Steam Locomotive; Nuclear-powered

[Anonymous]

WHO BUILT THE REACTOR VESSALE?

[Anonymous]

FREE TRIPS TO INDIA....NUKE BOY IS BUYING!!!! SIGN ME UP!

[Anonymous]

I agree Jim, my best wishes for his speedy recovery.

[wabash1]

who regulates the use of the uranium or what ever else is used for the perpose of the nuke power. i cant see the railroads giving the resposibility of powering nuke steam engines to the shops. they lose to much stuff as it is. then this would make the railroads the target of every crook looking to make bombs. ive ask good questions but you bypassed with the answers. i really think steam would be good for excursions but not hauling freight again.

[Anonymous]

OK guys, I think we'd better wrap this one up. If the poster has verifiable facts on how he built his nuclear locomotive, he should offer them.

Those who believe this post is nothing other than trolling (i.e. posting provocative topics intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses and "flames"), then let this post die - don't reply.

Jim Schulz
Associate editor, Trains.com

[Anonymous]

And how would I be insulting YOU? All I did was express MY OWN honest opinion. It was all of you who have been attacking me for this alledged"hoax"
saying that it hasn't been done, and conjuring up visions of Chyrnoble and Hiroshima. I do not have to "prove" any of this to any of you. I know what I know. All you have to do is go to India, And ask to see the Owner of J & M RailRoad. Which also happens to be me, but not in the way you think it is. One of you Gentlemen, for some reason, thinks it has to be "engineered" from the ground up. asking things like,what is the bore and stroke of the pistons, who manufactured the boiler, and such other nonsense.
I have already tried to explain to all of you what was done and how I did it. You DO NOT need an engineering degree to pull this off; just some basic common-sense. I used what was available to me in India, I did almost all my own machinework(what I didn't do, got "shopped out") to an Indian company that COULD do it.
I didn't ask for any why's or wherefors.... I just did it. I definitely do not rely on those who say they are scientifically educated and yet want to scream at me because I said that I have done this without an engineering degree. Who said that one HAD to have one to do this? I paid other people to do all of that; again, in India.
This is no hoax. All of you just don't want to believe that someone(other than you) could have actually been doing this without your knowledge.
you want to honestly find out whether this is true or not? GO TO INDIA!! Thats where you will findout the truth....... or, give me a couple of months, and I will take you there myself and show you. Which do you prefer?

[Anonymous]

Ed hit the nail on the head with the economics of Hydrogen.It'll take large scale Nuclear fusion or some other advanced power generation technology to make it worth consideration.
Insofar as documentation on the alleged Indian fission loco,there would have to be books,magazine articles,weblinks,ect. Any foreign language arguments won't hold water because English is the language of engineers and other professionals in India.

[Anonymous]

Jason,

While I am not an authority on hydrogen power, I did learn something in physics class. You don't get something for nothing. In this case, the power required to liberate hydrogen from other chemical compounds (e.g. water) equals or exceeds the power generated when you use it for fuel. And after all that you also have 'loses', energy lost in the conversion process. I wrote breifly (sp?) about this in another thread. - Ed

[Anonymous]

What about hydrogen-powered trains? Generate the hydrogen elsewhere in a properly funded and maintained facility.

[sooblue]

I don't mean any offence to any one, but If nuclear steam engines exsisted, WHO would operate it? nuclear engineers arn't exactly a dime a dozen, and I can't picture one of them getting down and grabing the oil can or grease gun and rags and oiling around. Further more, WHO is going to go near the thing when it's laying on it's side after hitting the log truck.
NukeBoy has provided me with LOTS of laughs over the last few days. Now with his INVENTION shot so full of holes that it couldn't hold an ounce of water his balderdash grows OLD.
It's time to talk about some thing else. How about that UP turbine that melted that bridge deck in, I think it was, LA.

[wabash1]

you say water is not a problem heck when we have a unit shut down for low water now it stay down becouse there is no where to get water to it for cooling. what about the waste from the nuke device. the railroads cant handle the regular waste of oil and trash sand and other stuff. in other words i agree it wont happen and im glad couse it wont do what todays units can do.

[Anonymous]

John,

What are the material properties of the 'steel' used for the boiler? Where did you use the steel-lead alloy? Was the steel welded? What specifications did you use for welding? What temperature was the steam when operating at 10,000psi? What was the volume of steam and water in the boiler under normal operating conditions? How much water was used in the primary system? What was the inside diameter of the boiler? What was the stroke of the piston? What was the diameter? Where did you acquire the steel casting for the boiler? Where was the boiler machined? How heavy was the engine (with and without water)? What was the diameter of the drivers? How much weight was on the drivers? What systems were used to moniter the reactors performance? How many pumps were used to circulate the steam? What was the HP rating of these pumps? How were these pumps powered? How were the other systems necessary to operate the reactor powered? How was the boiler recharged as steam was used up? How much water was normally loaded into the tender(s)? Oh, what was the distance traveled by your train when pulling the 100,000 tons of coal at an average speed of 45 mph? Where did you get an engineering degree? When?

Ed

[Anonymous]

Jon,

"I am sincerely thinking of e-mailing the administrators of this board to complain about this hoaxer."

If he were only putting out a hoax I would just laugh it off. But since he is intent on insulting us, I think he should be removed. Go for it. - Ed

[Anonymous]

What kind of documentation do you want???

[Anonymous]

"Nuclear Powered Transcontinental expresses"-anyone remember the old late 70's TV series "Supertrain". A lousy "Love Boat" ripoff but it took place on just such a train.
There are a lot of reasons why steam will almost certainly not make a comeback. Water usage is not one of them. Almost all proposals I've read for modern steam locomotives involve the use of condenser technology which greatly reduces water consumption. South African railways succesfully operated a fleet of 4-8-4s so equipped in the 1960's and 1970's.
You gotta love a communications medium(the internet) where any Yahoo using an anonymous screen id can post whatever lies,hoaxes,or nonsense they please,and then claim that "you fools do not understand" when objections are raised. The individual who keeps posting the "Indian Atomic 2-8-8-2" nonsense will not provide any documentation to his claims because there is none to be provided.
I am sincerely thinking of e-mailing the administrators of this board to complain about this hoaxer.
Jon C.

[Anonymous]

Nuclear power for steam? How about nuclear-powered transcontinental expresses to do coast-to-coast in 24hrs or less?

In theory it is a nice idea, however, the costs of developing a such a train would be very high. Think of how much it costs to build a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier or sub.

Jason

[dknelson]

check out the thread about 2-8-8-2s to read more rantings about the nuclear powered loco in India
Oh and by the way -- it is a Norfolk & Western Y-3 USRA 2-8-8-2 that has been "converted" to nuclear by our pal

[wabash1]

steam power.... ok who going to add the water and pay for putting the tanks up for holding the water. whos in charge of the boiler. whos going to pay for the extra men to do this. and who you going to get to run these things. i dont think you find many engineers going to do this. steam is to slow. to restrictive. having to stop every 30 miles or so to add water. put it in number 8 and go.

[Anonymous]

Mike,

I have heard of the iodine but I don't think it is vented. This is not my field so I may be wrong about that. I'll see what my friends say about that.

Last I heard, most of Frances power was generated in nuclear plants. I'm not much of a fan of France, but if those guys can embrace nuclear power, I don't see why we we have so little here. Oh well. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Sorry Mike, I got mixed up where I was in the thread. It is John who is having the issues.

My apologies. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Mike,

I thought I answered the question quite clearly before. If the public doesn't want a nuclear power plant, they surely won't want to risk a nuclear locomotive.

I finally read your posts in the 'Mallet' thread. I hope you will excuse me but you sound like you are suffering from schizophrenia. In the begining of your posts, it sounds as if you were being shown a reworked N&W locomotive and being told that it now was nuclear powered. In your later posts, you clearly state that you are the brains behind the whole operation. Some of your dates jump around too.

Your pressure numbers sound a little on the high side. And I have not heard of lead and steel being alloyed for any useful purpose. I would appreciate it if you would admit that this is a fantasy of yours.

If you don't, I may ask you a few questions about this engine that you may find hard to answer. I have some acquaintances who served on nuclear powered ships and another who works in the nuclear power industry. I will gladly enlist their help to demonstrate your depth of knowledge in this field.

Your biggest flaw though is that anyone capable of building a nuclear locomotive wouldn't be bragging about it on Trains.com and then reduced to four-letter-words when challenged about the voracity of his claims.

Best wishes for a full recovery. - Ed

[sooblue]

Did you know that one of the by products of a nuclear reaction is a highly toxic and radioactive
gas ?
I just found this out on National Public Radio.
The gas is made up of Iodine some thing and Cesium 638 ??.
Apparently this gas is just vented into the atmospere, So they said, I have trouble beliveing that but than I too like Nuclear Power so maybe I just don't want to belive it.
Mike

[Anonymous]

I have two reasons for you . . .

I doubt it is the most economical method to pull a train. Second, I believe there are too many political and bureaucratic hurdles.

Good Luck. I'd like to see more nuclear power in this country, but I don't think trains are the best application. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Sorry, forgot: biodiesel is also produced from corn.

[Anonymous]

Don't talk to me about being ignorant. Your talk about pretending to be educated while really being ignorant is quite similar to the propoganda of the Ku Klux Klan. (I'm not being sarcastic. Go to their website if you don't believe me).

Aside from that, what exactly are you trying to prove? That there could be a resurgance of steam power with the help of nuclear power if only people weren't so ignorant and weren't so scared? I like many others in this forum, would jump for joy if someone told me steam would be back. But the fact is, that it won't be. Steam railroading is a part of history in the US: not the present or the future.

Sure, it might be possible to do everything you say, and for argument's sake, let's say it HAS been done. Where doesn that get us? Nowhere. A steam locomotive's maintance costs, regardless of what is fueling it or powering it, are too high to make it a feasible part of railroading in the US again. It's just not realistic. There are plenty of other means of power which have much more positive economical benefits without any of the risks associated with nuclear power. Probably the best example is so-called biodiesel. It's a fuel that can be burned in any diesel engine without modification (except to rubber components which can be corroded by the fuel). It's produced from soybeans and is a completely renewable fuel sorce. And there are no nasty pollutants. The exhaust is about as harmful as sugar water. Do some web surfing and check it out, there's some interesting information on it out there. And stop by the KKK site while you're at it.

[Anonymous]

It is NOT a "stealthy" operation! it is just NOT advertised or talked about in ANY publication; because........ your ignorant attitudes about it. Also, to NOT cause mass hysteria among the population by un-educated types who pretend to themselves(and others) that they are educated.
THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!! or to run around like Chicken Little proclaiming to the world that they "know" this is true, when in FACT they have never even had any original thoughts or ideas of their own; and heaven forbid! any one else should!! You still haven't told(factually) why this is not feasible. If you had read an earlier post of mine, you would know that there is only enough uranium(or plutonium) for a large softball(maybe a little bit bigger) but you get the idea.
In all the tests that were done before the Indian gov't would OK it, we rolled the Locomotive down embankments, flipped it end over end, and generally TRIED to make the reactor leak radiation. Everything that was done was under REAL LIFE conditions. NOT ONCE DID THE REACTOR LEAK!!!! OR, if it did, it was very minimal; within 3 rads an hour? I'm not sure if that is correct, I am going on memory only. but I DO know that it was within acceptable parameters; ie: no one was going to die anytime soon because of radiation poisining. OK?
Been to India lately? Read any thing about India's steam trains? Where did you read it at?
You haven't read anything on any of this because none of it has been advertised to prevent MASS HYSTERIA by those who, for some illogical reason, equate nuclear power with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I know I am repeating myself. I just can't get over that in this day and age, there are those people who don't want to acknowledge that they are ignorant..............

[Anonymous]

I agree with the other guy. If, in fact, India has been operating ANY kind of nuclear powered locomotive, it must be a real stealthy operation. I can imagine how nuclear steam power would be branded: "Yes, you too can own the Stealth Steam train, brought to you by Romco International". Why isn't it done? Imagine the results of an exceptionally bad wreck. Oops. We nuked the neighborhood. Sorry bout that.

[Anonymous]

I still do not understand why no one is using nuclear-reactored steam Locomotives. It is fairly safe, has been done in India for the last 20 years;(on a private RR)and would also have a nostalgia factor involved.
Anyone care to answer? please?