are placed so far apart as they were on this bridge. Q. If the train got derailed and the wheels on the left-hand Bide of the car got up on to that plank, where would the wheels on the right- 410 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. hand side of the car be? A. Well, they would be down between the ties to the left of the right-hand rail. Q. Was there any plank there to prevent that movement? A. None ; that is, I saw none ; I think there was none. Q. Would they settle down between the ties and bring a great strain upon the ties on the right-hand side of the car? A. Certainly. A wheel of thirty inches couldn't roll over those spaces without break- ing through, it seems to me ; either breaking through between the ties or pushing them up together. Q. Have you examined many railroad bridges in this State? A. I have examined a good many bridges ; I don't think very many iron bridges, except those connected with the Troy & Greenfield Railroad. Q. I don't refer to iron bridges particularly, but any bridges? Have you examined a good many bridges in this State in years past? A. I have been familiar with almost all the bridges or very many of the bridges in this State. Q. Do you know of any other bridge in this State with a floor sys- tem as poor as this one? A. I don't remember any, sir; I don't think I ever knew a floor system with ties so far apart. Q. Now, in regard to the hangers. In the first place, what do you say in regard to their workmanship, material, etc. ? A. Well, sir, I don't think them a good specimen of blacksrnithing ; rather poor. The welding must have been indifferently done in the beginning. I think the two e}-es were made separately and that afterwards the two were welded together. The shank of the links seems to be in a fair condition now. They are open somewhat at the weldings in places, and it seems to me that the iron was burned in the welding. The fact that the supporting part of the link was not under the supported part attracted my attention at once as being a vety unhappy condi- tion of things. Q. What, in your opinion, was the effect of that? A. Tine effect is to bring a cross strain upon the link itself, — on the eyes and link. It has the same effect upon the lower eye as the straightening out of a hook under strain. Q. With the shank held firmly? A. Yes, sir; the hook, as it is used extensively in mechanics, is attached to a chain. The hook is so turned that it hangs immediately under the line of chain support- ing it. Provision is made for that eccentricity to some extent. Still, there is a tendency to open the hook, and hooks are made, as you all remember, probably, very much thicker at their lower point up and down than they are crosswise, in order to counteract their tendency to unhook or straighten out. It would have helped those hooks very materially if they had had a deeper section up aud down and a cor- responding less section laterally. APPENDIX. 411 Q. Is the knowledge of the transverse strain on such eccentric hangers as these anything new in mechanics? A. It is not. Any one with common sense would understand that. Q. Is it not one of the foundation principles of mechanics? A. It is. Q How about the fractures on those bangers? A. I think a large part of them was old. Q. The same proportion of them as has been described by Mr. Phil- brick and Professor Swain? A. Yes, sir; the same. Q. Before leaving the question of the floor system, I will ask you if von know what the diameter of a ear wheel is? A. They are from thirty to thirty-six inches ; I presume most of those wheels were thirty inches. On the Pullman cars now-a-days they are putting thirty-six inch wheels, and I think sometimes as high as forty. Q. Have you calculated the effect of the eccentricity of these hang- ers upon their supporting power? A. I have not; I think I have an appreciative sense of the danger of it, however. Q. In your opinion was there any proper way of making an examination of this bridge? Could a person have made a satisfac- tory examination of this bridge? A. The bridge could have all been examined, excepting the matter of these hangers. I think. I don't know whether that could have been done or not. My impres- sion is that something could have been ascertained by sounding them, but I am not certain on that point. Q. Sounding them? A. Yes, sir; striking them with a hammer -where they appeared below. Q. Was there any way of looking at them ? A. There was no way of looking at any part of them, excepting the lower ends, I think; that is, the bottom part of the bottom eyes. Q. Was there any method of discovering that eccentricity ? A. Well, sir, I don't think that could certainly have been ascertained, though possibly it might. Q. Would a person in examining that bridge be justified in assum- ing that there was no eccentricity there? A. I think so. It is so unusual to make links in that way, that I suppose one would naturally assume that they were not made in that way. Q. Would it have been perfectly easy for any one to satisfy himself that they were eccentric? A. I don't know that I am sufficiently familiar with their positions when put together, to answer that. I think there is some doubt about it. Mr. Hi: wins. If you will allow me to suggest, I think if you put the two whole ones together he can tell better. (The two whole hangers were placed together and the witness ex- amined them.) 412 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. The Witness. I am by no means certain that that eccentricity could be ascertained. The}- would have to be put together in the casting in which they belonged before one could answer that question fully. There is an indication of paint, which would be as fur as one's sight would go, probably, and I don't think they could be readily as- certained to be certainly eccentric. It should be borne in mind, per- haps, that the position of the upper e} - es upon the upper pin could not at all be ascertained. If they could be seen, then we should have known there was eccentricity. But, as I understand, those were en- tirely hidden. Perhaps in connection with this last matter I might say that possibly this junction may have been seen from the outside of the truss, looking in between the two I beams constituting the floor beam. But I don't think that would enable one to know that they were eccentric. Q. Would a competent person examining that bridge have passed over that point in it without investigating the question of the exist- ence of that eccentricity? A. I think not, sir; I think, knowing that that was one of the vital parts of the structure, he must have known something more about it than he could simply see before he would pass it. Q. What other defects did you notice in the construction of the bridge, if an} T ? A. A want of continuity and stiffness in the com- pression members is a fault. Q. Due to lack of continuity or to the weakness of the parts? A. Due to lack of continuity. The compression members were held in place mainly by the compression, due to the weight of the bridge and the weight of the load. They were temporarily fastened in their cast- ings by little lugs, which, in the case of the top chord and raking posts, were three pieces of iron, six inches wide and half an inch thick, extending into the casting, — I should say an inch, perhaps. Then at the bottoms of these castings, where the floor beams were attached, there were little cast-iron lugs, extending out two or three inches. I should say each of these different parts of the chord had a temporary rest, which would have no efficiency whatever in keeping the chord in line. Q. What was the workmanship of the compression chord? A. I think it was very poor. Q. And the extension? A. Better. The compression members were made of I beams. The top and the bottom of those beams seem to be made of good, tenacious iron. The web connecting these, I think, Mas an inferior kind of iron and showed more or less of crys- tallization in the break. The most northerly top chord was split through half its length in its fall or in the fall of the Wreck upon it. There was a split of thirteen feet in length in the Dedham end of that member. APPENDIX. 413 Q. Of the northerly top chord? A. Yes, sir. The upper cud of the raking post at the Boston end was torn in throe parts of its membership. It was made of six pieces of iron, three eye-bars and three pieces of about half-inch iron connecting; those together ; and out of three of those members there were pieces torn, probably at the time of the fall. It is most probable that they weir crushed at the time of the blows on the skew-back at its top. Q. What is your knowledge in regard to the best method of test- ing or making an examination of an iron bridge? A. 1 think the best way is to measure its parts, calculate their strains, and see that there is ample metal in the various parts. The testing of a bridge by a dead load may be useful in detecting some mistake, some over- sight, some accident, or some flaw which could not be seen otherwise. But other than that it seems to me it is of very little use. It is nut enough to test it in that way. It should be tested under a moving load of the heaviest sort to be used, and at the greatest speed to be used ; and it is not always safe for the train men to do a thing of that sort. My impression is that the best way is to see that the parts are properlv proportioned, find out who built it, whether they were reputable workmen, with character, responsibility and standing. I think that is the best that can be done. Q. Is a heavy load upon a bridge apt to weaken it? A. Veiy often it may. Q. Might it in this case upon this bridge? A. Yes, sir ; I should think it would be very likely to. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) This split of the chord, I take it. you as- sume to have been made by the fall of some of the cars upon it or running thorn over it, do you not? A. I think so. But I think they should have bent rather than have broken. Q. Was it the web of the I beam that split ? A. Yes, sir ; I think the other iron connecting the I beams was much better iron. There is a specimen of it here, if Mr. Philbrick would like to sec it. Perhaps he has seen it. Mr. Philbrick. I took one myself. Q. No test that could have been devised would have been so severe upon this particular defect as the running of a heavy lor. .mo- tive over it, would it? A. I suppose not, sir. Q. Then, if yon had been going to test the bridge with a view to discovering if there was any weakness in this hanger, you would simply have run the heaviest locomotive you could find over it. wouldn't you? A. If, after examination, it was found aafi that. Q. I mean, supposing you were not going to make an examination, but wished to test the strength of this hanger, the bi V( 414 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. could apply wouM be to run the heaviest locomotive over it you could find, wouldn't it? A. Except you also add a dead weight upon the bridge before, or perhaps run two locomotives together over it. Q. Would two locomotives bear any heavier on this hanger than one? A. Well, there would have been a more general strain and vibration in the whole bridge with two locomotives than with one. Q. Still, if the ordinary locomotive run on the bridge was, say, a thirty-ton locomotive, it would be a pretty severe test to run a fifty- ton locomotive over it, at its usual rate of speed, wouldn't it? A. Yes, sir. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) In your judgment, if a competent bridge expert had examined the parts of this bridge before it was erected, would he have passed that bridge as safe? A. Well, sir, that is tes- tifying upon the competency of Mr. Hewins, I suppose, but my im- pression would be that it was not good engineering. Q. If any competent bridge engineer had examined that bridge after it was put up, and from that time down to the time that it was wrecked, would he, in your judgment, have passed it as a safe bridge? A. I don't think he would, sir, because there were parts hidden which he could not pass without seeing, — vital points. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) How do you account for the fact that the Railroad Commissioners have examined that bridge annually, with at least three engineers, who have been generally supposed to be com- petent, who have at different times examined it, and have never reported anything against that bridge? A. Well, it requires eternal vigilance. I suppose they didn't make the vigilance quite eternal. Q. Did it not require a vigilance aw r akened by a knowledge of the actual danger? A. Well, I suppose we are apt to be a little keener afterwards than before. As the fellow said, if his foresight was as good as his hindsight he would be all right. Q. Are you sure that if you had been present instead of Mr. Briggs or Mr. Herschel or Mr. Fuller, at the various times when this bridge was examined by the Railroad Commissioners and reported safe, you would have made a different report from theirs? A. Well, they are all good engineers ; at least the two whom I know. I think they are better engineers than I am. Q. (By the Chairman.) How common is it to see a bridge con- structed with its floor suspended in this way? A. Well, sir, a large part of pin-and-link through bridges have suspended floors. Q. Well, of those that are not through bridges, — deck bridges? A. Well, sir, it is usual to place the floor upon the top chord. I think there may be, perhaps, exceptions sometimes, in order to save height. Q. Do you know of any other case of a deck bridge on a railroad APPENDIX. 415 with the floor suspended ? A. No, sir; I do not. There are some cases of this sort where the floor is suspended at some point between the upper and lower chords, and where the floor beams are riveted on to the posts at some intermediate point between the upper and lower chords. In plate bridges it is quite common to put the Boor beams at some intermediate point, and that is governed largely by the head room required, either above or below, and the necessities of the case j but I think it is usually better to put it on the bottom chord or under it. or on top of the top chord, than to put it intermediate. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Have you seen any specifications or drawings in this case which would give you an idea of the dim. and shape of those hangers ? A. No, sir ; I have not. Mr. Hewins, I think, handed to Mr. Crocker this morning a roll of plans having to do with this bridge. I have not yet had time to look them over. Mr. Hewins. There was one question which I was about to ask Mr. Philbrick before the adj nirnment, which, if there is no objection, I will ask him now. Edw.uid S. Philurick — recalled. Q. (By Mr. Hewins.) If I remember rightly, you spoke of the hangers as, in your opinion, having been opening, and, of course, extending for some length of time, perhaps some years. Can you form any idea as to the possible distance that the openings may have increased between each other before fracture? A. I referred to the one which was almost broken apart as having undergone a gradual process of tearing during perhaps several years; but I cannot form any idea of what the extent of the opening was, because it would take very nice measurements to do so. You can form some idea by put- ting the parts of the wdiole one in contact, and seeing how much of an opening there is on the other side. Q. With the broken one it would be almost impossible to deter- mine that, would it not? A. Yes, sir; it would. The probable extension of that link when it finally parted would not be more than a small fraction of an inch ; probably less than a quarter of an inch. The Chairman. I would state that in 1884 the Railroad Commis- sioners employed Mr. S. T. Fuller, formerly of the Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad, to join them in their annual tour of inspection of the railroads, and that, for the information of the Board, he wrote out a statement in regard to the bridges, and so far as it relates to the Providence road I have it here. In speaking of this bridge, he says simply this : •• No. .5. Iron truss ; double track ; only one track used ; nondescript ; apparently safe ; over highway." That was the annual inspection. I don't know how much of an examination he made of the bridge. 416 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. Mr. Putnam. Do not the records of the Commission show that Mr. Fuller was empk>3*ed as an expert on behalf of this Board for the purpose of examining bridges? Mr. Kinsley. Yes, sir. The Chairman. The hearing will be now closed as far as evidence is concerned. If you desire, Mr. Putnam, to make an}' remarks to the Commission, we will hear you on Monday of next week. Mr. Putnam. I shall be very happ} T to say to the commissioners what I have to say, at an}- time that they will fix. The Chairman. How long will it take you? Mr. Putnam. A very short time. An hour ; perhaps less. Adjourned to Monday, April 4, at 11.30. THIRTEENTH DAY. Monday, April 4, 1887. The Board met at 11.30. George A. Davis — sworn. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Are you clerk in the superintendent's office of the Boston & Providence Railroad? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do your duties keep you there all the time? A. Pretty much all the time, sir. Q. How long have you been there? A. I have been there sixteen years. Q. Do you remember at any time within the last four or five years receiving any complaint as to nuts being off of the Bussey bridge? A. I have no recollection of anything of the kind. Q. Is it true that any such complaint was made when you were there and was received with contempt or disregard? A. Well, if you will allow me to say, sir, in m} r own wa}-, — parties occasionally, of course, come into the office to speak of some matter that they think requires attention, something that they think may be wrong ; whether it is important or otherwise, they are always treated politely, always thanked for their pains, and always assured that the matter will be attended to ; and any statement to the contrary I pronounce as false. I have no recollection of any one having been discourteously treated under such circumstances, — in fact, under any circumstances. It is not the habit of the people who belong in that otlice to treat people otherwise than courteously. I would like to say if, at any time, as is APPENDIX. 417 occasionally necessary, both myself and the superintendent should be absent, if any report of any matter was made to those persons who were there in charge, it would be reported at once to one or the other of us on our return. So that I can say that I have never heard of any- thing regarding that bridge, any complaint of anything, about nuts being loose or anything else. Q. Are the young men whom you employ now as messenger boys the same that were there five or six years ago? A. No. sir ; I think not. I could not say exactly when they commenced, but I think they have both commenced within three or four years at the outside. Q. (By the Chairman.) When persons come to your office to make a complaint, do they immediately reach you or do they see somebody else first? A. Well, sir, if I am there, of course they reach me at once, because if they should speak to any one first they would be referred immediately to me ; that is, if the superintendent was absent. If he was there they wpuld be referred to him. Q. For instance, suppose a man should come to say that he saw something out of the way, would he find first a boy. young man or clerk before he reached you ? A. He might ; or he might reach me first; he might happen to speak to me before any one else. Q. What would he naturally do; what would be the general expe- rience? Would he see 3*011 first or some young clerk? A. Well, I am inclined to think that he would speak to me first, because I am nearest to the door, most accessible, in front of the door. Q. And if he reported that he had discovered some nuts ofF of a bridge, if the superintendent were in would you refer him to the super- intendent? A. I should at once ; yes. Q. If the superintendent were not in, what would you do in regard to it? A. I should listen to what he had to say ; I should thank him for the pains he had taken to give us the information, as much as though I thought it was of the very greatest importance, and I should assure him that the matter would be attended to at once. Q. What action would you then take in regard to it? A. If the superintendent was likely to be in shortty I should wait and tell him ; that is, if it was anything that did not require instant attention. If so, I should take the same course that he would : I should go to the proper parties with the complaint and request them to attend to the matter. Q. How often do you have complaints made at your office? A. Well, very infrequently. I don't know as I can remember half a dozen instances during the past ten years. Q. Has anybody made any complaint as to the management of the road or the running of the trains? A. No; I don't know of any complaint made as to the management of the road or the running of 418 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. trains. Parties might come in sometimes to speak as to the con- venience of certain trains as it affected themselves, whether it could not be changed, or something of that kind ; nothing else. Q. About half a dozen in how long a time? A. Sixteen 3 r ears. Q. Half a dozen complaints of that sort in sixteen years? A. No, I don't say that. I say that there may have been perhaps half a dozen what you might call complaints of different matters during that time. As to what their importance was I don't say. That is, if you call a statement in regard to nuts on a bridge a complaint. I don't know as it ought to be called a complaint ; it is more properly a report. Q. I mean by complaint anything that any of the passengers on the road, limited to the passenger service, sees fit to come up to your office to make complaint in regard to, in connection with your road. How many per year do you think there have been of those cases? A. I don't think I could possibly place any estimate upon that. I could only say that they are not frequent. Q. Well, more than one a year? A. I should want to know the nature of the complaint before I could say whether there was more than one a year or not. Q. Of all sorts and kinds? A. I should say perhaps half a dozen a year. Q. That would be one in two months. Not oftener than that? A. Not oftener than that, I should say, according to my recollection. Q. And yet you think that practically all complaints are made to you, or that your office is the proper place for a complaint to be made, and that you would know of any complaints that had been made ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Passengers do not come up there but about half a dozen times in the course of a year to make a complaint of any form or nature ? A. That is it, sir. Q. (By Mr. Kinsley.) You read the testimony of Mr. Bock, didn't you? A. I did ; yes, sir. Q. He says that he reported to a young man in your office, — did that young man report to you? A. No, sir ; it is^a case that I never heard of before I read his testimony. If any such complaint had been made to any one in the office, either myself or Mr. Folsom would have known it just as soon as we came in. Q. The young man would have been likely to have told you ? A. He would have reported, without any doubt whatever. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) Do you believe that any such report was ever made as that which Mr. Bock testifies to? A. I do not; I don't believe there ever was. APPENDIX. 419 Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Did you ever carry a complaint directly to the Board of Directors? A. No. sir. Q. You always take them to Mr. Folsom? A. Certainly, sir. Thomas Doank (recalled). Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) I should like to ask you to state to the commissioners what purpose the nuts on the lower cuds of the long vertical rods that ran from the top to the bottom chord of the Parker truss served, and how important the absence of one, two or three of them would be, on the under side of the under chord? A. There arc none, as I understand, in the Parker truss. Q. I understood there were some vertical rods besides the diago- nals? A. There are posts. Q. There are posts, of course. But I understood there were ver- tical rods also. I understood you to tell me that they simply Berved the purpose of holding up the bottom chord? No, sir; I don't understand that there were any such in the Parker truss. (,». What nuts would there be on the under side of the Parker truss? A. My impression is, though I am not certain about it, that there were nuts upon the lower ends of the diagonal rods. Q. But did you not say to me that those rods that were referred to in that testimony only served to hold up the bottom chord? A. No, sir; I must have been referring to the other truss. If there are such nuts, I think they are very vital to the bridge. Q. On the under side of the Parker truss? A. Yes. sir. Q. Then the absence of any considerable number of those nuts, if they hold the diagonals, would be a serious matter? A. Yes. sir. Q. (By Mr. Williams.) Are there any nuts on that bridge that you know of which, if properly adjusted, could be removed by boys? A. I don't know of any. It is possible that with a stone some of those cast-iron nuts which have no strain upon them might lie removed in that way ; but I don't think those which have any tension upon them could be. Q. (By Mr. Putnam.) I should like to have you recall, if you can. what it was that you meant when you said to me while the testi- mony was going in, "Those nuts only serve to hold up the lower chord; they are nuts on rods that only hold up the lower chord." You said to me as I was standing by you there, that they were, and I understood them to be, nuts on the vertical rods running from the top to the bottom chord, and serving, as of course such nuts could only serve, to hold up the bottom chord? A. I think there were none such. The support of the chord where the hangers broke was the I beam, answering both as a suspending rod and a post, — sus- 420 BUSSEY BRIDGE DISASTER. pending the lower chord with the help of the diagonal braces, and acting also as a post. Q. I can't imagine what yon referred to. You certainly said those exact words, which was the first thought that I had of it. A. It wasn't in the testimony, was it? Q. It wasn't in the testimony. You said it to me, and it was to bring it into the testimony that I asked you now. A. There must have been some misunderstanding. Q. You probably thought at the time that the testimony referred to such vertical rods and that they were there ; and if they were there they would serve simply to hold up the lower chord, and would have no serious strain from the bridge? A. No, sir. Q. And if they were there they would naturally be alongside of the I beam, would they not? A. Yes, sir. The Chairman. The public hearings upon this matter will now be closed. 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED ENGINEERING LIBRARY This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. DECJJMSE L £C 141998 t n 9i An„, r • «- General Library (p!30l.°lT) 5 476 Universit^of California