| Welcome to Railway Forum! | |
 | Thank you for finding your way to Railway Forum, a dedicated community for railway and train enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!
|
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
#1
1st February 2011, 13:27
|
|||
|
|||
|
40126
I often wonder if the Great Train robbery "loco" was preserved, 40126, it should have been really. Also I think that Jack Mills should have had an engine named after him...actually that could still happen even on todays railway, Mr Branson could name one of his "virginilos" or "cornettos" or whatever you call them after Jack.
Just a thought. 48111 
|
|
#2
1st February 2011, 19:13
|
||||
|
||||
|
This is what happened to it
40126 (D326) withdrawn 02/84 Kingmoor TMD (Carlisle) Cut up 04/84 BREL Doncaster Works
__________________
Regards Gray The wheelchair Paparazzi https://www.flickr.com/gp/grays_photos/6P1643
|
|
#3
1st February 2011, 21:50
|
||||
|
||||
|
40126 was deliberately not preserved. There has also been considerable opposition to producing a model limited edition of the loco.
I have to say I support both decisions. Best wishes, John H-T.
__________________
Ecclesbourne Valley Railway. LMS Patriot Group. LMS Carriage Association. Belper Model Railway Group.
|
|
#4
1st February 2011, 22:19
|
||||
|
||||
|
I agree with John H-T about preseving 40126 and I would never buy any model loco with that number on it, but I do think that Jack Mills should have had an engine named after him.
__________________
The Old Git, Syd
|
|
#5
2nd February 2011, 08:17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well I have NEVER heard anything about 40126, even when I was at work.
In fact as far as I know, and I could be wrong, but it has never been made WIDE knowledge that 40126 was the actual engine on the train, It was certainly never spoken about in our Cabin and I cannot honestly remember it being the topic in other cabins, certainly not when I was in them. I have always had every sympathy for Jack, and made my views known as a railwayman, in many e mails to different parts of the media when they have portrayed what happened to him. But as far as the loco goes, well I am surprised at what I have been told on here. 48111
|
|
#6
2nd February 2011, 11:31
|
||||
|
||||
|
40126 also gets a mention in this thread:
http://www.railwayforum.net/showthread.php?t=1391
__________________
John …….My Railwayforum Gallery
|
|
#7
2nd February 2011, 16:11
|
||||
|
||||
|
I also think it was right to scrap that particular loco.
I would not like a loco to be popular because something bad happened in it's past.
__________________
Philip.
|
|
#8
2nd February 2011, 17:31
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Regards Gray The wheelchair Paparazzi https://www.flickr.com/gp/grays_photos/6P1643
|
|
#9
6th February 2011, 11:39
|
|||
|
|||
|
I absolutely agree with the sentiments expressed here. Some 10 years ago (pre-digital photography unfortunately) I took a photo of a picture in a book called The Train Robbers showing Bridego Bridge the morning after the robbery. The diesel loco appears to show the number D276.
Subsequently I got rid of the book, published many years after the robbery, because I didn't think it was very good. I've read several accounts of the crime and - correct me if I'm wrong here - the thug who (quite unnecessarily) attacked driver Mills was never officially identified or arrested. Forgive my being cynical here but the 30 year jail sentences given to some of those arrested were for stealing money, not for attacking the driver and ruining his life. Still, they certainly acted as a deterrent and no robbery on this scale was ever carried out against a train again.
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
