Ribblehead Viaduct

[HMS Ark Royal]

More accurate it was........ put the runway out of action ?, no Sir, it didn't

It did for fast jets

 

[Spamcan81]

A stick of smaller bombs dropped at an angle of 20 degrees to a linear target is more accurate than one big bomb. This is the way it was done to disable the runway at Stanley airport during the Falklands conflict.

But the method behind Barnes Wallis's Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs is that they didn't need to hit the target. A near miss was sufficient and shockwaves etc. did the rest.
Smaller bombs were a different matter of course as per your mention of the runway at Stanley.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It did for fast jets

Correct. Stopped the Argentinian AF and Navy flying any strike aircraft from the Falklands and thereby making things for the Task Force a little less dangerous.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They might have if they'd ever got them carriers working... I remember reading about a naval Stuka that was tested

The Germans built one carrier and even that didn't get completed. Even so they would have had to attack in daylight and in the BoB the Stuka force was decimated and withdrawn very early on.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Correct. Stopped the Argentinian AF and Navy flying any strike aircraft from the Falklands and thereby making things for the Task Force a little less dangerous.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The Germans built one carrier and even that didn't get completed. Even so they would have had to attack in daylight and in the BoB the Stuka force was decimated and withdrawn very early on.

I suppose they could have done a Mistral on the thing...

I know very well what happened at the Falklands because my old man was down there and got into a bar fight with the Admiral Commanding

 

[deltic08]

<sigh> Deltic08, I do wish you would not move the goal posts in a discussion. This is not the first instance that I have noted.

You orginally wrote, in reply to Senex: "I thought that line speed was eased at the north end for the duration when the WCML was closed during weekdays for electrification and resignalling work."

By which I took you to be saying that the PW and operating departments had somehow passed the line for 100 mph. Officially. So that is what i was answering. (Even though I have never heard of the term 'eased' in this context.)

I was not answering whether it was physically possible to do 90mph, or 100 mph on a line with miles and miles of downhill running from Ais Gill summit. It almost certainly is. But for the line to be officially passed for any increase in maximum speed - or 'eased' as you put it - is no simple matter.

Whether any 50s, 45s of 40s ever exceeded the 80mph line speed is another matter. I'm sure they did. On my trip with a 45 they did, marginally. Did Cl 50s ever go to 100 mph with an 80 mph line speed? Well, personally, I doubt any driver would go so far over the official limit. You say they did. I remain sceptical.

Having said that, I suppose, on a local level, with the full knowledge of the operating department and under good conditions (weather etc) it is possible for a one-off test to have been undertaken.

But in response to your assertion that any part of the line was 'eased' to 100 mph, meaning officially passed for 100 mph running (for locos and stock otherwise cleared for this speed), I repeat my opinion. I think it highly unlikely, and the number one reason I would expect to be cited - if, indeed, the operating department ever asked if it might be possible - would be braking distances. I very much doubt the signalling on the line would be up to 100mph standards.

Indeed, thinking only now that the line did not have AWS fitted, I think that alone would be enough to nix any chance of it being passed for 90 mph in the 1970s, let alone 100 mph - but perhaps others in here would know better.



Once again, there is a difference between a one-off train unofficially doing (in this case, as you claim) 10 mph over the line limit and officially passing that section for higher speeds under all conditions. The track maintenance schedule would be different too.

As for Mk 1 stock, on B4 or Commonwealth bogies the ride would have been no different from a Mk 2 carriage. In fact, a Mk 1 on Commonwealths was probably better.



Having been on the footplate numerous times in the 1970s (officially and otherwise) I am aware of what drivers felt they could typically 'get away with'. Which is exactly why I remain very sceptical of any driver taking the personal risk of drving a train up to 100 mph - 20 mph above line speed - on the S&C at any point on the line, OS Nock's claims notwithstanding.

I would imagine it would be a Form 1 offence.

Sighs also.

I recorded 100mph on more than a couple of occasions in roughly the same places on double headed diversions during the day so I assumed the line limit had been lifted. More than once is not coincidence.

I don't give a damn whether you believe me or not. I know it happened and there are others in the Practice and Performance column that O.S Nock compiled who recorded it also.

I am perfectly aware of the differences in bogies. I have stripped down a few B4s in my time. As well as the train loco, I note the consist also when logging a run. It was a Mark 1 CK that at the time had B1 bogies according to Platform 5. The loco was 40004. For a Mark 1 on B1 bogies at 90mph it rode well so I assume the track was in reasonable fettle.

Commonwealth bogies are very heavy in unsprung weight and pound the permanent way. As the diverted Euston/Birmingham-Glasgow trains were all Mark 2b and c coaches at that time with lighter B4s, 3 tons lighter per coach than a Mark 1 with Commonwealths, higher speeds may have been allowed. Any more questions Thomas?

If you doubt any driver would exceed a linespeed by 20mph then you have answered you own question. There must have been relaxation of linespeed in the most favourable places.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Is this going to end up as handbags at ten paces on Platform 4 at Doncaster?

 

[coppercapped]

A stick of smaller bombs dropped at an angle of 20 degrees to a linear target is more accurate than one big bomb. This is the way it was done to disable the runway at Stanley airport during the Falklands conflict.

Know it all, huh? Might be for a runway, but with the technology available in 1944-45 it had little or no effect on viaducts. As I wrote earlier the RAF and the USAAF dropped 3,500 tons of bombs on the Bielefeld Viaduct with no effect.

This is really far off topic, so this is my last post on the subject of bombing viaducts.

 

[Ploughman]

It did for fast jets

However if you are geared up for it, a runway or minimum strip can be made operational in 2 hours.
http://fauntrackway.co.uk/rapid-runway-repair

 

[backontrack]

Is this going to end up as handbags at ten paces on Platform 4 at Doncaster?

Of course not! [THREAD=125688]Platform 1 is much more important.[/THREAD]

In all seriousness, I've seen quite a few threads go off topic in weird ways. For example, Norton Bridge Works were split from 'Carnforth WCML re-opening', racism from 'are you happy being an RPI?', ticketless travel from 'derailment at OAC depot', the impact of being a nurse from short-faring, and US byelaws from an out-of-date ticket at Manchester Piccadilly. But seriously? 'Ribblehead Viaduct' gets us talking about bombing? hock:

tbtc's got really fed up with Nottingham-Glasgow suggestions, then!

 

[deltic08]

Is this going to end up as handbags at ten paces on Platform 4 at Doncaster?

Yes if you will be my second?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Know it all, huh? Might be for a runway, but with the technology available in 1944-45 it had little or no effect on viaducts. As I wrote earlier the RAF and the USAAF dropped 3,500 tons of bombs on the Bielefeld Viaduct with no effect.

This is really far off topic, so this is my last post on the subject of bombing viaducts.

I didn't start the off topic.

Know it all no. Know more than you possibly. Worldly yes but I agree with you so why the attitude.

I was an RAF Vulcan co-pilot in the last year of my RAF career. It was so boring I resigned my commission after getting a place at university. A Vulcan co pilot is just a glorified tea boy.

The one and only bombing run on Stanley airport did put the runway out of use.

A friend and former RAF colleague was shot down over the Falklands flying a Harrier so I know a little about the conflict. We joined the RAF on the same day.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However if you are geared up for it, a runway or minimum strip can be made operational in 2 hours.
http://fauntrackway.co.uk/rapid-runway-repair

But is wasn't and as we were using Sea Harriers wasn't needed by us until we gained the upper hand.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Yes if you will be my second?

Accepted, good Sir

 

[HowardGWR]

I have literally lost the thread. Is some one wanting to land VTOL aircraft on Ribblehead Viaduct?

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Could one fit, given the wingspan?

Helicopters could, of course, fit

 

[coppercapped]

I didn't start the off topic.

Know it all no. Know more than you possibly. Worldly yes but I agree with you so why the attitude.

I was an RAF Vulcan co-pilot in the last year of my RAF career. It was so boring I resigned my commission after getting a place at university. A Vulcan co pilot is just a glorified tea boy.

The one and only bombing run on Stanley airport did put the runway out of use.

A friend and former RAF colleague was shot down over the Falklands flying a Harrier so I know a little about the conflict. We joined the RAF on the same day.

I apologise for the attitude.

Having due regard to your experiences, what I didn't understand was the context of your statement. I had tried to explain that in the context of the technology available in 1944-45 dropping conventional small bombs on a viaduct built with concrete piers is, essentially, pointless. The pressure wave dissipates around the piers. Even dropping 7 very large bombs, as in Italy, also didn't work - and 15 yards is very close from a Lancaster. The only solution, at the time, was the earthquake bomb, or as other have pointed out, to dive bomb the target.

Hitting a runway does some earth moving but, as the pock-marked countryside around the Bielefeld Viaduct showed, that alone, although sufficient to disable a runway, was not sufficient for the type of target in question.

 

[rdlover777]

man this off topic fast!

 

[RichmondCommu]

man this off topic fast!

I'm sorry but I don't have my Kent phrase book to hand.

 

[The Lad]

So if the current limit is 60 class 230's will be fine!

 

[RichmondCommu]

So if the current limit is 60 class 230's will be fine!

I'm not sure a class 230 would be able to get itself over the Long Drag or up Mallerstang with a full train in the summer!

 

[deltic08]

I have literally lost the thread. Is some one wanting to land VTOL aircraft on Ribblehead Viaduct?

Not anymore because we don't have any VTOL jet fighters but it would be perfectly possible if we had some.

Our brilliant laughingly called Coalition Government sold off all our Harriers both RAF and Navy types to the Yanks for a knock down price after spending £millions refitting them to last another 10 years just to save a few million quid.

What did the Yanks do? Broke them up for spares and then sold us their version for £billions for carriers we do not have and will not have until 2021 at the earliest.

Many aircraft museums have been denied the chance of buying a surplus Harrier at scrap prices as non are left.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not sure a class 230 would be able to get itself over the Long Drag or up Mallerstang with a full train in the summer!

Not sure a 230 could get anywhere propelled by Ford Transit engines.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Not at the moment it doesn't. Landslide near Hexham has closed the line for three weeks until 50,000 tons has been removed and the remaining slopes stabilised.

In all honesty I wasn't aware of that! In that case there is presumably one daily flow of coal over the S & C for the time being

 

[najaB]

I have literally lost the thread. Is some one wanting to land VTOL aircraft on Ribblehead Viaduct?

Either that or bomb it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What did the Yanks do? Broke them up for spares and then sold us their version for £billions for carriers we do not have and will not have until 2021 at the earliest.

My understanding is that sea trials start towards the end of this year?

 

[deltic08]

In all honesty I wasn't aware of that!

That's because you live in the wrong Richmond!!

 

[Poolie]

That's because you live in the wrong Richmond!!

And we all know which one is the original !

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

My understanding is that sea trials start towards the end of this year?

Regarding our Queen Elizabeth class of ships... Fitting out will take until the end of 2015 and the crew will move aboard in May 2016 ahead of sea trials beginning in August 2016 and delivery in May 2017. Flight trials with helicopters will begin in 2017 and F-35B flight trials towards the end of 2018

With regards to the testing of the F-35B variant, sea trials have already taken place with the Royal Navy making splash and dash runs on USS Wasp as well as both RAF and Fleet Air Arm taking off using a special ski jump made up at NAS Patuxent River... Our F-35 inventory stands at 4 delivered

#

I fear we may have been diverted from the purpose of this thread - perhaps a Mod can split it off

 

[najaB]

Regarding our Queen Elizabeth class of ships... Fitting out will take until the end of 2015 and the crew will move aboard in May 2016 ahead of sea trials beginning in August 2016 and delivery in May 2017. Flight trials with helicopters will begin in 2017 and F-35B flight trials towards the end of 2018

With regards to the testing of the F-35B variant, sea trials have already taken place with the Royal Navy making splash and dash runs on USS Wasp as well as both RAF and Fleet Air Arm taking off using a special ski jump made up at NAS Patuxent River... Our F-35 inventory stands at 4 delivered

That's what I thought - initial operating capability could be as early as the end of 2018, rather than "2021 at the earliest".

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

That's what I thought - initial operating capability could be as early as the end of 2018, rather than "2021 at the earliest".

Yeah... Queen Elizabeth will have full military capacity in 2020, but I suspect that can be brought forward at the hurry. If you recall, HMS Illustrious actually did her shakedown and commissioning on the way down to the Falklands after the little scuffle we had down there

F-35B trials will start from 2018 with those pilots on the exchange program coming back to teach other members of the Fleet Air Arm. Part of the reason it will take 2 years of trials is simply because most of the FAA haven't flown fast jets since 2010 and therefore need to requalify.

It is my understanding that, should they need to get a carrier anywhere, Queen Elizabeth can put to sea with 24 hours notice - though this is at risk of damage to the engines with no sea time logged as yet - for use as a landing platform for helicopters

 

[najaB]

It is my understanding that, should they need to get a carrier anywhere, Queen Elizabeth can put to sea with 24 hours notice - though this is at risk of damage to the engines with no sea time logged as yet - for use as a landing platform for helicopters

Any idea of how soon she would be ready to be used as a platform for... <mumble>French</mumble> aircraft as has been suggested is possible to bring forward her operational dates? Or has that gone out of the window with the latest iteration of the catapult/no catapult roundabout?

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Any idea of how soon she would be ready to be used as a platform for... <mumble>French</mumble> aircraft as has been suggested is possible to bring forward her operational dates? Or has that gone out of the window with the latest iteration of the catapult/no catapult roundabout?

Technically, as soon as she goes out for sea trials which should be about August this year... Practically, not until 2018 at the earliest for jet aircraft, though helicopter usage could be as early as the end of this year if it is really needed, although i have been told she'd most likely have to limp home on two shafts only or even be towed

 

[rdlover777]

I'm sorry but I don't have my Kent phrase book to hand.

sorry, i meant ''This got off topic really fast''

 

[RichmondCommu]

sorry, i meant ''This got off topic really fast''

In which case yes it certainly did! Have a good weekend

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

sorry, i meant ''This got off topic really fast''

Or, as Sir Humphrey would say,

"The initial subject discussion, that of the said piece of railway infrastructure for which the subject was opened with, has diverged completely from the matter at hand and instead of questioning when an additional set of railway tracks could be put, has now turned into the discussion of possible ways to destroy the piece of railway infrastructure - the said piece being the opening words in this forum of debate"