The Lewisham Rail Disaster 1957

 

The Lewisham Train Disaster 4^th December 1957

Vernon Henry William Newland 1899 -1957

Vernon Newland was Stanley Newland’s brother. He was the eldest of Henry & Sophie Newland’s five children. He worked as a civil servant in London and married Annie Manser in 1926. The couple lived in Beckenham and had one son, whose name was Alan.

On the early evening of the 4^th December 1957, Vernon caught the train for home from London Bridge Station. It was a foggy evening with bad visibility and trains were delayed and out of their usual time slots. Vernon was travelling in the last carriage of an electric train, which was bound for Hayes, Kent. The train was brought to a halt at Parks Bridge junction, just outside Lewisham, due to a red signal.

A steam train headed for Ramsgate was approaching the same junction, travelling at about 35 miles per hour. It is believed to have passed two warning signals without slowing down. The driver probably missed these due to the poor visibility at the time. By the time that the steam train’s fireman noticed that the next signal was at red, it was too late to stop the train and it ploughed into the back of the stationary electric train. The impact was made worse by the fact that the electric train had engaged its brakes because it had stopped on an incline. The back two coaches of the electric train were destroyed.

The engine and first coach of the steam train were crushed together and thrown sideways, dislodging a bridge support and causing part of the bridge to collapse onto the steam train’s second and third coaches. A train approaching the bridge slowly on another line spotted the damage to the girders and was able to stop in time.

All three trains had been packed with City & West End workers and Christmas shoppers. It is estimated that there were nearly 1,500 passengers in the electric train and about 700 in the steam train. Ninety people, including Vernon, lost their lives in the accident and about two hundred people were injured.

This is a link to a video explaining how the accident happened https://youtu.be/ZxKRNkBr8Vc?si=auGrDOHdz4bnN9ei

This is a link to a Pathe news report about the accident https://youtu.be/zB4as3sCn_Q?si=HBkYj9gL0Rylppg4

A Court Appearance

 

A Court Appearance.

Henry Newland 1846 – 1930.

Henry was Stanley Newland’s grandfather. His name appeared in various newspapers, including The Times, in September 1885 when he appeared in court charged with disorderly conduct and causing a crowd to assemble. He was described as a tailor aged 35, living at 233, Southampton-street, Camberwell. He was actually about 40 years old, but the address and occupation are right. I’ve rewritten the article as the original is quite long and not very readable.

The prosecution called witnesses, who claimed that at about 7 o’clock on a Sunday evening, Henry was marching in front of a brass band in the Old Kent Road.

The first witness was a policeman, who was on duty at the time. He heard shouting and music and saw a band being led by Henry. The policeman asked Henry to order the band to stop playing as they were frightening two horses. Henry refused and pushed the policeman aside. Henry was taken into custody.

The policeman said that he had noticed a cornet and a big drum being played and that the drum made the most noise. People in the street were complaining about the noise. The defence suggested that the policeman may have caused the crowd to assemble by his interference in the situation and the policeman agreed that that may have been the case.

Another witness, William Thomas Overy, rag merchant, said that he was with his wife and family in the Old Kent-road when they were pushed about by the procession which consisted of boys and girls. Men were playing a cornet and a big drum and making a great noise. The defendant appeared to be leading them. The noise interfered with his comfort, and it frightened the horses of the tram car. He said that the band is a nuisance to everyone in the neighbourhood.

The magistrate enquired whether the band have a place of worship and the defence confirmed that they did but they also have a right to walk in the streets. Mr Bridge, the magistrate, thought that they had better confine their religious services to their place of worship. A third witness, Arthur How, umbrella maker, of Old Kent-road, also stated that the noise made by the procession greatly annoyed him.

Mr Bridge asked whether the defendant would promise not to annoy the public again with these processions, but the defence repeated that the band contended have a right to walk in the streets.

The magistrate stated that when they annoy the public, they should not do it and that the processions cause a great deal of bitterness. Henry refused to promise to stop.

The defence then went on to claim that the policeman acted in a most unwarrantable manner. The prisoner was marching in a proper and orderly manner when the officer seized the defendant and another young man without cause or reason.  It had been held by the Judges that religious bodies had a right to march through the streets singing and playing music.

The defence then called a number of witnesses to show that the procession was marching in an orderly manner, and that there was no occasion for the constable to interfere with it. If there was any disturbance or obstruction it was entirely through his conduct.

The magistrate observed that the question he had to deal with was whether the charge had been substantiated. He thought that under the circumstances the policeman had done his duty, although he did not think he had acted with discretion, as it would have been better to have taken the defendant's name and address than to have taken him into custody. It was clear that a breach of the peace had occurred. He should bind the defendant over in his own recognizances to keep the peace for six months. He advised the police on any future occasion to take the names and addressed of persons offending in this way and place the matter before the Public Prosecutor for the purpose of indicting them as a public nuisance. The magistrate refused to grant a case.