# MISC | Nuclear powered trains



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

Has anyone else heard of these? Apparently there are a few countries trying to develop them (One of them Russia, go figure) but anyway, this sounds like a brilliant idea. It is one of the most efficient ways a train could be powered, and would save tons of diesel fuel and electricity. 

What are your thoughts?


----------



## Glodenox (Mar 26, 2007)

To be honest: I fear for when there would be an accident with such a train. Haven't heard of any such trains so far.

Greetings,
Glodenox


----------



## Zero Gravity (Dec 5, 2010)

Nuclear Power? Well in these days you may wonder, but back in the 50s they wanted to put a nice little nuclear reactor into everything, even your car should have one! 


*Why not make a thread about Trains powered by alternative means in general?*

Like trains powered by solar power, biomass, nuclear power, hydrogen, batteries/supercapacitors(there's a thread on that one i think) etc.

I would be especially interested in hydrogen, has anyone heard anything about something like this? 
And I have my doubts on nuclear power, atleast fission poses a lethal threat when the reactor breaks. Fusion on the other hand might me be interesting, but that's more like in 100 years. We haven't even built ITER yet :lol:


----------



## Railfan (Nov 15, 2006)

*Russia designs nuclear train*
2011-02-24









Photo: Thomas Nilsen

Sounds like a chapter in a science fiction book? Well,it’s not. Rosatom and Russian Railways are seriously developing a nuclear powered train.

Vice-president of Russian Railways (RZhD) Valentin Gapanovich says they will present the layout of the train by the end of this year. The train will consist of 11 wagons.

The engine of the train will be a small fast breeder reactor, and in its initial stage, the train will be a scientific exhibition complex.

The design is made by Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation, Rosatom.

- I looked at the design of the train, I liked it and I support the idea originally presented by Rosatom since it is a innovative way of develop nuclear energy, Gapanivich told Interfax.

The estimated cost of construction is still unclear, and nothing is yet said about the safety of such train.

This is not the first time the idea of a nuclear powered train is presented. Back in 1956, the Ministry of Transport of the USSR first time announced nuclear propulsion as a possibility for locomotives that could operate autonomously, without electricity or large amount of fuel. The Ministry then said such locomotives could be used in the High North and remote areas of Siberia, according to a back-ground article posted on the magazine Popularnaja Mehanika.

Another feature with the proposed nuclear powered train is that it can easily be converted to a mobile nuclear power plant, supplying energy to remote areas and industrial sites.

Russia is currently building the world’s first floating nuclear power plant. The barge to hold the reactors was set afloat in June last year at the yard in St. Petersburg.

The floating nuclear power plant is scheduled to be towed from St. Petersburg to the remote Russian Arctic region of Chukotka by the end of 2012, as previously reported by BarentsObserver.


----------



## Railfan (Nov 15, 2006)

*If you want to make a yourself nuclear locomotive!*
Rusian









American









http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=123883


----------



## Railfan (Nov 15, 2006)

The most convenient from my point of view, is to make a maglev train that uses an integrated nuclear battery being used, would allow to have economic magnets in the road and a lot of energy on board the train.

Nuclear battery that I propose would be similar to that used in space missions, placed in the middle of the train for safety.


----------



## SamuraiBlue (Apr 2, 2010)

Hate to say this but it is much more beneficial if power is supplied through the grid than carrying it on board due to massive weight gain.(Whatever the type of fuel it maybe)

One more thing if there is a nuclear power plant generating power into the grid then an EMU can be considered an atomic powered train since electricity powering the train is supplied from the grid.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I don't see the point of generating electricity inside a train (be it from diesel, uranium, ethanol) instead of generating it in far better industrial conditions and scale and deploying electricity to trains. Electricity distribution is a very efficient way to convey energy over long distances, and it takes away all the weight and security measures related to fire, spills, whatever other risks.


----------



## SamuraiBlue (Apr 2, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> I don't see the point of generating electricity inside a train (be it from diesel, uranium, ethanol) instead of generating it in far better industrial conditions and scale and deploying electricity to trains. Electricity distribution is a very efficient way to convey energy over long distances, and it takes away all the weight and security measures related to fire, spills, whatever other risks.


It's cost in investment for additional infrastructure that is a bxtch.
That is why >50% of Britain's rail is still not electrified not to mention the US which is still mostly diesel electric.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

SamuraiBlue said:


> It's cost in investment for additional infrastructure that is a bxtch.
> That is why >50% of Britain's rail is still not electrified not to mention the US which is still mostly diesel electric.


Short term expense for long term gain in my opinion. I'd much rather see electrification than nuclear power plants on rails that's for sure!

It is always going to be far less efficient to move the power plant with the train due to additional weight as others have stated, so all in all I agree with you.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

nuclear power is way more efficient than electricity I think, they both have their pros and cons but a nuclear reactor can go unfueled for months, electricity could be better used elsewere, 

for trains that weight 100's/1000's of tons, it's better for nuclear power to move such beastly weights than electricity. people are stickling on weight, a train is a train, it'll be heavy no matter what, a nuclear engine may add more weight but it will also have more efficient power, so it balances out.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Jay said:


> Has anyone else heard of these? Apparently there are a few countries trying to develop them (One of them Russia, go figure) but anyway, this sounds like a brilliant idea. It is one of the most efficient ways a train could be powered, and would save tons of diesel fuel and electricity.
> 
> What are your thoughts?


In France they move their high speed trains using nuclear power.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Jay said:


> nuclear power is way more efficient than electricity I think, they both have their pros and cons but a nuclear reactor can go unfueled for months, electricity could be better used elsewere,
> 
> for trains that weight 100's/1000's of tons, it's better for nuclear power to move such beastly weights than electricity. people are stickling on weight, a train is a train, it'll be heavy no matter what, a nuclear engine may add more weight but it will also have more efficient power, so it balances out.


What you forget is that in your nuclear train the nuclear reactor will be used to generate electricity, which will move the train. Just like in modern diesel engines. 
A modern diesel locomotive is in fact an electric locomotive, with it's own power plant. Electricity is very efficient when it comes to getting heavy weights to move. At some level of traffic and infrastructure costs it becomes more efficient to remove the power plant from the locomotive and have it in a central place, and distribute the electricity to the trains using overhead wires. This way many countries already use nuclear power to move trains.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Jay said:


> nuclear power is way more efficient than electricity I think, they both have their pros and cons but a nuclear reactor can go unfueled for months, electricity could be better used elsewere,
> 
> for trains that weight 100's/1000's of tons, it's better for nuclear power to move such beastly weights than electricity. people are stickling on weight, a train is a train, it'll be heavy no matter what, a nuclear engine may add more weight but it will also have more efficient power, so it balances out.


I am not sure you are aware how trains operate, but I apologize if I misunderstood your knowledge. Modern trains always run on electricity. The engines are electric, and electricity is the only way to power multiple-unit powered trains, those that have traction distributed along the train instead of concentrated in a locomotive. 

Even modern locomotives, used to power "inert" train cars/wagons, concentrating all power in one car, are usually electric. "Diesel trains" are not like cars or trucks that rely on mechanical transmission and gear to transfer energy to the wheels straight from an internal combustion engine which displaces pistons that move an axle. "Diesel trains" are usually comprised by so-called "diesel-electric" units, that generate electricity on a diesel generator. Everything else (or almost) is identical to an otherwise "electric train" that draws power from lines.

So a nuclear-powered train, AFAIK, could only be conceived as an on-site electricity generator that will power the train. The source of electricity is rather irrelevant if you can provide it. 

While diesel-electric trains have some increased risks, particular the risk of fire and limitation of running in very long tunnels due to air poisoning, nuclear-electric trains would have other set of problems, starting with safety issues. In case of a catastrophic collision, having a diesel train catch fire is a nightmare, but having a small nuclear reactor blown apart is much, much worse. So you'd need extremely resistant structures.

So I really don't see a point of using dozens of small reactors in tightly protected compartments on trains instead of installing a mid-size reactor and electrifying all the rail line.


----------



## Suissetralia (Oct 13, 2010)

I don't see the point in this either. I am no physicist but I guess it's way more efficient to generate the necessary electricity for 500 trains in a large-scale nuclear power plant and then distribute it to every train than having 500 small power plants moving around the country. Not to mention all the safety problems related to this, from having to control 500 nuclear power plants in changing positions, to following uranium distribution for terrorism-related issues and keeping the reactor safe after crashes as well as providing the train with water to keep the generator cool at all times.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

Suburbanist said:


> Even modern locomotives, used to power "inert" train cars/wagons, concentrating all power in one car, are usually electric. "Diesel trains" are not like cars or trucks that rely on mechanical transmission and gear to transfer energy to the wheels straight from an internal combustion engine which displaces pistons that move an axle. "Diesel trains" are usually comprised by so-called "diesel-electric" units, that generate electricity on a diesel generator. Everything else (or almost) is identical to an otherwise "electric train" that draws power from lines.
> .


But they still use fossil fuels, something that would be better conserving. Solar power could never work because trains run at night and in cloudy weather. Hydrogen could be a possibility I guess... 


Aircraft Carriers use nuclear reactors for example, it seems like a more practical way of moving something weiging 1000s of tons like a freight train rather than burning massive amounts of fossil fuel or electricity. 


I just don't see maglev trains being the future as the infrastructure for them is just too expensive and complicated.


----------



## Alseimik (Aug 30, 2010)

^^ Hydrogen is very possible! Its storage of Hydrogen that's the problem.

Denmark had a plan few years ago to develop simply hydrogen engines for slower regional trains, to test in commercial. Then, the wrong political choices was made, and these engines was never build.

Furthermore, Denmark is leading the way with Hydrogen storage, let the hydrogen combine with a certain salt. No high pressure tanks, no risk of explosion. This technology is very promising for all hydrogen technologies. a wikipedia article appears only in Danish sadly: http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brintpille


----------



## FlyFish (Feb 1, 2007)

Suissetralia said:


> I don't see the point in this either. I am no physicist but I guess it's way more efficient to generate the necessary electricity for 500 trains in a large-scale nuclear power plant and then distribute it to every train than having 500 small power plants moving around the country. Not to mention all the safety problems related to this, from having to control 500 nuclear power plants in changing positions, to following uranium distribution for terrorism-related issues and keeping the reactor safe after crashes as well as providing the train with water to keep the generator cool at all times.


Agreed, this is a silly notion.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Jay said:


> But they still use fossil fuels, something that would be better conserving. Solar power could never work because trains run at night and in cloudy weather. Hydrogen could be a possibility I guess...
> 
> 
> Aircraft Carriers use nuclear reactors for example, it seems like a more practical way of moving something weiging 1000s of tons like a freight train rather than burning massive amounts of fossil fuel or electricity.
> ...


But I am not advocating diesel-electric trains instead of nuclear-electric trains. I am saying is that if you are to use nuclear fission to provide energy for trains, it is better to have a centralized plant where you have more control, more gains of scale and more efficiency and then distribute power via wires to the trains while they move.

There is no such viable system (yet?) of conveying electric power in-situ for water and let alone air vehicles. If it existed, most concerns of long-term future or air industry would be 80% solved.


----------



## 2co2co (Apr 8, 2008)

If there is a reactor in a package, would it be easier to put int on a locomotive? http://gigaom.com/cleantech/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Jay said:


> Aircraft Carriers use nuclear reactors for example, it seems like a more practical way of moving something weiging 1000s of tons like a freight train rather than burning massive amounts of fossil fuel or electricity.


How do you propose to move a train using nuclear power that does not involve using that power to produce electricity first?


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

neat.

I guess a nuclear powered train would effectively be a steam train as well. Only instead of burning a fuel, there would be a reactor supplying heat to the boiler instead. Of course it would probably be some kind of turbine powering electric traction motors, so no pistons or choo choo sounds  But yeah, shovel some more uranium in there, casey jones.

Retrofuturistic in more ways than one, really. Also, it should totally look like that black armor train from Goldeneye.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

K_ said:


> How do you propose to move a train using nuclear power that does not involve using that power to produce electricity first?


Well, the same way as in the large US aircraft carriers, I guess... The nuclear
reactor produces heat, which is used to generate steam, which is used to 
make turbines rotate, which, after suitable speed reduction, rotate the propeller shafts. Change "propeller" into "wheel", and you have indeed a nuclear-powered loco that does not use electricity.

Whether that would be feasible remains to be seen. But it would definitely
be less expensive than using electricity : with that solution, all the steam 
gear has to be kept, and the turbines rotate generators which themselves
power electric motors.

To evaluate the cost and complexity of such a system, one often uses the
ratio between installed power and output power.

In a diesel-electric locomotive, the ratio is 3 : the output power is the power
of the traction motors, and the installed power is 3 times that : diesel engine
+ generator + traction motors.

For a "direct steam" nuclear loco, the ratio is 2 : the output power is the
power of the turbine, and the installed power is 2 times that : nuclear 
reactor + turbine (you may argue it is 3 and not 2 because of the
presence of the speed reduction gear).

For an "electro-nuclear" loco, the ratio would be 4 : the output power is the
power of the traction motors, and the installed power is 4 times that : 
nuclear reactor + turbine + generator + traction motors (again, you may
argue it's 5 and not 4 because of the unavoidable speed reduction gear
between the turbine and the generator).

The ratio between installed power and useful power is a very important
indication on how heavy, how complex, and how expensive a system will
be. As cost, wheight, and complexity are things to be avoided, specially
on a locomotive, then we may assume that if it is technically feasable,
the "electro-nuclear" solution will be avoided on locomotives... like it has
been avoided on aircraft carriers and other nuclear vessels.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Also, Jay, next time you start a thread, please post a link to it in the thread finder. It makes my job of archiving all discussions in this part of the forum much easier. Thanks.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

MarcVD said:


> Well, the same way as in the large US aircraft carriers, I guess... The nuclear
> reactor produces heat, which is used to generate steam, which is used to
> make turbines rotate, which, after suitable speed reduction, rotate the propeller shafts. Change "propeller" into "wheel", and you have indeed a nuclear-powered loco that does not use electricity.


Steam is far less controllable than electric power. Which is the reason by which, way before diesel engines came around, many railways were electrified so they could provide better service than steam locos.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> Steam is far less controllable than electric power. Which is the reason by which, way before diesel engines came around, many railways were electrified so they could provide better service than steam locos.


Sure... But here you would have steam anyway, like in any thermal
power plant. So why would you want to insert an electrical transmission
between the turbines and the wheels while the turbines could make the
wheels rotate directly ? Remember also that each transformation of
power introduces its own losses... Why would you do thermal-mechanical-
electrical-mechanical while thermal-mechanical could perfectly do it ?
If that had any interest, dear US Navy would for sure have done it
for its aircraft carriers, wouldn't it?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

MarcVD said:


> Sure... But here you would have steam anyway, like in any thermal
> power plant. So why would you want to insert an electrical transmission
> between the turbines and the wheels while the turbines could make the
> wheels rotate directly ? Remember also that each transformation of
> ...


Losses on those 2 conversions are much lower than losses on the deploying of pressurized steam on wheels. It is a matter of mechanical engineering: use of steam as conveyor of energy in industrial processes was largely overtaken by use of other hydraulic and electric systems that offer greater control, though it still have many applications.

For starters, you can't have multiple-units, where apparently the future of high-speed trainsets is laid. 

Then, you have the whole issue of synchronizing wheels. Remember that any potential problem with the reactor leaking into the boiling system would mean an automatic, outright nuclear contamination. Not safe, for sure.

Finally, you'd still need to generate electricity for all the systems in the train anyway. Surely, a minor part of overall consumption, but you still need it as you don't want to run trains without electricity onboard.


----------



## SamuraiBlue (Apr 2, 2010)

MarcVD said:


> Sure... But here you would have steam anyway, like in any thermal
> power plant. So why would you want to insert an electrical transmission
> between the turbines and the wheels while the turbines could make the
> wheels rotate directly ? Remember also that each transformation of
> ...


Here is something I wrote in another thread concerning the demise of steam locomotive which I believe have some relevance to this subject.



> It is said that it was the greatest invention in the industrialized era revolutionizing the way we travel reaching stellar peak with the development of the 4468 Mallard but at the same time the introduction of electric locomotives at the turn of the 20th century and later diesel-electric locomotives spelled the beginning of the end for steam locomotives which was considerably less thermal efficiency than modern diesels, requiring constant maintenance and labor to keep them operational.
> *Water was required at many points* throughout a rail network and becomes a major problem. The reciprocating mechanism on the driving wheels of a two-cylinder single expansion steam locomotive tended to *pound the rails*, thus requiring more maintenance.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

MarcVD said:


> In a diesel-electric locomotive, the ratio is 3 : the output power is the power
> of the traction motors, and the installed power is 3 times that : diesel engine
> + generator + traction motors.
> 
> ...


Your ratios aren't correct. For one thing, the efficiency of nuclear plants is usually quite low (because the heat they produce is so cheap there is no need to be efficient). The Nimitz class aircraft carriers have two 500MWt reactors, for a shaft output of 168MW...
And diesel electrics are more efficient than you mention here. The electric drivetrain is quite efficient (or everyone would be buying diesel hydraulics.).


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> Losses on those 2 conversions are much lower than losses on the deploying of pressurized steam on wheels. It is a matter of mechanical engineering: use of steam as conveyor of energy in industrial processes was largely overtaken by use of other hydraulic and electric systems that offer greater control, though it still have many applications.


The same losses apply when you deploy pressurized steam on turbines
coupled to generators to produce electricity.



Suburbanist said:


> For starters, you can't have multiple-units, where apparently the future of high-speed trainsets is laid.


Why is that ? And by the way, the need for multiple units is essentially
caused by the impossibility to produce a powerful enough diesel engine.
With a nuclear reactor, you will certainly end up with a unit that has enough
power to work solo.



Suburbanist said:


> Then, you have the whole issue of synchronizing wheels. Remember that any potential problem with the reactor leaking into the boiling system would mean an automatic, outright nuclear contamination. Not safe, for sure.


You are anyway under the same risk with the steam used to extract 
energy from the reactor to produce electricity.



Suburbanist said:


> Finally, you'd still need to generate electricity for all the systems in the train anyway. Surely, a minor part of overall consumption, but you still need it as you don't want to run trains without electricity onboard.


Sure, but that's only a very small part of the total power output, for which
reliability is far more important than efficiency. If the loco used electrical
transmission, the generation of electricity for on-board systems would
probably be separated from the generation of traction current anyway.
Simply because you need 3-phase variable voltage & frequency for traction, and 1-phase fixed voltage and frequency for auxiliaries. This is how it is
made in modern diesel units today.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

K_ said:


> Your ratios aren't correct. For one thing, the efficiency of nuclear plants is usually quite low (because the heat they produce is so cheap there is no need to be efficient). The Nimitz class aircraft carriers have two 500MWt reactors, for a shaft output of 168MW...
> And diesel electrics are more efficient than you mention here. The electric drivetrain is quite efficient (or everyone would be buying diesel hydraulics.).


It doesn't matter. You use that to make comparisons, so the result remains
the same.

Efficiency of nuclear power has nothing to do with what you say. Every
machine using heat has an efficiency limited by Carnot's formula, which,
for usual operating conditions, amounts to approximately one third. You'll note
that 168 is approximately the third of 500. So the nuclear kettle of US aircraft
carriers have indeed been engineered to extract the maximum possible...

I never said that diesel electrics are not efficient. The efficiency of a couple
generator + electrical motor is about the same as the one of an hydraulic
transmission. Railroads do not buy these for road engines simply because
nobody can build an hydraulic transmission that can whitstand the power of
the diesel engines we can build today. For shunting engines, the
story is different, because the power required is less important. In Europe,
almost all shunting locs are diesel hydraulics.

The complexity factor I mentioned does not in fact drive the total efficiency,
but it drives the wheight, and the cost.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

MarcVD said:


> Efficiency of nuclear power has nothing to do with what you say. Every
> machine using heat has an efficiency limited by Carnot's formula, which,
> for usual operating conditions, amounts to approximately one third. You'll note
> that 168 is approximately the third of 500. So the nuclear kettle of US aircraft
> carriers have indeed been engineered to extract the maximum possible...


Well, the thermal power of the Nimitz's reactors is 2x500MWt, so the efficiency of the plant is only about 15%. Nuclear plants are engineered for safety and reliability, not for thermal efficiency as they produce huge amounts of heat for next to nothing anyway.

The thermal efficiency of big Diesels however is starting to get close to 50% though.
The Thermal efficiency of a large thermal power plant is also higher, with modern gas fired plants getting almost 55% nowadays. 
So if you are going to power trains using nuclear power, the best way to do this is the way the French do it.

Interestingly diesel-electric propulsion is becoming more common in cruise ships (and navy ships) these days.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

MarcVD said:


> Why is that ? And by the way, the need for multiple units is essentially
> caused by the impossibility to produce a powerful enough diesel engine.
> With a nuclear reactor, you will certainly end up with a unit that has enough
> power to work solo.


I don't think you could build a more powerfull unit that way, nor would it be desirable. A major reason for running engines in multiple unit is not to get enough power, but to get enough powered axles, to get enough traction. 

I doubt designing a nuclear powered engine would enable you to get a compact powerful engine anyway. On problem is the cooling requirement. If you have a 40MWt reactor powering a 6MW locomotive you need to get rid of about 34MW in heat. And that alone will entail a couple of cooling trailers...


----------



## stingstingsting (Jun 5, 2010)

WOW.

When I first saw the title of this thread and that it had 2 pages of comments, I was a bit blown away and thought "Oh my what a ridiculous topic. Everyone must be expressing their disdain."

Lo and behold, I was quite surprised to find out that it is kind of realistic to have a nuclear reactor on a train, just that it might be a tad controversial, to say the least. Well, you learn something new everyday


----------



## Zero Gravity (Dec 5, 2010)

stingstingsting said:


> WOW.
> 
> When I first saw the title of this thread and that it had 2 pages of comments, I was a bit blown away and thought "Oh my what a ridiculous topic. Everyone must be expressing their disdain."
> 
> Lo and behold, I was quite surprised to find out that it is kind of realistic to have a nuclear reactor on a train, just that it might be a tad controversial, to say the least. Well, you learn something new everyday


Well, technically I think it's certainly possible. But I doubt it would be economical in any way...at least when using it for normal freight services.

However maybe this would be something for the military, like setting up mobile bases in the middle of nowhere and the reactor in the train generates the electricity for the whole base


----------



## XAN_ (Jan 13, 2011)

Zero Gravity said:


> Well, technically I think it's certainly possible. But I doubt it would be economical in any way...at least when using it for normal freight services.
> 
> However maybe this would be something for the military, like setting up mobile bases in the middle of nowhere and the reactor in the train generates the electricity for the whole base


 Well, in USSR it was a project to use a nuclear loco together with a ICBM-launching train (last one was actually build and can be seen in S.-Peterburg railway museum, AFAIK). The scope was to provide the maximal autonomous operation time - with a nuclear loco it was possible to keep the entire complex operational for years without refuel, while classic diesel-electric traction provided only 28 days.

But s project of nuclear locomotive was considered unsafe, thus never built.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Ahhhh, aren't many trains, especially in France, already nuclear-powered?

oke:

What percentage of France's electric power consumption comes from nuclear power plants?

Mike


----------



## Railfan (Nov 15, 2006)




----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

As was sort of touched on before, weight is also an issue with this method of power production. It's why nuclear-powered planes and (non-military, with the exception of some icebreakers) naval vessels never took off. For every extra pound of its own weight a vehicle has to move, there's a correspondant reduction in maximum payload capacity. The weight of all the shielding that would be necessary to make such a train passably safe would significantly reduce the weight of the cargo (or passengers) that could be moved at whatever speed, ergo reduced revenue.

As much as the pro-nuclear and retro-futurist in me loves the idea of nuke-powered everything, I can't disagree with the issues that others have brought up, issues that make that Googie dream unfeasible.

And btw Railfan, I *love* that poster.


----------



## XAN_ (Jan 13, 2011)

mgk920 said:


> Ahhhh, aren't many trains, especially in France, already nuclear-powered?
> 
> oke:
> 
> ...


That's a point. The rise of mass high speed trains both in France and Japan tightly linked with cheap nuclear energy. But we hold discussion about on-board nuclear reactors.


----------

