Taking back the 'roads

[citidude]

Transit and intercity train services may not be so popular as many transit advocates (and I am one of these) would want them to be, but where high quality bus or rail service existes, people will use it. Metra and South Shore are experiencing record levels of ridership as was BART until the recent economic downturn.

In my East End neighborhood in Pittsburgh, I see many young professionals using buses operating on exclusive roads to commute to and from Downtown.

[Anonymous]

Mike:
So much for neatness.
Still assessing destinations as hearth and time permit. There's a place around 38 N. by 82 W. that's interesting (that word again) on several levels. But not for tourists just now.
John B.

[Anonymous]

If you please, can we use up all the less exotic crud we've got first? If that ever happens, we'll have a chat about fuel manufacture.
John Bradley

[Anonymous]

Regarding the "Oak Ridge Special" there is some interesting material on the "Twenty First Century steam page" regarding the design for a nuclear steam/turbine/electric using a modular pebble bed reactor system(which is about as failsafe/idiotproof as a fission power system gets).Um,however,I don't recommend using live steam out of the reactor core to power a conventional,reciprocating steam engine(radiation poisoning is bad for PR). I like the idea but you'll never sell it to the public,who tend to be rabidly anti-nuke(and not just the lefties).
To those who complain about the Greenhouse effect I say build M.P.B reactor plants.(Get back to your crate in the attic,they tell me)

[sooblue]

Hi Guys,
I must say I agree compleatly. Rails and nukes just don't mix. The idea of having a head on with one sends chills up and down my spine. How about somthing else as fuel though, liquid hydrogen. What is the by product of burning hydrogen John B.?
As a green machine I bet you couldn't beat a steam engine fueled by hydrogen it would be a totaly H2O machine.

[Anonymous]

Et tu, Oppenheimer?
Greenhouse is okay with me. I like being warmer; it's just that some effluvia = fuel that one can afford. Emphasis on afford.
JB

[Anonymous]

Mike:
Water. Practically the trademark for things cyclic. And as a received material H is very green. But this is still about $/ton-mile, even if some of the tonnage gets selected out.
You've got your fuel under the microscope (and a laser or two, I understand) and you've got your effluent yearning for a kinder breakdown. There's not much to be done about the resultant CO2 from standard auto powerplants, but turbines are another matter.
JB

[Anonymous]

I can't believe anyone is considering putting a nuclear reactor on wheels and having it pull thousands of tons. What rock do you live under?

Ever hear of the Hindenburg? I wonder how much Helium you would need to have in the tender(s) to make this trip?

Why don't y'all leave the locomotive design to the professionals. If there were (are?) practical alternatives they would be under development already. The railroads are supremely interested in efficiency. Nobody has to urge them to look for a better way to do business.

Ed

[Anonymous]

Let's see: Beware meltdowns on wheels. Firemen shoveling gaseous hydrogen. Lakehurst, N.J.- three human generations ago. Professionals in control. Don't think too much. Okay. Thanks for the tip.
JB

[Anonymous]

'Don't think too much'

Taking your own advice . . . and often.

Leading by example, I guess.

[sooblue]

Railroads burn oil.
oil companies sell oil.
oil companies wield so much power in politics they were able to get George into office.
The FRA is a government entitee.

NOW on the lighter side. Rail R&D no longer is into steam so there is no clue as to what could be done in steam. Just now, just now we have a single engine with the power of 6000 horses.
50 years ago 6000 hp with one steam engine wasn't new tech. or high tech.it was proven.
liquid hydrogen bottled is safer than the acetelene that you find in the local cutting torch. Acetelene is so unstable that you have to use a material to absorbe it in the tank. Water when heated turns to steam which when used reverts back to a liquid state so we have a continuous cycle and the earth is not depleated. H20 is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen if we can separate the molicule we than could get enough Hydrogen for power to last us untill we get so smart that we have no need for our bodies and we could than think our way to any where and never get tired or hungry.

I hope people never stop thinking. I wish we could use the internet like a big think tank.
You don't have to be highly educated to have a good idea, you just have to think, and be willing to take a few hits and admit mistakes at least to your self.

[Anonymous]

Now that's a tagline.
In case you didn't come across it: Washington Post, May 10, page A4. I'll look in, but I've some things to digitize. Another time, another site.
John B

[Anonymous]

Mike,

I like a lot of your posts but this whole thread rubs me the wrong way. I just want our transportation modes to be determined primarily by free market economic forces. I think most of what is proposed concerning Amtrak interferes (sp?) with that.

I am an engineer. A structural engineer, but I was taught a little about energy, and work and power and so on. One thing that you have to understand is that you don't get something for nothing and that is never more evident than with energy.

Regarding nuclear powered steam engines, I like nuclear power, but I don't live where they are likely to dispose of the spent reactor fuel. It is the public perception that will never permit operation of nuclear powered engines. If you think I am wrong thats fine. Go ahead and spend your money trying.

Regarding hydrogen powered locomotives, this doesn't sound practical. I haven't done the calculations but I could to determine the amount of energy it takes to liberate the hydrogen atoms from the oxygen in water. I would expect to find that the amount of energy would exceed the energy produced when 'burning' the hydrogen to produce the power in the locomotive. In both the release process and the 'burning' process you have to expect some losses. But, the primary reason I don't look highly at this is because they have other types of 'gas powered' locomotives and they don't use hydrogen in those. Engineers are pretty ingenious and if hydrogen offered real promise, I believe they would have looked at it. I can't take seriously an argument which includes a fundamental theorum that a big oil conspiracy controls all transportation policy in the country. I don't think they could be that powerful. I believe, bottom line, that we use oil because it is the cheapest method of getting the job done. I'm not saying that the oil companies and automobile companies don't exert influence. I'm just saying that if there were promising technologies out there I wouldn't be hearing about them on an obscure internet site discussing things like 'promising news that such and such paint scheme will be used by CSX soon.'

I agree that you don't have to be educated to have a good idea, but I think the probabilities go down fast. I hope we all keep thinking, just not thinking that we are smarter than everyone else. - Ed

[sooblue]

Hi Ed,
I have thought for a long time that there would be a way to liberate hydrogen from water in a way that would make it a cheep fuel. It sounds like you know something about it so perhaps the answer is no. Maybe in the future though who knows. At any rate, I'm not infavor of nukes on wheels even if it could prove to be safe it would be too easy to get a hold of the fuel and use it against the U.S.
Ed, I'm a firm beliver in our system of government but I know that powerfull lobbies pull the ear of our highest officials. I belive that if they could, they would do what is in their best intrest, but because they are voted in by the majority they must walk a tightrope.
( thank you fore fathers )
I don't think there is a conspiracy at work I belive like you, that oil is the cheapest method, but I don't belive we should be satisfied with that thought.
I don't want to interfear with your work, but I would like to know what it would take to liberate hydrogen from water, if you can find the time that is.
Your right about education Ed. Education is the dissemination of information. We learn from others so we can continue to build upon what was done so far. The farther you go in school the more up to speed you are.
You know, your last line brought back some thing my dad told me 40 years ago when I started working. He said "don't forget there is always someone who knows more than you"

[Anonymous]

First of all,no one is seriously considering nuclear locomotives. Back in the fifties Westinghouse and some other companies actually were proposing such a beast.
Secondly,you do understand that Hydrogen and Helium are totally different substances,right? The first is the most reactive element, the second is inert. Modern airships(blimps) use helium,which is why the Goodyear blimp can't go boom. As far as using volatile fuels like hydrogen or methane(natural gas),the fact that they are considerably more explosive than Diesel fuel is a concern,but just as gas heat for buildings has been made very safe,it will be possible to use them in transportation applications. Many utility companies operate fleets of methane fueled trucks,and you don't hear of catastrophes.
As far as practical alternatives, there are plenty under development,it's just that right now economics favor diesel traction in North American railroading.
The railroads are extremely interested in controlling costs,you could find many shippers who would disagree with your statement about efficiency.

[Anonymous]

Basically liberating hydrogen from water is very energy intensive. Ed is right that this is what makes hydrogen economically unattractive as a primary fuel source. You need a lot of cheap electricity to really make it work. There are some schemes but they generally involve either nuclear power or some technologically extreme power source. Ocean thermal energy conversion systems and giant,orbiting solar arrays are two ideas that come to mind,and that kind of stuff ain't happening anytime soon. There's also the problem of hydrogen storage,requiring either cryogenic tanks or high pressure vessels.
Petroleum based fuels are the cheapest thing around,which is why oil is king.

[Anonymous]

Johnathan,

While I'm not considering nuclear locos, I'm not sure about some of these other fellows. It appears they are willing to consider anything.

Yea, you caught me on the hydrogen - helium thing. I was typing one thing and thinking another. I know that modern airships use helium because it is an inert gas. Some may not know that the Hindenburg was filled with hydrogen and that pure hydrogen (the kind used for fuel) is very dangerous. I made another comment about gas-electrics to illustrate that all kinds of fuel are being considered by the guys who design the things.

My thesis still stands that the pros are doing all they can given the constraints they have to consider. Thanks for proofreading my other post. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Jon:
"Where's Kneiling?" Last I heard, at MetLife, guiding a rollout.
John B

[Anonymous]

Uh, you might want to take a look at the "discussion" on Mallett 2-8-8-2UP here on the board. Especially, the lower half of the replies.
Thank you. :)

[Anonymous]

You don't use the steam from the reactor core to power it. You use it as the "primary" system. Everything else remains the same. You only convert the firetubes, and mount the reactor in the firebox; along with a water pump. All you are trying to do is heat the secondary water(boiler) to make steam that will power the pistons, that drive the wheels, that move the Locomotive.

[sooblue]

I want one. It would be so cool! pull tourists by day and power the twin cities at night for extra cash. Maybe once a year I'd go down to Rochester with it just as a good will trip and pay a visit to the mayo clinic to share RAD stories maybe than they would let the DM&E in.

[Anonymous]

Yeah,I'm thinking of a 4-8-8-6 super Alleghany. Fission plant might be a bit bulky so I think I'd go with either a small Antimatter/Matter reactor or a magnetically confined,microscopic black hole as a heat source.Of course a perpetual motion machine drive would reduce fuel costs(tapping Vacuum fluctuations).Install a Negative Energy Faster than light Warp Drive system and even Amtrak could provide consistent on time service(arrive before you've left).
With Nanotechnology I could grow the locomotive out in the back yard like a gigantic Zucchini. Any investors out there???????
Man,I'm beginning to sound like the "Indian Atomic engine" guy on the 2-8-8-2 thread................................

[Anonymous]

Jonothan,

Are you still sure nobody is seriously considering a nuclear powered loco?

Ed

[Anonymous]

Big difference between you and N&W 2-8-8-2 thread, yours will really work. ( Just kidding guys )

[sooblue]

If some one would "just get on the stick" and invent a spent fuel disposal system than we could get back to building reactors again. COME ON!
start thinking!!!
we could grind it up and use it to paint glow in the dark road stripes.

[Anonymous]

Jon:
You forgot Tom Swift's nuclear flying fortress; another "real" avenue explored.
I was going to thank you for taking it outside, tex.
Title 8, Art. 193a.: it reads like a yellow sheet.
Entitled leasing: your thoughts. 50 words or less. Full voice, if you would.
JB

[Anonymous]

Mike:
If you haven't, try grida.no. Map out.
JB

[Anonymous]

Check out Tom Swift.com
Re: nuclear locomotives there is that paper on a modern design on the 21st century Steam page. I've never been able to find any evidence of modern commercial interest.
As far as waste,the Modular Pebble Bed system is a fast breeder reactor,meaning the wastes can be efficiently recycled to make more plutonium fuel(of course that's not 100% efficient).The big worry is that you've got material which is relatively easy to refine to weapons grade.
Hey,there's a lot of interesting work being done on laser ignition nuclear fusion.Give it a decade or so and it'll be just the thing to power the "Starfleet Big Boy".