All of the military trains(both equipment and 'bomb' trains) I have seen on the BNSF have BNSF crews, and if it has DODX bomb cars there is a grey DODX caboose with guards.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
They need to break out the old Armored Pullmans and put a few in the whole train.
A simple Jihad strike with a vehicle bomb can take that caboose out.
I would think that they would opt for blowing a bridge as it went over. More spectacular and no need to deal with the stuff afterwards.
Paul
Dave Vollmer wrote: Agamemnon wrote:Also, Einsteinian physics are not the absolute truth of physics. Science evolves. It's what makes it stronger than superstition or myth. Old certainties are replaced with new, more accurate certainties. Correct. Einstein went to his death still arguing against Quantum Mechanics (he said "God does not play dice."). Yet, we take Quantum Mechanics today to be the only way to explain certain phenomena.
Agamemnon wrote:Also, Einsteinian physics are not the absolute truth of physics. Science evolves. It's what makes it stronger than superstition or myth. Old certainties are replaced with new, more accurate certainties.
Correct. Einstein went to his death still arguing against Quantum Mechanics (he said "God does not play dice."). Yet, we take Quantum Mechanics today to be the only way to explain certain phenomena.
Just because quantum mechanics contradicted Einstein's theories doesn't make them all wrong, of course. For many things, the theory of relativity is "good enough" despite the flaws, very much in the same way as you can calculate trajectories using Newton's laws of motion and end up with reasonably accurate results. Very few accepted scientific theories are proved to be completely baseless, instead new theories emerge that incorporate aspects of earlier ones and take them one step beyond. It is a glorious sort of Darwinism at work, an elegant passage from state to state, each building on the previous one and setting the foundation for the next.
Sorry, I digress. I just feel that passionately about science.
I think all the arguments have been presented strongly enough that hijacking a military train is not high up on anyone's priority list, least of all Osama's.
As for terrorists hijacking a military train... You have to ask, what could they gain from it? Other than to create some amount of chaos and confusion (and probably loss of a small amount of military hardware during the response from us), it doesn't accomplish what the terrorists want most:
1. To create massive casualties.
2. To create such deep-seated fear that we as a people force our governments to consider their demands.
3. To cause us to over-react and make rash decisions that further alienate their base from us and recruit for them.
So, of all the nightmarish scenarios that could potentially keep one up at night, my guess is that hijacking a military train is not one of them. Sabotaging a nuclear waste train (or really any toxic shipment) seems more likely and more dangerous.
I like to think there's some good in all of mankind, but in my nearly 11 years of military service, I've been on the ground in places like Bosnia and Iraq, and I've seen some of the worst that man can do to his fellow man. There are some people out there in whom no good can be found. For those types the best we can do is to expedite their departure from the planet.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Agamemnon wrote: Iceman_c27 wrote: Well, one thing about the travel in time thing, Eistein had proven it in theory many years ago that it's possible, it's just a matter of time! ;-)Actually, what Einstein proved was that the speed of light is absolute, and that time slows down when approaching it. Under Einsteinian physics, travel faster than light is impossible, because a body moving at that speed would have an infinite mass (thanks E=mc2). As a corollary, time travel is impossible. Also, Einsteinian physics are not the absolute truth of physics. Science evolves. It's what makes it stronger than superstition or myth. Old certainties are replaced with new, more accurate certainties.
Iceman_c27 wrote: Well, one thing about the travel in time thing, Eistein had proven it in theory many years ago that it's possible, it's just a matter of time! ;-)
Well, one thing about the travel in time thing, Eistein had proven it in theory many years ago that it's possible, it's just a matter of time! ;-)
Actually, what Einstein proved was that the speed of light is absolute, and that time slows down when approaching it. Under Einsteinian physics, travel faster than light is impossible, because a body moving at that speed would have an infinite mass (thanks E=mc2). As a corollary, time travel is impossible.
Also, Einsteinian physics are not the absolute truth of physics. Science evolves. It's what makes it stronger than superstition or myth. Old certainties are replaced with new, more accurate certainties.
darday wrote: Easier to just blow up a bridge or otherwise derail the train--but even that's not easy.
Easier to just blow up a bridge or otherwise derail the train--but even that's not easy.
darday,
Easy enough in Boston, MA for Interference, Inc.(advertising agency for Cartoon Network)to place their small electronic billboard devices for Turner Broadcasting's Cartoon Network to at least two bridges over the Charles River. Similar devices were attached to other infrastructure locations in New York City and several other selected cities in U.S. Ref: Yesterday when devices were noticed in Boston by the public and reported, the Boston Police, MA State Police, FBI, ATF and Coast Guard were involved in security response for what turned out to be essentially a hoax as far as security threat was concerned.
Jon
I've moved military shipments. The security is heavy, to say the least.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
Reminds me of the old joke from the sixties about the guy trying to hijack a train and force it to go to Cuba.
<>Theft is a real problem, cars and containers are broken into in rail yards and on sidings. But hijacking an entire train?? Keep in mind, just because you don't see security doesn't mean it isn't there. A couple people pointed out in posts a few weeks ago that they had seen a train carrying military equipment stopped due to a derailment or other problem, and black military helicopters showed up within 5-10 minutes.
Let's say you were going to hijack a train out in the desert. You couldn't barricade the track, as the train crew would see it and stop and radio for help, so you'd have to set up some sort of derail that would put the engines on the ground but do it in such a way that the block signals wouldn't be effected (the electrical power thru the rails). Unless the crew were all killed or injured, they would radio for help which would be there in maybe 10-20 minutes I'd bet.
Now, you can't wait by the side of the track or they'd see you, so you'd have to hide somewhere - with huge trucks and equipment to haul off the military hardware. So say you get to the train before the military arrives by helicopter and jets. The tanks and stuff are on flatcars maybe 3-4' or more off the ground. Do you bring portable ramps to roll them off on?? Do you bring a huge crane to lift them off onto other trucks?? Bring gas and try to fuel them up and run them somewhere on their own power?? Then where do you go with them??
I agree security is something we need to take seriously, but I don't think a hijacking like that is feasible - when was the last US train hijacking?? OK a derailment, an explosive to blow up a train, that I could see being a concern. But not people stealing Howitzers off of trains.
<> <>
Terrorists are basically cowards who prefer to attack soft targets. They are not likely to instigate a direct confrontation with a military unit. Besides, what are they going to do with it if they did take control of it. They can only take it where the tracks go which isn't going to be a safe haven anywhere.
A far greater danger is sabotage of the tracks. Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't tried that. Blowing up a bridge while a train with hazardous material is passing over could cause a lot of damage and potentially loss of life.
Iceman_c27 wrote: Hehehe...now there is nothing for you to worry about that at all!A aircraft carrier travels as a 'group' with 2 nuclear hunter/killer subs, 3 destroyers, one Aegis cruiser, support vessels and most of them have over 100 aircraft with all capabilities flying 24 hour patrols in shifts and F-14's can hit targets over 100 miles out and that's plus their crusing range of over 600 miles. Most invaders get blown out of the sky before they even know what happened. Nothing can get close to it even if you try. Let's say you are so lucky that you got through all that and at the last minute, you will still be blasted to pieces by the Phanlax defence system. And at 40+ knots top speed and 30+ knots crusing speed, it can outrun most civilian or commercial vessels anyway. Safety Valve wrote: Im more worried about some Iranian taking out a Carrier with 5000 aboard than a military train getting highjacked.
Hehehe...now there is nothing for you to worry about that at all!
A aircraft carrier travels as a 'group' with 2 nuclear hunter/killer subs, 3 destroyers, one Aegis cruiser, support vessels and most of them have over 100 aircraft with all capabilities flying 24 hour patrols in shifts and F-14's can hit targets over 100 miles out and that's plus their crusing range of over 600 miles. Most invaders get blown out of the sky before they even know what happened. Nothing can get close to it even if you try. Let's say you are so lucky that you got through all that and at the last minute, you will still be blasted to pieces by the Phanlax defence system. And at 40+ knots top speed and 30+ knots crusing speed, it can outrun most civilian or commercial vessels anyway.
Safety Valve wrote: Im more worried about some Iranian taking out a Carrier with 5000 aboard than a military train getting highjacked.
Im more worried about some Iranian taking out a Carrier with 5000 aboard than a military train getting highjacked.
Recently a ballsy China Captian surfaced his attack sub within 5 miles of a Carrier in a firing position and said "Peek-a-boo" or something to that effect. That was when a Carrier Battle Group was on exercises recently in the Pacific.
Just because we have all that hardware in place does not mean the Carrier is safe. The Navy goes into Harms way.
Yes we have all that gold plated equiptment but it is men who use the local conditions existing in a battlespace to best advantage usually gets a chance at the brass ring. Remember Scapa Flow and the sinking of the Royal Oak back in history.
Several people have already mentioned that, despite all the hardware, such movements will not have any ammo available in the same shipment. Additional equipment, like sights and night vision systems, that is high value and easily carried will also be removed, stored and shipped separately.
In addition, anything that the military ships that they have concerns about typically will have a GPS satellite transponder attached.
Air cover? Highly unlikely, unless its a nuke shipment. Then it wouldn't be nearly so obvious or slow-moving, either, as a trainload of tanks, etc on flatcars.
The military does a pretty good job of securing things. That's their business. And I'm certain the DHS, the FBI, etc have all given plenty of thought to such things already. That is one reason Ebay won't allow listing of switch keys any more, just as one example of the way some things have changed. I can imagine several scenarios that might be "problematic" for such shipments, but the kind of things you're thinking about are far more the stuff of action movies than real life possibilities.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Iceman_c27 wrote:Well, one thing about the travel in time thing, Eistein had proven it in theory many years ago that it's possible, it's just a matter of time! ;-)
F-14s won't be hitting any targets. If we had to bring them back out of retirement, things have gotten pretty bad.
If it's just conventional military hardware like vehicles or electronics, then most of it's too bulky to get out of the train in a clandestine fashion. Weapons be sourced easier from somewhere else, robbing a military transport for them would be overkill when you can get them off the black market. As for the truly destructive things, those have another layer of security and paranoia folded in every time they're moved an inch.
It's possible to hijack a train, true. I wouldn't be afraid, though. Human beings can't live in fear. They exist in fear, true, but it's not living.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Agamemnon wrote: I would imagine they'd have several layers of security for military transports, things like armed guards in the train itself, local PDs securing areas where the shipment would go near urban centers (making sure no railfans with their cameras breach the security perimeters, that osrt of thing). I wouldn't be surprised if the DOD had access to satellite coverage for the train as well. Even the route selected for the train would be chosen with security criteria in mind.And even if you could hijack a train, where would yo go? A train that size can't be hidden from view (and you can be damn sure it's fitted with GPS), the military could mobilize any amount of countermeasures, right up to blowing up the tracks in front of you (it'd be a disastrous wreck, sure, but that might be the lesser of two evils). There's an occasional hubbub in Europe about nuclear waste trains, which have pretty much all of the above security measures in place. They're also driven very slow, to lessen the risk of accidents and ensuring the security net keeps up every step of the way. I'd imagine they drive local dispatchers and engineers barmy by messing up timetables, too. Sure, it's been done in the movies, but then again, so's travelling in time.
I would imagine they'd have several layers of security for military transports, things like armed guards in the train itself, local PDs securing areas where the shipment would go near urban centers (making sure no railfans with their cameras breach the security perimeters, that osrt of thing). I wouldn't be surprised if the DOD had access to satellite coverage for the train as well. Even the route selected for the train would be chosen with security criteria in mind.
And even if you could hijack a train, where would yo go? A train that size can't be hidden from view (and you can be damn sure it's fitted with GPS), the military could mobilize any amount of countermeasures, right up to blowing up the tracks in front of you (it'd be a disastrous wreck, sure, but that might be the lesser of two evils).
There's an occasional hubbub in Europe about nuclear waste trains, which have pretty much all of the above security measures in place. They're also driven very slow, to lessen the risk of accidents and ensuring the security net keeps up every step of the way. I'd imagine they drive local dispatchers and engineers barmy by messing up timetables, too.
Sure, it's been done in the movies, but then again, so's travelling in time.
Well, see, that's why I raise this question, in the DVD, there were no armed guards in sight and the cameraman was able to get right next to it while it travelling at the yard limited of 10 MPH passing some other train in a siding or some other train overtaking it I can't remember.
All I am saying is, before 9/11, people are dismissing the idea of a commercial aircraft been used as a weapon and some even laughed at the idea while they know all along that it's fast, big, full of highly flammable jet fuel and people can just take a knife right out of their lunch boxes.
I think if they really want to do it, they can and they will. Before 9/11, would you imagine someone would use a commercial jet as a missile? ;-)
I hope the FBI is reading this thread because I really think this is a real potential situation and real security ought to be considered as per my post above this one, it is possible and been shown in various movies.
darday wrote: Nothing much of use to small bands of terrorists. No ammunition is shipped along with the vehicles. It would take a huge, well-financed group to pull off such a hijacking, to include take-over of the railroad's control system, so that the train could go somewhere hidden for unloading. Otherwise, like everyone else said, the terrorists would be surrounded before they got the first vehicle off the first flatcar. Easier to just blow up a bridge or otherwise derail the train--but even that's not easy.
Nothing much of use to small bands of terrorists. No ammunition is shipped along with the vehicles. It would take a huge, well-financed group to pull off such a hijacking, to include take-over of the railroad's control system, so that the train could go somewhere hidden for unloading. Otherwise, like everyone else said, the terrorists would be surrounded before they got the first vehicle off the first flatcar. Easier to just blow up a bridge or otherwise derail the train--but even that's not easy.
I suppose these days the terrorists are more interested in weapons of mass destruction rather than just a tank or two causing traffic jams.
However, it had been shown in various movies such as 'Under Siege Two' and 'Broken Arrow', terrorists had decide to use trains as their means of transport across the US carrying out their terror strikes.
So never under estimate the bad guys! They could hijack one and then meet up with their 'comrades' with necessary equipment required at certain point and then launch an armour assult on a huge densily populated city or use those to take control over a nuke missile base etc and etc.
So far I have not heard any real security measure that's gonna stop the scenarios been carried out from the above two movies. On both occasions, trains were been hijacked, one carrying a nuke and one used to control a EMP weapon satellite. Both involved highly organised terrorist groups and in 'Under Siege Two', they demonstrated a similar point to hit a army reserve base to get some Huey's. Imagine a armoured battalion even without live ammo, they can get in practically any other military installation with little effort. Also the whole thing started because I actually saw rocket launchers installed on the HUMMVEE's and how hard would it be to start a HUMMVEE? ;-) I imagine some diesel should do it. Most military vehicle don't even require keys or they are all keyed alike, thye jut like race cars that had ignition switches and ignition button.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.