More sweet, steamy goodness

[N2CHX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtnUnKZP_8A

Yeah OK, there's some oiley goodness in there too.

[N2CHX]

And more....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9tNx921EQk

[n2ize]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtnUnKZP_8A

Yeah OK, there's some oiley goodness in there too.

Those were great times. I wish I were a young adult growing up in those days.

[N8YX]

All that chuffing might be good for nostalgia's sake but I'd rather have a world-class blow job at the head end of my train:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uT_aYfTif4

[WØTKX]

With you as the author of the thread, I checked to see if it was Rumpus. ;)

[N8YX]

With you as the author of the thread, I checked to see if it was Rumpus. ;)

:rofl:

[NQ6U]

UP only had few turbine locos undergoing testing and they dropped them like a hot potato once it was discovered that the things burned almost as much fuel at idle as they did at full throttle.

[N2CHX]

With you as the author of the thread, I checked to see if it was Rumpus. ;)

Hahahahahaha! Can't say as if I blame you there.

[N2CHX]

UP only had few turbine locos undergoing testing and they dropped them like a hot potato once it was discovered that the things burned almost as much fuel at idle as they did at full throttle.

I wonder if newer technology could make them more efficient and feasible.

[N8YX]

I wonder if newer technology could make them more efficient and feasible.
Not turbine, but nuclear. Brazil has been experimenting with pebble-bed reactors in a 1/2/4/8MW configuration which could allow for 15MW total electrical (~2000HP) output in 1MW steps. And they'll run for months on a single fuel loading.

[n2ize]

Not turbine, but nuclear. Brazil has been experimenting with pebble-bed reactors in a 1/2/4/8MW configuration which could allow for 15MW total electrical (~2000HP) output in 1MW steps. And they'll run for months on a single fuel loading.

Would this be a reactor in the unit itself ? I don't know much about trains but might it not be more feasible to build modern stationary atomic power plants to produce electricity, then feed that electricity to the rails (among other uses) and then just equip the rail line with electrics, Seems like it would be safer too, the reactor is maintained at one location instead of being in motion. And the train itself runs on clean, safe, electricit,

[N8YX]

John, from what I've gathered on the matter a 4-unit reactor construct would be roughly the size of the larger prime movers currently in use in modern diesel electric locomotives. Shielding may be tricky, but the reactor design itself is pretty safe.

[n2ize]

John, from what I've gathered on the matter a 4-unit reactor construct would be roughly the size of the larger prime movers currently in use in modern diesel electric locomotives. Shielding may be tricky, but the reactor design itself is pretty safe.

I don't doubt it's safe. But wouldn't it be even safer to have stationary PBR reactors and simply run electric trains ? Regardless of how safe it is there is always the possibility that an accident can occur breaching the shielding and result in unnecessary contamination in a vulnerable area.. And the locomotive itself wouldn't require special shielding or nuclear safety features since it would run on electric energy generated by stationary nuclear reactors. Seems like it would be cheaper to construct as well. Technically they would still be considered nuclear powered trains, only thing it the reactors wouldn't be onboard. I am thinking in terms of cost feasibility more so than safety which is nary a concern with modern PBR reactors.

Then again the idea of nuclear powered trains with onboard reactors sounds pretty cool. And modern nuclear reactors are perfectly save and foolproof. If anything goes wrong they shutdown by themselves. They produce next to no nuclear waste. And I suppose that even in a worst case catastrophe where the nuclear fuel is exposed it would be a simple matter to sweep it up, contain it, and possibly reuse it. Nuclear energy is the ultimate answer to our energy needs.

[kb2vxa]

On board reactors are safe as far as reactors go but dangerous as hell in a crash. Flasks for transporting nuclear material are practically indestructible and quite safe but putting a reactor in one in itself is a task for magicians. Then putting it in a locomotive along with all the equipment found in them already is Mission Impossible. Nice idea but like they say it won't fly. BTW down this way we already have atomic powered trains drawing power from JCP&L mains, the source is Oyster Creek Nuclear in Forked River. Now say it right, not "forkt" but "for-kid".

Oh Kel, when you said sweet steamy goodness I thought you were being a bit conceited.

[n2ize]

On board reactors are safe as far as reactors go but dangerous as hell in a crash.

That's why I tend to feel stationary reactors + electric locomotives are a more feasible alternative. 1 crash and the generally misinformed anti-nukers will be screaming bloody hell.



Flasks for transporting nuclear material are practically indestructible and quite safe but putting a reactor in one in itself is a task for magicians. Then putting it in a locomotive along with all the equipment found in them already is Mission Impossible. Nice idea but like they say it won't fly. BTW down this way we already have atomic powered trains drawing power from JCP&L mains, the source is Oyster Creek Nuclear in Forked River. Now say it right, not "forkt" but "for-kid".



Smart move. In general I feel modern stationary PBR reactors are the way to go. Not just for powering railroads but for general energy needs.

[WØTKX]

http://www.tomswift.info/homepage/atomicar.jpg

[kb2vxa]

Smart move? Not really, Oyster Creek came on line December 1 1969 making it the first nuke in the country. The Pennsylvania RR operated the New York & Long Branch RR which became NJT's North Jersey Coast Line with an engine change at South Amboy, from there to Bay Head everything was Diesel. The electricity was 25Hz generated by Con Edison in New York and south of Midway Tower near Princeton it came from Philadelphia Electric (PECO). In 1988 the line was electrified to Long Branch using 60Hz power from JCP&L mains, that's the atomic powered railroad. My remark was a bit facetious, we had atomic power 19 years before we had atomic trains. They ran out of money so it's still Diesel from Long Branch to Bay Head so electrics from New York stop across a platform from the Diesel shuttle, Diesel from Hoboken so those trains run straight through.

Never mind the no nukes crowd, they're a whole lot easier to deal with than fissionable material splashed all over the countryside in a train wreck. In a stationary reactor breach it's all in one place, from one traveling at 50mph (normal track speed) the footprint is enormous considering how far and wide pieces of locomotive are found. On stationary reactors I'm with you, modern technology doesn't even resemble Oyster Creek's enriched uranium fuel rod design. Now tell that to greenies living in the past.

[W3WN]

Smart move? Not really, Oyster Creek came on line December 1 1969 making it the first nuke in the country.
< snip >Ah, well, I think the folks in Shippingport might disagree with you on that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippingport_Atomic_Power_Station

[K7SGJ]

UP only had few turbine locos undergoing testing and they dropped them like a hot potato once it was discovered that the things burned almost as much fuel at idle as they did at full throttle.

Huh, I'd have just shut the thing off at red lights and stop signs; plus I doubt I would frequent any drive thrus either. Those can be real fuel burners.

[KB3ZGV]

Turbines are usually high power for their size and weight, but they are not very thermally efficient. Basically, they don't expand the hot gasses enough as they pass through the turbine blades. I am thinking typical expansion is about 4 to 1.

[kb2vxa]

"Ah, well, I think the folks in Shippingport might disagree with you on that."

OK, I "misspoke". I should have said Oyster Creek is the oldest operating plant in the US.

[NQ6U]

Steam power was pretty much gone by the time I was old enough to notice. I cut my teeth as a rail fan on these things:

http://wx4.org/to/foam/sp/san_jose/depot/comm_trns/id513.jpg

Fairbanks-Morse Trainmasters. They had weird horizontal opposed-piston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposed_piston_engine) engines (two crankshafts!) that had been designed to power submarines in WW ll. After the war, the company decided to try using them in diesel locmotives.

The cars in the picture were the classy SP Harriman cars that ran on the commute trains between San Jose and San Francisco for decades. Rode 'em many times myself.

[KG4CGC]

I rode the subways and trains of NYC and Buffalo for a short time between 1966 and 1968.

[n2ize]

Smart move? Not really, Oyster Creek came on line December 1 1969 making it the first nuke in the country.

First full scale atomic power plant came on line in Dec 1957 and ran till 82.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippingport_Atomic_Power_Station



The Pennsylvania RR operated the New York & Long Branch RR which became NJT's North Jersey Coast Line with an engine change at South Amboy, from there to Bay Head everything was Diesel. The electricity was 25Hz generated by Con Edison in New York and south of Midway Tower near Princeton it came from Philadelphia Electric (PECO). In 1988 the line was electrified to Long Branch using 60Hz power from JCP&L mains, that's the atomic powered railroad. My remark was a bit facetious, we had atomic power 19 years before we had atomic trains. They ran out of money so it's still Diesel from Long Branch to Bay Head so electrics from New York stop across a platform from the Diesel shuttle, Diesel from Hoboken so those trains run straight through.

Reminds me of the NYC subway system using rotary converters to convert AC to the DC supplied to the third rail. Most of them spun either 25 cycle AC or 60 cycle AC. The subway people prefered 25 cycle AC as it was less mechanical and electrical stress on the rotary converter. Matter of fact from what I was told the main reason for employing 25 cycle AC was for the benefit of the rotary converters. Later onj they switched to mercury vapour rectifiers to do the job. Nowadays I think they are using solid state rectifiers all the way,Nice thing about the rectifiers is no longer a need to generate 25 cycle AC. These days they just plug the subway system into the 60 cycle AC grid and let em roll. Not much different than a model railroader plugging in his trains and letting the transformers, solid state rectifiers and solid state electronic speed controllers do the rest.



Never mind the no nukes crowd, they're a whole lot easier to deal with than fissionable material splashed all over the countryside in a train wreck. In a stationary reactor breach it's all in one place, from one traveling at 50mph (normal track speed) the footprint is enormous considering how far and wide pieces of locomotive are found. On stationary reactors I'm with you, modern technology doesn't even resemble Oyster Creek's enriched uranium fuel rod design. Now tell that to greenies living in the past.

We're on the same page. Yeah, I think one of more stationary nuclear plants making electric makes more sense than a whole lot of reactors zipping along the tracks at 50 mph.

I've met some greenies who get it but yeah, there are many who are still envisioning the past and the early generation atomic reactors. Then, of course, there are those who are offended by the very words "nuclear", "atomic", or, "radiation" who will argue that anything that employs any radiation whatsoever, even so much as a smoke detector or a watch dial, or even power lines, is evil and a product of Satan himself. It's pretty funny when they say this kind of stuff with a cell phone pressed up against their heads and a portable wi-fi connected Mac computer in their laps.

[KB3ZGV]

Still 25 HZ on the main line from I believe below Philly, and up to Hellgate.

[n2ize]

Early elevated subway line in NYC. The 2nd and 3rd avenue el junctions. Notice the trains were actually pulled by small stem loco's back then.

http://images.nycsubway.org/icon/title_ny_earlyrapid.jpg

[HUGH]

Having been stuck for hours in an electric locomotive powered train in an ice storm and being rescued by a diesel multiple unit I have some preference for self-powered trains. I'm told that some new high-speed trains in Europe generate a lot of QRM, the equipment is rated as Industrial from an EMC point of view.

If you look up pebble-bed reactors, as I did to assemble a presentation, the basic fuel seems relatively safe as though it could be handled easily but not to be stored in large heaps. Clearly you couldn't have a truck delivering the pebbles to your home furnace in a giant heap without it cooking itself but in a locomotive, ship or submarine there would have to be a storage facility to prevent this. Spent fuel I assume would be returned fairly safely to be reprocessed.

[KC2UGV]

John, from what I've gathered on the matter a 4-unit reactor construct would be roughly the size of the larger prime movers currently in use in modern diesel electric locomotives. Shielding may be tricky, but the reactor design itself is pretty safe.

Yeah, with PBR's, any accident which disrupts the fuel causes it to lose criticality. It can't sustain itself. They are one of the safest reactors, which can only fail safely.

[KB3ZGV]

So with these nuke powered steam locomotives, what would you use for cooling the condensers?

[N8YX]

So with these nuke powered steam locomotives, what would you use for cooling the condensers?
Check out the Wiki article on South Africa's condenser-type steam locomotives. I imagine that similar technology would be employed.

[NQ6U]

Early elevated subway line in NYC.

Elevated subway line? Is that not just a bit of an oxymoron?

[n2ize]

Elevated subway line? Is that not just a bit of an oxymoron?
Strictly speaking you are correct. However, it's NYC vernacular. In NY the entire system is generally referred to as "the subway" regardless of whether it's running elevated above ground, at ground level, or underground. Above ground sections of the subway are often called "the el" (for elevated). But regardless of whether you're running on the el, a bridge crossing, or down in the tunnels it is always "the subway".

[n2ize]

Yeah, with PBR's, any accident which disrupts the fuel causes it to lose criticality. It can't sustain itself. They are one of the safest reactors, which can only fail safely.

This is why I think it's a great idea. Even if a train were to crash and somehow the pebbles were to spill (which is unlikely) the reactor will shut down and all you do is sweep up the pellets and re-use them. The pebbles themselves are not dangerous.