How Vulnerable are Trains to Drone Attack?

[matacaster]

Following on from the Gatwick fiasco, I wondered about the potential of drone impact on the rail network and what might be done about it?

 

[Polarbear]

Well ingress into an engine would be highly unlikely, but drones are weighty things. An altercation with a train could easily lead to a cracked window/windscreen.

Flying one in the vicinity of the 25kv AC may not do either the railway, or the drone any favours either!

 

[ijmad]

The main dangers for a plane from a drone are:

Engine ingestion
Obviously not a problem on a train, unless you're involved in classified research in the USSR in the 1970s.

Smashed windscreen
This obviously seems like a danger on a train as well, and could result in a driver being injured. However the windscreen is a much smaller target on a typical train, and the result of a driver being injured or incapacitated would likely be the train comes to a stop rather than the result on a plane, where it could lead to uncontrolled descent.

Structural damage
Some experiments have shown a heavy commercial drone could cause damage to control surfaces on a plane like the leading edge of a wing. Structural damage is a danger on a train too but again, the front of a train is a much smaller profile, and damage to anything structural would likely result in a controlled stop instead of falling out of the sky. So less of a risk. Plus aircraft are often made out of very lightweight materials for obvious reasons, whereas perhaps a train is more sturdily built.

I'd say the one big risk for a train that a plane doesn't have is that of derailment. A large commercial drone with a metal frame in the right place on a running line could cause derailment risk just as any other metal object could. However, it seems hard to imagine why a criminal would go to the trouble of using a drone to do this rather than just throwing a metal shopping trolley on to the line. Perhaps the anonymity of doing it from afar is an 'attraction' to certain kinds of bad people who want to get away with causing injuries or loss of life.

Also as @Polarbear says, there might be some risks to OHLE equipment a drone.

 

[DanDaDriver]

Trains are travelling at much lower speeds than aircraft so the forces involved are much less. I’m not sure how much drones weigh, but I’m pretty sure the majority weigh less than a person/horse/tree.

I don’t think it would get through the windscreen unless it was pretty hefty, they can take some hammer.

Whilst the train may be damaged the drone will be wiped out.

Electrics have the pantograph to worry about. Thats probably the easiest way for a drone to beat a train.

However I do know a driver who came round a corner at 125mph to find a chinook hovering 6feet about the railhead one day.....

That could have ended differently.

 

[47271]

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/the-threat-to-trains-from-drones.118800/

See also this earlier thread from 2015/6.

 

[squizzler]

Whilst planes can damage themselves by flying into drones, this is very unlikely to happen because the airport operator is obliged to shut down their operations when there is a drone at large. Whilst nobody has been captured to account for their behaviour, the drones at Gatwick would almost certainly be about "denial of service" and not desire to put life and property at risk. The fact they have not been caught so far seems to suggest they knew what they were doing.

There is also much more likelihood that people will have an axe to grind with the airport operators. I know somebody whose house is blighted by Stanstead. With regard to the Heathrow Third Runway that was agreed in the face of most economic and environmental evidence, is contrary to climate change policies and a Conservative manifesto pledge. I don't endorse it but it is scarcely surprising that people might feel driven to such extreme forms of civil disobedience, even where the penalties for causing an obstruction in the air are higher (no pun intended) than equivalent blockading of a street. I doubt those near rail lines feel the same animosity, even those who purportedly dislike HS2.

Could drones cause denial of service to rail networks? I don't think they would be worth worrying too much about harm coming to trains at speed on open line. But maybe they could cause disruption at the stations? Probably if they were close to overhead lines they might need to evacuate the platforms incase it hit and caused some sort of arcing?

 

[bengley]

A consumer drone is unlikely to cause any major damage to trains. A cracked windscreen is possible, but incursion through the windscreen is all but impossible - train windscreens are extremely strong and are fitted with an anti-spall polycarbonate which prevents the windscreen from shattering and glass from entering the cab.

The drone will be destroyed in an impact with a train and I, for one, would not stop my train if I hit one.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I think you'll all find that most drones are very light to conserve battery life. There will be bigger commercial ones, but I imagine they will be better flown and better controlled.

 

[irish_rail]

Whilst it won't come through the windscreen it will almost certainly shatter it (indeed I have suffered a shattered windscreen from hitting a few pieces of ballast that came of a freight whilst at 125mph. So you will cause the train to be delayed a bit and probably taken out of service at next station but a brick thrown from a bridge would also achieve the same result so can't really see its a big threat to the railway.

 

[Macwomble]

However I do know a driver who came round a corner at 125mph to find a chinook hovering 6feet about the railhead one day.....

Urgent PNB to change trousers required?

 

[tellytype]

Most UAVs you'll encounter are under 7 kilos, even the most common commercial airframes. Heavier pieces of kit, like the Freefly Alta, are commonly used for commercial filming & can get quite hefty when loaded up with £30k of lens & £50k of camera. In that case including the UAV, camera, lens & other gear there is £100k+ of kit in the air & the operator is probably going to be rather anxious to get the kit back in one piece, so they wont pratt about! Especially as the camera gear will probably belong to a pretty influential client!

CAA permit holding UAV operator is just one of my hats

 

[Spartacus]

I think whatever damage could be done with something the size and weight of a drone could be done just as easily, if not even more so, with something else, and certainly be done a lot cheaper.

 

[Meole]

The Flying Scotsman train on the NYMR was hit by drone a couple of years ago, no big issue.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Not only are non commercial drones light, they are somewhat pliable and bigger than bits of ballast, so the force will be spread over a larger area of the windscreen, I imagine most times it would do no damage unless it got stuck into some 25kV wiring, on train or the OHLE, but it is supposition.

 

[Socanxdis]

can't be any different to hitting birds

 

[Jonny]

A bigger threat is if the drone has a sinister ^payload^ attached...

 

[hooverboy]

A consumer drone is unlikely to cause any major damage to trains. A cracked windscreen is possible, but incursion through the windscreen is all but impossible - train windscreens are extremely strong and are fitted with an anti-spall polycarbonate which prevents the windscreen from shattering and glass from entering the cab.

The drone will be destroyed in an impact with a train and I, for one, would not stop my train if I hit one.

that depends

a flat out 225 or pendolino might take a bit of a whack to a windscreen, and is travelling at fairly close to aircraft landing speed.
still, it is much less dangerous.

on planes,the main concern is entry into the engines.
current testing is done to simulate bird strike(using a giant catapult and off-the shelf supermarket chicken..good videos on youtube)
However, chickens/birds do not contain electronics and metal particles that can fragment and cause damage to the insides of the turbines)

 

[choochoochoo]

can't be any different to hitting birds

This is the thing I can't understand with the whole Gatwick fiasco.

How is hitting a drone any different to hitting a 7kg swan on final approach ?

 

[221129]

This is the thing I can't understand with the whole Gatwick fiasco.

How is hitting a drone any different to hitting a 7kg swan on final approach ?

Its not.

 

[choochoochoo]

that depends

a flat out 225 or pendolino might take a bit of a whack to a windscreen, and is travelling at fairly close to aircraft landing speed.
still, it is much less dangerous.

on planes,the main concern is entry into the engines.
current testing is done to simulate bird strike(using a giant catapult and off-the shelf supermarket chicken..good videos on youtube)
However, chickens/birds do not contain electronics and metal particles that can fragment and cause damage to the insides of the turbines)

Fair point, but all aircraft going into gatwick would be multi engine, so a single engine failure/fire (worst case scenario) is no big deal. Expensive maybe but from a safety viewpoint, nothing catastrophic.

 

[furnessvale]

Fair point, but all aircraft going into gatwick would be multi engine, so a single engine failure/fire (worst case scenario) is no big deal. Expensive maybe but from a safety viewpoint, nothing catastrophic.

I'm not so sure about that. I would not want to be on a fully loaded twin engine transatlantic flight on takeoff 50ft off the ground when it catastrophically lost an engine.

 

[t_star2001uk]

#headintheclouds46 published this on youtube

 

[matacaster]

This is the thing I can't understand with the whole Gatwick fiasco.

How is hitting a drone any different to hitting a 7kg swan on final approach ?

The Queen would be upset if one of her swans (they all belong to the monarch) had been killed - do they have to report such things to the palace?

 

[Intermodal]

Flying one in the vicinity of the 25kv AC may not do either the railway, or the drone any favours either!

Presumably nothing would happen as it would not be grounded.

I'm not so sure about that. I would not want to be on a fully loaded twin engine transatlantic flight on takeoff 50ft off the ground when it catastrophically lost an engine.

Nobody wants to be on a flight with an emergency but any commercial passenger aircraft can handle an engine out at any loading. It's a requirement.

 

[choochoochoo]

I'm not so sure about that. I would not want to be on a fully loaded twin engine transatlantic flight on takeoff 50ft off the ground when it catastrophically lost an engine.

They are designed to cope with that (and then some !!)

Pilots train for it in the sim every 6 months. All pretty standard. Nothing to worry about at all.

Both engines lost, now that's when you'd need a change of underwear. Unless you had Sully upfront and the Hudson to the left of you.

 

[Meerkat]

How is hitting a drone any different to hitting a 7kg swan on final approach ?

Admittedly I have never chopped up a swan myself but I don’t believe swans contain a lithium battery - I wouldn’t fancy a damaged lithium battery embedded in my plane or train.....

 

[furnessvale]

Nobody wants to be on a flight with an emergency but any commercial passenger aircraft can handle an engine out at any loading. It's a requirement.

In which case why did they ground ALL aircraft? There was a very slim chance of a drone being ingested in one engine. An even slimmer chance of it putting this one engine out of action and a zero chance of it taking out both engines.

 

[Esker-pades]

In which case why did they ground ALL aircraft? There was a very slim chance of a drone being ingested in one engine. An even slimmer chance of it putting this one engine out of action and a zero chance of it taking out both engines.

Because the result of a collision could be an air crash and everyone on-board being killed. Slim chance, but a chance nonetheless. A chance that should not be taken.

 

[furnessvale]

Because the result of a collision could be an air crash and everyone on-board being killed. Slim chance, but a chance nonetheless. A chance that should not be taken.

But all the talk is of ingestion into engines and I have just been told modern aircraft can stand losing an engine at takeoff.

 

[Esker-pades]

But all the talk is of ingestion into engines and I have just been told modern aircraft can stand losing an engine at takeoff.

Can stand, yes. But it is not an ideal situation and would mean the aircraft would have to make an emergency landing at the earliest possible moment. IE: it would take off, get hit in the engine, then land at the airport within minutes. That's utterly pointless.