iv

PREFACE.

The discussions before the country in reference to thecause of this accident, the author lias not undertaken togive. These have been contained in the “Railroad Gazette,”the “Railway Age,” the “Springfield Republican,” the NewYork and Chicago dailies, and many other papers.

Prominent engineers, such as C. P. Buckingham, Cle-mans Ilerschel, E. C. Davis, L. II. Clark, Col. C. R. Morton,E. S. Cheseborough, Edward S. Philbrick, D. V. Wood,E. R. Smith and many others have passed their opinionupon it.

The accident at first seemed to involve the question of theuse of iron for bridges, and whether the European systemwas not better than the American, and a comment uponthis was given by Charles Collins, when he testified that$25,000 more would have erected a stone bridge. Yet asthe discussions continued, the conclusion seems to havebeen reached that riveted iron bridges might be safe ifproperly constructed, and the engineers appointed by theState Legislature of Ohio , reported that they “ find nothingin this case to justify our popular apprehension that theremay be some inherent defect in iron as a material forbridges. We find no evidence of weakness in this bridge,which could not have been discovered and prevented.”

The erection of iron bridges with the trusses all belowthe track as contrasted with so-called “through” bridgeshas also been discussed. In this case the tendency to “buck-ling” where the track is supported by iron braces ratherthan suspended from them was most apparent, for engineerGottleib testified there was not a single brace which wasnot buckled.

The danger from derailment and the fearful result whichmust follow in high bridges like this is sufficient argumentfor the addition of guards, or some other means to preventtrains from going ofl.