Log in

View Full Version : Railway Torpedos & Boyhood Memories.


Yafmot
January 20th, 2008, 05:52 AM
I've looked everywhere, and I just can't seem to find anything on railroad torpedos. These were some of my favorite toys back when. My fiends and I used to snag 'em off of cabooses when they were parked on sidings, and occasionally from locomotives. A friend of mine who's an engineer for Union Pacific says they were recalled after 9-11, but he's been full of shit before. Sometime I've got to check it out firsthand.

for those of you who don't know, a raliroad torpedo is a small piece of impact sensitive explosive about 1 1/2" long X 3/4" wide X 3/8" thick which is wrapped in Kraft paper, followed by what is apparently the same kind of red, treated paper as is used for highway flares. A strip of lead or soft aluminum about 5" long & 3/8" wide ran between the layers of paper and protruded about 2" out of either side. This was to fasten it onto the "T" section of the rail securely enough that the vibrations from the approaching train wouldn't knock it off the track. This is a signal to stop the train and, yes, it could be heard over a locomotive.

We'd pull the metal strip out (to avoid shrapnel), place it on the sidewalk, and drop a nice, big river rock about the size of a bowling ball on it. The report was truly satisfying, with about 3 or 4 times the power of an M-80 and much more brisant. Or we'd open the thing up and tap the charge lightly with a hammer to break it up into smaller chunks. These could be taped to the end of a bat, and then stuffed into the pavement to set it off. This was accomplished to maximum effect at someplace like the Taco Bell down the street. Guaranteed to spew half-masticated burrito fragments all over.

There were a couple of other types of torpedo we would encounter. One was with a square charge about the same thickness but with the edges beveled on two sides in the direction the rail. I guess to get a little extra compression from the wheel. It was wrapped in the same type of paper, but with a spring steel arrangement that, when spread, described the shape of the rail; rather more of a clamping effect. The comp looked and acted about the same.


In addition to the devices listed above, we'd occasionally run across some real antiques: Metal or cardboard tubes with a mix that was a dark, rusty brown so it probably was Armstrong's or a similar mix containing Red Phosphorus. We opened one up & dumped it out and my friend picked up a small pinch and began rubbing it between his fingertips. POW! It blistered his fingers and slapped the shit out of his hand. Most of these were painted silver, a couple blue. They had lead strips for fastening onto the track. WATCH OUT IF YOU RUN ACROSS ONE OF THESE!

What I'm really looking for is the formula for the newer ones. It's much the same color as the flare comp, a light yellow. The binder could be anything from Dextrin to Elmer's glue. I'm guessing It's a Chlorate/Perchlorate & Sulfur mix, since there was a strong Sulfur smell whenever we banged it or burned it (it burned like a match head). I doubt if there was any Sb2S3 in it, otherwise my innards would have gotten sick.

I've run way long here, even for starting a thread. Anybody got any info on this comp?

Oh yeah, and I think there was some kind of grit in the mix for friction. Silica, maybe?

deformedreality
January 29th, 2008, 04:54 AM
Through very extensive searching this is the best I could find.

http://www.textfiles.com/humor/boe.hum
Railway torpedoes contained a mixture of potassium chlorate, sulphur, sand,
binder and a neutralizer.

Look at the second half of this page

http://tinyurl.com/3767rp

and of course, something from our very own forum about it.
http://tinyurl.com/2qfw6q

The fuseee mix generally contains Sulfur. Guess that's a reson they'd use perchlorate rather than chlorate... See the perchlorate ground water contamination suit against Olin for further confirmation that they use perchlorate.

The commercial railroad torpedo went the way of the dodo shortly after 9/11. Not hard to reproduce with chlorate and Antimony sulfide though.

Bert
January 29th, 2008, 08:27 PM
Through very extensive searching this is the best I could find.
None of those links are working for me...

deformedreality
January 29th, 2008, 09:14 PM
I used tiny url to make the links smaller. For some reason this forum kept shortening the url links significantly and replacing half of the link with "...."

The original composition contained gravel which was later replaced with sand due to too many people getting injured when the torpedoes were detonated.

So from the looks of it, the average composition involves:
Potassium Perchlorate, antimony sulfide, sulfur, possibly sand, and some form of binder. I cant seem to find the exact ratios anywhere though.

Yafmot
February 10th, 2008, 03:01 AM
Thanks, guys. This is pretty much what I suspected. I've been amusing myself of late with 60/40 KClO3 & Sulfur, respectively, along with some Elmer's Glue-all and a few drops of water for a binder, some 60 mesh sand for sensitizing, and some 60 mesh Titanium sponge for some great visual effects. Then I line up some .177 pellets on a foam board, ass end up, and glob a little wad of the mix into the cavity.

After they dry, I shoot 'em into the fireplace, getting a sharp report and a great spray of incandescent Ti. Great fun, if you're amused by that kind of thing. And aren't we all?

Next, I'm going to load some hollow based .38 wadcutters backward with a squib load for propulsion and a big glob of mix in the cavity, and shoot 'em from my .357. Should be pretty spectacular. I also may toss a little flash in the mix, just to add to the lighting effects and make sure all the Ti lights off.

Anybody think of anything else to do with this stuff? I've yet to try a full sized torpedo with it; should be fun. I also forgot to say that I've been putting in a small percentage of BiO3, as an extra oxidizer and possible burn rate catalyst. Do y'all think it's doing any good, or am I just jacking off?

Well, I tried it with some flash thrown in and, if anything, it DEsensitized the mix. Other than that, it added a little white color to the central flash. Guess all my Ti was already lighting off. Oh, well, as the old classroom 16mm films used to say, "Science marches on!"

Yafmot
February 17th, 2008, 07:23 PM
Some pretty big grins here. I tried a batch using more Oxidizer, a much higher percentage of BiO3, plus a couple of grams of 3 micron Zirconium, in addition to the usual Ti sponge.

WOW! It's hard to believe all this is coming out of a dinky little .177 pellet. There's a fist-sized ball of flash at the impact point, a report I would estimate at about ten Db louder than your average firecracker, and it scatters incandescent bits of Ti about 8-10 feet in every direction. When I shoot it into the fireplace, there's a little cloud of orange Carbon sparks from the soot being blasted loose and ignited. I was shooting some of my earlier examples into some sheets of paper I had taped to a heavy ceramic tile, to examine the blast pattern (opposite the inpact side, oddly enough), but when I hit it with the new stuff, it'd usually just rip it to shreds.

Again, hard to believe I'm getting all that out of a little .177 pellet.

Charles Owlen Picket
February 17th, 2008, 08:03 PM
There are some very interesting responses one can get from altering the "fuel" from a flash composition. Typical was the 64/23/13 flash that Shimizu claimed was the loudest thing he had worked with.

I have heard of an alteration of fuel do some unique things. When there was a great deal of discussion of Konski's presentation re: flash in the 90's a lot of people wondered if there was a way to alter the report in terms of tone. The concept was that if the fuel would burn at a different rate, the report would be altered by a change in the amount of gas moved at a certain speed. Since all the gases would not be moved at once in any deflagation; it was possible that there was heated air behind waves of gases spread from the exploding container [which yielded reports of various tonal qualities]. The other issue was the density of the air itself; if something exploded in the sky the air was both a different density and and temp.

What was experimented with was the two fuels which were "rate-changers". The first was Boron (silicon was often substituted due to cost; their speed was similar). The result was a hot "slag", that stayed hot after the initial burn. This material stayed hot longer than a metal fuel. The other was rosin, which burned much cooler and faster than similar sized metal fuel.

Reports from burning explosions are so subjective that it's very difficult to make any claims. But the science of sound from explosions was mostly substantiated from these variables. Air temp and density should play a part in tonal quality. The burning itself if somewhat faster or slower in the depth of the blast should also play a part. This is not the simplistic concept of tone being altered by a composition per se' (sulfur making the tone rise of lower, etc) but of both external and internal burn rate alterations and sound reflectivity (in air) playing a role.

Why was the 64/23/13 of Shimizu claimed to be so loud? Well it's only opinion that the total variances using both Al & Sb2S3 were captured in that composition. yet when compared to 70/30 in side by side tests Konski believed that the burn-rate variances did indeed play a role IF the air were the same in the tests. (Tokido, Chu et al. 1996 EPP pp196-202)
(This was not in the film often sited that Konski did in '96, but a continuation of material from various sources.)