Nuclear-Powered Trains
- Thread starter anw_rev
- Start date
Unconsensual
Banned
Not likely, trains simply didn't need that much compact power (not to mention the expense). The maximum speed of rail is around 50-60kmph for practical purposes and maglev trains are have powered tracks connected to the grid eliminating the need for a strong generator. Furthermore do you really want a reactor going through cities on flimsy trans-Siberian tracks? If train crashes are bad now think how much worse they are with radiation.
That being said the part of me that is sexually attracted to machinery would love to see it happen.
That being said the part of me that is sexually attracted to machinery would love to see it happen.
Cook
Banned
Speed is not the reason I would consider such a locomotive, load is. Ore trains on the Mount Newman – Port Hedland line average 206 ore cars, each carrying 126 metric tons, that’s 26,000 tons per train. With the price of Iron Ore averaging $130 per ton, that makes the value of an average train load $3.38 Million.
The longest (and heaviest) was 682 ore cars and weighed 82,000 metric tons (Yandi to Hedland). That by the way is the weight of ore, the Gross weight of the train was 99,000 tons and worth $10.66 Million.That required 8 locomotives, each generating 4,500 hp, so roughly 36,000 hp. The power plant on the USS Nautilus (for example) provided 13,000 hp. The trains already run at the maximum density, 14 per day or one every 100 minutes, (Consider that, potentially they could be moving $149 million worth of ore per day) so currently the only way to increase the volume of ore transported is to increase the length of the train, and that requires power.
With Iron Ore spot prices reaching $300 per ton on occasion the worth of the record load goes up to $ 24.6 Million.
I can definately see it being viable.
If you are wondering what trains that size look like, here are some photos I took:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=153550&highlight=train
The longest (and heaviest) was 682 ore cars and weighed 82,000 metric tons (Yandi to Hedland). That by the way is the weight of ore, the Gross weight of the train was 99,000 tons and worth $10.66 Million.That required 8 locomotives, each generating 4,500 hp, so roughly 36,000 hp. The power plant on the USS Nautilus (for example) provided 13,000 hp. The trains already run at the maximum density, 14 per day or one every 100 minutes, (Consider that, potentially they could be moving $149 million worth of ore per day) so currently the only way to increase the volume of ore transported is to increase the length of the train, and that requires power.
With Iron Ore spot prices reaching $300 per ton on occasion the worth of the record load goes up to $ 24.6 Million.
I can definately see it being viable.
If you are wondering what trains that size look like, here are some photos I took:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=153550&highlight=train
Last edited:
It'd have to be something pretty valuable to justify putting a nuclear reactor on a train. Perhaps coal and oil suddenly become very scarce? This seems like something the Soviets might try in order to impress the West/free up more oil/coal for export, only to suffer a horrific accident five years after it enters service due to faulty manufacturing.
ComradeHuxley
Donor
Accoridng to this website (http://barentsobserver.com/en/sections/society/russia-designs-nuclear-train) the soviets did consider building one:
In 1956, the Ministry of Transport of the USSR first time announced nuclear propulsion as a possibility for locomotives that could operate autonomously, without electricity or large amount of fuel. The Ministry then said such locomotives could be used in the High North and remote areas of Siberia, according to a back-ground article posted on the magazine Popularnaja Mehanika.
Another feature with the proposed nuclear powered train was that it could easily be converted to a mobile nuclear power plant, supplying energy to remote areas and industrial sites.
In 1956, the Ministry of Transport of the USSR first time announced nuclear propulsion as a possibility for locomotives that could operate autonomously, without electricity or large amount of fuel. The Ministry then said such locomotives could be used in the High North and remote areas of Siberia, according to a back-ground article posted on the magazine Popularnaja Mehanika.
Another feature with the proposed nuclear powered train was that it could easily be converted to a mobile nuclear power plant, supplying energy to remote areas and industrial sites.
I believe this is relevant: To Peoria by Atom.
I can't see it happening except as a prestige project. The advantages are too small relative to the headaches - Edward Teller actually said it was the only idea he'd heard worse than the nuclear-powered airplane, and when Edward "Let's Dig a New Panama Canal with H-Bombs" Teller says something's dangerous, I listen. There was a US congressman in the late 50s who wanted the AEC to build one as a land-based counterpart to the Savannah, but that didn't get very far. And, even as a prestige project, there are probably simpler, safer, less expensive options available.
I can't see it happening except as a prestige project. The advantages are too small relative to the headaches - Edward Teller actually said it was the only idea he'd heard worse than the nuclear-powered airplane, and when Edward "Let's Dig a New Panama Canal with H-Bombs" Teller says something's dangerous, I listen. There was a US congressman in the late 50s who wanted the AEC to build one as a land-based counterpart to the Savannah, but that didn't get very far. And, even as a prestige project, there are probably simpler, safer, less expensive options available.
Technically some trains, specifically electric ones, already run on nuclear energy since the power grid in countries linger France is almost entirely run with nuclear reactors. But attaching a to a train would be do massively expensive that whatever company does it well be bankrupt in a day, that is if it's even possible.
It's definitely possible. It's not a good idea, but it's possible. At least if you're willing to use 50s-era radiation protection standards, and never drive it in a city.
Not only in USSR also in USA there were study Nuclear powered Trains (and ships, submarines, Cars, Tanks, aircraft, rockets )
they came to this conclusion: it's possible to build a Nuclear powered train, but it gonna be to heavy for US railways and there will be accidents like derail and collision...
they came to this conclusion: it's possible to build a Nuclear powered train, but it gonna be to heavy for US railways and there will be accidents like derail and collision...
Well it's not plausible at all with todays technology, and i doubt that people would be willing top accept nuclear trains going through their backyards on a daily basis.
Reactors don't have to be the gigantic beasts used by the US today. Back in the 50s and 60s the AEC investigated a number of miniaturized reactor concepts, including one designed to power an airplane. By the time the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion project was shut down in 1961, they basically knew how to build a nuclear plane and could have done so. It would have been enormous, expensive, and slow, but they could have built one. If we can build a nuclear plane we can build a nuclear train, if we had some reason to. It would have been horribly unsafe by modern standards, and even by 50s standards, and it might not have pulled much cargo, but it would have worked.
Like I said, it's not a good idea. But the AEC could build it if there was some reason to.