Contingency Plans for Wartime and Invasion

[Elecman]

It would be extremely hard to blockade the UK either by air or sea. It's not a scenario even considered remotely possible.

The Germans virtually managed it early on in WW2 with the Uboats. Churchill commented that the Battle of the Atlantic was a real concern

 

[matt_world2004]

I went to Kelvden hatch nuclear bunker recently and in the simulation of continuity of government operations they had a rail desk and a transport desk.

In the event of invasion level emergency I think the following would happen (please note this is speculative)

1.) Conscription would be reintroduced with exemptions for key railway workers
2.) all infrastructure projects except rolling stock orders would immediately halt
3.)There would be emergency no compensation nationalisations of all TOCs
4.) International services would immediately cease
5.)Services would be pruned rolling stock would be kept to a minimum and services will start late and finish early.
6.)Many lines will lose their weekend services
7.)Some depots will be repurposed for. Armament and weapons development
8.)Operational heritage stock would ve brought back into passenger service as bombings deplete the supply
9.)There will be disbursement of any excess rolling stock to protect it from bombing.
10)Quick n Dirty repairs will be made to railway infrastructure damaged by bombing these repairs would have to be redone after conflict.

 

[duffield]

They’re not connected in any way to the internet, nor is it possible to plug peripherals into them. The chances of a “cyber” attack against signalling assets is zero.

That's the theory, but I have read of other critical systems which were *supposed* to be isolated but have turned out not to be. The larger and more complex a network is, the more difficult it is to guarantee that (say) there is no 'testing' remote connection left behind in the live system.
I work in the IT industry and am aware of some *very* critical systems where there are remote connections (put in later, not part of the original design, and put in purely to save money) which open potential access to 'bad actors'.
Note that I don't have any inside knowledge of the relevant signalling systems; what I'm getting at is that my experience has made me *very* mistrustful of any system being classed as 'unhackable', particularly when the 'hacker' is in fact an expert team backed with all the resources of a state.

 

[Monty]

The Germans virtually managed it early on in WW2 with the Uboats. Churchill commented that the Battle of the Atlantic was a real concern

However the Russians don't have nearly enough submarines to attempt such a task. They barely had enough during the Cold War when the Soviet Navy was at it's peak. They also lack the amphibious and airlift capability to launch an invasion of the British Isles.

They are probably are plans tucked away at the MoD regarding taking control of the railways during war time, but speaking plainly there is no real threat of a full scale invasion by conventional forces on the UK.

If anything the railways would be used to supply mainland Europe via the channel tunnel with men and equipment from the US.

 

[hooverboy]

If anything the railways would be used to supply mainland Europe via the channel tunnel with men and equipment from the US.

in the event of an attempted blockade the tunnel and nearby ports will be first on the hit list.you will not be getting men,equipment ,fuel or food in or out of the country by that route.Hence why "the jungle" across the channel may be of rather more sinister intent than purely a refugee camp.

as for russia not having enough subs,they have about 50,and that is not counting other allies like iran which has a VERY active midget sub programme.
For what it's worth,russia also has a problem with terrorism,so I do not see them as the most likely assailants...an alliance of mad mullahs on the other hand,along with the provos they were selling semtex to a few years ago is a possibility...and being extremely expansionist in their outlook is likely to get russia upset at some stage.

we may not see eye to eye with putin,but russia generally fights defensive wars when people incroach too much on their turf,like napoleon and hitler found out, and the mullahs are about to.

I do not see the alliances between russia and iran/turkey etc lasting,because of the propensity of nut jobs like erdogan and i'm-in-a-jihad to over extend themselves.Russia and turkey have history(and form),centuries of animosity.

I think you still have a warm-up act before the main event to acclimatise yourselves.Iran v saudi arabia(+ respective proxies) will rocket oil to $500 a barrel and cause mayhem with goods supply chains.(and inflation), so you might well be looking at a 1970's oil crisis on steroids before we get into any real fighting.
Will sober up a few of the hardcore greens when you get some power cuts and a couple of cold winters, and they can't import quinoa for their latte's(sorry snowflakes it's cabbage smoothie or bust)

 

[hooverboy]

That's the theory, but I have read of other critical systems which were *supposed* to be isolated but have turned out not to be. The larger and more complex a network is, the more difficult it is to guarantee that (say) there is no 'testing' remote connection left behind in the live system.
I work in the IT industry and am aware of some *very* critical systems where there are remote connections (put in later, not part of the original design, and put in purely to save money) which open potential access to 'bad actors'.
Note that I don't have any inside knowledge of the relevant signalling systems; what I'm getting at is that my experience has made me *very* mistrustful of any system being classed as 'unhackable', particularly when the 'hacker' is in fact an expert team backed with all the resources of a state.

precisely.
you may have supposedly autonamous software systems but when the backdoor is embedded in the lithography of the semiconductors you have a bit of a problem.Intel and AMD both been called out on vulnerabilities in this field recently...so that's 99%+ of domestic and commercial PC's

technically VIA and ARM should be better,but they both outsource their designs to foundries elsewhere,so security cannot be guaranteed there either.

 

[Bertiethebobby]

I went to Kelvden hatch nuclear bunker recently and in the simulation of continuity of government operations they had a rail desk and a transport desk.

In the event of invasion level emergency I think the following would happen (please note this is speculative)

1.) Conscription would be reintroduced with exemptions for key railway workers
2.) all infrastructure projects except rolling stock orders would immediately halt
3.)There would be emergency no compensation nationalisations of all TOCs
4.) International services would immediately cease
5.)Services would be pruned rolling stock would be kept to a minimum and services will start late and finish early.
6.)Many lines will lose their weekend services
7.)Some depots will be repurposed for. Armament and weapons development
8.)Operational heritage stock would ve brought back into passenger service as bombings deplete the supply
9.)There will be disbursement of any excess rolling stock to protect it from bombing.
10)Quick n Dirty repairs will be made to railway infrastructure damaged by bombing these repairs would have to be redone after conflict.

Will tickets be valid on other services?

 

[matt_world2004]

Will tickets be valid on other services?

I think there would be emergency ticket acceptance for similar origin and destination pairs so a Chiltern ticket to west Ruislip would also be valid on the central line and met, there would be no cross charging delay attribution would be minimised.

Delay repay would end. Operational railway staff would probably be exempt from any curfew, for duty and residential travel

Police military and civil defence personnel would probably get free residential and duty travel

 

[hooverboy]

Will tickets be valid on other services?

sorry sir, it's not a super-saver.you'll have to wait for the 18.45 and then change 3 times en route.Please make sure you get the right train because virgin west coast is not accepted at milton keynes.
(does anyone realistically expect this scenario to occur???.....I know it's the norm now but we are talking about wartime)

 

[Bertiethebobby]

sorry sir, it's not a super-saver.you'll have to wait for the 18.45 and then change 3 times en route.Please make sure you get the right train because virgin west coast is not accepted at milton keynes.

Not my fault your train's been vapourised guv!

 

[mpthomson]

The Germans virtually managed it early on in WW2 with the Uboats. Churchill commented that the Battle of the Atlantic was a real concern

That was 70yrs ago, zero chance of it happening now with technological advancements.

 

[hooverboy]

As has been intimated upthread, people in a position to know the details for protecting the railway's infrastructure in the event of a war are going to be bound by the Official Secrets Act. Therefore the precise number of authoritative answers this thread can garner is zero.

they may well be.but I suppose one of the good things about this sort of thread,if they are listening(which they probably are), is throwing a few curve-ball scenario's into the mix that they hadn't thought of.We are doing them a favour.

poo-poo ing an idea/scenario and saying it's impossible/will never happen it the height of complacency.
remember that MI5 etc must be right 100% of the time,and the assailants can claim victory with a 5% hit rate or less.they have their work cut out.
it is not MI5's job to be complacent,it is MI5's job to be paranoid,and hope to god their worst role-plays never happen.

 

[mpthomson]

in the event of an attempted blockade the tunnel and nearby ports will be first on the hit list.you will not be getting men,equipment ,fuel or food in or out of the country by that route.Hence why "the jungle" across the channel may be of rather more sinister intent than purely a refugee camp.

as for russia not having enough subs,they have about 50,and that is not counting other allies like iran which has a VERY active midget sub programme.
For what it's worth,russia also has a problem with terrorism,so I do not see them as the most likely assailants...an alliance of mad mullahs on the other hand,along with the provos they were selling semtex to a few years ago is a possibility...and being extremely expansionist in their outlook is likely to get russia upset at some stage.

we may not see eye to eye with putin,but russia generally fights defensive wars when people incroach too much on their turf,like napoleon and hitler found out, and the mullahs are about to.

I do not see the alliances between russia and iran/turkey etc lasting,because of the propensity of nut jobs like erdogan and i'm-in-a-jihad to over extend themselves.Russia and turkey have history(and form),centuries of animosity.

I think you still have a warm-up act before the main event to acclimatise yourselves.Iran v saudi arabia(+ respective proxies) will rocket oil to $500 a barrel and cause mayhem with goods supply chains.(and inflation), so you might well be looking at a 1970's oil crisis on steroids before we get into any real fighting.
Will sober up a few of the hardcore greens when you get some power cuts and a couple of cold winters, and they can't import quinoa for their latte's(sorry snowflakes it's cabbage smoothie or bust)

Russia may have 50 subs on paper but the number that are seaworthy will be dramatically less, also many of these 50 are boomers which are no use at all for any blockade purpose. Russia is nothing like as capable in naval terms as they’d like you to be believe, which is why every one of their capital ships has to have a rescue tug accompanying it when they go anywhere.

 

[hooverboy]

That was 70yrs ago, zero chance of it happening now with technological advancements.

I really do beg to differ,there are a lot of avenues now which people would find utterly terrifying if weaponised....lets say mad mullah chemistry/bio/IT student also has a sideline in watching(and disrupting) football matches on his drone.

this has got to be approaching worst case scenario for the security services outside overt attack from foreign power.you have 70-80000 people at a Man Utd match,potentially exposed to an unconventional(perhaps infectious/contageous) agent flown in by UAV.

besides the economic and psychological impact(who will be going to footie matches now?),.there is a horriffic social impact..were you there??..can I catch it?? are you safe???

novichok or whatever was used against that bloke a couple of weeks ago is(or seems to be) conducted by physical contact, an airborne pathogen would be immensely more terrifying.

 

[deltic]

In a conventional war the rail network would be out of action within a few minutes - targeted cruise missiles would take out key control centres and junctions - the railways would be an irrelevance

I remembered going into the old Office for London once and someone had left some civil defence plans on a whiteboard - didnt fill me with much confidence - the list of basic supplies needed to keep just a few thousand displaced people going for a week was pretty sobering

 

[Monty]

in the event of an attempted blockade the tunnel and nearby ports will be first on the hit list.you will not be getting men,equipment ,fuel or food in or out of the country by that route.Hence why "the jungle" across the channel may be of rather more sinister intent than purely a refugee camp.

as for russia not having enough subs,they have about 50,and that is not counting other allies like iran which has a VERY active midget sub programme.

Attempting a blockade in the English channel would be suicide, its shallow stretch of water which makes submarine operations virtually impossible, there is a reason during the last war the German U boats spent most of their time in the Atlantic. With the shallow depth of the channel coupled with modern ASW technology there would be nowhere a submarine could hide.

While we are on the subject of submarines, Russia actually has closer to 70 boats. However of that number you have:

13x SSBN (ballistic missile boats, they carry nukes. You will not use these to hunt merchant shipping as their job is to hide and provide your nuclear deterrent).

7x SSGN (cruise missile boats, you could use these but it would be a waste as any competent CiC would be using these to strike land based targets like airfields and radar installations, either way these boats are big and vulnerable to hunter killers).

13x SSN (attack boats, your hunter killers. These are the babies you use).

25x SSK (conventional diesel electric boats, these are limited in range and capability and are designed for use in littoral waters. These will be mainly used for defence of home waters).
3x Special/experimental boats (these are not suitable for combat operations)

So in reality all Russia has is 13 attack subs to use (some of which are laid up with maintenance issues), compared to the 7 boats we have, 6 in service with the French Navy and the 45 SSNs in service with the USN the Russians have no hope of mounting an effective blockade. The Iranians wouldn't be much help either as their midget subs are designed for use exclusively in their home waters and don't have the range nor the firepower.

 

[krus_aragon]

The Saltley WMSC “bunker” was quite a place when it opened but my understanding is that there have been a lot of issues with the building. It’s notable that 1) it was the only one of its type constructed and 2) it isn’t destined to become a ROC because there isn’t enough physical space available on the operating floor due to the constraints of the ‘bomb-proofing’.

That reminds me: Crewe's signal boxes were built in the early part of the Second World War, and were made of concrete to withstand aerial bombing (with conventional munitions).

 

[hooverboy]

So in reality all Russia has is 13 attack subs to use (some of which are laid up with maintenance issues), compared to the 7 boats we have, 6 in service with the French Navy and the 45 SSNs in service with the USN the Russians have no hope of mounting an effective blockade. The Iranians wouldn't be much help either as their midget subs are designed for use exclusively in their home waters and don't have the range nor the firepower.

and what happens when you use a cargo vessel as a submarine /aircraft carrier?
9/11 should have taught you that whoever these guys are, commercial airliners are now cruise missiles.

not beyond the bounds of possibility for a few "limpets" to hitch a ride on(or underneath) an oil tanker is it?
as for range and firepower.....in the above scenario you do not need a ballistic ICBM which will light up the radar like a christmas tree and give you half an hours warning to scramble the fighters.
parked anywhere in the english channel and initialised you'd get about 30 seconds.sea launched ballistic with 300-400 mile range means all of the country is within range.Not enough time to prepare and react.

 

[Jonny]

I went to Kelvden hatch nuclear bunker recently and in the simulation of continuity of government operations they had a rail desk and a transport desk.

In the event of invasion level emergency I think the following would happen (please note this is speculative)

1.) Conscription would be reintroduced with exemptions for key railway workers

That would be a massive undertaking in itself. Given modern techniques, the war would probably be over or have fizzled out anyway by the time it could be implemented.

 

[hooverboy]

So in reality all Russia has is 13 attack subs to use (some of which are laid up with maintenance issues), compared to the 7 boats we have, 6 in service with the French Navy and the 45 SSNs in service with the USN the Russians have no hope of mounting an effective blockade. The Iranians wouldn't be much help either as their midget subs are designed for use exclusively in their home waters and don't have the range nor the firepower.[/QUOTE]

you seem to be under the impression that all of the NATO constituents will keep their end of the bargain when it comes to hostilities.
If it WAS russia(which I think it isn't) then germany's commercial interests vis a vis nordstream and their gas supply,will sort of make them a bit reticent.
france...hmmm..didn't they sell exocets to argentina?
USA??...they are fed up with europe trying to supplant them.(thankfully their ire is directed at france and germany more than us.)
Turkey....he wants to be caliph of ottoman empire 2.0

hungary/poland....now they don't want to be governed by fourth reich,soviets or ottomans...

I would infer that it is not a wise plan to be overly dependent on foreign assistance.

 

[hooverboy]

That would be a massive undertaking in itself. Given modern techniques, the war would probably be over or have fizzled out anyway by the time it could be implemented.

seriously.don't doubt just how quickly the military can react if we do get into a SHTF scenario....please youtube the talk that chris parry(former naval officer in falklands) did.it really is an eye opener.

it goes to show just how utterly clueless our politicians are for starters,and then just how much cojones and coordination the services have when put up against it.

to put things in perspective, there are US generals giving lectures on this now,even 30 years later as a pep-talk in how you do expeditionary warfare half way across the globe.very impressive.
to hear their top brass speaking very highly of our troops is worthy of respect.

 

[matt_world2004]

That would be a massive undertaking in itself. Given modern techniques, the war would probably be over or have fizzled out anyway by the time it could be implemented.

The threat of a world war level conflict would build up over months to years


Now although a work of fiction apparently the film threads was based on real sources for what would happen in the lead up to a nuclear war,

It included the requisitioning of Ferries and Aircraft for troop movements and evacuations . I presume railways would be included in that . Declassified war books would probably hint at what would happen to rail although privatisation may have changed the dynamics of that.

Private land in ww2 was requisitioned for the war effort. I believe one such example of this was an small aerodrome owned by farey aviation called heathrow.

There is probably not much point debating what would happen to rail after a nuclear war . Even a limited exchange would destroy the infrastructure near enough completely.

Another thing I distinctly remember at kelvden hatch is there was a dedicated London transport desk too

 

[mpthomson]

I really do beg to differ,there are a lot of avenues now which people would find utterly terrifying if weaponised....lets say mad mullah chemistry/bio/IT student also has a sideline in watching(and disrupting) football matches on his drone.

this has got to be approaching worst case scenario for the security services outside overt attack from foreign power.you have 70-80000 people at a Man Utd match,potentially exposed to an unconventional(perhaps infectious/contageous) agent flown in by UAV.

besides the economic and psychological impact(who will be going to footie matches now?),.there is a horriffic social impact..were you there??..can I catch it?? are you safe???

novichok or whatever was used against that bloke a couple of weeks ago is(or seems to be) conducted by physical contact, an airborne pathogen would be immensely more terrifying.

I was referring for the ability for anyone to blockade the UK. It’s not going to happen and isn’t even considered a realistic option worth thinking about in military circles. There’s only one country with anything like the ability too and they’re currently an ally.

CBRN threats on the other hand....

 

[mpthomson]

you seem to be under the impression that all of the NATO constituents will keep their end of the bargain when it comes to hostilities.
If it WAS russia(which I think it isn't) then germany's commercial interests vis a vis nordstream and their gas supply,will sort of make them a bit reticent.
france...hmmm..didn't they sell exocets to argentina?
USA??...they are fed up with europe trying to supplant them.(thankfully their ire is directed at france and germany more than us.)
Turkey....he wants to be caliph of ottoman empire 2.0

hungary/poland....now they don't want to be governed by fourth reich,soviets or ottomans...

I would infer that it is not a wise plan to be overly dependent on foreign assistance.[/QUOTE]

We’re a NATO country, it would work in the same way that it will when/if the Baltic states get attacked by Russia (the most likely next conflict). Lots of countries would be involved in various ways. Would be no different if someone was to have a try at the UK. You’re veering into conspiracy with some of your views.

France sold Exocets to Argentina nearly 40 yrs ago and at that time Argentina-was considered an ally to the Uk/west as they opposed the hard left Chilean dictatorship. When the Falklands started they stopped selling them to the Argentinians, in fact they declined to deliver already paid for missiles to Peru as there were concerns that they’d find their way to Argentina. They did carry on providing tech support for Exocet launchers but none were relevant to that conflict and the Argentines has run out of missiles by the end of the conflict as no one would sell them any.

 

[mpthomson]

and what happens when you use a cargo vessel as a submarine /aircraft carrier?
9/11 should have taught you that whoever these guys are, commercial airliners are now cruise missiles.

not beyond the bounds of possibility for a few "limpets" to hitch a ride on(or underneath) an oil tanker is it?
as for range and firepower.....in the above scenario you do not need a ballistic ICBM which will light up the radar like a christmas tree and give you half an hours warning to scramble the fighters.
parked anywhere in the english channel and initialised you'd get about 30 seconds.sea launched ballistic with 300-400 mile range means all of the country is within range.Not enough time to prepare and react.

It would be spotted as such before it got anywhere close to the UK. The ISTAR now used is incredibly advanced and the conversion process would have been spotted at the time. There’s nothing that could ‘limpet’ onto another boat that could launch anything ballistic, never mind to 3-400 Miles.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Calm down -I was assured by an excellent old boy Ipswich driver - who in the cab one day , assured me that had an invasion happened they would never have got past Shenfield on the up line .

(they pretty well stopped or checked every move in favour of the Southend line services... )

 

[Merthyr Imp]

So what contingency plans are there to stop jackbooted armies (with or without snow on their boots) marching through the channel tunnel?

 

[Bald Rick]

Calm down -I was assured by an excellent old boy Ipswich driver - who in the cab one day , assured me that had an invasion happened they would never have got past Shenfield on the up line .

(they pretty well stopped or checked every move in favour of the Southend line services... )

You win!

 

[Raul_Duke]

So what contingency plans are there to stop jackbooted armies (with or without snow on their boots) marching through the channel tunnel?

I’m pretty sure matching your invasion force through a narrow tunnel where they can be picked off at leisure, is a bad move in “Invasions for Dummies.”

 

[AlterEgo]

So what contingency plans are there to stop jackbooted armies (with or without snow on their boots) marching through the channel tunnel?

A really big plug you can pull out.