Train Crash into Nuclear Container

[43021HST]

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

 

[90019]

The best thing was the response from Greenpeace afterwards.

 

[87015]

46009

 

[SouthEastern-465]

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

 

[bluebottle]

The best thing was the response from Greenpeace afterwards.

Not sure it was the best thing about it! It was rather amusing though.

 

[90019]

Not sure it was the best thing about it! It was rather amusing though.

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.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

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

. . which begs the question (and going right off-topic), : What constitutes "a good use" of condemned locos?

 

[MCR247]

Was there a driver?

 

[37401]

Was there a driver?

No was remote controlled, if there was he`d be dead

 

[90019]

No was remote controlled, if there was he`d be dead

AFAIK, they actually just started it off, then the driver jumped out and let it go. I think it was at about 101 or 102mph when it hit the container.

 

[MCR247]

No was remote controlled, if there was he`d be dead

Well maybe it'd give NXEC & FCC on the ECML a break

 

[Doorslammer]

AFAIK, they actually just started it off, then the driver jumped out and let it go. I think it was at about 101 or 102mph when it hit the container.

Wow, that's fairly shifting...

 

[Aussie_Rail]

Wow, pretty impressive, although a horrible waste of a train and two carriages though.

 

[jp4712]

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]

Wow, pretty impressive, although a horrible waste of a train and two carriages though.

The peak, at least, was bound for the scrapyard anyway, not sure about the Mk1s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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 think I got it mixed up with another video, where that is the method used.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wow, that's fairly shifting...

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?

 

[generalvegitable]

The best thing was the response from Greenpeace afterwards.

what was their response? (I wasn't around then so I would not have seen it)

 

[90019]

what was their response? (I wasn't around then so I would not have seen it)

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]

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]

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]

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.

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!

 

[25322]

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

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 ---

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

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

 

[37372]

Best use for a peak that!

 

[jp4712]

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

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]

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).

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.

 

[poshbakerloo]

What is all that stuff that the MK1s seem to have under them after the crash? Looks like rubble or wheels or summit

 

[Tom B]

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?

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.

Waste travels by train - hence the test.

 

[Aussie_Rail]

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

lol well yes of course that would be the ultimate test, although in this case they probably didn't want to test it for that reason haha.

 

[37401]

Imagine someone living nearby enjoying their sunny day when suddenly a flaming peak engine lands in their garden

 

[krus_aragon]

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.

Waste travels by train - hence the test.

Doesn't the fuel get there by train too?

 

[driver9000]

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....