The Train Has Stopped

Late at night a train is derailed by four empty lorries that roll down a slope and collide with a passenger train at high speed. Timonin, the locomotive driver, stays inside the cabin and bravely applies the emergency brake, averting a worse catastrophe. He dies in the attempt, leaving the railway crew and passengers in shock.

Detective German Ermakov opens the formal investigation into the disaster. In his hotel room he meets journalist Igor Malinin, who has already spoken to passengers and collected testimonies. The two men discuss the wreck, with Malinin leaning toward heroism while Ermakov seeks the truth behind the events.

The investigation reveals several seemingly small violations that contributed to the tragedy. A railway shunter, Panteleev, ignored instructions and failed to secure a second boot, allowing the lorries to roll toward the train. The head of the depot, Golovanov, did not observe protocol and released a locomotive with a faulty speed gauge.

The dead driver Timonin had no right to start his run without fixing the speed meter. The findings point to negligence in pre-run checks and equipment maintenance. The crash would have been less likely if those checks had been performed.

Ermakov formulates his conclusions in a firm, uncompromising way: there was no heroism, only a large-scale carelessness that caused a fatal accident. He emphasizes human error and systemic faults rather than personal valor. His verdict challenges the public perception of the tragedy.

The public and city leadership react with indignation and even hostility toward Ermakov's conclusions. They see the accident as proof of bravery and sacrifice, not mere negligence. The debate spills into newspapers and council meetings, heightening tension.

Journalist Malinin, who initially sympathized with Ermakov, becomes indignant at the investigator's stance. He senses that the public wants a heroic interpretation of the events. Malinin ultimately aligns with the majority's demand for a narrative of bravery.

The investigation maps out each small violation: Panteleev's ignored instruction, Golovanov's faulty gauge, and Timonin's risky start. Each mistake seems minor on its own, but together they created a fuse that led to disaster. The film suggests that collective negligence eclipses individual heroism.

The debate pits the idea of heroism against systemic negligence. Supporters argue that Timonin's quick actions saved lives, while critics like Ermakov insist that responsibility lies with those who failed proper procedures. The tension reveals deeper questions about accountability.

The film explores the tension between remembering a hero and acknowledging responsibility. It questions whether heroism can exist in the absence of an adequate safety culture. The tragedy is framed as a consequence of both individual decisions and institutional shortcomings.

As Ermakov's conclusions circulate, people connected with the accident worry about their reputations and careers. The journalist and the leadership circle around narratives that protect their status. The community becomes polarized, with little consensus.

The story closes with the public choosing a narrative of bravery over nuanced truth. The journalist declares, 'Let this be an act of bravery,' while the inspector's voice remains a counterpoint in the ongoing debate. The film ends with the clash between memory and accountability unresolved.