There is one other item in Economist’s article about rail technology
that catches my eye.
“A more radical approach to powering trains is that proposed by
Russian Railways, which says it is designing a nuclear-powered train
in conjunction with Rosatom, the state nuclear giant. Able to
generate immense power, such a train could in theory move extremely
fast or be used to supply power to a remote town or industrial site,
using an on-board reactor similar to those found in nuclear
submarines.”
I’m reminded of an item from the July 1955 Trains. At that time
nuclear energy was new and promising. The masthead says “a bright
safe picture of atomic locomotive operation.” The article is Atomic
Locomotive Quiz.
The author Mr Kehoe works for New Haven and Hartford Railroad and
spent five years with the AEC. He suspects that the fissionable
material in the weapons stockpile would presently be recycled “to
generate electricity or drive locomotives.”
He writes optimistically but objectively about radioactivity, and
poses (and answers) some rhetoric questions:
Could an atomic locomotive blow up? Will it be dangerous to operate
an atomic locomotive?
“Even if all controls failed and a reactor “blew up” the resulting
explosion would only be a minor fraction of the force of an atomic
weapon explosion …”
“If an atomic locomotive is involved in a wreck, the only thing
different from any other kind of a wreck would be the presence of the
nuclear reactor.”
"…if radioactive material were spread about on a railroad right of
way, it would not represent an unsolvable problem. Properly trained
and equiped personnel could remedy the situation <…> methods co