Talk:Lewisham rail crash

3rd train?

Is the story I have heard of a third train which stopped before crossing the bridge true? It allegedly stopped after seeing the bridge collapse in front of it, or so I believe. Bluebellnutter 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Motorman Corke was driving the Holborn Viaduct to Dartford service which was an 8 car EMU. He was approaching on the Down Nunhead line and was due to pass over the bridge which had collapsed. Fortunately he saw a 'dip' in the bridge and pulled up in time. (Ref: Page 139 of 30 years at Bricklayers Arms by Michael Jackman). Fu Manchuchu (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Accident not crash

As with so many other such articles, the word "crash" is simply media-speak! Peter Shearan (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

Noticed this had popped up on the page so moved it here for discussion - looks very much like original research to me - interesting but not really relevant in an encyclopedia?

"I found out tonight from my Mother through tears, that my Grandfather was the first Police officer on the scene at this terrible event. He was about to finish his shift when the he got a call in his radio car. He approached the trains and worked through the night realising that one of the trains involved was the train that my Mother would have normally travelled on to return home from work. Had it not been for a phone call message from my Father to my Mothers office at lunch time, which my Mother upon her return from lunch mistook for her brother (as they had the same name) as a prearranged sign that she should return home to nurse her sick mother. She left work just after Lunch. It was not until my Grandfather returned home in the early hours of the morning to find his daughter, my Mother, alive and well. He said "I did not know that you were not on that train". RIP P.C. P.Wilsher "served with distinction"

Spookydel (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

EMU train

Accident report doesn't include details of the EMU trains involved, while this is the case it does state that it was made up of two of "Southern Region's standard suburban formation with a motor saloon second brake at each end" which seems to align with a British Rail Class 405 and the two car unit at the rear was likely a British Rail Class 402 or similar. Would it be approprite to add this to the article? Giorgio elgar (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Feels like speculation, so not unless you have a valid source to suggest it. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If it was a 10-cat formation, it can't have been class 405 stock. Those were 4-car units, so trains could have been 4 0r 8 cars long (12 cars was possible but very rare). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

OK. From Brigadier Langley's report, pp. 2-3, section 1:

The 10-coach multiple unit electric train to Hayes consisted of two four-coach units and one two-coach unit at the rear. Each four-coach unit was of the Southern Region's standard suburban formation with a motor saloon second brake at each end, and a trailer compartment second and a trailer saloon second in between. The two-coach unit was of the standard formation used in the 10-coach trains of the Eastern Section, with a motor saloon second brake in front, and a driving trailer semi-saloon second behind it; this coach had a guard's compartment as well as a driving compartment at the rear. The total number of seats in the train was 958, and it was carrying nearly 1,500 passengers. The total tare weight was 340 tons and the loaded weight was approximately 430 tons. The total length was 215 yards. The three units were constructed wholly of steel, one in 1953 and the two others in 1956, and the bodies were welded to the underframes. Central Buckeye couplings were in use between the sets, and the intermediate couplings were of the close three-link type with central buffers. The Westinghouse automatic and electro-pneumatic brakes were in use, and the total brake power available was 267 tons, or 78.5% of the total tare weight of the train, and 62% of the total loaded weight.

Later on (pp. 3-4 section 6), four car numbers are given for the rear of the electric train: 77565, 65380, 14408 and 15382 - the first two of these are unit 5766, which would have been Class 416/2; the second two are half of unit 5204, Class 415/1. None of the front six car numbers is given. Now class 416/2 units numbered between 5701 and 5779 had 186 seats, and most class 415/1 units in the 5001-5262 block had 386 seats; and 958 - 186 - 386 = 386, so it's reasonable to suppose that the leading unit was also a 415/1 because no other coupling-compatible type of four-car unit had 386 seats. Class 415/2, which were coupling-compatible four-car suburban units had not yet been introduced (most of them had 392 seats). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I've traced the fate of the fifth through tenth cars of the electric train to Hayes - the leading four cars (one 4-EPB unit) I can't identify, presumably they were undamaged and continued in service.

The rear two cars, nos. 77565 and 65380 of 2-EPB unit 5766 were written off and scrapped, these numbers then remained blank. A replacement 2-EPB unit, no. 5800 (cars 61624 & 75636), was built in 1960 concurrently with the first Class 415/2 units.

The second 4-EPB unit, no. 5204 was disbanded and the number not used again. Of its four cars:

• 14408 (eighth in the train) was written off and scrapped
• 15382 (seventh) was repaired and reformed into unit 5020 (replacing 15120)
• 15332 (sixth) was also reformed into unit 5020 (replacing 15020)
• 14407 (fifth) was reformed into unit 5225 (replacing 14450, written off following the Staines accident earlier in 1957)

A replacement 4-EPB unit, no. 5301, was formed in 1960, which comprised two new class 416/2 motor cars (61625/6) and two existing trailers (15043, 15413) displaced from unit 5225 (by cars 15020/120). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)