Balcombe Station Accident 1985

[Ted633]

Traveled from Balcombe station in west Sussex this afternoon and the information board said that the platforms were extended to 12 coaches in the 1960’s. However, it said in 1985 there was an accident involving a freight train that wiped out some of the down platform, which to this day hasn’t been fully rebuilt and remains restricted to 8 coaches.

Does anyone have anymore information on this? Or photos? I’ve had a quick search online and not a lot seems to come up!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Incident occurred at around 9.00 p.m. on Tuesday 9th April 1985. One contemporary newspaper source reported...

BALCOMBE CRASH HITS COMMUTERS
LONDON-BOUND passengers from Eastbourne and coastal towns faced delays and diversions on Wednesday and Thursday following a train crash at Balcombe station near Haywards Heath on Tuesday night. Three wagons of a southbound train loaded with ballast came off the track just before the station and crashed into the platform causing extensive damage to 150 feet of platform. Passengers travelling from Eastbourne to Victoria had to take a special shuttle train to Haywards Heath, then a bus to Three Bridges before being connected with a train to Victoria...

 

[yorksrob]

I wonder whether the extensions were Exmouth Junction concrete "harps and slabs" rather than solid (and therefore more likely to collapse).

Seems a bit remiss not to have rebuilt it though.

 

[John Webb]

I wonder whether the extensions were Exmouth Junction concrete "harps and slabs" rather than solid (and therefore more likely to collapse).

Seems a bit remiss not to have rebuilt it though.

The station in 2013:
Balcombe station

© Copyright Marathon and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

Other photos on the Geograph site indicate the platforms were of solid construction.

 

[Rescars]

Balcombe appears to have a bit of a history in regards to provision for passengers, being reported as being of the "worst construction" in 1846. https://www.cuckfieldconnections.or...tion-site-of-a-shocking-early-railway-tragedy

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Has the Southbound platform at Balcombe station ever been longer than 8 train carriages in length? Doesn't look to be enough room between/beyond Rocks Lane (under bridge) at the North end of the station, where I reckon there was once a signal box in the way and the B2036 London Road (over bridge) at the South end of the station. Happy to be corrected on this.

There's is however a story in the "Sussex Express" dated Friday 31st August 1962 stating that Balcombe station platforms would be lengthened during Saturday night, and that the 4.40 a.m. train from London Bridge to Brighton will be diverted via Oxted and Lewes, so maybe this was when it was done. But was the lengthening from 8 cartiage lengths to 12, or 4 carriage lengths to 8, or something else? And was it on both sides?

N.B. There's pictures of the damage caused in the April 1985 incident on a Facebook post in 2017 by local historian Steve Pitfold (titled 'Disused Railways of Sussex') and the damage looks quite substantial. (Link below, sorry, not able to provide an extract).

Disused Railways of Sussex | As it came up yesterday, Clive Robey was kind enough to send me the pics of the unscheduled demolition of part of Balcombe station by a derailed freig... | Facebook

As it came up yesterday, Clive Robey was kind enough to send me the pics of the unscheduled demolition of part of Balcombe station by a derailed freight in 1985. I think it qualifies here both for...

www.facebook.com

Not sure how long it took to fix the 1985 damage, I've seen a mention in a newspaper report online ("West Sussex County Times" dated Friday 17th May 1985) as to the line through Balcombe being closed for the weekend in order to repair damaged trackwork.

P.S. Notwithstanding the incident, according to the "Mid Sussex Times" dated Friday 6th December 1985, Balcombe station nevertheless still won the Southern Region's best kept station award, later that same year.

 

[8ace]

The station in 2013:
Balcombe station

© Copyright Marathon and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

Other photos on the Geograph site indicate the platforms were of solid construction.

That looks like part of the original down platform. I can’t find a good pic but the extended platform on the upside looks similar to the more flimsy construction seen at Wivelsfield two stops down the line. Here’s a picture from the SREMG that show the non-solid nature of this type of construction.

Wivelsfield

(I don’t know if this is the same as the “harps and slabs” that @yorksrob refers to)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 20:16 ==

Has the Southbound platform at Balcombe station ever been longer than 8 train carriages in length? Doesn't look to be enough room between/beyond Rocks Lane (under bridge) at the North end of the station, where I reckon there was once a signal box in the way and the B2036 London Road (over bridge) at the South end of the station. Happy to be corrected on this.

I have pondered this when sat in the rear coach of 700/1 returning home. The down platform does extend into the “tunnel” a bit which it doesn’t on the up side. There was a goods shed on what is now the car park, I imagine this would have closed and the tracks to it removed at a similar time to the 1962 extension you mention.

 

[Gloster]

Comparison between the 1956 and 1971 revisions of the 25” map seem to show that the Up platform was originally quite short and was extended a long way north between these dates. The slightly longer Down platform was also extended north across Rocks Lane, but not as far so that it could not hold as many coaches; it extended to a few yards north of MP 33 3/4.

The goods yard was behind the Up side building and extended south to beyond where London Road crossed the line. There doesn’t appear to be a large goods shed, but there might have been a lock-up on the Up platform.

 

[8ace]

This image from 1961 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balcombe_railway_station shows the up platform with the then extant line to the goods yard zt the northern end curtailing its length. The signal box on the down side is also visible. this closed in 1963 according to AI.

Found some pictures of the up side extension but not the down side.
[url=https://flic.kr/p/jC6RZd] Balcombe Station, 26 Aug 1962 by Ian Nolan, on Flickr[/URL]
[url=https://flic.kr/p/jC7Lyy] Balcombe Station, 26 Aug 1962 by Ian Nolan, on Flickr[/URL]
[url=https://flic.kr/p/jC4Q3T] Balcombe Station, 26 Aug 1962 by Ian Nolan, on Flickr[/URL]

 

[yorksrob]

That looks like part of the original down platform. I can’t find a good pic but the extended platform on the upside looks similar to the more flimsy construction seen at Wivelsfield two stops down the line. Here’s a picture from the SREMG that show the non-solid nature of this type of construction.
View attachment 212455

Wivelsfield

(I don’t know if this is the same as the “harps and slabs” that @yorksrob refers to)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 20:16 ==


I have pondered this when sat in the rear coach of 700/1 returning home. The down platform does extend into the “tunnel” a bit which it doesn’t on the up side. There was a goods shed on what is now the car park, I imagine this would have closed and the tracks to it removed at a similar time to the 1962 extension you mention.

They are indeed.

Looking at google, it does appear that one platform is noticeably longer than the other - and it's the down platform rather than the up, which suggests that it wasn't planned that way.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 08:55 ==

This image from 1961 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balcombe_railway_station shows the up platform with the then extant line to the goods yard zt the northern end curtailing its length. The signal box on the down side is also visible. this closed in 1963 according to AI.

Found some pictures of the up side extension but not the down side.
[url=https://flic.kr/p/jC6RZd] Balcombe Station, 26 Aug 1962 by Ian Nolan, on Flickr[/URL]
[url=https://flic.kr/p/jC7Lyy] Balcombe Station, 26 Aug 1962 by Ian Nolan, on Flickr[/URL]
[url=https://flic.kr/p/jC4Q3T] Balcombe Station, 26 Aug 1962 by Ian Nolan, on Flickr[/URL]

It's a shame they got rid of that lovely platform canopy.

 

[WesternLancer]

They are indeed.

Looking at google, it does appear that one platform is noticeably longer than the other - and it's the down platform rather than the up, which suggests that it wasn't planned that way.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 08:55 ==



It's a shame they got rid of that lovely platform canopy.

Interesting to see those pics - the classic SR concrete lamp standards and glass(?) shades caught my eye and they were also showing in the facebook link above in the pictures of the 1985 accident (as linked by @Mcr Warrior above) damage so still there then.

Having travelled through the station numerous times I don't think I ever realised how many of the original buildings shown in the 1961 images (on both platforms) have been removed.

Also interestingly the signal box pictured here does not look similar to the general LBSCR box types you see around their former routes - in terms of architectural design / style

 

[edwin_m]

Looking at google, it does appear that one platform is noticeably longer than the other - and it's the down platform rather than the up, which suggests that it wasn't planned that way.

If the dominant passenger flow is to/from further north then that way round makes some sense. If the Up platform is shorter than those passengers can board the part of the train adjacent to the platform, but if the Down platform is long enough for the longest train then passengers alighting do not have to travel in specific cars or move along the train. This is a similar situation to Foxton, where only the Down platform was extended fairly recently.

 

[yorksrob]

If the dominant passenger flow is to/from further north then that way round makes some sense. If the Up platform is shorter than those passengers can board the part of the train adjacent to the platform, but if the Down platform is long enough for the longest train then passengers alighting do not have to travel in specific cars or move along the train. This is a similar situation to Foxton, where only the Down platform was extended fairly recently.

Sorry - silly me - it's the up that's longer than the down, hence my observation !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 13:05 ==

Interesting to see those pics - the classic SR concrete lamp standards and glass(?) shades caught my eye and they were also showing in the facebook link above in the pictures of the 1985 accident (as linked by @Mcr Warrior above) damage so still there then.

Having travelled through the station numerous times I don't think I ever realised how many of the original buildings shown in the 1961 images (on both platforms) have been removed.

Also interestingly the signal box pictured here does not look similar to the general LBSCR box types you see around their former routes - in terms of architectural design / style

Yes, looked to be a lovely little country station. Now the remaining canopy's on the wrong side !

 

[Gloster]

Also interestingly the signal box pictured here does not look similar to the general LBSCR box types you see around their former routes - in terms of architectural design / style

It is an early Saxby & Farmer design, opened in 1864 and which lasted ninety-nine years. It would have been logical for the LB&SCR to fully signal its main line at an early stage, but many of the original boxes would have been replaced by boxes of later designs as stations grew. Balcombe does not seem to have grown much, so they could keep the original box. It originally had twelve levers, but sometime after 1874 it gained a new frame; this was relocked and extended to seventeen levers in 1904.

Source: Signal Box Register, Volume 4: Southern Railway (Signalling Record Society, 2009).

 

[WesternLancer]

It is an early Saxby & Farmer design, opened in 1864 and which lasted ninety-nine years. It would have been logical for the LB&SCR to fully signal its main line at an early stage, but many of the original boxes would have been replaced by boxes of later designs as stations grew. Balcombe does not seem to have grown much, so they could keep the original box. It originally had twelve levers, but sometime after 1874 it gained a new frame; this was relocked and extended to seventeen levers in 1904.

Source: Signal Box Register, Volume 4: Southern Railway (Signalling Record Society, 2009).

Thanks. Info appreciated and informative.

I was comparing it with this style eg example at Warnham pictured on this page

Warnham Signalbox

 

[edwin_m]

It would have been logical for the LB&SCR to fully signal its main line at an early stage, but many of the original boxes would have been replaced by boxes of later designs as stations grew.

"Red For Danger" (Rolt) covers the Clayton Tunnel accident of 1861, noting that the tunnel had a crude block system (which failed to prevent a major accident) but the Brighton line was otherwise worked on the time interval system. Even after the accident the LBSCR resisted introducing block signalling but agreed to a trial between Brighton and Hassocks Gate. The 1865 date suggests a later extension of the block system further north.

 

[Gloster]

Thanks. Info appreciated and informative.

I was comparing it with this style eg example at Warnham pictured on this page

Warnham Signalbox

Warnham was of what was classified Saxby & Farmer Type 5, which is probably regarded as the typical LB&SCR box. Over two hundred were built on SR lines and I think that most were on the Brighton. They were built from 1876 to 1894, so it is probable that few were replaced by larger boxes when stations were extended, but many would have been on minor lines that closed under Beeching.

Source as above.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 14:06 ==

"Red For Danger" (Rolt) covers the Clayton Tunnel accident of 1861, noting that the tunnel had a crude block system (which failed to prevent a major accident) but the Brighton line was otherwise worked on the time interval system. Even after the accident the LBSCR resisted introducing block signalling but agreed to a trial between Brighton and Hassocks Gate. The 1865 date suggests a later extension of the block system further north.

It looks as though a rudimentary block system (Bartholomew’s) was in use north of Croydon as early as 1854, but the whole line seems to have had Tyer’s block north of Stoat’s Nest (Coulsdon) and Harper’s south of it from around 1862. Presumably block working was given priority over boxes.

 

[Rescars]

Thanks. Info appreciated and informative.

I was comparing it with this style eg example at Warnham pictured on this page

Warnham Signalbox

Warnham was classic LBSC and very stylish. As a very rough guide older boxes tended to be of plainer design and the shallower the windows the older the box.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 14:25 ==

Balcombe appears to have another claim to fame. According to Pryer's Pictorial Record of Southern Signals, the LBSC upgraded the northern part of the Brighton main line to Sykes Lock and Block in 1880. This extended as far as Balcombe, with Tyer's three-position one wire instruments being used further south.

 

[Gloster]

Balcombe appears to have another claim to fame. According to Pryer's Pictorial Record of Southern Signals, the LBSC upgraded the northern part of the Brighton main line to Sykes Lock and Block in 1880. This extended as far as Balcombe, with Tyer's three-position one wire instruments being used further south.

I hate to disagree with Pryer, but the Register credoted above says that Earlswood-Brighton used Harper’s from 1862. However, Balcombe-Preston Park was converted to Tyer’s (3-position) in 1924.

 

[Rescars]

I hate to disagree with Pryer, but the Register credoted above says that Earlswood-Brighton used Harper’s from 1862. However, Balcombe-Preston Park was converted to Tyer’s (3-position) in 1924.

Someone has some crossed wires somewhere! Pryer notes the challenges he faced in accessing historical records at the time of writing, so the SRS may well be more accurate. That said, AIUI Harper's were 2-position instruments. Were these still in use on the Brighton main line in the Southern era?

 

[Gloster]

Someone has some crossed wires somewhere! Pryer notes the challenges he faced in accessing historical records at the time of writing, so the SRS may well be more accurate. That said, AIUI Harper's were 2-position instruments. Were these still in use on the Brighton main line in the Southern era?

Yes, the Register just says Harper’s, so you may well be right that they were 2-position. (Probably comes of me trying to balance a very battered book on my knee.)

Harper’s was replaced by Sykes Lock & Block between Earlswood and Horley in 1899. Horley-Balcombe remained Harper’s until replaced by Track Circuit Block (Bell Block and Magazine Train Describers) in 1932 along with the rest of the line south of Earlswood. Sykes Lock & Block authorised for Gatwick-Balcombe 1916 but work not carried out.

 

[WesternLancer]

Warnham was classic LBSC and very stylish. As a very rough guide older boxes tended to be of plainer design and the shallower the windows the older the box.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 14:25 ==

Balcombe appears to have another claim to fame. According to Pryer's Pictorial Record of Southern Signals, the LBSC upgraded the northern part of the Brighton main line to Sykes Lock and Block in 1880. This extended as far as Balcombe, with Tyer's three-position one wire instruments being used further south.

Thanks for those comments on the design styles.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 17:42 ==

Warnham was of what was classified Saxby & Farmer Type 5, which is probably regarded as the typical LB&SCR box. Over two hundred were built on SR lines and I think that most were on the Brighton. They were built from 1876 to 1894, so it is probable that few were replaced by larger boxes when stations were extended, but many would have been on minor lines that closed under Beeching.

Source as above.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 14:06 ==



It looks as though a rudimentary block system (Bartholomew’s) was in use north of Croydon as early as 1854, but the whole line seems to have had Tyer’s block north of Stoat’s Nest (Coulsdon) and Harper’s south of it from around 1862. Presumably block working was given priority over boxes.

Thanks for the added info on the Type 5 boxes.

 

[izvor]

Balcombe appears to have a bit of a history in regards to provision for passengers, being reported as being of the "worst construction" in 1846. https://www.cuckfieldconnections.or...tion-site-of-a-shocking-early-railway-tragedy

Interesting. Balcombe station was resited shortly after opening, being originally on the north side of the Rocks Lane underbridge. Perhaps the new station (as described, with steep steps from the main road) was still under construction in 1846?

I've never understood why it was relocated so soon, especially as the original was of the "standard" L&B design with 2 through roads and 2 platform loops. Old maps show the latter still in use many years after, as sidings.

 

[Rescars]

Yes, the Register just says Harper’s, so you may well be right that they were 2-position. (Probably comes of me trying to balance a very battered book on my knee.)

Harper’s was replaced by Sykes Lock & Block between Earlswood and Horley in 1899. Horley-Balcombe remained Harper’s until replaced by Track Circuit Block (Bell Block and Magazine Train Describers) in 1932 along with the rest of the line south of Earlswood. Sykes Lock & Block authorised for Gatwick-Balcombe 1916 but work not carried out.

There must have been Harper's 2-position instruments still in use somewhere on the Southern Region, because they feature in the 1960 General Instructions..

The authorised but not implemented upgrade to Gatwick-Balcombe may explain the discrepancy in Pryer's dates.