'Climate Change' and the coming 'Climate Lockdown'

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
How would cooling work on a train?

Don't ships just cycle sea water through?

A bit ignorant as to the exact mechanics.
You get a lot better efficiency using other materials than water for coolant, so something like molten salt would be the reactor coolant, which would flash-boil water into steam, which would power the steam engine and then escape taking the heat with it. Reactors typically have two loops so that one loop, fully contained, is exposed to radiation while the second loop that evaporates is never exposed to any radioactive material and thus is safe to release. The higher efficiency from a denser coolant would enable making the reactor more compact.

They'll have a tank of water, either built into the locomotive or as the first car behind the locomotive depending on the volume needed. This would basically be the equivalent of an old-school reactor's coolant pond. It may potentially be worth a huge tank since it could go for years without having to refuel, hence it could cross an entire continent, even travel from China all the way to the Atlantic without a stop if that was most profitable. I'm not sure if the logistics would matter in terms of fewer stops or if reducing weight with a smaller reservoir would be more beneficial.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
That's just the reactor. That does not include the several ft. of concrete and lead shielding which surrounds it.

EDIT: A min. of 6'2" of the 10ft width will be concrete and lead - which is on the thin side of acceptable too - leaving just 3'10" max. width for what gets stuffed inside it. Max height isn't much better because it's 16'0" from top-of-rail to top-of-locomotive. That's what I mean by pushing it.
 
Last edited:

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
That's just the reactor. That does not include the several ft. of concrete and lead shielding which surrounds it.

EDIT: A min. of 6'2" of the 10ft width will be concrete and lead - which is on the thin side of acceptable too - leaving just 3'10" max. width for what gets stuffed inside it. Max height isn't much better because it's 16'0" from top-of-rail to top-of-locomotive. That's what I mean by pushing it.
Do you seriously think submarines go around with several feet of concrete around the reactor? That's the whole module with shielding. They use concrete in stationary power plants because it's cheap while bulk and mass matter little for a building, not because it's the most efficient shielding.
How would cooling work on a train?

Don't ships just cycle sea water through?

A bit ignorant as to the exact mechanics.
Sea water? Oof, the corrosion would be nasty, sea water is only an emergency measure. Western ones use closed loop clean water except USS Seawolf and some other nation's use liquid metals like sodium.
 
Last edited:

bintananth

behind a desk
Do you seriously think submarines go around with several feet of concrete around the reactor? That's the whole module with shielding. They use concrete in stationary power plants because it's cheap while bulk and mass matter little for a building, not because it's the most efficient shielding.
Yes, because the reactor isn't the only thing which needs shielding. The primary coolant loop and steam generator also need shielding.

BTW, the smallest nuclear sub - NR-1 -
had nuke plant that might fit railroad locomotive dimensional constraints but a locomotive with it won't be powerful enough to do much of anything or remotely close to even somewhat resembling "cost effective".

NR-1 was a one-off research vessel capable of a mere 3.5kts submerged. It was so slow it needed to be towed out to sea.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Yes, because the reactor isn't the only thing which needs shielding. The primary coolant loop and steam generator also need shielding.
Minimal compared with the reactor, and with less restriction in shape.
BTW, the smallest nuclear sub - NR-1 -
had nuke plant that might fit railroad locomotive dimensional constraints but a locomotive with it won't be powerful enough to do much of anything or remotely close to even somewhat resembling "cost effective".

NR-1 was a one-off research vessel capable of a mere 3.5kts submerged. It was so slow it needed to be towed out to sea.
The whole submarine's pressure hull would almost fit the dimensional constraints, so there is room for a much more capable plant.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
NR-1 was also built in 1969, the state of the art has advanced a bit since then.
In terms of power, a Virginia-class SSN to a railroad locomotive is 20:1. Square-cube that down: ~37% linear dimensions and ~13.6% surface area to get ~5.0% the power.

Nuclear reactors like to be big and stationary not small and mobile.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
In terms of power, a Virginia-class SSN to a railroad locomotive is 20:1. Square-cube that down: ~37% linear dimensions and ~13.6% surface area to get ~5.0% the power.

Nuclear reactors like to be big and stationary not small and mobile.
I've heard there's quite a bit of train robbery going on but even so, I don't believe that locomotives currently carry 65 torpedoes, 12 Tomahawk missiles in VLS tubes, advanced sonar systems, 135 soldiers, and supplies for those soldiers for several months. I suspect that takes up a bit of space and makes the Virginia-class a bit larger than just its reactor size.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
I've heard there's quite a bit of train robbery going on but even so, I don't believe that locomotives currently carry 65 torpedoes, 12 Tomahawk missiles in VLS tubes, advanced sonar systems, 135 soldiers, and supplies for those soldiers for several months. I suspect that takes up a bit of space and makes the Virginia-class a bit larger than just its reactor size.
That's plant dimensions. Don't be obtuse.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
In terms of power, a Virginia-class SSN to a railroad locomotive is 20:1. Square-cube that down: ~37% linear dimensions and ~13.6% surface area to get ~5.0% the power.

Nuclear reactors like to be big and stationary not small and mobile.
That's an incredibly inaccurate assumption to make, considering what a small portion of a nuclear submarine, especially a US one, is devoted to the reactor and power generation.
navycutaway.jpg

What interests us here are the reactor compartment and about half of the machinery space, as a train doesn't need acoustically dampened gearing for a giant screw. That would add up to roughly a quarter of the submarine's length. Obviously it's silly to count the section with cruise missile launchers or crew quarters for scaling it to a train.
Not to mention that a locomotive could "outsource" some of the reactor support equipment to an additional carriage or two, connected to the locomotive by electrical and/or steam connections.
And if that's not enough, put the bulky items on something like this:
And if we want a small scale reactor, there are also even more slimmed down aircraft experiments to compare to, note that this is mere 50's tech:
The original crew and avionics cabin was replaced by a massive lead- and rubber-lined 11 ton crew section for a pilot, copilot, flight engineer and two nuclear engineers. Even the small windows had 25-to-30-centimeter-thick (10–12 in) lead glass.[1][8][9][10] The aircraft was fitted with a 1-megawatt air-cooled reactor, with a weight of 35,000 pounds (16,000 kg).[11] This was hung on a hook in the middle bomb bay to allow for easy loading and unloading, so that the radioactive source could be kept safely underground between the test flights.[7] A monitoring system dubbed "Project Halitosis" measured radioactive gases from the reactor.[12]
tu95lal0na.jpg
 

bintananth

behind a desk
I'm not being obtuse, your numbers are ridiculously off.

A Virginia-class's reactor produces 210 MW.

An EMD-SD70 Locomotive produces 3,000 kW.

For output we're not looking at 5%, we're looking at 1.5%. For dimensions... I'd like to see your numbers on exactly how large you think an S9G reactor actually is.
That's thermal output, which a locomotive doesn't care about. Those care about shaft output, which for a Virginia's plant is ~80,000hp.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
That's thermal output, which a locomotive doesn't care about. Those care about shaft output, which for a Virginia's plant is ~80,000hp.
Again, you make no sense. The locomotive uses electric engines, it cares about total electricity. It doesn't need life support, sonar, weapons, etc. so it doesn't need to throw electricity at all the things the Virginia does and can devote more of its reactor power to shaft output.

And you still haven't given us any of your calculations for physical dimensions here.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Look, making a reactor that can fit and work in a locomotive is not that hard a technical challenge.

Making said system safe against all the things that are regularly encountered by locomotives and safe against bad actors is a different question.

Realistically for something locomotive sized, the Helion opposing pulsed-fussion design, if it can be made energy positive, would be much more practical and safe, compared to pretty much any fission design.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Unrealistically, I've been a fan of theorizing about fast-neutron subcritical backpack reactors. Literally a bomb in slow motion, lovely justification for Atompunk action sequences with random vehicles exploding.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top