Nuclear powered locomotives?

[Anonymous]

Have there been experiments with nuclear power for locomotives? I know the Air Force had some experiments along these lines for possible heavy bomber use many years ago, but apparently weight, complexity, and safety issues caused the idea to be dropped. Aside from the political and social issues, seems like a pretty good power source for a locomotive.

[michaelstevens]

[8D]
Well, I guess that it is true to say that electric locomotives (e.g. on Amtrak's NE corridor) are already nuclear powered -- to the extent that their power source may rely on Nuclear power plants.
[;)]
Seriously though, that's probably as close as you'll ever get to nuclear powered railroad locomotives -- the biggest problem with nuclear power generation being the mode of propulsion -- i.e. good old steam !!
[:D]

[kenneo]

Aside from the radiation issues, what you have here is, as Michael Stevens said, is a steam locomotive. With all of the issues as baggage that caused the railroads to depart from steam 50 years ago.

If a method could be developed to take the radiation directly to wire as electricity, perhaps you could get a nuke without the extension cord to Three Mile Island.

[TH&B]

How were they thinking of applying nuclear power to a bomber?

[AltonFan]

It would require a massive bit of construction to build a nuclear reactor that would be used to power a single locomotive. The loco would probably be too large and heavy to operate on current railroads, and too expensive to build and maintain. (A lot of high-priced talent would go into operating and maintaining the reactor.)

Moreover, the public relations issues would be prohibitive. A lot of people would not be happy to have nuclear reactors rolling back and forth through town, with all the safety issues that running a train and a nuclear reactor would combine.

[Anonymous]

Too Heavy. Too Big. A nuclear accident on the rails is just too risky. I agree with the North east corridor model. Run overhead wire connected to a nuke plant. However the idea of a nuclear locomotive has not stopped me from thinking about what we can do with this. It probably will take a turbine form instead of a reciproting rod method of power to track.

I suspect Maglev is the next big thing. If we can ever get high speed service on par with regional airlines between all the major cities in this country we will be much better off.

[Big_Boy_4005]

I think that the railroads have had enough problems over the years with hazardous loads, to not go looking for trouble. Nuclear reactors seem to work well at sea, but it will be a long time before the the safety and size issues make them practical for mobile land or air based applications. It might be more practical to electrify all of the railroads, and harness solar, wind, hydro or nuclear power, but fossil fules would have to be priced high enough to warrant the expense to convert. That day may come.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

How were they thinking of applying nuclear power to a bomber?

The airforce actually built and tested nuclear powered ram jets in the 50's just outside of las vegas. The abandoned the idea due to radiation issues.

Mike is right, a good amount of power here in the NE is from nuclear. Also coal!!

[JoeKoh]

Man
the fuss people put up when a reactor was shipped by rail here in ohio.i dont see a nuclear powered locomotive.
stay safe
Joe

[tree68]

It's not nuclear, but maybe the next best thing - the fuel cell locos that are under test as we speak. No diesel emissions, just water. The technology is in its infancy for railroads, but the "reaction" that's needed - fuel to electricity - is there, and no radiation. If it proves to be economical and politically friendly, you can bet it will be adopted sooner rather than later.

Size and weight considerations aside, the biggest problem with a nuclear loco is that you can pick it out - railroad locomotives are pretty distinctive. If people sat by the roadside and looked up the UN code for every placarded truck that passed them (or railcar, for that matter), they would probably be shocked at how much methyl ethyl awful was moving around the country. But they don't, so they don't know. Tell them that the locos hauling that train through town might be nukes, though, and they'd probably meet the trains at the city limits, with local politicos, etc, etc, to stop it.

[Anonymous]

Nuclear powered locomotives are very unpractical, and would sell as fast as pre-chewed bubble gum sells.
I suppose if they ever made them, they would probobly sell even less then the alco PA's sold.. and how many was that.. around 250? Hardly worth the effort

Thats besides, if the train derails and that gets into the eco system, your going to wind up with 5 foot 6 inch tall squirels and chimpmunks with 8 ears and bears with two noses, so it's not likely to happen.

[Anonymous]

In 1954 there were plans to build an atomic locomotive, but it never got beyond the drawing board. The proposed locomotive would look something like an A and B unit permantley coupled together with the "A unit" riding on three 3-axle trucks and the "B unit" riding on one 3-axle and one 2-axle truck. The whole thing would have been 160 feet long and weighed 396 tons with a maximum power of 12 000hp. There were great precautions taken against radioactive emissions and there were some sort of safety devices that stopped the reaction process in case of a derailment. The project was abandoned, though, for obvious reasons, plus you could have bought 4 diesel locomotives of equal power for half the price it would have cost to build the thing.

[daveklepper]

Don't we have the capability of competing with the airlines with good old electrics or diesels on two rails without going nuclear or maglev? Just apply the right amount of money with intelligence? If the French and Japanese go 250mph on two rails, why cannot the good old USA? It does take money. But so did the Interstate Highway System and all the airports. And who needs fuel-cell Hydrogen research when the Japanese hybrid cars get twice the mileage of a USA-built car with similar weight? Imagine if that money were spent on upgrading the railroads' tracks? Dave Klepper

[Supermicha]

The german company Krauss Maffei (which also built SP´s ML-4000) had planned a nuclear driven engine in the 1960´s. The locomotive should consist of two parts which have both a truck in the front and are connected by a third truck in the middle of both engines. Above the truck, a small nuclear reactor should be installed which should power a steam turbine which was connected with a generator to deliver power for the motors. Although the engine does not need any fuel for years, the project was fallen down beacuse of safety reasons. Another point was the price, the engine would have the cost of 20 normal locomotives.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman



Thats besides, if the train derails and that gets into the eco system, your going to wind up with 5 foot 6 inch tall squirels and chimpmunks with 8 ears and bears with two noses, so it's not likely to happen.

Sounds like the group I spent New Years Eve with![;)]

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman



Thats besides, if the train derails and that gets into the eco system, your going to wind up with 5 foot 6 inch tall squirels and chimpmunks with 8 ears and bears with two noses, so it's not likely to happen.

Sounds like the group I spent New Years Eve with![;)]

You too?


The USAF did do some experimentation with nuclear propulsion for aircraft. The History Channel or Discovery Wings had a program on it not too long ago. From what I gather, they didn't have the engineering worked out, but were flying aircraft with a reactor onboard to test the feasablilty of that alone. I believe that the risks of crash plus weight involved were just too much..

Crash risk and spent fuel disposal aside, a nuke loco though would probably never be able to recoup production costs in fuel savings and efficiency. I think that an estimate of 20 times the cost is little low..probably be in the neighborhood of 100 times by the time it was all said and done. A nuke ship or sub is a little different with issues other than just fuel efficiency involved. Plus the weight alone would restrict it to low speeds and only really heavy rail, another "production cost".

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

How were they thinking of applying nuclear power to a bomber?

There was a novel serialized in Analog Science Fiction Magazine many years ago (maybe 20) written by a gentleman involved in the Nuclear bomber program.
Separate from the story he gave some background info. I saw the novel in book form published within the last two years.

All the good guys (base commander, air crew, and ground crew) were steam rail fans and model railroaders (steam only). The layout used a computer to help simulate operation. For instance if the load was too heavy the loco wheels would slip or if the crew didn't top off the tender before staring up the big hill they risked running low on water and possably blowing up the loco.

[Anonymous]

Many wrote about the USAF nuklear powered bombers. At this site you will find a short overview why this had not worked. The two built test engines X-39 are still on display today!
But not in Nevada, they are beside the EXPERIMENTAL BREEDER REACTOR - I near Arco in Idaho.

http://www.atomictourist.com/ebr.htm

If you are an US citizen you can visit the two reactors. (I read at an other site that everyone can visit the side).

[rrnut282]

As long as you keep talking fission reactors, you all are correct. But if you consider a fusion reactor, they can be made small, robust, and light enough that a rail application would be possible, though not practical for many of the same reasons (ignorance, initial cost, political correctness, oops I said that already).

[AltonFan]

QUOTE: But if you consider a fusion reactor, they can be made small, robust, and light enough that a rail application would be possible, though not practical for many of the same reasons (ignorance, initial cost, political correctness, oops I said that already).

Has anyone developed a practical fusion reactor?

[rrnut282]

NASA has been working on them for a while and if their light enough to launch they would be light enough to put in a locomotive. Read the paragraph at this website:
http://www.singtech.com/features.html#anchor656032
for more light and interesting reading read their development page.

[Anonymous]

NOBODY has developed a nuclear fission reactor that will produce more power than it uses to intitiate the fusion reaction. Doing this is one of the Holy Grails of 21st Century power generation technology. That's why NASA and many other public and private organizations have spent so much money on research over the last four decades.
I agree that we won't see Nuclear powered locomotives(other than straight electrics getting catenary power from nuke plants). But,for those interested, the Modern Steam Page has some interesting engineering concepts for such units. The Modular pebble bed reactors discussed are a revolutionary new design that offer many safety advantages over the current contol rod systems.

http://www.messiaen.demon.co.uk/trains/newsteam/modern16.htm

[edblysard]

Hi Guys,

Ever hear the term LOCA?

The bubleheads and Dan understand already.

Loss Of Coolant Accident.

Besides the control rods that prevent the reaction from becoming a runaway, the water in the reactor also absorbs a tremendous amount of heat, and helps control the reaction.

This water becomes super heated, along with becoming radioactive, and turns to steam in the upper part of the reactor, then, through a heat exchanger, passes its heat to "clean" water, which in turn becomes steam, drives a turbine, which drives a generator/alternator, which drives your motor or charges your battery.

The dirty,and radioactive water/steam in the reactor vessel is cooled, and condensed and returned to the main reactor vessel for reuse.
The "clean" water is cooled and released, or in closed systems, like a submarine, it is also condensed, and reused.

The huge cooling towers you see at land based reactors are not releasing steam from either side of the heat exchange loop, they are cooling the clean water prior to releasing it into a stream or body of water.

The steam you see is the excess heat from the clean water.

Ever note that most land based reactors are located next to, or have on hand a tremendous amount of water?

Because, if things go wrong, (read Three Mile Island) and you lose the coolant water in the reactor, the fuel rods melt, along with everything else, like the control rods, and it all puddles on the bottom of the reactor vessel.

The heat generated makes the surface of the sun seem like a nice place to vacation.

It can and has melted through the bottom of reactor vessels.
Ask the Russians about the China Syndrome, they have first hand experience.

To prevent this from happening, if, by some chance, you do have a coolant loss, the fastest way to stop the reaction before you get a runaway is to flood the reactor vessel with a continous flow of cool, "clean" water.

Locating your reactor next to a lake, the ocean, or a man made water supply makes sense.

In marine applications, like subs and surface ships, you have a on hand unlimited supply of "clean"(non radioactive) water.

If you dont have the supply on hand, and lose your ability to cool the reactor, thereby slowing the exchange of neutrons and absorbing the heat, you got big problems, real fast.

And once it gets away from you, there isnt much you can do.

Adding water after a meltdown of the control rods and fuel rods will just cause a exploision, as the super high heat generated seperates the oxygen and hydrogen on contact, creating exploisive gases, or it most often flashes over to steam, radioactive steam at that..

Ask any firefighter, like Joe and the others, here what happens when they spray water on a super hot fire.
The blow back steam cloud can cause as much damage as the fire!

Although flooding the reactor with sea water will destroy the reactor, the alternative is much worse.

On land, mobile reactors on a scale needed to move the tonnage of a train would require a fairly large crew , ask one of the bubbleheads here about the size of the reactor room crew on their boat.

And you would have to have a large supply of coolant water on hand, in tankcars, just in case.

And, as noted here already, all it would take is for the general public to find out, and John Q would meet the train at the county line, with a rope!

There is a large amount of truth in what one poster stated, if most folks knew about half the chemicals we haul through their town, they would have a stroke.

Ever see a solid white, large tankcar, with a red stripe lengthwise down the side, and big red signs on the sides and ends?
Does Hydrocyanatic acid sound like something you want get up close and personal with?

How about a tankcar full of MEK?
All you model railroaders out there who use it as a plastic glue/solvent already know what that stuff can do if you breathe it, or it gets on you.

And those two are some of the tamer stuff.

But the fact is, we have been hauling this stuff, day after day, for years.
And for the most part, far more safely that any other type of transportation system.

But, and this is a big but,
stuff happens!
And with a reactor vessel, I personally would perfer it happen anywhere I am not!

Stay frosty,
Ed

[mudchicken]

Aw shucks - though bio-gas locomotives were the coming thing. Just feed the crews their daily ration of pork&beans before work & plug-em in......[:-^]

[Anonymous]

mmmmmm I don't like nuclear power locomotive very high risk if get radiation from leak anywhere or big accient
What if don't use this nuclear locomotive where will go ? under ground or other way

[jchnhtfd]

It is highly unlikely that a nuclear reactor powered locomotive would be practical -- there is, if nothing else, a weight problem from the structure and shielding required.

However, I should point out, if only for the sake of completeness, that it is possible to build a reactor in which a loss of coolant accident results in a complete shutdown of the reactor, rather than a runaway as alluded to above: it is called the CANDU design, and there are a number of them in use in the sunny northland (Canada). If those of you in New England have the lights on tonight and are reasonably warm, you can thank the CANDUs of HydroQuebec.

[vsmith]

The primary goal of the Atomic Powered Bomber was ultimatly to produce a plane that could remain aloft for days at a time.

One of the primary reasons the Nuclear bomber failed was that they couldn't provide enough radiation sheilding for the crews. As they were built the X-39's could only be flown for I believe two hours maximum before the crews began to be exposed to dangerous (at that time) levels of radiation, and seeing that the round trip time from the US to Russia and back was a bit longer than two hours they idea was scrapped. In order to provide safe radiation sheilding the plane would be too heavy to get off the ground.

The same weight problems with sheilding and safeguarding the reactor core also doomed the Atomic Locomotive, the engine would have been so heavy that alot of the engines power would have gone to moving itself, let alone any cars. There were also concerns by the rail companies about having to reinforce existing right of ways and trackage to support the porky engines.

Nuclear ships and submarines never had to deal with this problem because of the ships and subs were already very huge to start with and the steam boilers and diesel plants they replaced were of a similar weight to start with. The weight of the cores was simply absorbed into the overall displacement of the vessel.

The radiation concerns we mention today simply were not of concern when these were being planned. Dont forget, this was in the 1950's when A-bomb's were being tested in the Nevada desert with US troops in trenchs right next to the blasts, and all this a mere 60 miles from Las Vegas. When there were serious plans to use A-bombs to blast a pathway for I-40 thru the mountains along the Arizona/California border. Not a speck of concern by our Government for the troops exposed to sometimes lethal doses of radiation or for all the people down wind of all that fallout.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard




It can and has melted through the bottom of reactor vessels.
Ask the Russians about the China Syndrome, they have first hand experience.

Stay frosty,
Ed

As far as I know a true "China Syndrome" has not happened yet, even is Russia, Thank God. Though they have had some terribly close calls. Chernobyl has a graphite reactor which did not melt but suffered a catastrophic internal pressure explosion which destroyed the reactor.

Be afraid, very afraid....

A true "China Syndrome" is far worse.

The cooliing system has failed and the control rods have failed to slow the reaction. the core heats and heats and heats until it melts into a molten mass of radioactive metal at about a million degrees, this mass acts like a solid, melting and evaporating everything it touches giving off a massivley radioactive steam. Once the core melts, nothing can be done. This molten mass is pulled by the earths gravity downward melting a hole in the Earth theoriticly until it reaches the center of the Earth. In reality it most likely sinks until it hits the ground water table which instantly vaporizes giving off a geyser of deadly radiation that get blasted into the atmosphere. The water table, supplying water and cooling ever so slowely the core mass but even if there is a lot of ground water it would take a long time to cool down, all the while a deadly radioactive steam pipe is spewing gasses into the atmosphere shrouding the planet and there aint squat they can do to stop it...[xx(]


Mull on that, Kiddies..

[UPTRAIN]

I have just heard of the turbo train, like the one that looks like the acela but is jet powered.

[domefoamer]

Some railroad history magazine -- was it Railroad History Quarterly? -- did an article on this not long ago. Nuke-driven hogs were an idea so utterly stupid that someone just had to assemble a task force and spend scads of money imagining it. That not even one prototype was ever built shows the poor potential of the scheme. Simply shielding the crew from radiation added too much dead weight. The environmental consequences of railroad accidents were horrible to contemplate. Most importantly, there was no reason to think an atomic locomotive would perform any better than a common diesel. Trains don't need to operate for extended periods far from resupply points like ships and subs do. They can stop frequently for fuel. Without stops for loading and unloading, a train has no usefulness. It wasn't like they were out on patrol duty! The whole concept seems more valuable today, just as something to laugh at.