1895
HAYWARDS HEATH
24th SEPTEMBER 1895
Involving
Driver James King &
Driver John Whittle and his fireman William Stiles
depots unknown
extracted and adapted from the report by
G.W. Addison, Lieut. Col., R.E.
Lieut Col R.E.
A collision which occurred on the 24th September, at Haywards Heath station, on the London, Brighton, and South coast Railway. In this case as the 3.22 p.m. express from Victoria to Eastbourne was running through Haywards Heath station it came into collision with an empty truck, which had just been shown foul of the down main line during shunting operations on the sidings leading to the goods yard.
The passenger train consisted of a four wheel coupled, tender, engine and 18 coaches (counting as 23), fitted throughout with the Westinghouse automatic brake.
The engine struck the buffer and corner of the truck but did not leave the rails, and it sustained little damage. The foot boards of the passenger carriages were all more or less damaged.
No person complained of injury, although the incident naturally caused considerable alarm to the passengers.
DESCRIPTION
Haywards Heath is a double sided station with up and down platforms, and at the back of the down platform there is a passenger bay, known as the "South Bay." The bay line has a trailing junction with the down line, about 105 yards south of the platform; it is continued, parallel to and east of the down line, as a siding for a considerable distance south, and rom it there are siding roads leading into and out of the goods yard. A second trailing junction on the down line, 250 yards south of the platform, gives access to the siding and goods yard.
The points of the two junctions on the main line are worked from the south signal box, which is situated a few yards south of the down platform; but the points of the goods yard roads, on the siding line, and which are between the two connections with the main line, are worked by hand, being weighted so as to lie normally for the goods yard roads.
The following distances may be noted, from the centre of the south signal box:-
To down home signals 21 chains 9 yards north
To centre of the north signal box 13 chains 8 yards north
To down starting signals 5 yards north
To junction with south bay line 4 chains 15 yards south
To point of collision 7 chains south
To junction with siding (for goods yard) 11 chains south
EVIDENCE
William Eager states: I have been 4 1/2 years in the Company's service and 18 months as porter at Haywards Heath Station. On the 24th September I came on duty at 6 a.m. and left work at 6.30 p.m., this being market day -- my ordinary tour of duty is from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. On that date I was in charge of shunting operations during the afternoon, in the goods yard at the south end of the station. A pilot engine went into No.2 road to get hold of 11 trucks which had to be shunted on to other roads. One truck had to be put into No.1 road, and to do this, so soon as the engine had drawn forward sufficiently with the whole of them, it was necessary to pull No.1 and No.2 points; I stood at No.1 and porter Feast at No.2. I called out to Feast to unhook the rear truck. To do so he had to let go of the points. He unhooked the truck, and apparently before he got back again to the point lever the driver commenced to set back, without having had any signal from me to do so. The lever of No.1 points is on the yard side of the line. I could not see the driver on account of a truck of straw, second, I believe, from the engine. When I saw the truck coming towards me I called out to Feast to get hold of the point lever. As soon as he could get out from between the trucks he held up his hands to the driver to stop, and I still called out to him to get hold of the points. The truck which had been unhooked was an empty one; I do not recollect how far it ran back along No.1 road, but it did not leave the rails. The second truck (from the rear) containing cases of sugar, dropped off the road on the side of the main line; just at that moment I saw the express approaching, but I could do nothing to stop it or to give any warning. Porter Flay, who was on the up side of the railway at the time, saw what had happened and shouted out to the signalman to put the signals to danger. I have only been in charge of shunting three times, but have assisted for the last 18 months.
George Federick Feast states: I have been in the Company's service about six weeks as porter at Haywards Heath Station. My hours of duty on the 24th September were from 6.0 a.m. to 6 p.m. On that date I was assisting porter Eager, during the afternoon, in the shunting operations. When the goods train came out of No.2 road, it stopped with No.2 points between the two rear trucks. Eager called out to me to unhook the rear truck; I left the points and got between the wagons and unhooked. Whilst I was still between them the driver commenced to set back. I heard Eager shouting to me to catch hold of the points, but the I got there it was too late, as the wheels of the second trucks had got fouled of the points; so I called out to the driver and held up my hands for him to stop. I saw that the leading wheels of the truck were off the line on the 6 foot side, and at the same time I saw the engine of the passenger trains passing the signal cabin. I was incorrect in saying No.2 points were between the two trucks' I should have said they were between the two pairs of wheels of No.2 (from the rear). The engine of the train struck (from the rear). The engine of the train struck the ned of the truck by the truck as it passed.
John Whittle states :- I have been 21 years in the Company's service, and a driver in England and abroad for 36 years. On the 24th September I came on duty at 11 a.m. and broke of at 10:00 p.m. At about 4 o'clock in the afternoon I commenced shutting work in the goods yard. When we came out of No.2 road, with the trucks, porter Eager gave me the signal to start and also to stop when when we had gone far enough; he was standing at the second pair of points from me, No.1, and on the yard side of the line. I was on the same side of my engine as porter Eager. To see him I had to put my heads outside the cab, and stoop down in order in the order to look underneath the straw which was on a waggon three or four from engine; at that time Eager and Feast were holding their points over. Eager waved me back at once, and I reversed the engine. It is a screw reverser, and whilst I was working it, or afterwards, Feat must have got in between the wagons and unhooked the rear one. As soon as I began to set back I heard the porters shouting out to me to stop, which I did as soon as possible. I had looked out a second time, after reversing, and porter Eager was still waving me back.
William Stiles states: I have been about 12 years in the Company's service, and five years as fireman. On the 24th September I was firing for driver Whittle, and my hours of duty were the same as his. The engine number No.232, is a four wheeled coupled tank engine, fitted with Westinghouse and hand brakes. As we pulled out of No.2 road the engine was running with the chimney in front, and I was on the right hand side of the engine. When we began shunting the driver remarked to me that we must be careful as we had not done shunting with Eager before. It is usually done by the foreman porter, who was engaged that day at the cattle dock on the other side of the line. I know that Whittle looked out before we stopped, and also again after reversing, before he gave the engine steam. I saw none of the signals given by the shunter.
James King states: I have been 35 years in the Company's service, and 20 years as driver. On the 24th September I came on duty at 9 p.m. to work until 10.30 p.m., this tour of duty occurring about once a fortnight; an average day's work will be a little over 10 hours, perhaps 10 1/2 hours. My engine, 218, is a four-wheel coupled tender engine fitted with Westinghouse bakes and tender hand-brake. I left Victoria at 3.23 p.m. for Eastbourne with 18 vehicles, counting as 23, the train does not stop until Lewes, and It is booked to pass Haywards Heath at 4.16. On the date in question we were about three or four minutes late on arriving at
Haywards Heath. I was riding- on the left-hand side of the engine. All signals, including the distant-signal, were "off" for us. As we passed along the down. platform I saw the inspector on the up platform, standing on the slope of that platform, holding up his hands to stop us, and I then saw the starting-signal being put up in my face. Almost at the same time I saw a truck fouling my line at some points a short distance beyond the box. I should say we were then running at a speed of about 55 miles an hour and I doubt if I had got the brakes on by the time the engine struck the truck. My mate and I hardly felt the shock at all. The steps on the left-hand side of the engine were bent down flat, but that was almost all the damage done. All the carriage footboards and steps were stripped off or otherwise damaged. I had stepped across to the right side of the engine to put my mate's feed on, as he was clearing up after firing. If I had not happened to do so, I should not have seen tho inspector, and I should have seen the truck no sooner than I did.
Peter Packham states : I have been 19 1/2 years in the Company's service, all the time as signalman at Haywards Heath. I am now employed in the south cabin. On the 24th September my hours of duty were from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. I had nothing whatever to do with the shunting operations prior to the accident, as all the points they were using are hand worked. At about 4.20 p.m. I heard a truck go off the road below my cabin, just as I received the " train on line," signal from the north box for the 3.22 passenger express from Victoria to Eastbourne. I had pulled all my signals '"off " for that train when I received the first signal for it. When I heard the truck leave the rails I went to the window to see if it was foul of the main line, and I found it was. I also heard someone call from the cattle dock, on the up side of the railway, to warn me. I put my signal levers back at once, i.e., distant, home, starting. The train was then between the north box: and my box. I had just time to get to the window, to hold up my hands as a signal to the driver, when the train dashed past and the collision followed. It was only about half a minute from when the truck left the rails to the time when the accident occurred.
CONCLUSION.
The operations on the sidings previous to the collision were as follows:-
Shunting engine, No. 232, brought 11 trucks out of No. 2 goods yard road on to the south siding, which is parallel to the down main line, for the purpose of carrying out various shunting operations the first being to put the rear truck into No. 1 road. Porter Eager was in charge of the shunting work, assisted by porter Feast, the foreman porter who usually supervises it being engaged elsewhere that afternoon. Eager stood at one pair of points and Feast at another, it being necessary to hold over both to allow of the trucks moving on the siding line as the points lie normally for the goods yard.
When the engine had pulled the trucks on to tLe siding line it was stopped by a signal given by Eager, before the whole of the trucks had got clear of the points where Feast was standing. Those points then ]ay between the leading and trailing wheels of the second truck from the rear. Eager called out to Feast to unhook tho rear truck, and the latter at .once left his point-lever and placed himself between the two rear trucks; while Feast was still between the trucks the driver commenced to set back, and when the former got out the vehicles were already in motion. Eager shouted to him to go to his lever, but Feast says it was too late as the wheels of the second truck were foul of the points, and he could only signal to the driver to stop.
The leading wheels of that truck followed the siding line whilst the trailing wheels
were turned into a road leading from the siding to the goods yard. The truck waS'
derailed and thrown with its leading end just foul of the down line, and almost at the
same moment the passenger express down train ran through the station and struck the
end of the truck with the result stated above. Considering the speed of the train,
estimated by the driver at 55 miles an hour, it is most forLunate that the collision. was
unattended by any serious consequences.
There is a direct conflict of evidence between driver Whittle and porter Eager, as to whether the latter gave the former any signai to set back along the siding line or not. Whittle, who has been in the London Brighton and South Coast Company's service 21 years, and a driver for a much longer period, asserts positively that Eager waved him back, but the latter absolutely denies having done anything of the sort. If the evidence ended there, I should be reluctant to decide between them, but driver Whittle says he looked out from his engine a second time before giving the engine steam, and that he still found Eager waving him back. Whittle practically admits that, at this time, porter Feast must have been between the trucks, and it is almost incredible that under those circumstances Eager should have given him a signal to move.
I am obliged therefore to come to the conclusion that driver Whittle set his train back without any signal from the porter in charge of the shunting operations, and that he must be held responsible for what occurred.
It is a curious fact in connection with the accident that driver Whittle had remarked
to his fireman, when they commenced shunting, that they would need to be careful as
they had not done their work before with Eager.
Porter Eager had assisted in the shunting operations for 18 months previously, but he had only taken charge of them on three occasions; whilst porter Feast had only been six weeks in the Company's service. The goods train ought not to have been stopped where it was, but the mistake was not a very serious one in view of the comparative inexperience of these men.
The men in charge of the passenger train are not to blame at all. Approaching the station, the distant and home-signals were off for the train, and the south signal-box would hide the derailed truck from view until within 150 yards of it. .As a matter of fact, the first intimation of anything being wrong was given to the driver by an inspector on the up platform, who seeing what had occurred on the other side of the line heJd up his hands as a signal to stop, and at the same time the signalman in the south box put back the starting~signal to danger immediately in front of the train. The train brakes were then applied, but the driver thinks they were hardly on when the engine struck the truck. Nor do I see any reason to think that the signalman could have done any more than he did to avert the collision.
I understand it is now proposed to concentrate the levers working the points of the goods yard roads in a small frame, which should render the occurrence of a similar accident much less likely in the future.