Nuclear-powered steam locomotives in the 50s/60s?

my gracious!

I liked the "Pennsylvania Turbine Locomotive" of 1944. The beast apparently could go above 100mph and look grand doing it.

Given a nuclear reactor apparatus small enough to fit within, this could be pretty close in appearance to how a nuke-powered steam locomotive could look:

Oooh. Pretty 6-8-6. :)

Unfortunately, the disadvantages of turbines make up for it and then some.

I say this as someone who would love to see modern steam locomotives (though not nuclear-steam ones).

Still, its pretty impressive what they (steam locomotives) can do. Comparing a Big Boy to a normal diesel is stacked in the Big Boy's favor...then again that's sort of like comparing Michael Jordan to Woody Allen's dweeb-characters.

The problem is the downsides get seriously undesirable. Steam locomotives are demanding beasts, which is sadly not addressed by either turbines or nuclear power.

Nuke plants are manpower-intensive mostly for multiply-redundant safety purposes. On the plus side, this and a great deal of good engineering makes them very safe indeed - safer than almost every other large-scale power generation method. On the minus side, it really hurts the bottom line and adds a lot of volume and complexity, and did I mention it hurts the bottom line? Sure, you can strip off a few layers of backups... until you have your first accident, after which a lot of people will make it their life's work to ensure that you NEVER have a second, no matter how minor the first was.

I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that absent a PoD which completely revolutionizes education in the 1st world, a backlash against nuclear power is inevitable, and will only be accelerated by widespread early use. :-(
 
Thanks, I'll take a look!

Incidentally, the idea isn't quite dead yet. The Russians are still talking about building one.

The idea might not be dead but I'd be worried about the passengers. Given the country's history I can already see the posters comparing a potential "Mobile Chernobyl" to any other nuclear accident in history, especially if it happens in a major city like Moscow or St Petersburg. Good luck with any other country allowing it inside their borders. Look at Aeroflot now imaging such management with a *nuclear train*!
 
The idea might not be dead but I'd be worried about the passengers. Given the country's history I can already see the posters comparing a potential "Mobile Chernobyl" to any other nuclear accident in history, especially if it happens in a major city like Moscow or St Petersburg. Good luck with any other country allowing it inside their borders. Look at Aeroflot now imaging such management with a *nuclear train*!

I never said it was a good idea. ;)

Of course, I'm one to talk. For the last nine months I've been tinkering with a TL based on widespread use of nuclear-powered aircraft. (Not quite as bad an idea as it sounds, by the way. Still probably a bad idea, but not as bad as it sounds.)
 

Perkeo

Banned
That's after a refuel, and includes lots of equipment checks as well as a very cautious startup sequence. In an emergency, you could start most reactors in a few minutes, but you would risk damage from the rapid (hence uneven) heating.

But those three days include things like e.g. closing the reactor lid. Besides, no steam locomotive - nuclear or not, is shut down completely whenever the locomotive stops: They stay on operating pressure and -temperature and remove the residual heat by blowing steam into the atmosphere.

Besides, while getting nuclear reactors completely cold and getting them back from completely cold to full power again takes time, changing the power output from say 20% to 100% and vice-versa can be done in minutes. You have to make sure that the reactor can handle the required number load changes, but that's only one more design reqirement, not a question of feasability.
 
Top