The Great Train Robbery's missing mastermind?

[TheSignalEngineer]

An interesting bit of paper is the log of the crime at BTP. http://www.railwaysa.../BTP_GTR001.pdf

 

This qoutes the "Glove and Battery" method given in evidence at the trial

Edited January 11, 2012 by TheSignalEngineer

[Edwin_m]

The programme showed the crime investigators wandering around on a line with all 25kV infrastructure in place, so I presume the electrification was well advanced but not yet energised and the new signalling not yet commissioned. If there was a track circuit replacing the IBS signals then it would certainly have been indicated in the box, as also probably would any disconnection of a lamp. But then again if this had been noticed, or when the train was noticed to have been a long time in section, the only result would have been someone walking down the line to investigate. He could easily be "dealt with" if the gang had positioned lookouts hiding on the lineside a few hundred yards each way from the scene.

 

I presume no other trains were in the area at the time. One passing might have stopped to report a divided train, leading to earlier discovery of the situation. It if was a little later then it might have been cautioned to examine the line.

[the penguin of doom]

 

 

When I was on the footplate (now a very-long time ago) we did have one "thrown back" in front of us at mainline speed; having been on a clear run of greens/bells.....`not nice trying to stop a 1000+ tonnes of bogie tanks in what seemed like a little over twice the train`s length.......we had no choice but to SPAD (loco and first couple of tank`s length) but mercifully everything was squared-up.......evidently, some kids were thought to have thrown cable onto the overhead-lines from a bridge.

The ghastly feeling of not being able to stop in time, and watching that 'red' glaring at us as it passed over the top of the cab window......I feel sick now, recalling it!

 

......my driver`s chat with the bobby was somewhat (erm, how may I best describe it) 'animated'

 

Only time I "threw one back" was in front of a 158 unit at low speed on a straight piece of line. The driver stopped in good time and was able to find the piece of stray metal protruding from the fuel tank!

 

From the sound of his voice on the SPT, he was a little shaken, so I can imagine your anguish Debs as you slid by the red......

 

Not pleasant.

 

Cheers.

 

Sean.

Edited January 12, 2012 by the penguin of doom

[Pannier Tank]

That's the other thing Sean, if the WCML had MAS in 1963 (and I'm not at all sure if it did), there certainly shouldnt have been a red immediately following a green. But whatever, a diligent driver would surely try to stop at a red if at all possible, and worry about the cause once he'd phoned the bobby.

 

Bletchley PSB didn't come into operation until 1965.

 

I believe the distant signal was also 'rigged' as they had a look out with a walkie-talkie to advise the arrival of the train.

[Pannier Tank]

The story I remember from the time was that a leather glove was put over the green bulb and the red false fed with a battery. I was a trainee engineer with the LM S&T at the time but I don't now remember where the story came from.

Keith

 

That's what I recall.

[The Stationmaster]

But then again if this had been noticed, or when the train was noticed to have been a long time in section, the only result would have been someone walking down the line to investigate. He could easily be "dealt with" if the gang had positioned lookouts hiding on the lineside a few hundred yards each way from the scene.

I presume no other trains were in the area at the time. One passing might have stopped to report a divided train, leading to earlier discovery of the situation. It if was a little later then it might have been cautioned to examine the line.

 

The Regulations at that time (ABR/IB 16) required a train travelling in the opposite direction to be used to examine the line (on quadruple track a train proceeding in the same direction on the other line could also be used of course). So nothing could happen to ascertain what was happening unless there was a train available - 'walking out to look' was in reality a 'no no' in long sections and especially at that time of night with usually no staff at hand, using a train would be much quicker.

[Rugd1022]

Pennine - sorry for the tardy reply mate I've been out looking for our lost cat! Anyhoo, Mike and others have answered your question perfectly... I've often wondered what speed Jack Mills was doing as he passed through Leighton Buzzard and came round the corner onto the long straight towards Sears Crossing and Cheddington beyond, I've asked around at work amongst chaps who were around at the time but to no avail. The robbers consisted of a gang of fifteen men in total so having one of them positioned further north as a look out does make sense. I might be wrong but I think 1M44 stopped at Bletchley on it's way south that night, in which case Mills would have been doing around 50 to 60mph by about Linslade Tunnel, possibly a shade more.

 

I'm off into work in half an hour so will retrieve that book I mentioned from my locker and see what else I can add to the discussion later on.

 

Edit : forgot to answer your first question too.... as far as I'm aware Mills was coshed when the robebrs first entered his cab, not when he was put back into the seat to move the train once it had been divided.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Rugd1022

[the penguin of doom]

Bletchley PSB didn't come into operation until 1965.

 

I believe the distant signal was also 'rigged' as they had a look out with a walkie-talkie to advise the arrival of the train.

 

Which "suggests" that someone from the railways would have had an input? Surely someone would have had to have told the gang about the existance of the distant signal and the requirement to have it at its most restrictive aspect too i.e. amber/caution.

 

Regards examining the line, in the film Buster, (if memory serves me right), a Northbound train passes at speed as the robbery occurs and the robbers have to duck for cover. It was hauled by a two tone green 47 in the film, but possibly written in for dramatic effect? If not, a diligent Northbound driver may have enquired at his next stop, (or the next box), as to the problem? I guess, even by then it would have been too late. I suspect the alarm would have been raised by staff in the second portion left at the signal, using the SPT to contact the "bobby"....

 

Cheers.

 

Sean.

[The Stationmaster]

Regards examining the line, in the film Buster, (if memory serves me right), a Northbound train passes at speed as the robbery occurs and the robbers have to duck for cover. It was hauled by a two tone green 47 in the film, but possibly written in for dramatic effect? If not, a diligent Northbound driver may have enquired at his next stop, (or the next box), as to the problem? I guess, even by then it would have been too late. I suspect the alarm would have been raised by staff in the second portion left at the signal, using the SPT to contact the "bobby"....

Sean.

I was under the impression that the cable to the SPT was cut in order to prevent it from being used to raise the alarm.

 

The question of another train passing sounds to be a film thing. As noted above if the train was regarded as being an unusually long time in section (which seems inevitable assuming the Signalmen knew their jobs) then any train in the opposite direction would not have been running at speed and on seeing the loco of the Mail Train at a stand would have come to a halt to find out what was going on. The only possible variance from this would be with a train which had entered the section before the Mail Train had been considered to be an unusually long time but it would most likely have simply passed the Mail Train stationary at a signal with, perhaps nothing, untoward apparent.

[the penguin of doom]

I'd tend to agree with the above Mike.

 

Having been on the railways, (only a comparably short time), I found most drivers/signallers to be very responsible in their duties. Merely a conversation piece within the thread for discussion.

 

Regards the SPT. I didn't realise the cable was cut, but again, this backs up my comment regards a railway insider/informer?.....

 

Cheers.

 

Sean.

[Fat Controller]

I'd tend to agree with the above Mike.

 

Having been on the railways, (only a comparably short time), I found most drivers/signallers to be very responsible in their duties. Merely a conversation piece within the thread for discussion.

 

Regards the SPT. I didn't realise the cable was cut, but again, this backs up my comment regards a railway insider/informer?.....

 

Cheers.

 

Sean.

Not necessarily; at the time there were still a lot of people around with recent military experience- it is very likely that some had received training in disruption of means of communication.

[the penguin of doom]

Not necessarily; at the time there were still a lot of people around with recent military experience- it is very likely that some had received training in disruption of means of communication.

 

Good point.....

[Pannier Tank]

. I might be wrong but I think 1M44 stopped at Bletchley on it's way south that night, in which case Mills would have been doing around 50 to 60mph by about Linslade Tunnel, possibly a shade more.

 

 

I don't think the southbound stopped at Bletchley, the down postal used to 'pick up' at Bletchley though.

[Edwin_m]

It would be quite easy to work out that the telephone was probably intended to commmunicate with somewhere else, and that cutting the cable coming out of it would stop it working. But was there a parallel signal and telephone on the slow line? The "driver" they had recruited to the gang may have known enough to tell them about distant signals.

[The Stationmaster]

It would be quite easy to work out that the telephone was probably intended to commmunicate with somewhere else, and that cutting the cable coming out of it would stop it working. But was there a parallel signal and telephone on the slow line? The "driver" they had recruited to the gang may have known enough to tell them about distant signals.

The I.B. Homes were parallel (as were the distants as far as I can recall) so maybe someone was bright devious enough to cut the cables to both 'phones but in the event they set about the Secondman when he went to the 'phone and the Post office sorters probably had little idea where they were or what a 'hone cabinet looked like (which of course implies that the gang knew what one looked like - again suggesting either inside knowledge or good research on the part of the gang, the latter hardly being difficult I would have thought).

[Rugd1022]

A quick snippet from the book* I mentioned re the SPT wires being cut... I've only had time for a brief skim through...

 

"The Driver says that after the fireman had attempted to telephone the signal box he returned to the foot of the cab and told him that the telephone wires had been cut and then walked away towards the back of the engine..."

 

* 'Moments Of History : The Great British Train Robbery, 1963' by Tim Coates, 2003.

 

The book is short on photos but long on text and goes into very good detail on the case, the introductary passage reads thus...

 

"In the early hours of 8th August 1963, a gang of at least 15 men stopped and attacked the Glasgow to London mail train near Leighton Buzzard in Buckinghamshire. They made off with 120 mailbags containing almost £2.6 million, a huge amount of money in those days. It was the biggest robbery of all time.

 

The text that follows is an extract from the report (which has been edited to secure anonynity) of her Majesty's Inspector Of Constabulary, submitted to the Home Office in 1964, just over a year after the robbery had taken place. At the time of writing the investigation was not complete : much of the stolen money had not been recovered and at least three criminals were still at large.

 

A brief postscript covers the later arrest and sentencing of Ronald 'Buster' Edwards, Bruce Reynolds and James White - and the re-arrest of Ronnie Biggs in 2001, 36 years after his escape from prison".

[Porcy Mane]

Morning Porcy, I was actually referring to the vehicles used in the film 'Robbery' when I mentioned the BG, not the actual train robbery of '63

 

Note to Self:

“Must read thread more thoroughly and in context!…â€.

 

Here’s a link to the promo for the 1966 German Drama based on the GTR.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NukHiS5kYPE&list=FLLHmircDgeGGcjTqzh1Ikug&index=2&feature=plpp_video

 

It was supposedly a very accurate reconstruction of the event but going off this video still I have my doubts.

 

http://imageshack.us.../post30ze0.jpg/

 

Some of you might find the Cheddington image on this page of interest…

 

http://www.trainrobb...e/ek5_89_s2.jpg

 

 

Porcy

[lmsforever]

Interesting as it was I felt this programe left more questions than answers it kept going back over the same points,but brought back memories of the excitement outside when the crooks appeared at Aylesbury courts etc.Still stirs memories when I drive through the bridge ,the shots of the train at Cheddington on the Aylesbury branch wish we still had a service .

[Crisis Rail]

On 10/01/2012 at 17:07, Rugd1022 said:

 

Not quite Phil... Jack Mills and his fireman David Whitby were bundled into the engine room while the robbers tried to get one of their own to move D326 and the first two vehicles down to Bridego Bridge, trouble was the guy they'd picked had no knowledge of EE Type 4s and couldn't get the brakes off (he was a green carded shunt driver apparently), so Mills was brought back into the cab and forced to move the train himself.

 

I think "Stan" was more than capable of moving D326 there probably was a delay in obtaining a build up of vac - the robbers impatient and on adrenaline had other thoughts and forced Jack Mills to drive.

[Courtybella]

On 10/01/2012 at 14:39, TheSignalEngineer said:

Haven't watched the documentary yet, but besides the GPO insiders it was alledged at the time that there was one or more railway insider involved. The gang had to be able to stop the train and have time to get the bags off without suspicion being aroused until it had been an unusually long time in section. I was told in the 1960s that suspicion was also thrown on staff working on the modernisation of the line, but nothing came of this as far as I am aware.

There’s significant evidence to suggest the Leighton Buzzard Signalman was involved, either fully or indirectly.

He was a former resident of HMP, not something known by BR - the gang would of needed him not to follow the regulations in relation to “train unusually long time in section”, and the indications in the box with the tampered signals.

 

Another suggestIon was that the traincrew, and guard where also involved - the latter taking a very long time to raise the alarm.

The whole stand in driver myth is suggested to be just that a myth, the crew where already known to be co operative.

There is some suggestion the Driver who never usually swapped turns, did so on this occasion.

 

What doesn’t sit right with me is, the train was on the UP Fast, at the point of the robbery the layout is US, DS, UF, DF so the gang would of to cross a open line throughout the robbery. Even back in the 1960s the line was very busy throughout the night, how did they manage to stop, move and rob a high value and monitored train without not a single person noticing for some significant time ?

 

It all leads to the signalman, traincrew and guard all being in on the job in some part. 
Mail train robberies where quite common on BR in the 60s, alarmingly so, even one of the West Coast not long before the big one. The crew must of had their senses raised when they got brought down to a red in the middle of nowhere at stupid o’clock in the morning?

 

I assume you can/could lock the cab doors of a 40 internally, obviously not NRN, CSR, GSMR back in those days but why would the driver not secure the cab when the 2nd man went to phone via the SPT?

 

Lots still don’t add up, it was in BRs interest to keep quiet any inside assistance. Add all the above to the fact the usual rake was out of service just adds more to the mix that the job was much bigger than some London crocks taking a chance it would be alright in the night. BR where also in a rush to clear the line, and totally destroyed any Forensic evidence in the cab.
 

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Courtybella

[phil-b259]

28 minutes ago, Courtybella said:

There’s significant evidence to suggest the Leighton Buzzard Signalman was involved, either fully or indirectly.

He was a former resident of HMP, not something known by BR - the gang would of needed him not to follow the regulations in relation to “train unusually long time in section”, and the indications in the box with the tampered signals.

 

Another suggestIon was that the traincrew, and guard where also involved - the latter taking a very long time to raise the alarm.

The whole stand in driver myth is suggested to be just that a myth, the crew where already known to be co operative.

There is some suggestion the Driver who never usually swapped turns, did so on this occasion.

 

What doesn’t sit right with me is, the train was on the UP Fast, at the point of the robbery the layout is US, DS, UF, DF so the gang would of to cross a open line throughout the robbery. Even back in the 1960s the line was very busy throughout the night, how did they manage to stop, move and rob a high value and monitored train without not a single person noticing for some significant time ?

 

It all leads to the signalman, traincrew and guard all being in on the job in some part. 
Mail train robberies where quite common on BR in the 60s, alarmingly so, even one of the West Coast not long before the big one. The crew must of had their senses raised when they got brought down to a red in the middle of nowhere at stupid o’clock in the morning?

 

I assume you can/could lock the cab doors of a 40 internally, obviously not NRN, CSR, GSMR back in those days but why would the driver not secure the cab when the 2nd man went to phone via the SPT?

 

Lots still don’t add up, it was in BRs interest to keep quiet any inside assistance. Add all the above to the fact the usual rake was out of service just adds more to the mix that the job was much bigger than some London crocks taking a chance it would be alright in the night. BR where also in a rush to clear the line, and totally destroyed any Forensic evidence in the cab.
 

 

 

I fear you are trying to judge past events by todays standards and the knowledge gained after the event to draw flawed conclusions. Back then there was a acceptance (even by the Police) that train traffic must be reassumed ASAP - very different to the 'crime scene' approach taken today to even things like derailments or suicides.

 

Also the gang went to some lengths NOT to disrupt the signalling equipment - they covered up, not removed the green signal lamps so the supervising box would continue to get the correct indications and be none the wiser anything was amiss until the train was taking a long time to proceed thorough the section.

 

You say there were 'lots of robberies' at the time without giving examples - and more to the point how many of them involved stopping trains on the move as opposed to when the train was loading / unloading.

 

Given the WCML was undergoing modernisation at the time its far more likely that an infrastructure fault was expected - only when the SPTs were found cut might suspicion of something bad going on entering the firemans mind - but by then it was too late.

 

 

[Courtybella]

There’s a fantastic book written by a time served BTP & Met Detective who has spent many years pouring over official documents, spoken to insiders who came to th3 conclusions I’ve wrote above.

 

Regards the other robberies, in the main they involved robbing the guards locked parcels cage then pulling the communications cord - very hi tec ! 
 

This the book, a highly recommended read.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Train-Robbery-Confidential-Enquiry/dp/0750992328/ref=pd_lpo_14_img_1/257-0557882-4111415?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0750992328&pd_rd_r=2f49d1c6-774f-4314-8fe9-8ade7fbe6f60&pd_rd_w=4qAcq&pd_rd_wg=BYenM&pf_rd_p=7b8e3b03-1439-4489-abd4-4a138cf4eca6&pf_rd_r=N5T3H6F0BRWN69XFN80Z&psc=1&refRID=N5T3H6F0BRWN69XFN80Z

Edited November 25, 2020 by Courtybella

[Southern Steve]

Try reading Bruce Reynolds autobiography "Crossing the Line-the Autobiography of a Thief", very good read.


He argues that the draconian sentences handed out to the robbers at the trial, encouraged more criminals to carry firearms on jobs as those punishments were worse than if they'd committed murder. In "Buster" it's inferred that word from above to the judge said the powers that be wanted an example made of the train robbers.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Southern Steve

[TheSignalEngineer]

19 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Also the gang went to some lengths NOT to disrupt the signalling equipment - they covered up, not removed the green signal lamps so the supervising box would continue to get the correct indications and be none the wiser anything was amiss until the train was taking a long time to proceed thorough the section.

This points to to at least one of the gang or their helpers having S&T knowledge. I knew several people who were working on the resignalling of the area at the time who were asked by the police as to their whereabouts that night.

It should be remembered that in addition to the S&T work on the electrification and track upgrading. Much of the work was being done by a largely itinerant workforce with no records of who they were. 'The Lump' was still prevalent in construction in those days. Labourers for the weekend shifts were recruited at the 'First Mass of Sunday' (6pm Saturday) and told where to catch the bus to that night's engineering possession. Fact, I knew people who used to do it.

[caradoc]

17 hours ago, Courtybella said:

It all leads to the signalman, traincrew and guard all being in on the job in some part. 

 

Those are very serious allegations to make, many years after the event, about people who cannot possibly defend themselves, and who were surely fully investigated by the Police at the time. 

 

17 hours ago, Courtybella said:

it was in BRs interest to keep quiet any inside assistance.

 

Perhaps, but the Police investigation would not have kept any such collusion quiet just because it embarassed BR.