Great Train Robbery signalling query

[Colin1501]

A quick signalling query about this famous (or infamous) incident in 1963. As I understand it, the gang stopped the mail train by tampering with a 2-aspect colour-light signal at Sears Crossing. This entailed lighting the red aspect by connecting it to a battery, and obscuring the (correctly lit) green aspect with a glove. Now, this signal must have had an associated distant signal. Did the gang similarly tamper with this, or did they simply rely on the fact that, having passed the distant at green, the driver would make a full brake application to stop as quickly as possible on unexpectedly finding the home showing red?

Grateful for any thoughts or info.

Colin

 

[Lucan]

There was a distant signal too. Graham Satchwell in his book Great Train Robbery Confidential says: "Driver Mills and his Second Man saw an unexpected yellow dwarf signal ... Driver Mills applied the brakes and a red signal .... came into view." Unexpected, because at that time of night they normally had greens all the way, but also I wonder why the distant was a "dwarf" signal rather than on an overhead gantry. Without a distant at yellow, I doubt they could have stopped before the red.

I don't know enough about track circuits, but maybe wiring the red signal to a battery made the corresponding distant turn yellow with no further action. The robbers did know a bit about signaling tech, and not many people realise that the GTR was not the first robbery in the UK involving signal tampering, it was just the biggest.

 

[Merle Haggard]

but also I wonder why the distant was a "dwarf" signal rather than on an overhead gantry.

I think I can remember some signals at a low level before the proper MAS resignalling - but in Tring cutting. I might be getting confused with IBS ones, and I also think I remember that the IBS were searchlight (i.e. only one lens) but again I'm not sure. But the ones I'm thinking of were on a triangular head only just above rail level and distinctively sloped backwards (so that the rays shone slightly upward towards the drivers' eye level) and in the 6' between slow & fast. They probably appear in some of the many photos of steam expresses in Tring Cutting. They may have been there for signal sighting under tall bridges, can't really do 'sky arms' with a colour light

The memorable (for me) feature of those old colour lights was e.g. the IBS at Church Brampton; the line curved, so if you stood in a particular spot in Kingsthorpe, behind the church (more than a mile away) the colour and intensity was very bright - that's why 'obscuring with a glove' seems a bit difficult to believe. But I'm not putting up any libellous 'theories'...

 

[Lucan]

'obscuring with a glove' seems a bit difficult to believe

The glove story does not seem to make much sense to me either (although a lot of what the robbers did made no sense anyway). For a start, it would need a gigantic glove to fit over a signal head. Secondly, while they had the back of the signal head open to connect the battery to the red light, why not just cut the wires to the green light with some wire cutters?

 

[Railsigns]

The glove story does not seem to make much sense to me either (although a lot of what the robbers did made no sense anyway). For a start, it would need a gigantic glove to fit over a signal head.

An ordinary glove would easily fit over the relevant lamp (for the green aspect) inside the signal head.

Secondly, while they had the back of the signal head open to connect the battery to the red light, why not just cut the wires to the green light with some wire cutters?

Because it would have alerted the signalman that something was wrong.

 

[jp4712]

They broke into the signal heads and put (leather) gloves over the lamps. ‘Dwarf’ signal here didn’t mean a shunting signal; it was a main line distant, full-sized, but the signal head was at very low level. You may know that Bruce Reynolds had (reluctantly) recruited Roger Cordrey’s South Coast Gang to the team because they knew how to stop a train: Cordrey put the glove over the home signal lamp, but left one of Reynolds’ gang to sort out the distant. Whoever it was didn’t heed Cordrey’s instruction to not remove the green aspect bulb but they did, and indeed this sounded an alarm at Leighton Buzzard No. 1 box. Had the signalman there been a bit more on the ball summoning a linesman, who knows what would have happened.

Graham Satchwell’s excellent book says that according to records, the distant showed a fault to the Leighton Buzzard signalman at 0250, three minutes before the postal train entered his section. The signalman told the inquiry that he phoned for a lineman at 0300 (why the ten minute wait?) but the lineman told the BR internal inquiry that he wasn’t alerted until 0400. Satchwell doesn’t go so far as to say that the signalman was in on the job but simply points out a puzzling lack of energy in the signalman’s response and some odd inconsistencies in his account to the inquiry.

 

[Andy873]

Now, this signal must have had an associated distant signal.

When I first went to watch the film Buster many years ago I didn't know anything really about how signaling worked. When I watched it again around two years ago I knew better, and did wonder about that distant signal, seems that signal was omitted from the film.

Certainly removing or disconnecting the green light would send off an alarm somewhere.

 

[John Webb]

The glove story does not seem to make much sense to me either (although a lot of what the robbers did made no sense anyway). For a start, it would need a gigantic glove to fit over a signal head. Secondly, while they had the back of the signal head open to connect the battery to the red light, why not just cut the wires to the green light with some wire cutters?

The glove was over the bulb - the 12volt 24Watt bulbs used in signal heads at that time were about 1.5inch (38mm) in diameter so a glove would fit over them with little problem. Presumably leather to resist the heat and be thick enough to cut out the light.

 

[Gloster]

Graham Satchwell’s excellent book says that according to records, the distant showed a fault to the Leighton Buzzard signalman at 0250, three minutes before the postal train entered his section. The signalman told the inquiry that he phoned for a lineman at 0300 (why the ten minute wait?) but the lineman told the BR internal inquiry that he wasn’t alerted until 0400. Satchwell doesn’t go so far as to say that the signalman was in on the job but simply points out a puzzling lack of energy in the signalman’s response and some odd inconsistencies in his account to the inquiry.

A ten minute delay between the failure and calling the lineman does not sound in any way suspicious to me. A signalman can easily be occupied for ten minutes with matters requiring immediate attention before being free to make the call and, if they were still using omnibus circuits, he might have to wait for the line to be clear. I don’t know if the signalman could call directly to the lineman or it had to go through somebody else, such as a station supervisor, and they might have been occupied for a while. If the signal appeared to have failed to safe it might not be the most urgent thing to do that instant.

As far as the inconsistencies in his evidence go: well, maybe the signalman had been a bit slow or a bit slack in reacting or applying the rules. With the massive interest in the robbery, would you be keen to admit you were a bit sloppy?

 

[Colin1501]

Thanks to everyone above for your helpful and interesting replies. You've answered my basic question about whether the distant signal was similarly tampered with, but I've also learnt a lot more about the incident in the process. Thanks again,

Colin

 

[Taunton]

I still haven't got it straight about the signals.

August 1963 was just when the signalling was being changed over to MAS with the electrification. Most photographs of the "scene" are taken afterwards, and show electrification masts, including the cover photo of Satchwell's book, whereas I believe there were none at the time.

Signalling on the WCML up to then had been mostly block, semaphore at the stop signals, where home and starter were both generally within sight of the box, and mostly colour light distants, which both the LMS and later BR had put in as replacements. But in the changeover to MAS it was now 4-aspect colour lights (as nowadays). The accounts of the signalling don't seem to fit with either approach.

It always seemed the way with mainstream block signalling in former times that the next signalman along knew, pretty much to the minute, when a train might appear following the Train Entering Section bell, and enquiries started very promptly indeed if it didn't appear. I don't see any of that.

 

[jp4712]

There were indeed masts along the line at the time. I’m no signalling expert but there are references to the signal at Sears Crossing being an Interim Block; I recall that the LMS had converted many of these to three aspect colour light. I’ve re-read Graham Satchwell’s book today, prompted by this thread. Apparently the Leighton Buzzard signalman could indeed see the false yellow from his box. And the section was track circuited and he told an internal inquiry later that he saw the train divide on his diagram as the loco and high value coach moved forward, but he STILL ‘thought nothing of it’ until the Cheddington signalman phoned and more-or-less told him in no uncertain terms to stop a southbound parcels train on the slow line and ask them to inspect the section.

Reading Satchwell again today, it’s clear that he is more than slightly sceptical around the signalman’s actions that night.

 

[NoOldEngine]

A quick signalling query about this famous (or infamous) incident in 1963. As I understand it, the gang stopped the mail train by tampering with a 2-aspect colour-light signal at Sears Crossing. This entailed lighting the red aspect by connecting it to a battery, and obscuring the (correctly lit) green aspect with a glove. Now, this signal must have had an associated distant signal. Did the gang similarly tamper with this, or did they simply rely on the fact that, having passed the distant at green, the driver would make a full brake application to stop as quickly as possible on unexpectedly finding the home showing red?

Grateful for any thoughts or info.

Colin

Looking at this picture, a battery was added to the lower lamp and a rubber type glove covering the top lamp. The four batteries are typical 6 volt portable radio battery of the era with spring connectors.

https://www.postalmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/POST_120_110_Thames-Valley-Constabulary_Page_02_Image_0001b.jpg

 

[edwin_m]

There were indeed masts along the line at the time. I’m no signalling expert but there are references to the signal at Sears Crossing being an Interim Block; I recall that the LMS had converted many of these to three aspect colour light. I’ve re-read Graham Satchwell’s book today, prompted by this thread. Apparently the Leighton Buzzard signalman could indeed see the false yellow from his box. And the section was track circuited and he told an internal inquiry later that he saw the train divide on his diagram as the loco and high value coach moved forward, but he STILL ‘thought nothing of it’ until the Cheddington signalman phoned and more-or-less told him in no uncertain terms to stop a southbound parcels train on the slow line and ask them to inspect the section.

Reading Satchwell again today, it’s clear that he is more than slightly sceptical around the signalman’s actions that night.

It's actually an intermediate block. These were (and still are) stop signals about half way between signal boxes to shorten the block section. It either had its own distant signal as here or (depending on distance between signals) the last stop signal of the box before could have a yellow aspect added or the IB might be a three-aspect and act as the distant for the box after.

Because there was nobody at the IB stop signal to observe the tail lamp, continuous track circuiting was necessary for the section approaching it, so the controlling signalman could confirm section clear before letting another train enter it.

 

[Gloster]

Reading a book on it, which is a bit short on detail, it looks like the signalman at Leighton Buzzard received an indication at around 03.00 that there had been a signal failure at the IBS and telephoned for the lineman. The failure was because one of the robbers, contrary to the instructions of their expert, had removed the bulb from the green aspect at the IBS Distant and then switched on the battery amber light. The Cheddington signalman telephoned the signalman at Leighton Buzzard at 03.10 to ask where the postal was, to be told that he suspected a signal failure at Sears Crossing. At 03.15 the Leighton Buzzard signalman saw that the train had passed the signal at Sears Crossing, but the track leading up to it was still occupied. He then told Euston Control and Cheddington S.B., and soon after stopped and cautioned an Up parcels on the Slow.

It seems that it was probably track-circuited from Leighton Buzzard to Sears Crossing IBS, which had an overlap. There appear to have been OHL masts, but not necessarily wires.

 

[John Webb]

Looking at this picture, a battery was added to the lower lamp and a rubber type glove covering the top lamp. Battery looks like a typical 6 volt portable radio battery of the era with spring connectors.

https://www.postalmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/POST_120_110_Thames-Valley-Constabulary_Page_02_Image_0001b.jpg

An interesting photo. The batteries are 6volt ones connected in series/parallel to give the 12v needed by the signal lamp. They are of a type commonly used in large hand-lamps and road works warning lamps. I suspect the glove is leather as mentioned in post #6 above as rubber would not have cut all the light out nor withstood the heat for any length of time.

 

[Signal_Box]

The signaller at Leighton Buzzard box was a ex con unknown to BR, leant in by the gang to deliberately delay carrying out regulations and ignoring indications.

No data records or loggers back then, are we really expected to believe a glove and battery stopped a class 1 high value train on the west coast Mainline and no one noticed until the alarm was raised by the crew ?

What about the guard of the train? Your train comes to a stand unexpectedly, you lose vacuum pressure feel the train detach, stay stationary for sometime at least 10-15 minutes and think nothing was amiss ??? Really !

There is much much to the story than we know publicly, BR where very keen to not been seen as incompetent at the time east to brush things under the carpet back then.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Oct 2023 ==

Reading a book on it, which is a bit short on detail, it looks like the signalman at Leighton Buzzard received an indication at around 03.00 that there had been a signal failure at the IBS and telephoned for the lineman. The failure was because one of the robbers, contrary to the instructions of their expert, had removed the bulb from the green aspect at the IBS Distant and then switched on the battery amber light. The Cheddington signalman telephoned the signalman at Leighton Buzzard at 03.10 to ask where the postal was, to be told that he suspected a signal failure at Sears Crossing. At 03.15 the Leighton Buzzard signalman saw that the train had passed the signal at Sears Crossing, but the track leading up to it was still occupied. He then told Euston Control and Cheddington S.B., and soon after stopped and cautioned an Up parcels on the Slow.

It seems that it was probably track-circuited from Leighton Buzzard to Sears Crossing IBS, which had an overlap. There appear to have been OHL masts, but not necessarily wires.

What did the Up parcels see upon passing through at caution ? I assume the Mail was the Up fast so the operation to remove bags would need to of crossed the down fast a rather risky situation from a being struck and being seen, unless they knew there wouldn’t be a Dn fast train….

 

[Taunton]

I think it was the Post Office who were keen not to have details known. It is surprising that there was not more questioning about why such large sums of money were in the postal system. Fact was the banks themselves used the postal system to move their cash around, new notes out from their centres in London to branches, old notes coming back, which of course is why the robbery took place in this direction. There wasn't any equivalent Securicor or similar alternative system in place then, the Post Office had the monopoly on it.

 

[Gloster]

The robbers don’t seem to have spent much time unloading as it was probably a bit after 03.15 before they broke into the High Value van and they ceased at 03.30. They may have assumed that at that time of the morning there wouldn’t be any trains on the Down Fast and were lucky, although they might have been ready to get out of the way. But it is possible that they had inside information that there shouldn’t be any trains, not necessarily from the signalman.

As far as the the lamp that was used, the robber handling it was experienced with stopping trains using a lamp and I suspect he did know how to imitate a signal lamp.

The guard was sixty-one and I wouldn’t be surprised if he was dozing or just slow to react: no one at any level expected such a robbery. One thing he did do promptly when he saw that the train was divided was to put down dets.

If the signalman was an ex-con who had been leant on, then he seems to managed to delay things no more than might look as if he was a bit slack, rather than actually obstructing things. I presume the police investigated him but found nothing (they could act on).

As far as the Up Parcels was concerned, I don’t think it got to the site until after the robbers had departed at 03.30