• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Train Crash into Nuclear Container

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

SouthEastern-465

SouthEastern-465

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2009
Messages
1,660
Location
Greater London
I was not Around In the eighties, but I have seen the crash plenty of times,but It Is quite suprising How strong the flask is, but that cant be said for the MK1s In the advert!.
Regards
 
90019

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,890
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
bluebottle said:
Not sure it was the best thing about it! It was rather amusing though.
Click to expand...

Well, it was one of the best, seeing them showing how little they know. I mean, unbolting the engine? It would vibrate itself to pieces in the first place, and i doubt it would really make much difference to what the engine did in the crash.

It was a spectacular crash though, and a good use of a loco that was going to be scrapped, IMO.
 
jp4712

jp4712

Member
Joined
1 May 2009
Messages
561
Location
Lichfield
It was 46 009 - and in case of breakdown, 46 023 was on standby. If you watch the full video, the driver didn't 'jump off' - it was modified so that it could be set in motion from ground level outside. I confess to knowing a fair bit about this demonstration, I worked in the nuclear industry in the mid to late 80s...

Paul
 
90019

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,890
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
Aussie_Rail said:
Wow, pretty impressive, although a horrible waste of a train and two carriages though.
Click to expand...

The peak, at least, was bound for the scrapyard anyway, not sure about the Mk1s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
jp4712 said:
It was 46 009 - and in case of breakdown, 46 023 was on standby. If you watch the full video, the driver didn't 'jump off' - it was modified so that it could be set in motion from ground level outside.
Click to expand...

I think I got it mixed up with another video, where that is the method used.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Doorslammer said:
Wow, that's fairly shifting... :o
Click to expand...

IIRC, they had to modify it because it's top speed was only 90mph.
I'm not sure if this is right, but I'm sure there was something about parts from another peak being used to achieve this?
 
90019

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,890
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
generalvegitable said:
what was their response? (I wasn't around then so I would not have seen it)
Click to expand...

Neither was I ;)

They made various claims that the test had been rigged. They claimed the engine had been unbolted inside the loco and that's why it flew over the top, although if this was true, the vibrations from the engine would probably have torn the loco apart before it got moving. They also said the coaches had been weighted so they didn't go up in the air and land on the container, although if this was the case, there would've been even more force colliding with the container in the first place. I can't remember what the other claims they made were.
 
Aussie_Rail

Aussie_Rail

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2008
Messages
560
Location
London, Great Britain!
One has to wonder why they used a train to test its strength? I would have expected them to test it in more realistic means, like dropping it from a great height, like from a plane or trying to blow it up, with C4, TNT etc or try to destroy it by military force? Why a train?

I don't know much about nuclear power, technology or how its used, transported as Australia hasn't been blessed with nuclear capabilities so its all a bit foreign to me.

Do any aspects of nuclear technology travel by train, like bombs or nuclear 'bits' or any hazardous materials? If that were the case, then it explains why the tested it with a train.
 
90019

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,890
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
The nuclear container they were testing is the sort that they transport by rail. When you see the shots of the container, it's the wagon that transports it that it is within, the container itself is just the yellow part, the rest is the wagon, although the bogeys have been taken off and are on the ground beside it.
 
krus_aragon

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,105
Location
North Wales
90019 said:
Neither was I ;)

They made various claims that the test had been rigged. They claimed the engine had been unbolted inside the loco and that's why it flew over the top, although if this was true, the vibrations from the engine would probably have torn the loco apart before it got moving. They also said the coaches had been weighted so they didn't go up in the air and land on the container, although if this was the case, there would've been even more force colliding with the container in the first place. I can't remember what the other claims they made were.
Click to expand...

Here's some Youtubage of the Six o' Clock News covering Greenpeace's allegations, and CEGB's response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHtRZ_k0s7M

I find it interesting that they criticised the engine for going up in the air, and the carriages for not going up in the air!
 
2

25322

Member
Joined
25 Feb 2009
Messages
201
Location
Staffordshire
klambert said:
A video in the eighties to prove how strong a nuclear container is. Some of you may remember this. Poor old peak, does anyone know its number?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJflu7z4QyI
Click to expand...


46009 I believe. i'm sure there was a BRB film made that shows the driver pressing the go button at the start of the test

it was televised on the tv at the time as was the dropping of a flask from a great height.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
SouthEastern-465 said:
I was not Around In the eighties, but I have seen the crash plenty of times,but It Is quite suprising How strong the flask is, but that cant be said for the MK1s In the advert!.
Regards
Click to expand...

The flask actually only carries avery small amount of nuclear material. usually grams not kilograms of waste. The flasks are designed to withstand massive impacts without cracking open. and are generally cast in one piece to avoid weak spots
 
jp4712

jp4712

Member
Joined
1 May 2009
Messages
561
Location
Lichfield
25322 said:
The flask actually only carries a very small amount of nuclear material. usually grams not kilograms of waste. The flasks are designed to withstand massive impacts without cracking open. and are generally cast in one piece to avoid weak spots
Click to expand...
A bit more than that. A Magnox flask (the type used in the test) carried about a ton of spent fuel, of which about half was water and the rest was about fifty uranium/magnesium alloy rods. The flask itself, without the load, weighed approximately fifty tons.

To the poster who mentioned top speed: I don't know about parts from another Peak but I can confirm that the top speed was raised from 90 to 100mph - I always assumed this was done simply by opening up the fuel pump governor. I recall that the top speed was set so that the energy dissipated in the collision would be the same as an HST hitting the flask at 125 mph (the Peak was slower than this but was heavier, so the result in kN would be the same).

Paul
 
90019

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,890
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
jp4712 said:
To the poster who mentioned top speed: I don't know about parts from another Peak but I can confirm that the top speed was raised from 90 to 100mph - I always assumed this was done simply by opening up the fuel pump governor. I recall that the top speed was set so that the energy dissipated in the collision would be the same as an HST hitting the flask at 125 mph (the Peak was slower than this but was heavier, so the result in kN would be the same).
Click to expand...

I'm sure I read something about parts from another peak having to be used for something, not sure what, but I think it was one that had been reclassified as a 97 at some point.
 
Tom B

Tom B

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2005
Messages
4,681
Aussie_Rail said:
One has to wonder why they used a train to test its strength? I would have expected them to test it in more realistic means, like dropping it from a great height, like from a plane or trying to blow it up, with C4, TNT etc or try to destroy it by military force? Why a train?
Click to expand...

They did drop it from a height, but...

Do any aspects of nuclear technology travel by train, like bombs or nuclear 'bits' or any hazardous materials? If that were the case, then it explains why the tested it with a train.
Click to expand...

Waste travels by train - hence the test.
 
37401

37401

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2008
Messages
3,276
Location
Birmingham
Imagine someone living nearby enjoying their sunny day when suddenly a flaming peak engine lands in their garden :lol:
 
driver9000

driver9000

Established Member
Joined
13 Jan 2008
Messages
4,558
For years after the test the flask was on display at Sellafield visitors centre - it barely suffered a scratch apart from a few bent 'fins'. It was also on display at the short lived Heysham power station visitors centre where visitors could sit in an oversized flask and see the video of the Peak striking the flask aswell as footage of other tests including one being dropped from a height. Not sure where the flask is now though....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top