Well all this talk about the engine being a bad luck engine or whatever, with all my years on the railway, an engine or loco was an engine, it was allocated and worked, we certainly never bothered about or even thought about what its history was, I think a lot of this comes from the "outside" and not from working railwaymen.
There was a few engines on BR that were involved in a lot more serious incidents than the great train robbery, but they went into works and came back out and worked until the end, we as drivers and firemen or secondmen never give "what has happened to the engine before" a thought. As I say I think that came from Anoraks and people outside of the working railway.

I still think that Jack Mills Should have been recognised in some way though.

RIP Jack mate.

48111

I think it was a great shame that Jack Mills died soon after the great train robbery and it should never have happened, Bruce Reynolds said from the start no guns and no violence if the driver they had got knew how to drive the type of loco then then no doubt Jack Mills would not have died.
We had a driver at St Blazey John William Elliot who was killed on a class 37 the 24/12/1993 in the shed, the one good thing he did not know what happened it was over that quick. I cant remember the number of the loco i think it was a 376?? and we all said after his death we didn't want to see the loco again it went upto Scotland to finish it's days.
37412 was named after him by his daughter in 1994 Driver John Elliot.

ccmmick.

I worked on 40126 several times as a Secondman and it was common knowledge among loco crews that this was the G.T.R. engine.

Brian.

Apparently the loco in the Tay Bridge Disaster - which was recovered after the accident and repaired, was considered unlucky (was known as the diver) and drivers refused to work her over the new bridge.

The taboo was eventually broken some years later.

Perhaps someone can provide more details

D326 was a regular visitor at Bushbury (3B), during the early sixties, she would come down on the Euston - Wolverhampton then return the next morning on the 6.40 am Euston. It was always mentioned by footplate crew's that she was the train robbery engine, i also heard that she gathered a little bit of a reputation as an unlucky engine having been involved in a couple of incidents ---- i'm sure what they were.

40126 was well known as being the loco involved in the crime. As a teenager I knew about it. It was given priority for scrapping after it's withdrawal, iirc.

Also, when a TV programme or maybe a film was made about it, 40106 was used in filming.

Remember the reporting in 'Rail Enthusiast' at the time of 40126's 'demise', like most have said on here, it was the correct decision to scrap it ASAP, once it finished in BR service

I have received a batch of Graham Farish locos from a friend and 40 126 is amongst them. He wanted a split head code version because he liked the look of it and chose the number through no special significance. The loco was numbered D326 at the time of the robbery and appears to have had a very checkered career. Some more information here.
http://www.railblue.com/pages/Class%....DN.010484.htm

I can understand to a degree, the resentment that would have been created at having 40 126 preserved or made as a model but why then is a mail coach from the robbery on display at the Severn Valley Railway, Bridgnorth?

40 106 WAS used, in the film "Buster", the exterior railway scenes were mostly filmed on the G.C.R. where 40 106 was based at the time, mock up headcode boxes were fitted.

Regards, 62440.