In a final report, federal investigators said that faulty mechanical and brake systems, combined with weak oversight, led to a fatal crash two years ago at the historic Angels Flight railway, which could open again next year after being closed since the accident.
The crash occurred Feb. 1, 2001, when a car on the historic railway, located on one of the steepest hills in downtown Los Angeles, broke loose and sped backward for about a block before smashing into another rail car at the bottom of the hill.
An 83-year-old man was killed and his wife and six others were injured in the crash, which occurred in front of a crowd of shocked daytime onlookers.
The National Transportation Safety Board's final report was delivered Tuesday in Washington and unanimously approved by the NTSB's five-member board. The report, which mirrored and expanded on findings by state regulators last year, touched on an array of engineering flaws.
First were brake problems.
"The brake system, as designed, was inoperable," the report noted, "as implemented, was not fail-safe, and was further inadequate" because the emergency brakes could not be activated independently of the regular brakes and tested separately. Such a test, it said, "would have revealed that the system's emergency brakes were inoperative."
Angels Flight also lacked backup track brakes and a safety cable that could have stopped a runaway train. Investigators noted that those design features are common on hillside trains, sometimes called funiculars, such as Angels Flight.
Investigators also found that the railway's drivetrain was flawed and that metal on its gear hub was too soft, causing it to fail.
Finally, compounding the design flaws, the railway lacked adequate emergency walkways, according to the report, which prevented riders from escaping and emergency crews from getting into the trains.
In addition, the investigation faulted the Public Utilities Commission, which is responsible for rail safety in California, for failing to "fulfill ... oversight responsibilities" during construction and operations.
Last year, the PUC came out with its own report on the accident. It too blamed design and construction problems. The accident led to reorganization of the commission's rail safety review process.
