(from Drudge Report- 28 November 2014)
That old Lionel O gauge guided missile car seemed to be far-fetched idea back in the day. Based on the news story I read this morning, perhaps it is an idea worth reconsidering????
Cedarwoodron
The US had some:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeper_Rail_Garrison
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.
I had the HO version, and the matching exploding box car. There were several missile systems designed to operate from rail cars, one disguised as a box car, but in the end they were abandoned for hardened fixed launchers.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
What are the chances that you could actually hit the boxcar like they showed in the old TV commercials?
Jim
ctyclsscs What are the chances that you could actually hit the boxcar like they showed in the old TV commercials? Jim
Rail-borne ICBMs were one of those bad ideas that cropped up enough in a time of budget abundance that it was eventually funded enough to get a program going. And that's about it. The giant transport/launch cars were ponderous to say the least...
More (as DSchmitt already cited): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeper_Rail_Garrison
Mainly, the reason why the US invested in this dubious basing strategy was because the Russians did it and naturally we had to do so to to "keep up" -- whatever that means after the first couple of tens of thousands of megatons of yield. Here's the Soviet version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-23_Molodets
Given the speeds these trains would likely operate at and the improvments in real-time recon via satellite by the 1980s, if you can pronounce the words "sitting duck" you likely understand why this program came to a none too early end.
Reviving the Russian capability might be something Putin would reach for to make Russians feel better in a time when he seems to be dragging them backward, but it's probably the case that if any actually hit the rails it would find every movement in the cross hairs of a warhead or two or three...
No doubt Drudge will similarly use such charlantry to pump up his ratings.
I'd advise not to worry, Keep Calm and Carry On building models.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
mlehmanNo doubt Drudge will similarly use such charlantry to pump up his ratings.
Drudge is just a website with links to news stories that some nuts would prefer not to be reported.
No reason to feel threatened by it anymore than tools on the network news.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
Geared Steam mlehman No doubt Drudge will similarly use such charlantry to pump up his ratings. Drudge is just a website with links to news stories that some nuts would prefer not to be reported. No reason to feel threatened by it anymore than tools on the network news.
mlehman No doubt Drudge will similarly use such charlantry to pump up his ratings.
I feel even less threatened by Drudge than Putin -- and not much by either.
If you think about the whole plan for a minute, you realize it's nothing but distractive propaganda. Why? It's a wholly ineffective basing strategy. Things were at the point where these weren't viable in the 80s due to improvements by then in surveillance systems.
There has been considerable improvment since then, mainly in the realm of wholly conventional munitions. The primary one here are GPS-enabled systems, from bombs to cruise missles. BTW, there aren't any nuclear cruise missles any more -- and really little need for them in regards to a railborne system. A dozen conventional cruise missles would make mincemeat of a missile train. Most likely, even if it was a moving target -- slowly moving, they are either already able to or will soon be able to update targetting info in realtime. Thus my sitting duck comment earlier.
I don't know who to feel sorrier for. Russians who believe Putin or Americans who believe Drudge for taking Putin seriously.
BTW, just to try to steer this train -- I know, I know -- back on topic, another reason why the MX train never left the station was that folks like Uncle Pete weren't real enthusaistic about having a slow moving, high-axle loading, nuclear target wandering around in front of their manifest and TOFC trains.
Actually, nuclear cruise missiles do still exist, http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104612/agm-86bcd-missiles.aspx and http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104543/agm-129a-advanced-cruise-missile.aspx.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
When my brother and I were kids, we each got a Lionel trainset for Christmas. My brother had the missile car and I had the helicopter car. Watching that chopper spin off across the room was fun to a 8 year old, although not very prototypical.
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
Eric,
No longer operational, although I suppose they could be revived, as they likely still have the plans.
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM
"In March 2007, despite a Service Life Extension program (SLEP) intended to extend its operational usefulness to 2030, the USAF made the final decision to decommission its entire inventory of AGM-129s with the last missile being destroyed in April 2012.[1]"
There's a long story behind this, but I think we'd drift off topic even more by going there.
With my missile car I could hit the boxcar and make it explode nearly every shot. The missile was sprung almost exactly to be able to shoot the width of a 4x8. The exploding box car would never be allowed today - basically it was a mouse trap with a horizontal trigger (right behind the bullseye painted on the side of the car). There was a safety catch so you could run it around in a train and not have it randomly go off, and also allow you to put the sides and roof on without setting it off. Then if you were gentle enough, you could release the safety and set the car on the rails without it snapping in your hands.
Here's a scary thought that the Russians probably have had- ditch the missile idea and replace it with mobile "armed drone" carrier cars. The train would release large "flocks" of miniaturized drones (armed/ recon) at different geographic border points in support of troops or by themselves to raise havoc.
The drones would be either returnable ones or one-way self-destriuctor types that would be far less expensive than missiles- and be remotely operable with less fuss.
Let's see a Lionel car like that!
i still run my exploded car on my layout and have the missile with the flat car to haul it. as a kid we had the mssile base and could hit the box car pretty good. i also have two of the winde up helicopters and two of the blinking radio active flat cars.
FB page of my layout *new*
https://www.facebook.com/ghglines
.
thread to my layout
http://www.warcrc.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10505
pics
http://s237.photobucket.com/user/rockcrawling/library/#/user/rockcrawling/library/ho%20scale%20trains?sort=3&page=1&_suid=1388183416990004180295067414064
One reason the MX missle system wouldn't work today is that railfans all over the country would be reporting their locations, like we do with Heritage Units.
Dave
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
Soo Line fan:
That video was absolutely entertaining!
Thanks for sharing.
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
hon30critterSoo Line fan: That video was absolutely entertaining!
Jim,
Dave's right, great little video.
One serious comment about the combat viability of rail-borne weapons.
If we can pick off individual terrorists in pickup trucks, just how much trouble would it be for a drone to stick a Stinger into something the size of a Pullman sleeper? We do have stealth drones...
Chuck [Msgt(Ret) USAF modeling Central Japan in September, 1964]
This appears to be the perfect train for model railroads.
It is short - 7 cars.
Uses 2 locomotives.
Best of all, it wanders aimlessly around not doing any switching or passenger stops.
Enjoy
Paul
tomikawaTT One serious comment about the combat viability of rail-borne weapons. If we can pick off individual terrorists in pickup trucks, just how much trouble would it be for a drone to stick a Stinger into something the size of a Pullman sleeper? We do have stealth drones... Chuck [Msgt(Ret) USAF modeling Central Japan in September, 1964]
I suspect cruise missles would be chosen to destroy such a target, but there's little doubt Stingers could disable it enough to make it combat ineffective. AFAIK, the rolling stock and locos might have some light armor to make it easier to repel a ground attack aimed at seizing the weapons, but there's not a lot that can be done that's practical to prevent an air attack from destroying such a target.
IRONROOSTERThis appears to be the perfect train for model railroads. It is short - 7 cars. Uses 2 locomotives. Best of all, it wanders aimlessly around not doing any switching or passenger stops.
Yep, you're right about that. Even if it's a dumb idea, it can still make a great model.
Oh I could SO do a drone car in large scale - hmm, guess I better get started on planning for the outdoor layout this spring.. There are several R/C quads smaller than the palm of your hand, which could be fitted in a G scale boxcar or on a G scale flat.
Yeah, I was kind of a space cadet when I was younger, so I had the rocket launcher and exploding boxcar, too. I could hit the target most of the time.
Back when they were actually serious about these, one of the late-night comedians out of New York suggested that they should put the missiles on NYC subway trains, and shoot them through manholes in the pavement. The idea was that if the Transit Authority didn't know where its trains were, how could the Russians?
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
MisterBeasleyThe idea was that if the Transit Authority didn't know where its trains were, how could the Russians?
Another entertaining but futile endeavour involving trains. The Russians did have a solution for that, though...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
http://www.tsarbomba.org/
Here's where a railroad might get into the mix. At 27 tons, the tsar bomb could barely be lifted by an aircraft. But they can make thermonucelar weapons as large as thought necessary. They envisioned the biggest ones would be delivered by ship. A railroad could serve nicely, but I don't think using a train as a delivery vehicle was ever seriously considered. Plus there's the matter of the gauge change, which was originally intended to keep Europe out of Russia. In the Cold War, it became a barrier that could have held the Russians back. So railroads do figure even in the nuclear age.
I remember having the O-27 ballistic missile car, where the missile would launch straight up and return via parachute. I also had the satellite car where the "solar cells" acted as rotor blades.
As for the Tsar Bomba, basic properties of the atmosphere put a limit how large of an effective blast radius can be produced. The mass of a vertical column of air from sea level to space is equivalent to 5 miles of air at sea level pressure, and for ery high yields, path of last resistance is blowing the covering atmosphere into space.
True, blast was somewhat limited by that issue. But a 5 mile wide hole in Manhattan could ruin a lot of people's day. But thinking only in terms of blast effects is really barking up the wrong tree. The big issue was fallout. The second US thermonuclear test in 1954 of what was effectively a deliverable weapon (the first test, IVY MIKE, was a proof of concept configuration too large to fly), CASTLE BRAVO, produced 7,000 square miles of lethal levels of fallout from only 15 megatons yield. With a map of its plume superimposed on the assumed primary target, Washington DC, this deadly fallout could reach New York City. That's from just one modest sized hydrogen bomb.
That's important, because nuclear strategy is not really about the dangers posed by one bomb. It's the cumulative radiation of thousands of bombs that's the real issue. If used in the sort of mass exchange most envisioned the Cold War ending in, the combined effects of thousands of megatons of fallout would make those subways very useful as fallout shelters.
Speaking of fallout shelters, I wonder if anyone has ever repurposed a home fallout shelter as a layout room? That's technically the case with the Illini Railroad Club's layout, which is in the basement of a dorm which undoubtedly was marked as shelter space back in the early 60s. Until very recently, most campus buildings retained the signage and many still had a smattering of supplies. A friend who worked at the library (the largest number of volumes in a library at a public institution, BTW, and exceeded only by Harvard and Yale IIRC) managed to procure for me one of the CD water barrels that could be recycled into a toilet when emptied when they were cleaning out some of those old spaces to remodel. he knew I collect such artifacts as part of my research. But the biggest deal when it comes to fallout shelters on campus is the Undergrad Library, which is almost wholly under ground except the entrance at the top. It was designed and built in the early 1960s with shelter space specifically in mind (although avoiding shading the fabled Morrow Ag Research Plots was also a factor and the one that is mentioned today as the reason for the building's burial.) Best we can do here, as there are no subways here in the sticks.
One more thing while I'm thinking about it. Prior to 1954, evecuation was considered a primary civil defense strategy. Get people out of the target zone, the city. Obviously, in urban areas like New York City, subways and trains would've played a vital role since many people didn't even have a car. After 1954, CD strategy turned to shelter in place, because of the threat posed by fallout against people evacuating who had no shelter. It does rather make you wonder if part of the decline in passenger trains during the 50s was due to a declining interest by the government and private industry in using them for evacuation after 1954?
mlehmanSpeaking of fallout shelters, I wonder if anyone has ever repurposed a home fallout shelter as a layout room?
I think there was a cartoon in Model Railroader.
Wow, I'd sure like to locate which issue that was.
Still looking for that one, but I DID find a news item in the May 1962 issue where a reader reported seeing an article in Newsweek about a box car being used as the internal form for a concrete fallout shelter.
And I found an announcement about a place in New jersey where they have model trains, Santa, vintage computers, AND a restored bomb shelter on display. The trains aren't in the bomb shelter - in there they show some of the classic 50's and 60's "duck and cover" type movies.
July 1985 Bull Session has an item on a guy who built his model railroad in a bomb shelter.
No luck on locating the cartoon.
Thanks, Randy. I'd say 1985 was a little early to think you might not need that during the Cold War, but you gotta keep your priorities straight.