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.
[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]
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.
How were they thinking of applying nuclear power to a bomber?
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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”.
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.
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).
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).
Has anyone developed a practical fusion reactor?