One of the trains mentioned, the Rohr prototype tested in the US, was based on a French design from the 60s, the Aérotrain. Their prototype from 1974 managed to reach 260+ mph on its elevated test track using a monorail design + air cushion.
The obvious drawback from using a jet turbine was the obvious noise. To top that, the use of a non-conventional monorail design was controversial.
The TGV was being developed at the same time and the first prototype used a gaz turbine. When France was hit by the major oil energy crisis of 1973, they switched it to an electric motor design, which is what we know of the TGV now.
Prior to constructing the IRT, New York had a proponent of subways... but city permits and Tammany Hall couldn't get out of the way.
So the project was built near city hall under Broadway. A train pushed by pneumatic pressure... Back and forth with a fan. About 2 blocks long, it was opened as a demonstration, and 'thrill' ride. A few months later, it closed, having too short a travel for the nickel.
Abandoned in place and forgotten, it was rediscovered as the city built the BMT... and made use of 2 blocks of tunnel now in use near city hall.... A plaque commemorates the effort.
Nothing wrong with nuclear when it's well done (and extremely terrible when poorly done). Lots of hydroelectric generation back there in France too.
Trains powered by nuclear would have been an interesting concept. After all it works well for submarines. Although I'd venture a radioisotope thermal generator (RTG) design would be more adequate (think "The Martian", without the goofy aspect of burying a thermal generator in the sand). In either case, I would not want to be anywhere near when that engine derails.
It's not like coal is that much better for the environment in the long term. At least it's good for those who like to model long coal trains and power stations ;-)
Comments
Aérotrain
One of the trains mentioned, the Rohr prototype tested in the US, was based on a French design from the 60s, the Aérotrain. Their prototype from 1974 managed to reach 260+ mph on its elevated test track using a monorail design + air cushion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9rotrain
The obvious drawback from using a jet turbine was the obvious noise. To top that, the use of a non-conventional monorail design was controversial.
The TGV was being developed at the same time and the first prototype used a gaz turbine. When France was hit by the major oil energy crisis of 1973, they switched it to an electric motor design, which is what we know of the TGV now.
Ralf~
[ web site | youtube channel ]
And, given that
France generates a high percentage of their electricity via nuclear reactors, one could say the TGV is a nuclear-powered train. Go, Atoms, Go!
you missed a spot (of history)
Prior to constructing the IRT, New York had a proponent of subways... but city permits and Tammany Hall couldn't get out of the way.
So the project was built near city hall under Broadway. A train pushed by pneumatic pressure... Back and forth with a fan. About 2 blocks long, it was opened as a demonstration, and 'thrill' ride. A few months later, it closed, having too short a travel for the nickel.
Abandoned in place and forgotten, it was rediscovered as the city built the BMT... and made use of 2 blocks of tunnel now in use near city hall.... A plaque commemorates the effort.
Peter
Nuclear
Amtrak is also nuclear powered.
There was also a proposal to develop nuclear powered locomotives, but it never went further than a proposal. Thankfully.
Dave Husman
Modeling the Wilmington & Northern Branch in 1900-1905
Iron men and wooden cars.
Visit my website : https://wnbranch.com/
Blog index: Dave Husman Blog Index
Nothing wrong with nuclear
Nothing wrong with nuclear when it's well done (and extremely terrible when poorly done). Lots of hydroelectric generation back there in France too.
Trains powered by nuclear would have been an interesting concept. After all it works well for submarines. Although I'd venture a radioisotope thermal generator (RTG) design would be more adequate (think "The Martian", without the goofy aspect of burying a thermal generator in the sand). In either case, I would not want to be anywhere near when that engine derails.
It's not like coal is that much better for the environment in the long term. At least it's good for those who like to model long coal trains and power stations ;-)
Ralf~
[ web site | youtube channel ]