Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Walter_Sobchak

If Collimatrix had his own train, it would be something like this.

Recommended Posts

More like this:

 

VOkvbPG.jpg

Nuclear reactor in the front, tubine and generator in the middle and near rear part of locomotive. Train driver would be located in rear part, on top of all that marvel.

 

xXB2rJg.jpg

 

 

 

In fact, in 1983 USSR started design program for nuclear train (nuclear-powered trains were called Atomovoz). 

 

"By 1985, a variant of atomovoz was designed, with nuclear powerplant based on a fast neutron reactor BOR-60 (thermal capacity of 60 MW, 10 MW of electrical power). Locomotive consisted of three sections: middle - with 4-axial carts carrying a nuclear reactor; first and last sections were to be upgraded locomotive 2TE116, with auxiliary diesel and turbine generators. Weight of the reactor and biological protection was 140 tons. For the middle section designers planned to use parts of TEM7 locomotive." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Metal cooled reactors have several advantages over pressurized water reactors. For one, their power density is greater, additionally, the coolant is unpressurized, improving safety.
       
      However, there are some downsides. The Soviets' Project 705 class submarines were powered by liquid metal reactors utilizing a lead-bismuth alloy as coolant. This alloy had a freezing temperature of roughly 400K. As a result, the reactors had to be run constantly, even while the submarines were in port (there were facilities to provide superheated steam to the reactors while the subs were docked, but they broke down and were never repaired). This reduces the lifetime of the reactor. Another coolant choice which has been used operationally is NaK (Sodium-Potassium). This alloy is liquid at room temperature, but reacts violently with water or air. I'm not an expert, but this seems like a bad thing.
       
       
      It seems to me that if appropriate coolants could be found, it seems that liquid metal fast reactors could see more widespread acceptance. To my untrained eye, gallium looks like a good choice. Its melting point is relatively close to room temperature (~303K), and the boiling point is quite high (over 2600K). Also, gallium is less reactive than sodium or other alkali metals. It appears that there has been some research on this topic: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149197000000640(unfortunately, the article is behind a paywall), and it looks quite promising.
       
      Anybody have any opinions on this, or suggestions for alternative coolants?
    • By LostCosmonaut
      During the Cold War, many neutral states made efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Very few of these resulted in a working bomb. One of these failures was Switzerland; http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Swissdoc.html
       
      Interestingly, the Swiss also managed to cock up their nuclear power program; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucens_reactor
    • By Priory_of_Sion
      The Manhattan Project gets all the glory(it deserves it), but the Soviets quickly developed their own atomic weapons. They had some help through espionage, but I think it might be another piece of McCarthyism to dismiss Soviet atomic scientists. 
       
      Here is a post on the Nuclear Secrecy Blog on the early program. Good insight, but not the end-all-be-all of information on the subject. 

      A Model of the First Lightning/Joe 1 bomb?
    • By LostCosmonaut
      This thread is for discussion of ICBM basing options, as outlined in the linked paper (written in 1980).
       
      While some of them seem absurd (dirigible basing!), others appear to be more realistic.
×
×
  • Create New...