▁The ▁subsequent ▁report ▁by ▁Captain ▁Ty ler ▁of ▁the ▁Railway ▁Ins pect or ate ▁identified ▁multiple ▁fail ings : ▁the ▁vi ad uct ▁was ▁too ▁flexible ▁( because ▁of ▁too ▁light ▁a ▁construction ), ▁and ▁a ▁ske w ▁one , ▁which ▁encourag ed ▁oscill ation ▁of ▁the ▁engine , ▁the ▁short ▁wheel base ▁of ▁the ▁modified ▁engine ▁allowed ▁the ▁oscill ations ▁to ▁be ▁violent , ▁and ▁the ▁permanent ▁way ▁ ▁ins u fficient ly ▁robust ▁( both ▁as ▁built , ▁and ▁even ▁more ▁so ▁after ▁a ▁failure ▁to ▁ade qu ately ▁maintain ▁it ) ▁to ▁with stand ▁the ▁oscill ation . ▁The ▁copy ▁of ▁Captain ▁Ty ler ' s ▁report ▁sent ▁to ▁the ▁C & W ▁was ▁accompanied ▁by ▁the ▁comment ▁" My ▁L ords ▁direct ▁me ▁to ▁observe , ▁that ▁it ▁appears ▁from ▁this ▁report ▁that ▁the ▁accident ▁in ▁question ▁was ▁entirely ▁due ▁to ▁the ▁employ ment ▁of ▁a ▁defect ively - construct ed ▁engine ▁upon ▁a ▁bad ▁road , ▁and ▁that ▁therefore ▁serious ▁bl ame ▁is ▁to ▁be ▁attributed ▁to ▁those ▁in ▁whom ▁the ▁management ▁of ▁the ▁railway ▁is ▁v ested " ▁ ▁D od ds ▁returned ▁to ▁the ▁attack ▁against ▁the ▁board ▁at ▁the ▁August ▁ 1 8 5 7 ▁half - year ly ▁meeting , ▁but ▁this ▁time ▁received ▁much ▁less ▁support . ▁Meanwhile , ▁Mr ▁Harris ▁had ▁sought ▁an ▁inj unction ▁against ▁the ▁C & W ▁ ▁under ▁the ▁Railway ▁and ▁Canal ▁Tra ffic ▁Act ▁ 1 8 5 4 , ▁which ▁forb ade ▁railway ▁companies ▁giving ▁an