|
|
Post by theengineshed on Feb 6, 2022 12:11:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Feb 11, 2022 14:10:20 GMT -8
Looks like a swell place to hide in when some nasty people start attacking the train. But maybe not under ALL circumstances.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by theengineshed on Feb 15, 2022 18:11:33 GMT -8
Probably safer than in the cab of a locomotive...
|
|
ed
Full Member
Posts: 132
|
Post by ed on Feb 16, 2022 6:29:03 GMT -8
Maybe the UP could build a few with gun ports added to defend their container freight out in the LA area.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Feb 16, 2022 7:39:20 GMT -8
Probably safer than in the cab of a locomotive... Yeah. They should couple one of these in front of the locomotive and use MU to run it. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Feb 16, 2022 10:32:58 GMT -8
This could be a first person shooter video game. Run a stack train through the trenches of LA and shoot as many thieves as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by es80ac on Feb 18, 2022 11:46:04 GMT -8
But where is the armored locomotive? Love to see a heavily armored ET44AC
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Feb 18, 2022 14:34:39 GMT -8
But where is the armored locomotive? Love to see a heavily armored ET44AC That was my first thought, but I don't think you can add enough armor without making the locomotive overweight. And I don't mean FAT. That's why I suggested pulling the crew out of the loco and putting them in one of the cabooses and running the loco from the (forward) caboose. Another problem with using an armored locomotive is finding room for any gun crew that you want to bring along. Which then will up the armor weight even more. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Feb 19, 2022 3:32:01 GMT -8
It looks like the caboose is running on 125-ton trucks. Armoring a locomotive has to consider axle lading. Something like the Canadian "red barns" sheaved with plate wouldn't have much change in exterior appearance except for truck shrouds and a lack of dangling appliances. (Although the caboose certainly has lots of dangles underneath.) The additional weight of armor would just improve tractive effort. Commonly a modern locomotive is ballasted so that it can pull a hundred loaded coal hoppers. The weight of an armored nuclear waste train of, maybe, a dozen cars would allow a lot of armor on the locomotive.
Although gun ports and while west sorts of shootouts are amusing to ponder it would be more likely that tearing out the rails and planting explosives underneath the remaining rails would be the most obvious way for a terrorist to stop a nuclear waste train.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Feb 19, 2022 9:09:05 GMT -8
It is a good point about replacing "ballast" with armor--weight for weight. Some doodling on paper comes up with 22,000 pounds to protect the crew compartment from 50 cal fire (Inch thick on all sides except 1/2" on top). This is VERY ballparky, however. Pretty much anything likely to be used will fail with a modern RPG. It should be noted that the added weight will all land on ONE truck only--rather important, that.
Firing ports are mentioned in the article, so it does seem reasonable to have them at the front of the train, if they're appropriate to the rear.
Yes, gun ports are "anti-personnel". And I just don't see any bad people getting that close, to either "steal" radioactives, or shoot up the train for "terrorism". But on that great day when you DO want to shoot from inside without getting exposed, they could be VERY handy. And relatively inexpensive.
Ed
|
|
