Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Highly unlikely. The BR publication "General Appendix to Working Timetables and books of Rules and Regulations" (BR29944) in the 1960 edition says that heating is to be applied for express trains while running between 5pm and 10am from 1st September onwards and other passenger trains from 1st October.
Heating was to be discontinued from the 1st of May, except for expresses running between 5pm and 10am and any train running north of Inverness; they could be heated until the 15th June.
The only exception listed is sleeping car trains, when heating was to be available at any time of the year if need be.
Not just highly unlikely, but probably impossible. If the instructions in the General Appendix were followed to the letter, steam heating pipes had to be removed as soon as possible after 15th June and were not to be refitted and connected again before 25th August. Presumably this was a simple, if labour intensive, way of ensuring that all steam heating pipes were in good condition and so less prone to failure during the forthcoming winter.
On the matter of lighting, it was not unknown for the dynamo belt to break, in which case the carriage in question would simply lose its lighting as the batteries ran down. There would have been no connection to the lighting circuits in adjacent carriages.
On the matter of lighting, it was not unknown for the dynamo belt to break, in which case the carriage in question would simply lose its lighting as the batteries ran down. There would have been no connection to the lighting circuits in adjacent carriages.
Indeed, as the run-down of loco-hauled rakes progressed into the 1980s, it was not uncommon to find an unlit coach. Got turfed off Cardiff- bound train at Bristol once as the entire set was without lights. Hadn’t been an issue for the short tunnels between Bath and Bristol but was apparently a definite “no no” through the Severn Tunnel. (Understandably in retrospect!)
There was a second man. David Whitby. When he climbed off the loco to get to the signal post telephone he was accosted by the robbers.
Not really sure what the point of all this heating argument is - is this to somehow suggest that the Guard and the Postal Sorters were in on the robbery because they should have noticed the heating going off immediately on an August night when the front part of the train was uncoupled, and raised the alarm/fought the robbers off???? C'mon, some common sense needed here. I doubt the heating pipes were even connected, let alone the boiler in operation! If anybody even noticed, they would have put it down to boiler failure, a not uncommon occurrence I believe.
Yes, the heating issue wasn't really in my mind when I posted this. I was far more interested in if all the lights suddenly went out when the train was split, and it has been explained to be by knowledgeable posters why this would not have happened. I would never have expected the guard or others to have fought the robbers off, but merely the rest of the train being alerted to the robbery in progress may have caused the robbers to flee if everyone had started sticking their heads out of the windows and shouting to see what was happening.
The robbery was just an incredible piece of timing in history.
A point in time where:
Cash use was reaching an all time peak - the general public and businesses started heavily using personal cheques and business cheques from the mid 60's onwards, rapidly reducing the volume of cash needing to be moved around the country.
Cash still had to be physically moved by train, at night, due to the volume of it.
Security measures were still almost non-existent at that time, and certainly no actual security personnel on the train.
You could could split the train without altering the other 75 workers in the rear coaches, due to the carriage electrical systems of the day.
There was no cab radio for the drivers to quickly call the signallers or intercom for alerting the guard or the rest of the train. There was also obviously no mobile phones in common use.
There would have been no immediate visual electronic alert in any control rooms or signal boxes as to the stationary status of the train, they would have been still relying on realising the train hadn't turned up at a certain point, something that surely gave the robbers a lot more getaway time before the train was noticed missing.
It couldn't have been better for the robbers. Practically everything was in their favour.
If the instructions in the General Appendix were followed to the letter, steam heating pipes had to be removed as soon as possible after 15th June and were not to be refitted and connected again before 25th August.
Removed from what? Not from any locos or stock likely to work overnight passenger trains!
I remain unconvinced that the steam heating on the Postal (only) trains was not in use in summer; Glasgow to London, and vice versa, is a long way, and even if the Post Office staff did not require any heating, surely the Guards did?
Back in the mid-1980s I travelled on an Saturday overnight Euston-Glasgow train which was diverted via non-electrified routes in the Glasgow area and so was hauled from Carlisle by a Class 27 unable to heat the train; By the time we reached Glasgow it was absolutely perishing! This was in June, BTW....
Even if the heat is on and ceases immediately after the train stopped, the coaches don’t immediately go from comfortably warm to too cold: it takes a good few minutes for the internal temperature to fall enough for a non-railway employee to start complaining. The heat may well have stayed on in the front two vehicles that remained attached. The robbers acted fast, so by the time the temperature had cooled sufficiently for someone to become concerned the robbers were away…and there were more important things to worry about.
Back in the mid-1980s I travelled on an Saturday overnight Euston-Glasgow train which was diverted via non-electrified routes in the Glasgow area and so was hauled from Carlisle by a Class 27 unable to heat the train; By the time we reached Glasgow it was absolutely perishing! This was in June, BTW....
I've seen "Tamworth Castle" take ten Mk1s out of Leeds, on mildly damp rails. I won't forget that noise. I suspect its Sulzer 6-pot was thrashed every step of the way!
I have been, yet again watching the (very good) 2013 BBC dramatisation film of the Great Train Robbery.
I've watched and read all kinds of stuff about the Train Robbery over the years on it, but one thing that I never understood, and cannot find an explanation for, is this:
I understand the whole train consisted of 12 carriages. The first two behind the loco were the ones that were detached and pulled to Bridego Bridge, leaving 10 behind. I also understand that the rear 10 coaches contained 75-80 post office workers who were sorting mail and packages.
Presumably, when the carriages were disconnected from each other, to split the train, the lighting and electricity (supplied by the loco?) will have gone off throughout the rest of the train carriages containing the Post Office workers?
Why, when all the lights went out, didn't the rear train guard, or any of the other workers, stick their heads out the window, or opening a door to see what on earth was happening?
Any information that I can find, suggests that the guard at the rear of the train simply sat there for an eternity just waiting for the train to set off again, which obviously never came.
Did the electricity go off in the rest of the carriages, or did they have some sort of separate power source that didn't rely on them being connected to the loco?
You have to remember, we know the train was being robbed, whereas the railway staff didnt and they had no reason to suspect it was being robbed. Their actions need to be seen in the light of what they perceived was going on and that for the sorting staff was effectively who cares it doesn't impact on our job, and for the guard, just another relation the line.
Removed from what? Not from any locos or stock likely to work overnight passenger trains!
I remain unconvinced that the steam heating on the Postal (only) trains was not in use in summer; Glasgow to London, and vice versa, is a long way, and even if the Post Office staff did not require any heating, surely the Guards did?
Back in the mid-1980s I travelled on an Saturday overnight Euston-Glasgow train which was diverted via non-electrified routes in the Glasgow area and so was hauled from Carlisle by a Class 27 unable to heat the train; By the time we reached Glasgow it was absolutely perishing! This was in June, BTW....
It must be remembered that this was in a completely different era to now. Yes, I believe the steam heating pipes (that is the flexible connectors between vehicles / locos, as opposed to any metal piping) were removed during the summer for refurbishment at that time. (Quite possibly, with the general efficiency drives from the Beeching Era onwards this practice fell into disuse). Even if they weren't, they probably were not connected during the summer, as the concept of fixed or semi fixed rakes of stock were not generally in vogue and not connecting steam heating pipes in summer would have saved much work during shunting.
It must also be remembered that Central Heating was not a feature in most people's homes in 1963 - many buses of the era were not fitted with heaters either, so coping with cold conditions was much more part of life than now. Incredible as this may seem in 2025!
With the belt driven dynamo/battery powered incandescent bulb lighting systems on virtually all coaching stock of that era, when a train came to a stand the lights got a little dimmer, whether a locomotive was attached or not. You can still see this phenomena at some preserved lines.
I believe the front two coaches were stowage rather than sorting cars
Yes, the heating issue wasn't really in my mind when I posted this. I was far more interested in if all the lights suddenly went out when the train was split, and it has been explained to be by knowledgeable posters why this would not have happened. I would never have expected the guard or others to have fought the robbers off, but merely the rest of the train being alerted to the robbery in progress may have caused the robbers to flee if everyone had started sticking their heads out of the windows and shouting to see what was happening.
The robbery was just an incredible piece of timing in history.
A point in time where:
Cash use was reaching an all time peak - the general public and businesses started heavily using personal cheques and business cheques from the mid 60's onwards, rapidly reducing the volume of cash needing to be moved around the country.
Cash still had to be physically moved by train, at night, due to the volume of it.
Security measures were still almost non-existent at that time, and certainly no actual security personnel on the train.
You could could split the train without altering the other 75 workers in the rear coaches, due to the carriage electrical systems of the day.
There was no cab radio for the drivers to quickly call the signallers or intercom for alerting the guard or the rest of the train. There was also obviously no mobile phones in common use.
There would have been no immediate visual electronic alert in any control rooms or signal boxes as to the stationary status of the train, they would have been still relying on realising the train hadn't turned up at a certain point, something that surely gave the robbers a lot more getaway time before the train was noticed missing.
It couldn't have been better for the robbers. Practically everything was in their favour.
Well exactly. It is also suggested that one of the signalmen (an undeclared ex-con) was also involved by being 'requested' delaying the raising of the alarm that the train was taking an unusual length of time to clear the section, as well as reporting the block instruments/telephone out of order due to the robbers pulling down the pole route wires.
It was also Bank Holiday Monday night - little or no freight traffic about, the procession of northbound overnight mail and expresses long gone by Cheddington, and the southbound mail way ahead of the southbound pack (to arrive in Euston for the mail to be delivered that morning.
Yes, I believe the steam heating pipes (that is the flexible connectors between vehicles / locos, as opposed to any metal piping) were removed during the summer for refurbishment at that time.
Quite possibly, with the general efficiency drives from the Beeching Era onwards this practice fell into disuse).
Even if they weren't, they probably were not connected during the summer,
In post #11, I explain where the TPO carriages' steam heating internal pipes were located.
I disagree with your stance about inter-carriage flexible hose connectors -
1) Steam heating was provided on overnight trains (staffed TPOs and revenue earning passenger services alike).
2) Connection hoses and plugs were not removed en masse during the summer months. The sheer logistics are unviable and your rationale doesn't make operational sense.
3) Hoses and plugs were checked at each carriage's routine maintenance, as well as at each carriage's classified repair.
4) If a fault or a perishing hose was found, the carriage was taken out of traffic for repair.
TPO rakes - particularly the UpPostal that forms the subject of this thread - were more typically kept in formation.
The book I mentioned in post #11 describes which specific TPO carriages were constructed for which specific services. This practice was more prevalent prior to the 1959 Mk1 TPO builds.
A sorting van / stowage tender was, on occasions, swapped out for a vehicle of equivalent specification.
Well exactly. It is also suggested that one of the signalmen (an undeclared ex-con) was also involved by being 'requested' delaying the raising of the alarm that the train was taking an unusual length of time to clear the section, as well as reporting the block instruments/telephone out of order due to the robbers pulling down the pole route wires.
Frankly, I think that this is one of those stories that people invent because they can’t accept that it was simply that the robbers were better prepared than the usual smash ‘n grab mob and also got lucky. Thieves (of cash) were all supposed to be people with lots of muscle and the brains of an ant; it was in a lot of people’s interests to let this belief continue and not to prevent all sorts of wild conspiracy theories spreading.
From what I have read the signalman acted just like I would probably have done: he didn’t delay any more than a signalman would normally do. As I said in #12, you did not always immediately put all the emergency regulations into force: you waited to find out what was happening. Trains stopping out of course was not unusual and, in those days, nobody paid special attention to mail trains.
I think that suggesting that the signalman had been leant on, although not impossible, is merely a wish by people to find a conspiracy theory to explain how the robbers got away with such a well-planned robbery. Has any concrete evidence or even clear suspicion of his guilt been found beyond the ‘...if…if..he might have...’ type?
Frankly, I think that this is one of those stories that people invent because they can’t accept that it was simply that the robbers were better prepared than the usual smash ‘n grab mob and also got lucky. Thieves (of cash) were all supposed to be people with lots of muscle and the brains of an ant; it was in a lot of people’s interests to let this belief continue and not to prevent all sorts of wild conspiracy theories spreading.
From what I have read the signalman acted just like I would probably have done: he didn’t delay any more than a signalman would normally do. As I said in #12, you did not always immediately put all the emergency regulations into force: you waited to find out what was happening. Trains stopping out of course was not unusual and, in those days, nobody paid special attention to mail trains.
I think that suggesting that the signalman had been leant on, although not impossible, is merely a wish by people to find a conspiracy theory to explain how the robbers got away with such a well-planned robbery. Has any concrete evidence or even clear suspicion of his guilt been found beyond the ‘...if…if..he might have...’ type?
No, WCML! I cannot recall whether we diverged at Law Jc or Motherwell, but we definitely went through Mossend Yard and via the R&C (Rutherglen & Coatbridge Line), which at the time was (normally) freight only.
It was! 2nd June 1985, 86311 on the 1935 Paignton-Glasgow C from New Street to Carlisle, 27103 forward. I can't remember the formation, unfortunately.
No, WCML! I cannot recall whether we diverged at Law Jc or Motherwell, but we definitely went through Mossend Yard and via the R&C (Rutherglen & Coatbridge Line), which at the time was (normally) freight ononly
I have tried to find out what the temperature was: I thought I had found an answer, but that turned out to be London, Kentucky. The nearest I can get is possibly a bit cooler than normal for early August, but still not cool enough to justify putting the heating on specially.
My vague recollection - as an 8 year old based at Ledburn Crossing in Linslade with my Grandmother, the Crossing Keeper - is that it was dry that week and not noticeably hot nor cold.
I clearly remember the police visiting my grandmother, and I remember cycling down to the police station in Linslade to watch the police coming & going. I wasn't one for going out of doors in cold or wet weather!
My vague recollection - as an 8 year old based at Ledburn Crossing in Linslade with my Grandmother, the Crossing Keeper - is that it was dry that week and not noticeably hot nor cold.
I clearly remember the police visiting my grandmother, and I remember cycling down to the police station in Linslade to watch the police coming & going. I wasn't one for going out of doors in cold or wet weather!
That's really fascinating. Firstly because of this thread - and secondly because I lived in Linslade from May 1978 to Sept 1989. At the Soulbury end, right on the county border.
Schooled along Mentmore Road and, as a teen, bike rides to Ledburn, Cheddington and the old LNWR line twixt Bletchley and Bicester.
... With the belt driven dynamo/battery powered incandescent bulb lighting systems on virtually all coaching stock of that era, when a train came to a stand the lights got a little dimmer...
My distinct recollection (from the 1970s) is that the carriage lighting would dim as the train slowed, then brighten when the battery kicked in. I've always assumed that the switch was controlled by something detecting that the voltage from the dynamo falling below that from the battery, "below" being enough to be noticeable in the lighting. Happy to be corrected if wrong!
Yes, the heating issue wasn't really in my mind when I posted this. I was far more interested in if all the lights suddenly went out when the train was split, and it has been explained to be by knowledgeable posters why this would not have happened. I would never have expected the guard or others to have fought the robbers off, but merely the rest of the train being alerted to the robbery in progress may have caused the robbers to flee if everyone had started sticking their heads out of the windows and shouting to see what was happening.
The robbery was just an incredible piece of timing in history.
A point in time where:
Cash use was reaching an all time peak - the general public and businesses started heavily using personal cheques and business cheques from the mid 60's onwards, rapidly reducing the volume of cash needing to be moved around the country.
Cash still had to be physically moved by train, at night, due to the volume of it.
Security measures were still almost non-existent at that time, and certainly no actual security personnel on the train.
You could could split the train without altering the other 75 workers in the rear coaches, due to the carriage electrical systems of the day.
There was no cab radio for the drivers to quickly call the signallers or intercom for alerting the guard or the rest of the train. There was also obviously no mobile phones in common use.
There would have been no immediate visual electronic alert in any control rooms or signal boxes as to the stationary status of the train, they would have been still relying on realising the train hadn't turned up at a certain point, something that surely gave the robbers a lot more getaway time before the train was noticed missing.
It couldn't have been better for the robbers. Practically everything was in their favour.
I don't recall any steam heating being in operation in August on any of the trains I went on.
The 'cash' in question was 'old', and in the opinion of the Bank of England and their agent banks who picked it out, was life -expired, and was returning to the Bank of England for destruction, and replacement by new notes. It was a good time to pick...that week had been a Bank Holiday and presumably there was a 'bumper' haul of notes on this train compared to normal (August Bank Holiday moved to the end of August from 1965 onwards..it had previously been the first Monday in August [including in 1964])....the robbers were aware that this was likely. The robbers were aware that these were very used notes and difficult to trace (from their Post Office insider).
Improved security for the 'High Value Packages' coach had been instigated through better locks, bars on windows, etc. (according to the Wiki article), however, on the date in question, they were not available and an ancient 'reserve' coach was used. (They were probably having their steam heating serviced !!)
The gang had chosen this fairly isolated spot for the robbery...they cut all the railway telephone wires in the vicinity to delay any alerts to the authorities. There was a lot of 'inside knowledge', members of the gang had previously held up mail trains. The plot was well planned and well financed in advance. They bought the isolated and dilapidated farm where they holed up for a few days, They had VHF radios to listen in to Police frequencies (easy to do...used to do it myself). They bought several vehicles to transport the cash and gang members, they were well equipped with the right tools and and did their best not to leave finger prints. (A few years ago I worked with a guy whose relation had sold several of the vehicles to the gang (the truck, one of the Land Rovers and at least one of the cars)...for cash.)
One of the get-away drivers, Roy James, was a racing driver....but his day job was as a silversmith. He made the Formula One Constructor's trophy (currently in the hands of McLaren)!
It has been suggested over the years that there were other 'investors' in the scheme given the initial finance required...but none of the suggested names have ever been made to 'stick'.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
My distinct recollection (from the 1970s) is that the carriage lighting would dim as the train slowed, then brighten when the battery kicked in. I've always assumed that the switch was controlled by something detecting that the voltage from the dynamo falling below that from the battery, "below" being enough to be noticeable in the lighting. Happy to be corrected if wrong!
Yes, exactly. No sensing control needed, the voltage would just drop to the 'base load' off the battery...it can do that on your car in winter when there's a big demand from lights demisters, heaters, etc.
It was quite usual, as I think someone mentioned, for the battery on a Mk1 to be shot so the lights went off below a certain speed. I was once on one that was the other way round, working fine at low speeds but they went out when the dynamo should have taken over.
Now I think about it, the panel in the vestibule with the buttons controlling lights for that coach (source of many a schoolkid prank) also had a switch operated by a carriage key to operate the lights in the whole train. So even when each coach had an independent lighting supply there must have been a cable linking through the train. I assume this was the jumper well above the buffer beam that was later used for remote operation of locomotives via TDM. As I believe this was named the RCH connector after the Railway Clearing House, it must have been standardised sometime before nationalisation.
I've yet to find a source for the specific vans on that night's working. Any suggestions?
Stanier-designed TPO sorting vans were perpetuated by the fledgling British Railways; and the book I mentioned in post #11 lists the 1948-1949 build carriage numbers to the LMS diagrams. To the best of.my knowledge, those were not any more secure than the LMS-built examples.
I've yet to find a source for the specific vans on that night's working. Any suggestions?
Stanier-designed TPO sorting vans were perpetuated by the fledgling British Railways; and the book I mentioned in post #11 lists the 1948-1949 build carriage numbers to the LMS diagrams. To the best of.my knowledge, those were not any more secure than the LMS-built examples.
I Googled ‘ train formation great train robbery ‘ and the top result was from the dark side, i.e. RMweb, but that says it was from googling. The second vehicle’s number checks against pictures taken at Cheddington.
I Googled ‘ train formation great train robbery ‘ and the top result was from the dark side, i.e. RMweb, but that says it was from googling. The second vehicle’s number checks against pictures taken at Cheddington.
From what I have read the signalman acted just like I would probably have done: he didn’t delay any more than a signalman would normally do. As I said in #12, you did not always immediately put all the emergency regulations into force: you waited to find out what was happening. Trains stopping out of course was not unusual and, in those days, nobody paid special attention to mail trains.
Exactly. His natural reaction would be to just assume that the train had broken down, and wait to be contacted by the train crew. If there was a train going the other way, he would likely get it to check what was happening, and advise the signaller at the other end of the section.
After awhile, he would have tried to contact the signaller in rear to find out if he knew anything - but the robbers had cut the lines. He may have been concerned about the combination of the train failing to arrive and the loss of communication, but again the.most likely explanation would be that a tree had fallen.
Remember that in those days, it was not uncommon for the only phone in a signalbox to be a box-box omnibus. Nothing that could be used to call the emergency services. And of course it was in the days before mobile phones. To call for help he would likely have had to leave his box and find the nearest GPO phone. Which he wouldn't do just because he suspected something was wrong - he wouldn't raise the alarm untill he was sure of what was wrong,
What I have never quite understood is how the robbers stopped the train. If, as reported, they put a glove over the green light and falsely lit the red light, then the signal in rear would still have been showing green. The driver would not have been expecting the red aspect. He would surely have had to make an emergency brake application, which would have alerted the guard. And if running at full speed, there would surely have been a good chance of overrunning the signal, and so not stopping in the right place for the robbers.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
I suspect its Sulzer 6-pot was thrashed every step of the way!
