Whats in your back yard? the nuclear train

[lukedeaves99]

My favourite train, I got a nuclear flask wagon for Christmas.

[conwaytwitty33]

I always thought that they had a fair few empty trucks acting as a buffer on either side of the flask?

[Sids60sSounds]

Two loco's! - How heavy's that thing?

[MetroMartin]

would rather it go by road!? hell no!!

[eezy1972]

I don't care, it's not my back yard.

[john1801rambo]

well, rail is a safer way to transport it compared to roads. If we are going to have nuclear power there need to be a method of dealing with the waste....

[TheDocGoblin]

I see ones like these pulling passenger trains from Norwich all the time.

[LukeCA18]

@TheDocGoblin I think it's because national express east anglia borrow the DRS 37s for thunderbird duties

[joetorsneyTrains]

@LukeCA18 is that why you always see 37s and 20s pulling nuclear flasks?

[LukeCA18]

@joetorsneyTrains My bad, it's a handful of the 47's that are loaned to Norwich station.

[joetorsneyTrains]

@LukeCA18 well what I meant is why dont they have 66s or 70s pulling nuclear flasks?

[LukeCA18]

@joetorsneyTrains 66s are being increasingly used and I guess all the 70s belong to freightliner. DRS have loads of locos though and their not much wrong with any of the older classes they operate

[joetorsneyTrains]

@LukeCA18 ok thanks :)

[davidrobert2007]

@TheDocGoblin What line are they being used on? I've never seen them on passenger duties before in ea would love to find out more

[snedie69er]

That's always nice, seeing people supplying the times at which our nuclear waste is been transported on the internet.....

[mushroomscouser]

Of course nuclear energy is safe. Look at Fukushima.

[powertoolification]

@mushroomscouser And that killed no one yet.

[TheGiantAssasin]

@gilbertv

no, it has two to save money.

one locomotive costs alot of money to run but if theres two, it costs less.

[snickersisdead101]

ahh its fine my local and csx rune waste all the time csx rune 2/2 less them without it the local runs at its always 13mph

[Madaboutsims]

theres famous footage of those wagons taking no damage when smashed into set on fire etc etc, i think you need a nuclear explosion to get into one!

[pensyturbine]

are those even american engines weres the sd70ace????

[BazilRat]

@pensyturbine No, they're British, and so's the video.

[killrog84]

not to mention to breach those flasks well you need something more destructive then a locomotive crashing into itself at full speed.

[shyboyangelus]

why always 2 37s to tow that little thing?

[beeble2003]

@zero1matrix It's waste: spent fuel rods for processing at Sellafield.

[stuffulike2]

cuckoo



[stuffulike2]

wtf



[YTBYlover]

Must be some heavy cargo.

[trevormuollo24]

Thumbs Up For Nuclear Trains

[papero40]

it going to kill us all not the uk the us ahhhhhhhhh 0___0

[rocksoliddude1]

that depleted uranium is on its way to iraq

[A0990Productions]

@rocksoliddude1 actguly its off to germany, japan and russia

[beeble2003]

@rocksoliddude1 It's not depleted uranium: it's used nuclear fuel rods. Uranium is a mixture of essentially two kinds: one that's good for fission (nuclear power and bombs) and one that isn't. Depleted uranium is what's left after the fissionable type has been concentrated (i.e., partially purified) and is of no use for nuclear power.

[ApolloWasReal]

@beeble2003 Actually, even depleted uranium (U-238) will fission when hit with sufficiently energetic neutrons. It just won't support a chain reaction with "thermal" (slow moving) neutrons. U-238 can also breed plutonium 239, which like U-235 will support a chain reaction.

So U-238 is useful for nuclear power. It's just that right now U-235 and Pu-239 are cheap and plentiful enough that it hasn't yet been necessary to use U-238 on a large scale for power production.

[beeble2003]

@ApolloWasReal U-238 won't support a chain reaction of any kind because, although it will fission when hit by fast neutrons, most of the neutrons produced by that fission aren't energetic enough to cause further fission. U-238 can't be used on its own for power production, though some of the power from conventional reactors does come from U-238 fissions. But you're right that it is used to breed Pu-239, so my claim that it's "of no use for nuclear power" was wrong.

[ApolloWasReal]

@beeble2003 Right, U-238 can't support a chain reaction. But it's often used in thermonuclear weapons as a final stage; the fast fusion neutrons fission it for extra yield. Most of the 10MT yield of the first US thermonuclear test Ivy Mike was actually from U-238 fission. In more productive uses, a fast spectrum reactor will effectively burn U-238 along with all the other actinides, producing less and shorter-lived waste.

[kez259]

Two locos for a little shitting wagon like that, stop wasting fuel and strap the bastard onto an anonymous mixed freight train with tarpaulin over it, safe as houses mate.

[Cooperail]

Hellfire Tractor thrash with 37069 and 37218!

[stewartx5]

Is it Safe? To be honest, what does it matter at this point? The entire country has already been exposed to many millions of tons of radiactive fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the 40's, 50's, and 60's - nearly a thousand open-air tests in Nevada, New Mexico, Mississippi, Colorado, and Alaska. Compared to the cumulative fallout from these tests, accidents (like train crashes, Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island) are almost trivial.

[soylentgreenb]

@stewartx5 All those nuclear tests, and it didn't even increase the background radiation level by 1%.

While medical tests(_not_ radiotherapy, just the medical imaging and other such tests) increased the exposure to radiation for the average citizen by approximately 100%.

[stewartx5]

@soylentgreenb '.. background radiation level ..'

I think you meant to say the 'average' background radiation level. Large sections of the country experienced far greater increases, with many still researching and debating the impact of that 1% average increase. By the way, there's no realistic impact correlation between short external exposure (medical tests, etc) and long-term internal exposure resulting from consumption (food, airborne particles, etc).

[soylentgreenb]

@stewartx5 Everything we know about how the cells repair DNA(which each cell in your body does thousands of times per day, mostly from reactive oxygen species) says short exposures at high dose rates(i.e. medical tests, witnessing an atomic bomb test) should be far more dangerous than long exposures at low dose rates(radon, fall-out, potassium-40...).

[soylentgreenb]

@stewartx5 This is also what you see in practice.

There is a small but measurable excess cancer incidence of atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There is no measurable increase in cancer risk in areas of Ramsar, Iran with ~50 times world average background radiation; received from radium-226 brought to the surface by hot springs. Yet over a lifetime the inhabitants there recieve much more radiation than the average bomb survivor(~260 mSv/year in the hotest areas!).

[stewartx5]

@soylentgreenb Okay, I strongly disagree (cancer is only one issue, for example), but don't want to get into a long-winded debate about it. After all, there's nothing any of us can do about it now. The damage has been done and both ourselves and future generations will just have to live (die or suffer) with whatever outcome.

[HSTHoward]

of course its safe look at the crash test video

[jonowev]

Wow where do you live?

[Zadik4444]

i will pay to see that shit blow up :)... but not in ur backyard jeje n.n

[SchumieFan01]

i wasnt being negative... its just insane

i got 3 car forums so its the same shi

[kik457]

in case 1 breaks down, thats why theres 2 traction units

[mortensvalberg]

Haha. Love the title.

[Cirius]

nucular it is pronounced nucular

[Ardanian]

Simpsons for the win.

[SchumieFan01]

omg you people r train nuts! i bet you have a train forum and everything!

[traji00]

well of course - there's a forum for most things isnt there?

[brchtr002]

you bet, hundreds or maybe thousands.

[1position69]

@SchumieFan01 Theres a forum for migwelding, forum for cats that look like hitler yeah theres one for trains and whats wrong with likeing trains its no different to likeing cars or planes? Why did you bother searching for nuclear train or class 37?

[SchumieFan01]

@1position69

again!

sorry! as i said, i wasnt being negative! ive just never put that much thought into the fact that people were this obsessed with trains (like im sure people dont understand how i am with cars) that u know what train/model/# and engine they have... and i didnt search for it... just one vid leads to another... and another... and another... i think i was searching for worlds biggest something....

its an awesome vid!

good on you buddy... serious! dont get so defensive! eeek!

[zombiesonacid]

How else should they transport Nuclear waste? Plus it gives these awesome locos workout!!

[DaveInBridport]

Why does it take two 37s to pull that flask?

[varagner]

Cause the flask weighs 50 tonnes

[DaveInBridport]

50t hardly warrants 2 37s!

[mrspivvy]

Its simply in case one loco breaks down. they don't want nuclear material sitting around while they wait for a relief loco

[mikeshearer1250]

@mrspivvy or another reason why they have 2 locomotives on it. The load is too heavy for one engine to pull so they get a second one to help.

[matttuck5]

freaky

[THEHSTFAN]

my lords hellfire 37 lol

[barttheanorak]

Interesting that it's heavy enough to need two Class 37 diesels to haul it.

Whereabouts is your local line?

[dampFreddie]

Erm, the train HAULS nuclear waste for reprocessing. But in fact the yanks have a small submarine of only a few hundred tonnes run on a reactor. The fission material in a trident submarines reactor is only the total size of a few golf balls.

[contentlocked99]

some fuel pellets can get to the size of marbles...

[GilbertTV]

it has two locos in case one breaks down...

[dampFreddie]

probably diagrammed for a duff in outset then ;-)

[farmerkristian]

@GilbertTV Its for insurance when running loaded.

[captinspike1]

@GilbertTV no that not the reason the other reason is the second train is extra power becuz the train has to heavy of a load for one engine only reason i know this is cuz im a enginer

[boywithadolphin]

@captinspike1 If you are an engineer how come you can't spell?

[captinspike1]

@boywithadolphin it was a misspell plus you dont have to spell correct to be a engineer you ideot also ive been working on trains for so long u probly werent even born yet

[TahreyUK]

@captinspike1 Just how heavy do you think those nuclear flasks are? Those locos are more commonly seen pulling long rakes of freight trucks, 20 or more at a time... if those flasks weighed 10x as much as a normal truck they'd break the tracks!

The second train is for reliability and to provide a little extra protection to the flasks if there was to be a crash. Used to be that they'd put an engine at each end to provide protection in both directions, don't know why that isn't still the case...

[captinspike1]

@TahreyUK dude your so dumb they use it for extra power the extra engine wouldnt do much in a wreck depending on what kind it is so shut up and learn

[Stirlingshire43110]

@captinspike1 I think you will find @TahreyUK is correct, they are also there to stop the train being stranded if one locomotive dies. They wouldnt need extra power to pull those! One x37 would be enough, they use two for ensurance, and in a crash the extra loco would save the day

[breedam]

why it has 2 locomotives?

[ToxicEnzyme]

That flask that is used to transport nuclear waste is practically invincible. I wouldn't worry about it.

[dampFreddie]

the big evil thing is all the CO2 , low level ozone and other shite your car is churning out! Bring on nuclear power ( just dont let the Ukrainians mess with your uranium)

[theredraven]

Anything nuclear powerver other than large ships is a long time off. It's going to take time to make small enough (and safe enough) reactors to fit in a car.

[Trusten1984]

Where the nuclear waste came from, and where did drive to ?

[Owentheguitarist666]

Class!!!!!

i wish my Back garden had that! 5*

[acelectrician]

yeah i agree 37's all the way but question why do you need two 37's for one container

[Owentheguitarist666]

relieablety.

if one loco was to brake down the other can keep going

[BigBananaMan]

When they ship nuclear waste that container is not full of waste materials. Typically it is a small container inside of a larger container filled with a lot of sand. That way radiation does not leak. If you stood next to the train as it passed with a Geiger counter you probably wouldn't detect anything.

[tombaker1222]

it is safe-look up the test they did at Old Dalby with a 46, they smashed it at full whack into a nuclear container and it didnt break. it had about 7 coaches behind it too.

[theamateurbasher]

Nice video mate!

[lblackman69523]

Course its safe you muppet

[kiyran]

all hail the 37s

[theamateurbasher]

Agreed, quite arguably one of the greatest of the 20th century diesels ever produced!

[gregrudd]

Are you sure about that? I would have thought that the following were better locos

EMD SD40,GP9,F7,SD9,E7/E9 ALCO RS series, DL531 DL500 and then you have the Deltic

[theamateurbasher]

They are all great 20th century designs; I like them too, but the 37 is one of my favourites. I'm not having a pop at your good video mind; Ive seen a few DRS 37's recently. Keep up the good work.

[theamateurbasher]

Sorry, thought that was your video m8 (*blushes in embarassment*). And my comment was not meant to start an argument, I apologise if it has.