TheSignalEngineer

Could be a tanker as now circling off Hull. A Stratotanker from Mildenhall also circling off Skegness. Possibly serving fighters on home runs?

Interest shifting this morning Unidentified plane took off from Lakenheath about 0850BST, heading north. Looks to be escorted by an F15 to deter followers.

It looks as if at least 10 aircraft operated by Phoenix Air are registered under five different names in the same building. Very useful if you don't want direct links to your activities like one recently being used in the 'Extradition' of a wanted person with drug cartel links in Central America.

Somewhere over 10000 apparently. Another company called C2D LLC is listed as the owner of 186 and 197. It's address is, you've guessed it, the same as Sandy Wings LLC.

@The Johnster was a bit confused by too much Brains last night. He was actually picked up by the Cathays Company of the Orange Army. They were in a Canton 37/4 captured in a raid last week and needed a guard for the ballast train they were going to hijack.

Looks like it's transponders off over most of Afghanistan tonight. There must still be plenty going on as at least two Stratotankers are on hand.

Phoenix Air sounds much more interesting. Not only do they have capability of casualty, mdical emergency or infectious diseases patient transport, moving explosives by air and airborne communications they have fitted two Gulfstream G-1 planes to be capable of launching drone weapons.

The plot thickens. Phoenix Air used to have a plane with this number but it was de-registered in 2017. The number was later reallocated (2019) to another Gulfstream owned by a company called Sandy Wings LLC of Wilmington, Delaware. Researching this company leads to an accommodation address in a block of serviced offices. Details from aviationdb.net

Anyone seen Johnster since he started this topic?

Certainly suspicious. Apparently spurious ID travelling from a country with worries about its reputation in regard to Italian criminals and money laundering flies to a country with links to Afghan drug exports then on to a country with alleged long standing terrorist links. Of course there's always the possibility that it's a CIA-organised 'diplomatic' mission.

Allegedly did a non stop flight of nearly 5000km earlier. According to Wonkypedia the Bell Jetranger 206B has a range of 430 miles, service altitude up to 13500 feet, a top speed of 140mph and fall-apart speed of 150mph.

Could be a hit squad on "false plates". Seems to have done a few flights from Malta to the Kulob area of Tajikistan recently., usually reaching about 14000 metres altitude according to another site.

From the pattern of the flights of the tankers there is obviously a lot of other stuff up there. At times there have been at least three visible. They appear and then vanish again at regular intervals, so maybe that is when serving a customer. The call signs showing on FR24 are sometimes a giveaway as to what the plane is. MOOSE is always a Globemaster transport. When we get a helicopter gunship fly over us they are VULTUREs. There was an interesting one patrolling up and down near Kandahar a couple of nights ago by the name of ARSON.

@The Johnster You're probably safe for the moment. The only Rivet Joint currently transmitting is over Oman.

Just watch out for a C-135 Rivet Joint circling around near your flat. They can monitor the Digital Universe from one of those. At least two were out and about last night over the Gulf and Pakistan.

Stratotankers seem to be doing a lot of inflight. I doubt that they want one of those sitting on the ground at Kabul or want to be spending more time than absolutely necessary sitting on the tarmac with the other planes. There are currently two tankers around the Pakistan border. Another recently taken off from Abu Dhabi headed southeast down the Gulf now doing circles. You can sometimes spot them paired with another aircraft often over southwestern Pakistan, both travelling at same speed and height. One has just done a u-turn at Kandahar. One just goin in was still at 7000ft about 3 miles off the runway.

They were still mentioned in the Birmingham Freight WTT into the early 1960s

Another one here, this time CM&EE

We did a documentary about Automatic Train Protection systems at Bushey where BR Research had some kit on trial on the DC Lines. The bits with my hand round the back of the in-cab unit working the speed display like a ventriloquist's dummy were edited out. The cameraman couldn't get a decent shot through the front window of the Class 313 unit so we opened the front centre emergency door and I braced myself across the gap to stop him from falling out whilst he filmed passing a green at line speed, slowing on sight of a yellow and coming to a stand at a red. All this was done between service trains on a normal weekday. Happy days of the old railway.

Chapter 6 of the latest edition of the Traffic Signs Manual, ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual ) would seem to preclude this for new works or alterations, stating :- "24.2.3.  There are situations where the standard signal to S14‑2‑5 cannot be used because of a lack of space. A narrower version is available but requires the relevant national authority’s authorisation. This has the same layout as the standard signal but with smaller gaps between the aspects and a reduced width backing board. Designers wishing to use this should contact the relevant national authority for the approved drawing." I suspect that the one at Marshbrook predates the last two issues of the regs by a good few years and for some reason has never had any work done which necessitates alteration to the Level Crossing Order which would trigger upgrading to the current standard. The vertical signals are very rare now on the UK mainland, I can think of one on the Ffestiniog at Minffordd which is an open crossing with four sets of vertical lights.

The one at Furness Vale is subject to special authorisation. The relevant wording appears in Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual, ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual ) where it says :- "24.2.3.  There are situations where the standard signal to S14‑2‑5 cannot be used because of a lack of space. A narrower version is available but requires the relevant national authority’s authorisation. This has the same layout as the standard signal but with smaller gaps between the aspects and a reduced width backing board. Designers wishing to use this should contact the relevant national authority for the approved drawing."

You will find some clues here as to what existed here. https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/lnerdiagrams.htm The diagrams are low-res thumbnails, so a bit small but enough to give you the idea. There are more diagrams available here https://signalbox.org/track-layouts/by-railway-company/ If there are signals in the interval between lines in the same direction it will be top right. If both signals are on a bracket outside the lines it will be top centre.

BR was quite advanced on the comms side. When I started in the mid 1960s we had the STRAD (Signal Transmitting, Receiving and Distributing) teleprinter network which started on the LMR c1962. The only other installations of this system were military. The main computer recorded incoming messages then distributed them to the appropriate receiving stations around the system. Our Extension Trunk Dialling telephone network was only exceeded by the MOD as far as private phone networks with automatic exchanges were concerned. We were early users of Fax technology, co-ax and fibre optic transmission systems for data transfer. In the mid 1980s we were using remote terminals for CAD design in outbased S&T offices and were early users of the Lotus Notes email system introduced c1989/90, about six years prior to the introduction of Hotmail on the internet.

The legality is questionable as the road sign regs don't allow any variation to the standard signal layout. However the level crossing guidelines seem to contradict this. In this case I think the problem is the pub building on the approach which obscures the sighting of the wigwag if the standard pattern is used.

I'm surprised there are still any about as IIRC they were taken out of the Traffic Signal Regs in 2002. The 2016 version does not list ant permitted variations.