Is anyone aware if the USAF every shipped Atlas ICBMs via rail and if so, if anyone has ever modeled them in HO?
Mike Thomasson
Austin, Texas
The NMRA Magazine had a neat photo of one of the special boxcars built to haul the ICBM missiles around the country. I no longer recall which issue. If I remember the text correctly the cars were built, no armed missiles were ever actually shipped in them, and that one such car has been preserved. A bit of an internet search showed that it is at the Air Force Museum in Dayton OH.
The photos show a double trucked enclosed car which I assume is a boxcar by classification, but actually reminds me more of a smooth sided version of the enclosed autorack cars that were used in Canada and later purchased by AutoTrain. Flat ends. In one photo it almost looks like the roof is a tarp but I may be misinterpreting the photo. What looks like a hydraulic clamping device beneath the car appears to have been intended to grip the rails (or extend into the roadbed?) during firing I assume. It oddly enough looks like certain track cleaning devices I have seen under HO freight cars!
Dave Nelson
Peacekeper Rail Garison car. The cars were actually were designed to both transport and launch missiles. They could be moved around the country on the rail system so that the Soviet Union would. not know their location and thus could not target them.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
mreagantIs anyone aware if the USAF every shipped Atlas ICBMs via rail and if so, if anyone has ever modeled them in HO?
The Atlas was like a large stainless-steel balloon (skin about the thickness of a dime) and needed to be kept pressurized whenever it was transported (or, for that matter, stored at any orientation but vertical). Even the one preserved at the Space and Rocket Center (on its custom transporter trailer) needs to be kept hooked up to a pressurizing system to keep it straight. This is not a design that would be shipped by conventional rail of the day, let alone rigged for transporter-erectors.
For that you want a solid-fuel missile, and accordingly it was the Minuteman that was selected for the railborne 'distributed launch capability' (the idea being that the missile and its required technicians and security would 'rove the national rail system' -- any train, any time, might have the deterrent Sunday punch in it. A bit like the contemporary Polaris in the Navy's submarines...
It's hard to find anything quite as bad as MLF, but this was it.
The Rail Garrison project was later, in the 1980s, and involved a larger missile with MIRVs, Unfortunately this required a four-truck boxcar, in an era when 'rail whales' and other large single freightcars turned out not to be used, so you didn't have to be a savvy Russian photogrammetrist to figure out a boxcar that size was the "hidden" deterrent (even if you couldn't have guessed from other likely factors). Meanwhile, the likelihood of getting the train stopped, the missile erected, etc. with the necessary short lead time was Just Not There.
I don't know of an Atlas in HO, but it should be relatively easy to model one. The same probably can't be said, though, of the special trailer it rode on.
RME Meanwhile, the likelihood of getting the train stopped, the missile erected, etc. with the necessary short lead time was Just Not There.
Meanwhile, the likelihood of getting the train stopped, the missile erected, etc. with the necessary short lead time was Just Not There.
How long was the "necessary short lead time"?
How long did it take to set up?
Ed
I do not believe that the military ever used the rail car. They also have seen somewhere that the military bought two GP40-2s and added armour supposedly, but I do not believe they were ever used in this role. The plan was to paint them for different railroads to blend in. In times of heightened tensions, the trains would scatter onto the rail system from there storage places. As mentioned before though, the rail cars were very unique, and it was easily to spot.
7j43kHow long was the "necessary short lead time"?
About a half-hour, how long it takes for a missile to fly over the North Pole.
The Atlas was typically transported by air, the province of the sometimes ill-fated workhorse, the C-133.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l_pEZrMIc8
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/the-curse-of-the-cargomaster-2241392/?no-ist
However, never say never when it comes to missiles on rails. These two involve Minuteman missile transporter-erectors. I believe the speculation was these specific loads were museum pieces enroute to final destinations, but I don't think that was estbalished for certain. These missles are still around and something has to get them to the silos and back. And anything this big was most likely shipped by rail when it was originally produced back in the 60s, although this equipment isn't that old (check the internet for more).
http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=41552
http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=42403
The Atlas would not have been useful on the rails, unlike the solid-fueled Minuteman, because of all the ancilliary equipement to keep it liquid oxygen and other fuel ready for launch. The era of liquid-fueled missiles in the US passed with the retirement of the Titan II, which had several nasty accidents (also seen on the internet - I've got a big file on one if you want it, PM me). How is this rail relevant? One of our division members used to train airman on Titan systems
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
KyleI do not believe that the military ever used the rail car. They also have seen somewhere that the military bought two GP40-2s and added armour supposedly, but I do not believe they were ever used in this role.
Correct, the Rail Garrison concept was only conceptual and experimental, perhaps even intended only as a bargaining chip with the Soviets, who actually did commit to such systems in a limited manner. The ones that were built were intended as prototypes, in the other sense of that word. If you think about it, as you did, not exactly a secret when something this big moves, where it parks, and it only goes where the tracks go.
And, if as they say the balloon goes up, could a unit of these move far anough away from its parking spot on most RRs in a half hour to avoid a nuclear weapon aimed at that siding or spur? Not on a lot of RRs, especially back in the early 80s when this came up.
If my memory serves, I read in the popular press that part of the concept was that there would be at least as many empty (dummy) cars running around as ready-to-fire ones. The idea being to give more targets for a Russian first strike.
No body wanted one of these cars parked close to their home town.
Dave
Thank you all for the responses. However, I guess I assumed that it was clear what an Atlas ICBM was. It was a first generation Intercontinetal Ballistic Missle intended for launch from either a fixed ground based pad or an under ground hardened silo. It was not, and could not have been, launched from a rail car of any configuration. All I was asking was if anyone knew whether those missles might have been transported from the manufacturer to the various missle bases in the western U.S. via rail car.
In the early 1960s, I helped dig hardened silos around Abilene, Texas and saw the missles trucked to the silos in heavily guarded convoys. I have always wondered is they came to Abilene, or any other base, totally by truck or at least part of the way by train. Since I model the T&P it would make great detail for my Abilene portion of the layout.
Google search has not helped, so I thought I'd ask here.
Any further ideas?
MT
I've never seen or heard of an Atlas transported 'on the ground' apart from its customized trailer. So any railborne move would be comparable to piggyback, with the added joy of high/wide move. Personally I'd think the risk of someone taking a potshot at it with a .22 would be severe enough to avoid traveling 'unguarded' even for a comparatively short time.
I suspect these were all on-road moves. Seems to me there are enough missile aficionados (albeit not necessarily on railroad forums!) to give you a definitive logistics answer.
mreagantIn the early 1960s, I helped dig hardened silos around Abilene, Texas and saw the missles trucked to the silos in heavily guarded convoys. I have always wondered is they came to Abilene, or any other base, totally by truck or at least part of the way by train. Since I model the T&P it would make great detail for my Abilene portion of the layout. Google search has not helped, so I thought I'd ask here. Any further ideas?
MT,
The Air Force airfreighted them from the get-go AFAIK. If any were shipped by rail, that would very much be the exception to the rule. They were likely landed as close to Amarillo as had proper facilities to download, process and ship them to the sites. Lots of choices in TX and nearby for that. Sheppard AFB was up that way, but in the late 50s early 60s there may have been others closer.
DSchmitt Peacekeper Rail Garison car. The cars were actually were designed to both transport and launch missiles. They could be moved around the country on the rail system so that the Soviet Union would. not know their location and thus could not target them.
It wasn't to hide them; that was a bit of a misunderstanding. It was to disperse them. Soviet weapons weren't exactly accurate or easy to retarget. Once you moved them to random locations, the Soviets couldn't do a dang thing about them, even if they knew where they were.
The concept is sound. The Soviets (and other non-nuclear users) developed lots of truck-borne mobile launchers specifically because they were hard to hit, even if you had an idea of where they went. Scud hunting in Desert Storm proved that concept, in a conventional realm. That's why we bought the B-2: to hunt and kill mobile launchers. The Soviets had no such asset. We were never big on mobile ICBM launchers domestically and the ones we did deploy to Europe, we traded away in treaties. Had the Soviets developed a long range penetrator, I suspect the rail mobile Peacekeepers would have had more popularity.
But more importantly, it was a capability to trade away in arms reduction treaties or something to get the Soviets to waste money on their own version of (which they did). It was a lot like that time we air launched a Minuteman out of a C-5. Not because we'd ever *want* to...but maybe its handy to say we can.
RMEPersonally I'd think the risk of someone taking a potshot at it with a .22 would be severe enough to avoid traveling 'unguarded' even for a comparatively short time.
My understanding is since these are not transported with any fuel or warhead a .22 would just make a hole in the skin and/or damage a small part. Then the tech people would have something to repair. And they would never be unguarded.
Missiles used for warfare use solid propellant. Wither a nuclear ICBM, or a conventional warhead. No time to load liquid fuel. When you need to use one, you need it now.
Ken G Price My N-Scale Layout
Digitrax Super Empire Builder Radio System. South Valley Texas Railroad. SVTRR
N-Scale out west. 1996-1998 or so! UP, SP, Missouri Pacific, C&NW.
LakeMissiles used for warfare use solid propellant.
Today, yeah, that's pretty much the case. In late 1959 when the Atlas first went on alert, big missles were almost exclusively liquid fueled as it was, like its bigger colleague the Titan. The Minuteman and Polaris were still under development. On the Russian side, a larger % theirs remained liquid fueled into the 1970s. Yeah, no time to load fuel, so you just keep it fueled when on alert.
Not that solid fuel was without issues, as it required steady state storage. Thus when shipped via RR, as the solid fuel missiles often were, they were shipped in refrigerated containers beginning in the 1970s; not sure what was done before that..
LakeMy understanding is since these are not transported with any fuel or warhead a .22 would just make a hole in the skin and/or damage a small part. Then the tech people would have something to repair. And they would never be unguarded.
You miss my point. A hole in the skin takes the necessary pressurization out, and while the vehicle might not crumple like a beer can it would wind up well outside the geometry needed for ballistic flight in that era (or within the available RCS authority even if the aerodynamics were not compromised to the point of causing failure stress)
And you will not guard an entire rail line ROW back to the effective range of, say, a good varminting rifle. Or, in the '60s at least, muster up a quick enough response to an act of sabotage observed by the on-train security.
Missiles used for warfare use solid propellant. Whether a nuclear ICBM, or a conventional warhead.
You don't really appreciate what went into ballistic-missile operation with low CEP in that era, do you?
Atlas (and the other good liquid-fueled designs) had predictable and easily-set main engine cutoff, and then used the verniers -- that is why they call them 'verniers' -- to adjust the speed correctly. Think now what is required to shut down combustion propagation in a typical solid-fuel motor to achieve the same effect. (Yes, this was done for Polaris, and some of the approach is still classified, but we get Halon fire suppression from it). When all you needed was city-busting deterrents, this was fine, but a great deal more engineering was needed before a solid-fuel booster was preferable to, say, hypergolic propellants as on the Titans.* Which brings up...
No time to load liquid fuel. When you need to use one, you need it now.
That is what the hypergolic propellants do -- a bit like binary nerve gas or Astrolite explosives. They store relatively well (e.g., no cryo) and can be transferred from tankage to missile and vice versa with some ease, and of course 'do as intended' promptly and reliably when mixed. (Of course, one wrench in the wrong place can give you a bad day, but that's another story)
Where liquid fuel is pointless is on weapons systems like the Jupiter-Cs so adroitly 'given away by an inexperienced negotiator' in the Cuban missile aftermath. (Or, basically, any exposed tactical delivery system...) There a liquid-fueled system will likely have exposed tankage, exposure to all kinds of damage and sabotage, and highly toxic or caustic materials (or cryo oxygen) all ready for overstressed techs to misplumb. (If you want a field demonstration of what this implies, look carefully at some of the exoatmospheric nuclear testing with a careful eye as to what 'prime' implies...)
*NB: the 'correct' answer to this involves a bus. And you don't see solid propellants used on those, for a variety of pretty good reasons.
Slightly off topic perhaps, but missile warheads were definitely shipped by train during the 80's. I was living near Vancouver, WA at the time. We had to deal with a significant number of protesters trying to shut the tracks down in order to prevent the warheads reaching their destination.The protests shut down some roads and blocked people from getting to and from their homes. There were a number of arrests.The warhead shipment originated at the Pantex plant in Amarillo and was destined for the USN sub fleet up in Puget Sound. Sorry, but I have no idea what kind of cars were used. I gave the whole protest area a wide berth and drove to work in Portland using an alternate route.
CG
That was known colloquially as the "white train." Much of its equipment ended up near Pantex at the Amarillo RR Mueseum:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/archiveThumbs.aspx?id=25807
http://www.amarillorailmuseum.com/white-train
mlehmanThat was known colloquially as the "white train". Much of its equipment ended up near Pantex at the Amarillo RR Museum
Personally I consider this one of the most significant 'underrecognized' preserved railroad assets in the United States, particularly from an extended historical-context teaching perspective. I'd much rather the ARM send Madam Queen off somewhere else and devote funding, dollar for dollar, to the White Train (starting with a guard car, but not stopping after that) instead. And if I lived anywhere near Amarillo I'd be working on it every weekend.
I got to see one of the Navy equivalents to this train running through Princeton Junction in the middle of the night, while I was still in college. A pity that national security dictated there be very little coverage of some of these consists and their design details...
Yeah, I agree, an important historical asset and one that likely needs aid and funding to prevent further deterioration.
RMEI got to see one of the Navy equivalents to this train running through Princeton Junction in the middle of the night, while I was still in college. A pity that national security dictated there be very little coverage of some of these consists and their design details...
It was a different age, pre-internet. Now there would be folks lined up to see such a thing, tipped off by their phones...but there nonetheless was coverage, by phone (landlines, though) back in the day. Activists had a pretty good handle on things in the last decade or so of operation, so if you were connected to the right folks, you might very well know it was coming...and then there were the railfans.
While there were other factors, the time of the train was pretty much done by the time it quit.