Jump to content
 

The Great Train Robbery's missing mastermind?


steveb860
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

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.

 

As I understand it, the work on the signal was by a chap who "learned his trade" on the Brighton line, where the technique of masking the green bulb and activating the green was developed and where there had been a number of mail robberies, perhaps those referred to above. These had not been anywhere near as lucrative as the Leighton Buzzard exercise and I suspect there was a relaxed attitude to prevention - in the sense of insufficient resources put to the exercise.

 

The robbers had their own driver who was unable to move the 40. Jack Mills, then injured having been coshed and in addition having hit his head on steelwork in the cab as he fell, was brought forward. He worked out that the vacuum pipe may have been leaking and put on a powerful ejector with which the 40s were apparently equipped, and so got the train moving.

 

I don't think he ever recovered from the injuries, although his premature death was a result of unrelated leukemia. I am pretty sure the second man was mentally upset by the incident and committed suicide a few years later. I think it is quite outrageous to suggest that either were complicit: there is simply no evidence to that effect, and much the other way. I can't see that Jack Mills would have been coshed had he been complicit. 

 

The police investigation spent much effort on trying to find insiders (although mainly those with knowledge of the consignment and timings), but I am sure had any train crew or the signaler been involve they would have found out.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

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. 

 

 

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

 


Yes they are, but time shouldn’t discontinue any fresh look at the events of the night.

The book I linked to has much more detail than I can type here, there’s a lot of information which points toward BR employee involvement. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did an article about the Great Train Robbery for my club's fanzine and also visited a temporary exhibition about the robbery at the London Postal Museum last year.

 

The driver Jack Mills as a result of head injuries sustained during the assault was unable to return to work and suffered constant trauma headaches for the rest of his life. He died of unrelated leukaemia in 1970. The secondman David Whitby never recovered from his track-side assault and subsequent rough treatment. However he was able to resume his career but died of a heart attack in 1972 aged only 34.

 

The Class 40 No. D326, later No. 40 126, and the carriages that were robbed were all cut in haste to stop any souvenir hunters (both railway and crime collectors) from pillaging them. One of the Post Office carriages that formed part of the train, though not part of the robbery, is preserved at the Nene Valley Railway. The locomotive was offered to the National Railway Museum because of its infamous history but they declined.

 

A number of the gang evaded justice one way or another, including the inside man known only as 'The Ulsterman', who was not present at the robbery, received a share of the loot, was never captured and has not yet been positively identified.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Courtybella said:


Yes they are, but time shouldn’t discontinue any fresh look at the events of the night.

The book I linked to has much more detail than I can type here, there’s a lot of information which points toward BR employee involvement. 


Reading your posts leads me to wonder about the legal implications of your accusing real people (albeit deceased) of being criminals on a public website.   This may be of academic interest to you but it risks being very hurtful to their descendants.

 

Darius

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Darius43 said:


Reading your posts leads me to wonder about the legal implications of your accusing real people (albeit deceased) of being criminals on a public website.   This may be of academic interest to you but it risks being very hurtful to their descendants.

 

Darius

 

Just so we get the cart before the horse:

 

In terms of legal implications, some might say the far greater risk of libel was with Graham Satchwell, the author of that book. He was, allegedly, a senior officer in the Headquarters CID of the British Transport Police. See the comments on the Amazon page.

 

Unless anyone can show that Graham Satchwell was prosecuted for libel (or even just chastised by senior colleagues) then, given the passage of time, it could be said that Courtybella is at far less risk.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Darius43 said:


Reading your posts leads me to wonder about the legal implications of your accusing real people (albeit deceased) of being criminals on a public website.   This may be of academic interest to you but it risks being very hurtful to their descendants.

 

Darius


Ive only repeated what’s written in the book I’ve linked to, a book which is widely publicised.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, LBRJ said:

You can't libel dead people.

 

Maybe so, but it doesn’t make these accusations any the less unpleasant.  Furthermore, in my view, stating that one is just repeating accusations made by others is not an excuse.

 

Darius

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 25/11/2020 at 18:48, 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. 

 

To take some of the points raised;

 

If the Leighton Buzzard Signalman was involved, by not complying with regulations regarding a train overtime in section, would the Cheddington Signalman not have had to be involved as well ? And if, as stated, 'the line was very busy throughout the night', preventing any trains from passing on the other three lines would have required both Signalmen to stop trains out of course. If this did indeed happen, why did none of the crew of trains so delayed report this, especially when details of the robbery emerged ?

 

If the traincrew of 1M44 were involved, why was the Driver coshed over the head, causing him serious injury ? Why was a retired Driver 'hired' as an accomplice, if not to move the train if/when its Driver refused ? Why was there a delay moving the train after it had been split (because the men doing the uncoupling were unfamiliar with vacuum brake operation) ? Every lost minute brought an increased risk of discovery, and, as below, cost the gang money.

 

The gang leader set a strict 30 minute time limit on the job, this was adhered to so rigidly that eight bags of cash were left behind on the train. This would suggest that the job had been cased in advance and that such a gap in traffic at this time and location identified. 

 

There is an excellent article in the August 2013 Railway Magazine which gives further information. It mentions, among other things, that Signalman at Leighton Buzzard did in fact comply with regulations. 

 

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I may have missed this but what about the AWS warnings in the loco?

 

Surely if the signal showed yellow (covered green) the AWS warning sound / sunflower would have been wrong?  And then again at the red signal.  Or if the previous signal was green and the next signal red, the driver would have queried this with the box straight away as that's an unusual series of aspects?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 04/04/2021 at 20:29, Sir TophamHatt said:

I may have missed this but what about the AWS warnings in the loco?

 

Surely if the signal showed yellow (covered green) the AWS warning sound / sunflower would have been wrong?  And then again at the red signal.  Or if the previous signal was green and the next signal red, the driver would have queried this with the box straight away as that's an unusual series of aspects?

 

On the AWS I think this has been asked already possibly on this forum and I had wondered about it myself.  From memory the suggestion was a driver seeing a red would stop esp since it appears he had already slowed on account of the proceeding signal being at yellow.

 

On the preceeding signal question, I was watching a program on you tube about the robbery last month and reference was made by one of those involved to the proceedings signal having been put to appear yellow.  It was one sentence in a long video if I find it again I will include the link.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 04/04/2021 at 20:29, Sir TophamHatt said:

I may have missed this but what about the AWS warnings in the loco?

 

Surely if the signal showed yellow (covered green) the AWS warning sound / sunflower would have been wrong?  And then again at the red signal.  Or if the previous signal was green and the next signal red, the driver would have queried this with the box straight away as that's an unusual series of aspects?

If the signal was more restrictive than the AWS, the driver would instinctively attempt to obey the signal.  The driver back then would be more likely to query his own memory/his alertness - human factors come into play - how did I miss that ?  Am I going to be in trouble for failing to notice a warning ?  This would probably be followed by a discussion with the second man who would might also think he had missed something and but likely conclude there was an AWS fault, which might well be a loco problem.  Wrong-side AWS failure probably wasn't seen as such a big deal at the time as it would today.  Were they allowed to continue a journey without AWS then?  Would they agree to delay the train further with a long call to the box, or to wait till they got to destination?  Doesn't matter, since to report an apparent AWS problem to the box he would have to be stationary and find an SPT - they didn't have GSM radio then.  Once the train had stopped of course they were quickly prevented from contacting anybody.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
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 a suspicion the controlling signaller had been in prison prior to his employment with BR, th3 firm didn’t know this which lead to his easy “employment” by the robbers…. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/01/2012 at 00:09, Edwin_m said:

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.


Another train did pass the divided train, but didn’t report or reported the “bent” or under duress controlling signaller.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
15 hours ago, Courtybella said:


Another train did pass the divided train, but didn’t report or reported the “bent” or under duress controlling signaller.

Is that indicated by any official reports and information in the public domain?

 

In the light of your allegations regarding the Signlamen it would be fascinating to see the evidence you clearly have to support that contention.  What you obviously will be able to tell us in order to supporth such an allegation is the time at which the Mail Train passed Leighton Buzzard, the normal running time for a Class 1 train between there and the I.B. signal, and - obviously - the the time at which Leighton Buzzard (eventually?) sent 6-2 to Cheddington or the evidence from the TRBs that such a signal was not sent.  Copies of the relevant entries from the two TRBs would of course confirm absolutely what you are alleging and are presumably already in your possession supporting your allegations - so would be simple to post here.

 

Similarly you will of course be able to tell us the time at which the (supposed?) other train passed Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard hence it would be a relatively simple matter to arrive at an estimate of the time it passed the Mail Train.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Courtybella said:

There’s a suspicion the controlling signaller had been in prison prior to his employment with BR, th3 firm didn’t know this which lead to his easy “employment” by the robbers…. 

 

15 hours ago, Courtybella said:

Another train did pass the divided train, but didn’t report or reported the “bent” or under duress controlling signaller.

 

Given your repeated allegations against railway staff, perhaps you could respond to the very valid points raised by The Stationmaster, and indeed the questions I asked you here on November 27th 2020, none of which you have answered. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

In view of the attention this case was got in the media at the time and for years to follow, I find it hard to believe that even the most incompetent of detectives would have failed to ask questions of the signalmen involved, and any material irregularities in signalling operation would have come to public notice in the criminal prosecutions once they managed to round up some of the perpetrators, if not leaked earlier. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

 

Given your repeated allegations against railway staff, perhaps you could respond to the very valid points raised by The Stationmaster, and indeed the questions I asked you here on November 27th 2020, none of which you have answered. 

 


You’ll see from my previois posts from last year (which is forgotten about) the information is taken from a book I read, also listed in the previous post. 

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 hours ago, Courtybella said:


You’ll see from my previois posts from last year (which is forgotten about) the information is taken from a book I read, also listed in the previous post. 

I've read some 'wonderful' things in books over the years and one example is a book called 'The Quintinshill Conspiracy' in which the authors claim to have checked with a 'railway professional' facts about the signalling etc of the trains.  Yet strangely they quote as 'evidence' something which they claim one of the Signalmen did incorrectly as indicating that he had become confused.  The odd - and very worrying thing - about that is that what was claimed he had done incorrectly was in fact done absolutely correctly.  So even where factual detail is presented things can go very wrong when an ignorant writer, and even worse their 'professional advisor', don't understand what they are looking at and partially base their conclusions on their misunderstanding of the evidence.

 

There are indeed what I would genuinely call 'professional railwaymen'. (a term normally applied to wholly competent and experienced railway operators who would, for example, have immediately picked up that point in the Quintinshill book) and there are professionals who work on the railway - the two are not the same.

 

I'm sorry but books or articles written without any supporting evidence are no more than a scandal sheet looking for some notoriety to achieve sales and any professional railwayman worth his salt would know that straightaway and immediately look for the sort of evidence I have asked for (which you still haven't provided).   Alas exactly the same sort of nonsense happened after the Harrow collision where the press began a campaign of vilification against Signalman Armitage who they claimed - obviously without any proper understanding of the facts - was instrumental in directly causing the collision by replacing signals to danger.  Fortunately in that case the Inspecting Officer went to considerable additional trouble during his investigation to prove what was being alleged against Armitage was a load of nonsense but the damage had been done and Armitage suffered numerous health problems for years afterwards as a result of the ill-founded press campaign.

 

I'm sorry but stupid stories and allegations started in the aftermath of major incidents by idiots, and even worse subsequently spread by those who should know far better, do nobody any favours - particularly those who are the subject of such ill-informed speculation

 

Equally if the Signalman at Leighton Buzzard had failed to disclose any criminal conviction when he applied for employment he would have been summarily dismissed when that past conviction came to light because that was the rule back then and for years afterwards. (I summarily dismissed someone in 1984 for the same reason - her failure to disclose her criminal convictions when she had applied for employment).  And I doubt very much if a dismissal following the robbery would have gone unnoticed.

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 25/11/2020 at 18:48, Courtybella said:

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

 

As you yourself said.

 

I am, or rather was. also a railway professional, and while I agree absolutely that the railway is no more immune than any organisation from having employed disreputable and dishonest characters, from what we know of the robbery I cannot see any logical way that any of the staff mentioned above can have been involved without this coming to light at the time, either through the Police investigation, or simply other railway staff noticing discrepancies. Apart from anything else, if they had a Signalman in their pocket, why go to all the bother of climbing signal gantries, covering up correct aspects and using a battery to feed false aspects ? There are easier ways to stop a train, which as well as by the Signalman also could have been done by the Traincrew of course. 

 

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

The money stolen was old worn out notes being taken back to the Royal Mint. My understanding is that some employees at the Royal Mint came under suspicion.

I doubt it.  The Royal Mint manufactures coins. 

 

Banknotes are issued by the Bank of England, printed by specialist firms like De La Rue or Waterlow.  Soiled notes unfit to remain in circulation are withdrawn by bank branches when paid in, and returned via regional cash centres to BofE for destruction, traditionally by incineration under strict supervision (I believe Battersea Power Station was used).  Transport to London by railway bullion vans would seem appropriate, replaced by new issues coming the other way.

 

There were so many stolen notes that I understood it to be a factor in the decision to withdraw the style of fiver then in circulation and replace with a new design.  Whilst the Bank still had to honour the old notes, shops wouldn't take them, so it would be more difficult for the villains to launder their loot without having to answer some awkward questions.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 19/12/2021 at 17:47, Michael Hodgson said:

I doubt it.  The Royal Mint manufactures coins. 

 

Banknotes are issued by the Bank of England, printed by specialist firms like De La Rue or Waterlow.  Soiled notes unfit to remain in circulation are withdrawn by bank branches when paid in, and returned via regional cash centres to BofE for destruction, traditionally by incineration under strict supervision (I believe Battersea Power Station was used).  Transport to London by railway bullion vans would seem appropriate, replaced by new issues coming the other way.

 

There were so many stolen notes that I understood it to be a factor in the decision to withdraw the style of fiver then in circulation and replace with a new design.  Whilst the Bank still had to honour the old notes, shops wouldn't take them, so it would be more difficult for the villains to launder their loot without having to answer some awkward questions.

 

 

Returned and withdrawn notes were destroyed (burnt) by the Bank of England and not at any outside location (despite that impression being given in a certain film/tv drama). My former BofE employee - who is currently in the kitchen doing the ironing - says that they were returned to the Bank's printing works where they were destroyed (an online source says they were burnt in the boilers at the BofE in London but my expert is of the view that is incorrect although they were burnt in another BofE establishment).

 

Bullion vans were only used for specie bank in the 1960s and even then not for all coins but only those struck from gold.  By the time decimal currency was being struck the Mint had moved to Llantrisant (known to those who had been moved with it as 'the Mint in the hole') and most of the new coins were distributed in what at first appearance could be taken as small oil drums and those sent to London definitely went in passenger trains brakevans as they were considered too heavy to steal for the value they contained.

 

Withdrawn banknotes were normally returned in mail bags and probably only on Post Office Controlled Trains but security was nothing particularly special however security was massively strengthened following the big robbery.

 

As far as dishonest etc staff on the railway are concerned the industry was not much different from any other employer although greater care was taken in recruitment and way into the 1970s the railway would not usually employ people with a criminal record especially crimes against the person or financial crimes.  But the industry employed people and people are just like others in any large concern so bad apples could arise.  During my entire career I knew of fewer than half a dozen booking clerks being dismissed for acts of defalcation (and under normal accountancy procedures most of the fiddling they could do in traditional booking offices was pretty easy to uncover within a month or two of it happening); one clerk dismissed because of dishonesty in a part time job he did at a petrol station (unusual that one, someone wanted him out).; and i dismissed one by letter for persistent failure to attend work (he was unable to attend because he was resident in HMP Wormwood Scrubs following conviction for making unauthorised cash withdrawals, with the aid of a sawn-off shotgun, from various building society branches).  

 

That apart three resignations one of which was following conviction of altering a motor vehicle tax disc while the other two were following indiscretions with members of staff of the opposite sex (although in one case the woman concerned had not made any complaints.  And one dismissal of a supervisor who was drunk on duty.  So in total a not very severe score over a total of 34 years in the industry.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...