The Train Has Stopped 1982

Late at night, a shocking train accident disrupts the quiet of the rail network: four empty lorries suddenly roll down a slope and crash into a high-velocity passenger train. The disaster is narrowly averted thanks to the decisive action of the driver Timonin, whose courage keeps the locomotive on a path that prevents an even larger catastrophe. Tragically, the driver does not survive the ordeal.

Detective Ermakov takes charge of the investigation, and his path soon brings him into contact with passenger and journalist Malinin in a hotel room, where the two men discuss the wreck and what it means for those left behind. As Malinin’s words turn into a vivid article praising the driver’s heroism, Ermakov’s growing table of facts begins to tell a different story.

The investigation points to a chain of seemingly “minor” violations that collectively doomed the train. The first misstep comes from railroad shunter Panteleyev, who ignores instructions and fails to set the second boot, allowing the lorries to break away and roll toward the passenger train. The second factor is the depot’s leadership: Golovanov releases a locomotive with a faulty speed gauge. And the third critical fault rests with the dead driver [Timonin], who, as the report notes, had no right to start his run without ensuring the speed meter was fixed.

From Ermakov’s perspective, the findings are stark: there was no heroic sacrifice at play, only a widespread pattern of carelessness that culminated in a fatal loss of life. This assessment triggers anger and hostility toward the investigator from the public and from the city’s leadership, who feel the truth damages cherished narratives of bravery. Even Malinin, who initially sympathized with Ermakov’s pursuit of facts, grows indignant at the rejection of a heroic frame and veers toward the majority’s view.

Let this be an act of bravery!

With this moment, the journalist shifts his stance, aligning with the crowd’s sentiment and turning the debate toward the uncomfortable reality behind the tragedy. The balance between what is celebrated as heroism and what is exposed as procedural failure becomes the central tension, inviting the audience to reassess how such accidents are interpreted and remembered.