by Running, Fall Up on August 12th, 2005

Running, Fall Up

Question

Help answer this question below.

Why don't nuclear-powered locomotives exist to haul heavy loads?

  • Like
  • Report

Answers. 12 helpful answers below.

  • by Merry Walker on August 15th, 2005

    Merry Walker

    Power plants on moving vehicles have to be able to move their own weight first. A nuclear power plant would be incredibly heavy for a locomotive compared to the currently used engines, resulting in a net loss of payload weight. In addition, nuclear power plants are heavily regulated and expensive to both build and run, so they wouldn't be cost effective.

    Besides, can you imagine the outcry the environmentalists would make about the potential dangers?

    Shultz, what does that have to do with the question? Please remember to rate answers by how well they answer the question that's been asked.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by RedJohn on October 17th, 2005

    RedJohn

    Locomotive are either diesel-electric or electric. In a diesel-electric, the diesel motor turns a generator that provides electricity to traction motors mounted on the axles of the locomotive. Electric locomotives pick up power from an overhead caternary or a third rail. Direct mechanical and hydraulic drive systems have been tried with only limited long-term success.

    Nuclear power generates heat, which is used to boil water, which drives a steam turbine to generate electrcity. This is a very complicated and expensive system to install on a locomotive. Reactors are already used - they generate some of the electricity in the land-based electrical system that powers electric locomotives. It's far more efficient and safer than putting reactors and all of the ancilliary hardware right on the locomotive.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Running, Fall Up on August 16th, 2005

    Running, Fall Up

    Merry, nuclear reactors couldn't be extra heavy because it was light enough to fit in the trunk of an atomic, experimental car.

    Thus, if engineers were capable of fitting a reactor on a car, then they certainly are capable of fitting a reactor on a train. A reactor wasn't too heavy for a car, so "nuclear trains" can work too.

    But not politically. I won't argue with that. We'd hate for a derailment to cause a Chernobyl on rails. We'll just have to wait to get Fusion, a much safer power source (allegedly). Then again, that might be by the time we start to teleport cargo and not need trains anymore anyway.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by mosh01 on October 30th, 2008

    mosh01

    It's now been tested in Montréal (QC) by CAD Railway industries, I don't know who the client is...

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by BKMBKM on May 25th, 2009

    BKMBKM

    In a free market, nuclear power is too expensive compared to less expensive alternatives like diesel and diesel-electric. In regulated markets, mobile nuclear power would be impossible or prohibitively expensive. In such regulated markets it has proliferated only to navies in the marine market except for a single Russian non-military ice-breaker. Emmissions regulation as well as explicit government laws, nationalisation of railways, and government investment in rail infrastructure has resulted in the proliferation of electrified railways as well as a significant portion of the electricity being derived from nuclear reactors. In the less regulated US market, diesel-electric has proliferated. One of the reasons diesel is because diesel is more versatile: two locomotives can pull a heavy freight train across a plain, two to four more locomotives can be added to the consist to haul it over a pass. A nuclear locomotive would either be so underpowered as to be ineffective, or if it were high-powered the asset would be wasted as it traveled across the plain at some fraction of its capacity.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by mosh01 on October 30th, 2008

    mosh01

    It's now been tested in Montréal (QC) by CAD Railway industries, I don't know who the client is...

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Im Alec has abandoned this account on January 2nd, 2007

    Im Alec has abandoned this account

    The smallest power-generating nuclear reactors in current use are those powering nuclear submarines. Their size, roughly, determines the minimum size of these submarines - which is large. Since the Navy would almost certainly like to have smaller submarines (as well as the big ones - nobody wants small only), it is reasonable to assume that this is the smallest that a safe, fully shielded, nuclear reactor can be built with today's technology. But, thought they are far smaller than civil power reactors, are big - twelve or fifteen feed across - and heavy - hundreds of tons. They are therefore too big to put on a locomotive on existing rails - or probably on any land transport. They only make sense for marine transport. A more interesting question is why the new generation of huge container carriers, which seem to be bigger than they US's nuclear powered aircraft carriers, are not nuclear powered. I guess the answer would be public acceptance.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by johncooley on November 7th, 2010

    johncooley

    They could. There are available commercial nuclear reactors that are very light, small (the size of a large refrigerator), and furnish about 25,000 Hp. as steam energy which can be used to drive a steam turbine. These would be much lighter than current engines, esp. considering the fact that no fuel need be carried. The radioactivity is of a very low level, and the reactors are well shielded so that accidents would not be catastrophic. Refrence Hyperion Power for detailed information.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by tripwire on January 2nd, 2007

    tripwire

    I don't think it would be even considered. Imagine having hundreds of nuclear reactors hurtling through residential areas all across the country every day and night. Maintainance would be another problem, and then, god forbid, if there was an accident???? Forgedaboudit! *said in a good fellas type of accent*

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by meikant on January 2nd, 2007

    meikant

    mobile nuclear weapons? If the boiler blows up you have alpha beta and gammer radiation flying around its location, doesnt sound too crash hot

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by nevets - badgicide on January 2nd, 2007

    nevets - badgicide

    Its more efficient to have electric powered locomotives which are recharged at the electrical grid.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by johncooley on November 7th, 2010

    johncooley

    Share your answer...

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

You're reading Why don't nuclear-powered locomotives exist to haul heavy loads?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Nuclear powered train
Nuclear locomotive
Nuclear powered locomotive
Atomic locomotive
Practical nuclear powered train