I have read and watched a video on youtube about the X-12 a nuclear powered train designed by Lyle Benjamin Borst in the 1950s. I find it fascinating about a Nuclear train. a 360 ton locomotive 200 of it goes to the reactor chamber alone. well we all know that nuclear trains were not going to work because well we all know why. Germany, UK and USSR has their own designs for them. I'm torn about this I do find it a shame that one was never built and tested on the other hand it was probably for the best. it would a piece of science-fiction turned into a reality and Dr. Borst was without a doubt a very smart man.



https://youtu.be/s9_5hqVIxVU?si=1a-a5musMwAlHbBW

No, we don't. Explain.

And never assume.

the reasons why the X-12 was never built 1. the extreme danger that it possess like radiation to the crew and to the public. If the train derail or get into a crash would the containment shield hold? and theoretically the answer is yes but without confirm answer the public/crew wouldn't feel safe. 2. the cost Dr. Borst claim that the cost of building one would cost $1.2million in 1952 which would be twice as much than a 4 unit lash-up. The refueling would be time comsumming and have to take extreme caution when refueling and storing it. the cost of maintenance alone would out way the fuel savings.

the danger and cost of maintenance didn't make the X-12 attractive for the railroads. the X-12 was never built.

The practically insurmountable problem with nuclear locomotives is radiation shielding versus loading gauge.

Radiation exposure can be limited by time, distance and shielding. Time of exposure and distance from the reactor are pretty much impossible to limit with a locomotive, leaving shielding as the one way of limiting radiation exposure. The required thickness is dictated by the power output of the reactor and basic physics.

Shielding the crew isn’t such a big problem because you can make the locomotive longer or divide it into multiple units to accommodate the required thickness of shielding to the front and rear. The thickness of shielding on the sides, top, and bottom of the reactor is limited by the loading gauge. It would be impossible to provide adequate shielding to limit the radiation exposure to people sitting in their cars at railroad crossings when a locomotive went past at low speed with the reactor(s) at full power.

A much more practical way to use nuclear power for railroads is to build stationary nuclear power plants and use electric locomotives.

As seen in 70s disaster TV, SUPERTRAIN.

Nuclear power is just an incredibly expensive and dangerous way to boil water.

As opposed to all the other ones that consume valuable petrochemical resources and destroy the planet over time? Or lead to massive losses of efficiency in dependability and storage and/or transmission?

In broad philosophical and global terms, the only difference between nuclear power and all the other forms of power (other than geothermal) is the massive concentration of both efficiency and hazard.

But, yeah, the only way to apply this to railroading is via electrification, not "mini-reactors." (Same for wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc.)

Three Mile Island nuclear plant is near the Amtrak Harrisburg Line at Royalton. This is where PRR passenger line via Elizabethtown (now AMTK) meets the freight line vis Columbia (now NS). You could watch the construction from the train.

Despite the proximity, AMTK did not draw power from TMI, except through the grid. PRR did and AMTK still does draw power from two of the turbines at Safe Harbor Dam. These generate 25 Hz power without need for a converter.

So much for nuclear.

Phil Mulligan

Fear not! It's soon to be back.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/0 ... microsoft/

Microsoft made a deal with Constellation energy to restart TMI (well the unit that didn't have the issue).

I'm amused how energy conservation is an imperative, until it's necessary to power the megalomaniac nocturnal emissions of our tech overlords.

What could go wrong? Windows ME, Windows CE, the Zune and "The Blue Screen of Death" all came from Micro$oft.

Anybody seen Dr. Gates lately?

Anyone have technical information on Alco's A-100 (Alco was notable for re-inventing itself as a 'nuclear' company, so it would be likely that thrie solution was a lot better than Lyle Borst's.)

The running gear of the A-100 in the illustration I've seen looks very similar to the PRR S2. I doubt that the NSSS used involved the highly-enriched U-235 of Borts's version.