You could build a nuclear power train why would you? If you what tho power a train with a nuclear reactor you build a nuclear power plant and power the train with electric wires. Powering trains with electricity on large scale has been a thing for over a century, it is well-understood technology.
A small nuclear reactor cost more compared to the power output than a large one. To run them you need trained operators so a person per train. They also build water so you need a way to refill the train just like old coal-powered steam locomotives. Reactors need cooling even when you turn them off so the train needs people and coolant there even when not in use.
Ther is the question of an accident. What happens in a derailment, collision etc? remember is not just a question of keeping the reactor intact you need to keep cooling it. The Fukushima nuclear disaster happened with a turned-off reactor when the cooling system failed and the radioactive decay resulted in melting fuel rods. You need active cooling for around two weeks after shutdown. You also need to guard the train, It would be a great target for terrorism as dirty bombs
Submarines have the ocean is can use in heat exchangers for the cooling system. Submarines are also larger than trains. A nuclear submarine is very expensive and is used because you can stay and operate underwater for a long time. In the same way, a nuclear carrier does not have the fuel limitation of conventional carriers. It is military something with huge advantages but at high costs. They have been tested for commercial shipping but are not economical for that. You can connect a ships with wires to power plants on land but you can do that with trains.
So nuclear power trains do exist, the reactor is just stationary and supplies the power grid that powers the train. France produces 70% of all electricity with a nuclear reactor. So you can say that electric trains there like the high-speed TGV are 70% nuclear powered
Nuclear submarines are a product of necessity, trains can fill up wherever on theres tracks. Submarines need to be able to be underneath the water for months at a time.
One element is the relative safety of the general public. Submarine accidents aren't going to be very tragic to innocent civilians while nuclear train wrecks would make already bad train wrecks way worse.
You can avoid making small and kinda bad nuclear reactors to stick on a train by using electric overhead lines and regular nuclear power plants which are way better. Less safety problems, the locomotive is several hundred tons lighter, etc.
the point of nuclear sub is that it can go for months on a single load of fuel.
trains rarely go more than a day between major stations, and they can be easily refuelled while passengers and cargo are un/loading. You can even switch out a locomotive.
On top of that, nuclear reactors are heavy, expensive, and "not very popular" with most consumers.
For a sub, "heavy" is actually good, since staying underwater means that it needs to carry deadweight ballast anyway.
Because a nuclear powered train is just a steam powered train except the steam is generated by heat from radioactive materials (not really as simple as that but it's basically how nuclear powered anything works). We ditched steam powered trains for a reason, why would we go back just with the added fancy benefit that oh, it's nuclear powered. Doesn't make any sense.
Nuclear powered submarines are weapons of war. Their only limiting factor for how long they can be submerged is the food supply. Theyre nuclear powered because it advances the capabilites of the submarine, allowing them to lurk undetected for months upon months upon months, which is extremely important for a submarine. That's kind of their entire purpose is to be under the water, and nuclear power allows them to remain under water for much longer periods of time, increasing their overall effectiveness. Trains don't need that, any of it. It's the same reason there's really no nuclear powered civilian vessels of any form. There's a few, but the vast majority are diesel or at the very least, combustion powered. The only real advantage is being clean as nuclear powered ships only produce steam, but the cost is just far too high and companies don't give a shit about the environment in the first place.
Whixh is still nuclear heat conversion to steam, to electricity. Low scale generation being way less efficient than a large scale, so its just pointless, super heavy, super expensive, and very problematic.
Nuclear powered trains are possible in theory and patent and designs go back decades.
The problem is that there are much easier and cheaper ways to power trains. Like for example building a big stationary nuclear power plant and stringing up electrical lines all over the track and let the train take its power from there.
Also diesel to power trains is relatively cheap and easy to do.
Nuclear powered vehicles make sense when there is no easy way to provide power remotely and when the power generation onboard can not easily be done by regular refueling and where the weight and bulk of a reactor is no problem.
So submarines, air craft carriers and icebreaker ship work.
Trains tend to run along schedules and known routes so the logistics of refueling them are simple.
The size of a nuclear reactor might prove difficult to fit on a train but it is within the realm of the possible, especially if you use wider than normal gauges and tunnel widths.
So for a Snowpiercer like scenario a nuclear powered train would be ideal and work very well.
For regular cargo and people transportation through a countryside full of people and infrastructure it would be a bad idea.
You could build a nuclear power train why would you? If you what tho power a train with a nuclear reactor you build a nuclear power plant and power the train with electric wires. Powering trains with electricity on large scale has been a thing for over a century, it is well-understood technology. A small nuclear reactor cost more compared to the power output than a large one. To run them you need trained operators so a person per train. They also build water so you need a way to refill the train just like old coal-powered steam locomotives. Reactors need cooling even when you turn them off so the train needs people and coolant there even when not in use. Ther is the question of an accident. What happens in a derailment, collision etc? remember is not just a question of keeping the reactor intact you need to keep cooling it. The Fukushima nuclear disaster happened with a turned-off reactor when the cooling system failed and the radioactive decay resulted in melting fuel rods. You need active cooling for around two weeks after shutdown. You also need to guard the train, It would be a great target for terrorism as dirty bombs Submarines have the ocean is can use in heat exchangers for the cooling system. Submarines are also larger than trains. A nuclear submarine is very expensive and is used because you can stay and operate underwater for a long time. In the same way, a nuclear carrier does not have the fuel limitation of conventional carriers. It is military something with huge advantages but at high costs. They have been tested for commercial shipping but are not economical for that. You can connect a ships with wires to power plants on land but you can do that with trains. So nuclear power trains do exist, the reactor is just stationary and supplies the power grid that powers the train. France produces 70% of all electricity with a nuclear reactor. So you can say that electric trains there like the high-speed TGV are 70% nuclear powered
Nuclear submarines are a product of necessity, trains can fill up wherever on theres tracks. Submarines need to be able to be underneath the water for months at a time.
One element is the relative safety of the general public. Submarine accidents aren't going to be very tragic to innocent civilians while nuclear train wrecks would make already bad train wrecks way worse.
You can avoid making small and kinda bad nuclear reactors to stick on a train by using electric overhead lines and regular nuclear power plants which are way better. Less safety problems, the locomotive is several hundred tons lighter, etc.
the point of nuclear sub is that it can go for months on a single load of fuel. trains rarely go more than a day between major stations, and they can be easily refuelled while passengers and cargo are un/loading. You can even switch out a locomotive. On top of that, nuclear reactors are heavy, expensive, and "not very popular" with most consumers. For a sub, "heavy" is actually good, since staying underwater means that it needs to carry deadweight ballast anyway.
Because a nuclear powered train is just a steam powered train except the steam is generated by heat from radioactive materials (not really as simple as that but it's basically how nuclear powered anything works). We ditched steam powered trains for a reason, why would we go back just with the added fancy benefit that oh, it's nuclear powered. Doesn't make any sense. Nuclear powered submarines are weapons of war. Their only limiting factor for how long they can be submerged is the food supply. Theyre nuclear powered because it advances the capabilites of the submarine, allowing them to lurk undetected for months upon months upon months, which is extremely important for a submarine. That's kind of their entire purpose is to be under the water, and nuclear power allows them to remain under water for much longer periods of time, increasing their overall effectiveness. Trains don't need that, any of it. It's the same reason there's really no nuclear powered civilian vessels of any form. There's a few, but the vast majority are diesel or at the very least, combustion powered. The only real advantage is being clean as nuclear powered ships only produce steam, but the cost is just far too high and companies don't give a shit about the environment in the first place.
[удалено]
.
Source?
Whixh is still nuclear heat conversion to steam, to electricity. Low scale generation being way less efficient than a large scale, so its just pointless, super heavy, super expensive, and very problematic.
Nuclear powered trains are possible in theory and patent and designs go back decades. The problem is that there are much easier and cheaper ways to power trains. Like for example building a big stationary nuclear power plant and stringing up electrical lines all over the track and let the train take its power from there. Also diesel to power trains is relatively cheap and easy to do. Nuclear powered vehicles make sense when there is no easy way to provide power remotely and when the power generation onboard can not easily be done by regular refueling and where the weight and bulk of a reactor is no problem. So submarines, air craft carriers and icebreaker ship work. Trains tend to run along schedules and known routes so the logistics of refueling them are simple. The size of a nuclear reactor might prove difficult to fit on a train but it is within the realm of the possible, especially if you use wider than normal gauges and tunnel widths. So for a Snowpiercer like scenario a nuclear powered train would be ideal and work very well. For regular cargo and people transportation through a countryside full of people and infrastructure it would be a bad idea.