X-12 atomic locomotive

[Anonymous]

Hi, I'm Semola from Italy [:I][:)]

I read from a book that a scientist called Borst made a plan, between years 1951-1957, for an atomic locomotive.[:0]

I tried to find any information about this plan, but the only I found is the name of this locomotive: X-12. Can anyone help me with more informations?


Thank you [;)]

(Sorry my bad english!)[xx(]

[Anonymous]

I've heard of "Train X" that was some sort of prototype in the late 1950s. It certainly was NOT the "Aero Train", a confection from General Motors that was more like a string of city-busses than a real long-distance passenger train.

Who can help this man out? Atomic train; loco w/nuclear reactor; hypothetic or real???

PS Semola: Your English is okay. Besides, you get extra merit for being from the country that invented "il Setebello." Magnifico! [;]

Allen from Chicago

[Anonymous]

Remember, stand back when they clean out the ashpan! [:)][:D]

[Anonymous]

I have some information on a proposed atomic locomotive, but I'm not sure if this is the engine that you're thinking of (there is no mention of X-12 or Borst in the article).

In the 1950's, an atomic locomotive was designed as part of the Utah Project. The proposed engine would consist of two permanently coupled units. The front unit (with a cab) would have 9 driving axles and the second unit would have three driving axles and two carrying axles. Both units together would be 160 feet long and weigh 396 tons, 359 of which were for jjust the front unit. It would have a maximum horsepower of 9000-12,000.

To quote the article, "A solution of uranyl sulfate in a perfectly sealed hexagonl container made of high-quality stainless steel provided the energy. The reactor was approximately 1 foot wide and 3 feet high. 10,000 tubes, each with an outside diameter of 1/4 inch and with walls 1/100 of an inch thick, passed through the reactor (the steam was produced in tubes) and formed the core of the heat exchanger. Steam, saturated at a pressure of 248 psi (400 degrees Farenheit) but not superheated, was let into a turbine that by step-down gears controlled a group of four generators that provived powered classic electric traction motors."

Precautions were taken against the dangers of such a locomotive. The reactor and tubes had double walls for circulation of air and water. There were radistion-detecting devices to detect leaks. The reactor was housed in 198 tons of armour, to protect it in case of a derailment or collision. The would have been devices to stop the reaction quickly in case of an accident.

The cost of this locomotive would have been double what four diesel locomotives of equal power would have cost. This, plus the obvious dangers of building such a machine, meant that it was never built.

Hopefully this information helps you out.

[Anonymous]

I don't suppose there are any sketches of what this thing would look like? This would be a hoot to model and incorporate in a layout!

[Hugh Jampton]

Methinks it would be big, ugly and a kind of glow in the dark green color.

[TrainFreak409]

Hey, this is cool. I didn't know that someone proposed an atomic locomotive in the past. I have fantacized about such a think, and have even drawn plans for two different variations.

They can be viewed at the hyperlink in my signature if anyone is interested. They are closer to the bottom of the page.

~[8]~ TrainFreak409 ~[8]~

[DSchmitt]

Atomic locomotive quiz
Trains, July 1955 page 21
about proposals for an atomic locomotive
( ATOMIC, "KEHOE, EDWARD J.", TRN )

[Anonymous]

In the article I have on this proposed locomotive, there is a simple drawing of it. It looks like an F or E unit with a long pilot on the front. There are three 3-axle trucks underneath it. There is a long "B unit" coupled behind it that has a 3-axle truck on the front and a 2-axle truck on the end.

[Anonymous]

Thank's everyone.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sask_Tinplater

In the article I have on this proposed locomotive, there is a simple drawing of it. It looks like an F or E unit with a long pilot on the front. There are three 3-axle trucks underneath it. There is a long "B unit" coupled behind it that has a 3-axle truck on the front and a 2-axle truck on the end.

I think there was two different plans for atomic locomotives: first from dr. Brost and the another became from the University of Utah. I'm very interested about this drawing, do you have the possibility to send me it ( [e-mail] ), or to insert in the forum ? [:D][;)][;)]

[espeefoamer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409

Hey, this is cool. I didn't know that someone proposed an atomic locomotive in the past. I have fantacized about such a think, and have even drawn plans for two different variations.

They can be viewed at the hyperlink in my signature if anyone is interested. They are closer to the bottom of the page.

~[8]~ TrainFreak409 ~[8]~

That stuff on your website had me LMAO[:)][:D][8D][:p]!

[csmith9474]

There is a book by the name of "Atomic Audit" that I believe makes mention of it. I do recall reading about the railroad equipment developed for various nuclear programs in this book. After reading through this book my only thought was WOW!!

[TrainFreak409]

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409

Hey, this is cool. I didn't know that someone proposed an atomic locomotive in the past. I have fantacized about such a think, and have even drawn plans for two different variations.

They can be viewed at the hyperlink in my signature if anyone is interested. They are closer to the bottom of the page.

~[8]~ TrainFreak409 ~[8]~

That stuff on your website had me LMAO[:)][:D][8D][:p]!

Well, the stuff on that website isn't mine, just the atomic locomotives. My website is new, and is www.freewebs.com/sblocomotives . Those are all Scott Bowman originals.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409

Hey, this is cool. I didn't know that someone proposed an atomic locomotive in the past. I have fantacized about such a think, and have even drawn plans for two different variations.

They can be viewed at the hyperlink in my signature if anyone is interested. They are closer to the bottom of the page.

~[8]~ TrainFreak409 ~[8]~

That stuff on your website had me LMAO[:)][:D][8D][:p]!

Well, the stuff on that website isn't mine, just the atomic locomotives. My website is new, and is www.freewebs.com/sblocomotives . Those are all Scott Bowman originals.

I looked at the sight you ought to change your name to Texas Railroad, that stuff is huge, don't you need a switcher. Looks good though don't think you could get that 12 driving wheeled one up very many mountain passes, and last time I checked we hadn't invented fusion, just fission. Ain't nothing we know of more efficient than fusion, the sun is powered off fusion. Normal (like what is used on submarines) nuclear reactors are fission. Isn’t Hafnium a little hard to get.
James[C):-)]

[TrainFreak409]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409

Hey, this is cool. I didn't know that someone proposed an atomic locomotive in the past. I have fantacized about such a think, and have even drawn plans for two different variations.

They can be viewed at the hyperlink in my signature if anyone is interested. They are closer to the bottom of the page.

~[8]~ TrainFreak409 ~[8]~

That stuff on your website had me LMAO[:)][:D][8D][:p]!

Well, the stuff on that website isn't mine, just the atomic locomotives. My website is new, and is www.freewebs.com/sblocomotives . Those are all Scott Bowman originals.

I looked at the sight you ought to change your name to Texas Railroad, that stuff is huge, don't you need a switcher. Looks good though don't think you could get that 12 driving wheeled one up very many mountain passes, and last time I checked we hadn't invented fusion, just fission. Ain't nothing we know of more efficient than fusion, the sun is powered off fusion. Normal (like what is used on submarines) nuclear reactors are fission. Isn’t Hafnium a little hard to get.
James[C):-)]

Ahh, but fussion is so wasteful. Fusion in theory produces little bi-products. And true, hafnium isn't the most common material, but it isn't the rarest either. And further more, hafnium powered airplanes are on the thinking table right now. It is possible, in theory, the hafnium powerplant moreso than the fusion.

And the 12 drivered locomotive is based off of UP's 4-12-2's, which were very successful, for the most part.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sask_Tinplater

In the article I have on this proposed locomotive, there is a simple drawing of it. It looks like an F or E unit with a long pilot on the front. There are three 3-axle trucks underneath it. There is a long "B unit" coupled behind it that has a 3-axle truck on the front and a 2-axle truck on the end.

If you can forward it, I'd love to have the pic also. Seen it along time ago, its a red loco if memery serves me right...been looking for that one a very very long time.