Just wonder if it will?[#oops]
I was pondering the oil situation in relation to railroads this morning and if the current trend in pricing as far as oil speculation is concerned, one would think that the trend in as to the cost of a barrel of oil is upward from this point onward. You would think now is the time for the roads to get ahead of the curve rather than follow the governments reactive prescription which is crisis management. What would be interesting would be a cost per what have you on electrification versus something like the final garrett proposal designed by Porta as ACE 6000. My own thinking leads toward the real expense being the installation of new infrastructure…whether it is electrical versus steam…whatever happened to the experiments with coal fueled diesels done some years ago? Wasnt there some UP experiment with Natural Gas powering a turbine? It reminds me of the days when one invested in a new technology only to have it be obsolete fairly quickly…diesel technology was on a real roll as far as efficencies…the storm cloud of diminishing supply and increased demand leading to a “perfect storm” was always lurking in the background…so I am somewhat surprised that there was or is no R&D effort toward a plan B having been looked at much earlier on. When you consider the lead-lag time between design approvals construction etc…the roads shorts may be in a twist like everything else sooner rather than later.
Oh no, here we go again [banghead]
I have no horse in this race but I was curious of anyone knew of any Plan B being bandied about in real terms by operating departments rather than just point -counter point opinions on this versus that. I would be surprised if there was no “real” activity occurring…at any rate this topic will probably be resolved or at least my question by some future press release by a road or road(s) concerning what their plan of action will be…
It would be interesting to see how well a nuclear powered locomotive would work. (a nuclear power plant is basically a glorified steam engine)
Of course, it will likely never ever happen. There would be too many people out there worried about a radioactive leak, breach of containment in case of an accident, or the hijacking of trains for the purpose of stealing the nuclear fuel. Even if all these problems could be solved, there are people out there that just don’t want anything nuclear rolling anywhere near them.
It would be neat, though, to see a locomotive roll by with a “Mr. Fusion” on the roof.
What is interesting in all this are the reports from Japan which have passed under the radar of American media in terms of a new and successful procedure for producing cold fusion which was previously considered to be a semi-hoaxed phenomenon…this version of the procedure is different in that it can be easily replicated as an experiment…of course if true… its still far from being a workable technology in terms of a practical fuel that can be utilized. What are interesting as well are some of the more bizarre experiments with motive power…I keep thinking of that strange working model of a reciprocating road engine running on compressed air which looked like a flathead V8! Another strange twist was a proposal to have another look at Telsa’s wireless transmission of electrical energy to avoid the cost of hard wired overhead but as I recall it could not carry the ampherage sufficent to power up the demand let alone the outcry over safety which would make the magnetic field concerns about high tension wires look like childs play in comparison.
Heres a link to an interesting Master’s Thesis on oil versus coal if you are interested in this sort of thing.
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/Coal%20Locomotive%20Final%20Paper.pdf
Don’t get me wrong: I’m finding the various discussions fascinating…but I find myself thinking up a riddle:
Q. How many different threads can Trains.com users start about the (basically) same topic?
Anyone have the punchline?
In addition to the above, there is the crew cost to consider. I don’t know what all is involved in running a nuclear reactor, but then neither does the engineer or the conductor. So how many people would have to be added to the crew?
Also, I don’t recall a nuclear power plant small enough to fit in a locomotive. Can it be done? safely?
“Back to the Future” power plants are still in the future I’m afraid.
Enjoy
Paul
I agree. One ccan only imagine the certifications involved let alone the revisions to pay scales let alone the safety issues…containment etc…ugh…
The US Atomic Energy Commission and the FRA designed a Nuclear powered (fusion steam turbine)locomotive back in the Fifties (The “XR-1”). At the time there was also serious interest in developing nuclear aircraft (and even trucks and automobiles). There was even as small test reactor that was flown on a B-36 Bomber for experiments.
I’m sure you could automate a small reactor but in practical terms the only “nuclear locomotives” will be the kind that exist now i.e nuclear power being used through overhead wires to power electric locomotives…
Someone already thought of it, didnt work.
You mean, will “locomotives powered by the expansion of steam generated on-board the locomotive return to primacy to move North America’s freight and passenger trains?”
No, not in my lifetime. I’ll place a bet. I will eat the first ounce of coal from the first locomotive assigned to move Class I railroad freight on a regular, revenue, recurring, everyday basis if it occurs within the next 15 years – about how much longer I expect to live. Anyone who wants to take the counter bet has to drink an ounce of diesel fuel on June 09, 2023.
RWM
I am not a gambling man., and i never did like Diesel fuel., but if i do make it to 2023., I am gonna live dangerously., start drinking, gambling., running with women from the other side of the tracks., quit taking medicine., then get shot by a jealous husband.[yeah] [wow] But on the serious side., I dont think steam will ever return to the railroads. If we ever went back to coal/steam,. all those tree huggers, and green weenies., would have a field day![(-D]
Punchline: “The return of steam primacy to the rails thread for everyone!!” [:o)]
Careful, Murph. That kind of talk could earn you a ticket in an unmarked boxcar!
[(-D]
Didn’t work back then. But let’s talk about this.
Public concerns aside, I think such a beast would be economically and technically feasible today.
The article cited two main problems. Economy and the requirement for a highly trained operator.
Economically, the article says it costs the same as 4 diesel locomotives to run. That was back when gas was what, 20 cents a gallon? Even accounting for inflation, I’d bet that those numbers have evened out by now, most certainly in a couple years. So from a financial standpoint, a nuclear locomotive is starting to make sense, providing the price of uranium hasn’t done what the price of oil has.
Now, for operators. Remember, this was designed in the 1950s. I’ll put a TI-89 pocket calculator upagainst ANY supercomputer available at the time. It would probably be pretty safe to put that calculator up against the total computing power of every computer available in the world in 1954. My point is, in today’s world where a single supercomputer has broken the Petaflop/sec barrier (article here) it should be much easier to be able to automate such a reactor with minimal training required on the part of the engineer. So whereas somebody with precice measuring equipment used to be required to start and run a reactor, today computers are easily powerful enough to monitor the reactor and adjust accordingly. Of course, there would be multiple redundant systems and a panic button to shut down the reactor. Plus, with modern reactor designs, reactors can suffer a total coolant loss without running away (melting down) At least, the big ones can. Not sure about the little ones.
Of
…Pulled by a steam engine, no doubt.[;)]
http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/newsteam/modern16.htm
An interesting (and purely academic) document discussing the concept.
But, the key question is this: Will the engineer be waving when he rolls by? [}:)]