Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
> Recliner wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 09:16:26 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I wonder (someone will know) to what extent the choice of sites for nuclear
>>> power stations was governed by rail access? Dounreay obviously not so much
>>> but the road access is long and winding. Torness has the ECML running
>>> close by and its siding is about half a mile from the front gate. I don’t
>>> know where Hunterston is accessed, but there’s a line to the ore/coal
>>> terminal at sea level and sidings on the Largs branch up the hill. I don’t
>>> know any other sites at all well.
>>
>> The Magnox sites were probably selected in the early/mid 1950s, and the
>> AGRs in the early 1960s, so their choice would
>> have been influenced by the then rail and road networks (ie, much less
>> motorway, and much more rail than now). I don't
>> know how much popular resistance there was back then to nuclear stations
>> as a neighbour, but I don't suppose they were
>> ever popular, so that would have excluded some otherwise suitable locations.
>
> My late uncle worked for the CEGB, and in his early career in the
> 1950s was posted to various coal fired power stations in fairly
> industrial locations.
>
> With the advent of nuclear power, he realised that these stations
> would all be put in pleasant countryside locations, so changed
> his focus and managed to get a job at Berkeley, where he spent
> the rest of his time as one of their Charge Engineers.
>
> Chris

Not Nuclear but Fawley Power Station on Southampton Water with views of the
Solent and I.O.W on one side and the Heaths of the New Forest on the other
was a pleasant posting.
The circular control room looking like a flying saucer shaped space craft
was quite distinctive,it was from there that one of the senior managers of
the plant used to look at out at a small passing ship
each day one of the last steam ships of its type in operation.Having
started his engineering career with the GWR in Swansea Docks he had
retained an interest in shipping.
We later met at the genesis of a project to preserve it and his
management experience of such a large industrial complex lent the required
gravitas to the project that one needs to be taken seriously.
30 years ago now and we are now well established

https://ss-shieldhall.co.uk

Though most of those in at the start like him are no longer with us a
situation that most heritage railways are now in.

Fawley Power is well into its demolition phase now and a few days ago
looked more like Chernoble after explosion than the tidy place it was.
Pictures of when it was intact here

https://www.powerstations.uk/fawley-power-station-admin-and-control-block/
and before of was demolished on a film location site.
It did appear in some films even when it was in commission.

https://www.localityonline.com/8/29/469/

There were thoughts the control room might survive and be repurposed but
that hasn’t taken place.

The firm tasked with removing the equipment some of which may be put on
show
at an exhibit marking the sites former use made a reasonable video before
they got far into the job.

https://youtu.be/TW-E57klfvg

GH

On 10/07/2021 12:26, Graham Harrison wrote:
> My first thought was that it was something to
> do with Harwell but it turns out to be a USAF munitions dump according
> to Wikipedia.

That is conventional munitions.

A few years ago we visited an army site, it was orginally a RAF airfield
and they us through the gate onto the inactive airfield. There was one
compound with two very high fences with razor wire on top as well as two
other lower fences.

They got the keys and let us look around, it was used an overnight
parking place for the military nuclear convoys.

(Inactive as far as aircraft were concerned, you had to be careful
because the police use it for playing chasing each other and a
manufacturers tests large armoured vehicles there!)

On 10/07/2021 15:15, Recliner wrote:
> The Magnox sites were probably selected in the early/mid 1950s, and the AGRs in the early 1960s, so their choice would
> have been influenced by the then rail and road networks (ie, much less motorway, and much more rail than now). I don't
> know how much popular resistance there was back then to nuclear stations as a neighbour, but I don't suppose they were
> ever popular, so that would have excluded some otherwise suitable locations.

Wasn't a source of lots of cooling water an important factor, usually
the sea.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 10/07/2021 15:15, Recliner wrote:
>> The Magnox sites were probably selected in the early/mid 1950s, and the
>> AGRs in the early 1960s, so their choice would
>> have been influenced by the then rail and road networks (ie, much less
>> motorway, and much more rail than now). I don't
>> know how much popular resistance there was back then to nuclear stations
>> as a neighbour, but I don't suppose they were
>> ever popular, so that would have excluded some otherwise suitable locations.
>
> Wasn't a source of lots of cooling water an important factor, usually
> the sea.
>

Yes, but not always. For example, Trawsfynydd used a lake for cooling. And
other countries locate nuclear power stations inland. As with any steam
power stations, they need a reliable source of cool water, but it doesn't
need to be the sea .

And as the Japanese discovered, locating large nuclear power stations by
the sea isn't always a good idea...

Hinkley Point C has a large tidal sea defence wall, similar to the Dawlish
railway line.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 10/07/2021 15:15, Recliner wrote:
>>> The Magnox sites were probably selected in the early/mid 1950s, and the
>>> AGRs in the early 1960s, so their choice would
>>> have been influenced by the then rail and road networks (ie, much less
>>> motorway, and much more rail than now). I don't
>>> know how much popular resistance there was back then to nuclear stations
>>> as a neighbour, but I don't suppose they were
>>> ever popular, so that would have excluded some otherwise suitable locations.
>>
>> Wasn't a source of lots of cooling water an important factor, usually
>> the sea.
>>
>
> Yes, but not always. For example, Trawsfynydd used a lake for cooling. And
> other countries locate nuclear power stations inland. As with any steam
> power stations, they need a reliable source of cool water, but it doesn't
> need to be the sea .
>
> And as the Japanese discovered, locating large nuclear power stations by
> the sea isn't always a good idea...
>
> Hinkley Point C has a large tidal sea defence wall, similar to the Dawlish
> railway line.

Both Torness and Hunterston are pretty much at sea level, as was the old
Cockenzie power station and as are the remains of Longannet. I suspect
they’re all susceptible to issues with sea level rise.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:38:05 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2021 15:15, Recliner wrote:
>>>> The Magnox sites were probably selected in the early/mid 1950s, and the
>>>> AGRs in the early 1960s, so their choice would
>>>> have been influenced by the then rail and road networks (ie, much less
>>>> motorway, and much more rail than now). I don't
>>>> know how much popular resistance there was back then to nuclear stations
>>>> as a neighbour, but I don't suppose they were
>>>> ever popular, so that would have excluded some otherwise suitable locations.
>>>
>>> Wasn't a source of lots of cooling water an important factor, usually
>>> the sea.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but not always. For example, Trawsfynydd used a lake for cooling. And
>> other countries locate nuclear power stations inland. As with any steam
>> power stations, they need a reliable source of cool water, but it doesn't
>> need to be the sea .
>>
>> And as the Japanese discovered, locating large nuclear power stations by
>> the sea isn't always a good idea...
>>
>> Hinkley Point C has a large tidal sea defence wall, similar to the Dawlish
>> railway line.
>
>Both Torness and Hunterston are pretty much at sea level, as was the old
>Cockenzie power station and as are the remains of Longannet. I suspect
>they’re all susceptible to issues with sea level rise.

I think tsunamis are the big fear, as in Japan. They can have many causes: undersea earthquakes, meteorites, even large
glaciers suddenly dropping into the sea. And as places like Sri Lanka were shocked to discover, they can travel very
long distances -- who would have guessed that an earthquake a thousand miles away could have caused the worst-ever
railway disaster?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Sri_Lanka_tsunami_train_wreck>

Am 11.07.2021 um 13:38 schrieb Sam Wilson:
>
> Both Torness and Hunterston are pretty much at sea level, as was the old
> Cockenzie power station and as are the remains of Longannet. I suspect
> they’re all susceptible to issues with sea level rise.
>
Also see the 1999 incident at Blayais Power Station on the Gironde:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Blayais_Nuclear_Power_Plant_flood

Cheers,

Johannes.

Johannes Picht <johannes.picht@gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 11.07.2021 um 13:38 schrieb Sam Wilson:
>>
>> Both Torness and Hunterston are pretty much at sea level, as was the old
>> Cockenzie power station and as are the remains of Longannet. I suspect
>> they’re all susceptible to issues with sea level rise.
>>
> Also see the 1999 incident at Blayais Power Station on the Gironde:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Blayais_Nuclear_Power_Plant_flood

Thank you - not one I knew about.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 2021-07-09 08:33:18 +0000, Marland said:

> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08/07/2021 22:41, Marland wrote:
>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 08/07/2021 20:48, Weather or Not wrote:
>>>>> On 08/07/2021 12:19, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> Yesterday afternoon I got all excited when I was near a railway out to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> west of Edinburgh and found this on Real Time Trains:
>>>>>> <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:H17010/2021-07-07/detailed>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   I then found that it had passed where I was over 2 hours early.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there some kind of sensitivity about whether such trains are trackable
>>>>>> and not keeping to the published times?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand I did see this with two 37s growling away.  It also ran
>>>>>> early but the timings seem to allow for all sorts of slop.
>>>>>> <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:H16828/2021-07-07/detailed>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sam
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Some years ago, I saw a nuclear flask train go trhough Walsall station,
>>>>> with two class 37's. It surprised me because I thought they would route
>>>>> such trains away from centres of industrial towns and cities.
>>>>
>>>> Given the locations of power stations and the processing plant, it is
>>>> unavoidable that some of them pass through large towns & cities, but I
>>>> think they try to avoid them stopping in stations unless something like
>>>> a crew change is necessary.
>>>>
>>>> I think that the occasional trains carrying "military" materials carry
>>>> "special security" arrangements.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Southampton for a few years in the 1980’s declared itself a “ Nuclear Free
>>> City” and announced rhe fact on signs on roads leading into it, the policy
>>> was aimed at the Royal Navy as occasionally they move a submarine onto a
>>> berth designated for them as an exercise if ever one of their normal bases
>>> became unavailable. Despite the signs the subs never stopped their
>>> occasional visit and neither did the nuclear waste trains from Winfrith
>>> Atomic Energy Establishment located at Wool in Dorset stop,passing through
>>> on occasions
>>> Perhaps there should have been signs on the railway and the entrance to
>>> Southampton Water.
>>> The Subs when they visit lead to a plan being activated that should there
>>> be a radiation leak from a reactor then iodine tablets would be
>>> distributed to residents in the area around the port, as most are now
>>> students it would it be seen as just another recreational drug.
>>> When one does visit the usual suspects usually gather and protest though
>>> many don’t seem to be able to distinguish between nuclear powered and
>>> nuclear armed.
>>
>
>>
>>> One visit did result in a casualty, a junior rating on guard duty had a
>>> grudge and started to shoot senior officers one fatally, the rating was
>>> actually brought down by the leader of the Council who with the Mayor was
>>> visiting at the time and wrestled the SA80 rifle from him.
>>
>> IIRC that sub wasn't a nuke and was subsequently sold to the Canadians
>> even before the last of the class had been delivered.
>>
> Sorry Graeme it was definitely a Nuclear powered vessel.
> HMS Astute.
>
> Navy officer 'unlawfully killed' in submarine shooting
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-21012670
>
>
> The Upholder class had already been dumped on ,sorry sold to Canada by
> then.
> One was involved in incident after leaving Scotland where some water
> pouring down from the conning tower which should be anticipated on a
> submarine got into equipment below
> and caused an electrical fire. One sailor later died from the effects of
> smoke inhalation .
> Dodgy submarines , miniature( to them ) coaches that were surplus, anything
> else we have persuaded the Canadians to take on. I ‘m surprised they are
> still friendly.

Not just miniature, but now suffering from quite severe corrosion
problems, and looking like they'll need to be retired relatively soon,
with the stop-gap of drafting in 1955 built Budd stainless steel sets
to replace them! There is also the issue with the Ocean service that
the train sets are configured as single-ended, but the turning
facilities at Halifax are no longer available, so the sets are having
to run "backwards" for the return journey. VIA may also be facing the
problem that robust as they are, the 1955 fleet won't last forever, and
are beginning to exhibit the kinds of structural problems that make
them increasingly expensive to keep in service.

Robin