7j43k dknelson I have vague recollections of a modeler who built a huge freelance locomotive somewhat resembling the very large U50 and of enormous pulling power because it was weighted with depleted uranium, likely at a time before experts began to express concern about the health effects of being exposed to even depleted uranium. Dave Nelson Shoulda used platinum. It's denser. Pretty non-reactive with just about anything. Easy to machine. Definitely not radioactive. And, being N scale, pretty affordable. I'm estimating about $24,000. When you die, your wife can have it reshaped into something she finds more useful. Cash comes to mind. Ed
dknelson
I have vague recollections of a modeler who built a huge freelance locomotive somewhat resembling the very large U50 and of enormous pulling power because it was weighted with depleted uranium, likely at a time before experts began to express concern about the health effects of being exposed to even depleted uranium.
Dave Nelson
Shoulda used platinum. It's denser. Pretty non-reactive with just about anything. Easy to machine. Definitely not radioactive.
And, being N scale, pretty affordable. I'm estimating about $24,000.
When you die, your wife can have it reshaped into something she finds more useful. Cash comes to mind.
Ed
By Jim Fitzgeral from NTRak NewsletterSept/Oct 1983
The "Cotton Brute" and long trains.The origional goal was a 500 car train based on a N&W 500 car train that ran from West Virginia to Ohio when remote control mid train helpers were first used by N&W.The “Cotton Brute” was the star of a series of special locomotives that I built for long train tries. I did a word search for four and five letter words starting with "B". Other locomotives were Cotton Bell, Cotton Bull and Cotton Boss, all in SP / Cotton Belt scarlet and grey.The photo of the Cotton Brute is a composite showing the complete engine in the foreground and an exploded view. The long fuel tank/frame is indeed depleted uranium. Where I worked we had made some experimental gyros of the material. Other materials were easier to precisely machine.The top weights are machined from lead and completely fill the thin shell. The engine weighs 24 oz, 1-1/2 pounds and has a Sagami 1630 motor. The longest train with just the Cotton Brute on the head end was 560 Kadee (MicroTrains) two bay coal cars. The custom layout had 72" minimum radius curves in a folded dogbone shape.There were 560 Kadee two bay hoppers with modified Rapido couplers used for the long train efforts.The layout used was built just for long trains. It was single track with 6 foot minimum radius in a “dogbone” shape. There was one trailing point turnout from a siding used to set up additional strings of cars to add to the train. The modules were about 4’ long and made from 3/8” particle board.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Yeah, the Fifties had some pretty gonzo stuff.My PERSONAL favorite was a weapons system.. the Davy Crockett. A suitcase-sized atomic weapon on a recoilless rifle.Yes, the US Army was going to put nuclear weapons under the command of a second lieutenant with a map!
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
dknelson I have vague recollections of a modeler who built a huge freelance locomotive somewhat resembling the very large U50 and of enormous pulling power because it was weighted with depleted uranium, likely at a time before experts began to express concern about the health effects of being exposed to even depleted uranium. Dave Nelson
Generally speaking, you can handle DU safety, because it isn't a gamma emitter. Its toxicity comes from being a heavy metal more than a radiological hazard (like your tungsten, arsenic, mercury, and so on). That said, why would you ever think milling such material in a non-industrial setting was ever a good idea? That's how you make it a threat to your health: turning it into small particles in the air for you to breath in.
Jim Fitzgerald Cotton Brute N scale
rrinker ...nuclear propulsion at sea was limited to the Navy...
...nuclear propulsion at sea was limited to the Navy...
As a former owner of a model of this ship, I will have to disagree:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
I wonder if Thorium reactors could provide an opportunity to make this a reality? I don't know if there has been any studies done to show what a Thorium reactor would do in a collision, although it has been well documented the mess a Uranium or Plutonium reactor would cause in a collision. As for some "atomic diesels" the Hanford Site has some ALCO's on display outside one of the preserved B Reactor. The Nevada Southern also has two veteran diesels of the Jackass and Western which ran in the Nevada Test Site.
rrinker The only space use that worked out is for unmanned craft (not 100% true), which is why something like the Voyager 1 and 2 probes are still functioning more than 40 years after launch.
The only space use that worked out is for unmanned craft (not 100% true), which is why something like the Voyager 1 and 2 probes are still functioning more than 40 years after launch.
Having some first hand experience with such things, space is a fantastic place for nuclear power. You don't have to cool or shield or anything. Sometimes, you're not even the most radioactive thing around! It wasn't until a couple years ago that you could even build solar arrays capable of operating past Mars.
Even some solar powered probes carry nuclear heaters and there's been some manned missions that carried nuclear material. Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package was powered by RTGs.
NWP SWP Think Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, SL-1, ect... were bad imagine if that thing derailed, yikes!
Think Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, SL-1, ect... were bad imagine if that thing derailed, yikes!
TMI and SL-1 weren't bad (aside from the three fellows killed). TMI never lost containment. SL-1's reactor vessel wasn't breached. They were practically clean, by comparison to even a routine nuclear weapons test.
Now, I read the paper about this here nuclear locomotive. The fuel load was a mere nine kilograms of uranium. Little Boy, for comparison, sported 64 kilograms. I couldn't find, with good reason, the amount of nuclear material dispersed during the Palomares Incident, but it stands to reason they carried significantly more than nine kilograms. The two weapons contaminated an area of about a square mile. A Soviet Reaktor Bolshoy Moshchnosti Kanalnyy, which is what Chernobyl is, has a whopping 192 tons.
The scale just isn't there for a major accident, or even minor accident, with such little material.
With the advent of nuclear power, there were ideas for nuclear powered everything. Not just ships and submarines, but planes, trucks, trains, and spacecraft.
Practicality and safety issues won out, nuclear propulsion at sea was limited to the Navy, and the weight of the required shielding made most other uses impractical. The only space use that worked out is for unmanned craft (not 100% true), which is why something like the Voyager 1 and 2 probes are still functioning more than 40 years after launch.
Anyone remember the silly Big Bus movie from the 70's, about the atomic powered bus? It later aired as I think a 2 parter on TV in 1980.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
No, the thing would not spew radiation. Like nuclear submarines, the reactor heats fluid that passes through a heat exchanger. And a very tiny reactor would be sufficient. See also the B-36 atomic energy experiments.Now, there WAS the nuclear RAMJET in which the nuclear pile was almost completey unshielded and which was designed to spew hard radiation as it flew. But that's another story.
Awesome kitbash just don't operate it around me! You may want to glow in the dark but not me! Seriously though praise the Lord almighty that guy failed with the real one! Think Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, SL-1, ect... were bad imagine if that thing derailed, yikes! All those people with rad poisoning which equals we'd probably all have four eyes or something! or look like this guy! --> That's taking nuclear power to a new level!
I do admire the kitbash though I'm working on a boxcab diesel that has 16 axles! It will leave chewed up ties and twisted rails in its wake!
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
I just had to do a search.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-days-of-atomic-locomotives-in-america-1564623650
Mike.
My You Tube
yep! It’s true! In 1950, dr Lyle borst drew up a prototype for a nuclear locomotive. In the drawings, the locomotive was going to look like a long E unit with a reactor and a reactor shield in the middle. The front had an extra truck as a pilot. Heat from the reactor would boil water to steam, power a turbine and generate electricity for the traction motors. He named it the X-12 and the only thing stopping the project was money. I will post some photos of the ho scale model I built based on this project.