3 ms·

Yeah, my question was mostly out of curiosity. At some point someone must have approved this project and the costs coming with it. One answer could be the mili

Yeah, my question was mostly out of curiosity. At some point someone must have approved this project and the costs coming with it. One answer could be the military with endlessly deep pockets. My point is that it should have been easy to just continue with shipping, as it seems to me that it has to be the default. But maybe I am wrong? Either way there has to be pros and cons of course. But risking a train accident at 100 mph relative speed and fuel laying open without means for cooling seems like a very high risk.

arethuza 2y ago
I don't think the UK military has ever operated on the basis of "endlessly deep pockets" e.g. At one point the PM relied on using AA phone boxes and reverse charges calls to launch the V bombers: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/08/britains-bizarre-cold-war-nuclear-plan-involved-aa-telephone/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/08/britains-bizarre... Edit: Mind you, the hand written "letters of last resort" and regarding not being able to receive Radio 4 as indicating the end of civilisation as we know it do have a certain charm.
- fifilura 2y ago
  I can not read the article, but maybe this was by design. They expected the telephone boxes to be more resilient than building a custom system. Either way - what did the V bomber program cost?
- timthorn 2y ago
  It wasn't the AA phone boxes but their radio network. From the article: > Whitehall arranged for the prime minister’s car to have a radio link – with which the AA used to communicate with its mechanics – that would tell the driver that he needed to reach a public phone box, from which Macmillan would call Whitehall. It was suggested that government drivers carried four pennies, as that was the minimum sum needed in a GPO phone box. I once heard a Radio 4 programme about the letters of last resort, where a senior military figure described the responsibility on a PM's shoulders whilst writing them as "Awesome, with a capital F"
- qingcharles 2y ago
  How very British to use a system like this. I think it's just in our bones from a lifetime of scrappy existence. I always think of this: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/make-do-and-mend-0 https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/make-do-and-mend-0
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    Thats's a great site, thanks for the link! I'm chuffed to learn from it about IncSoc: > The Incorporated Society of London Fashion Designers (IncSoc) was founded in 1942 to represent the collective interests of the fashion industry in Britain, promote exports and develop standards of design. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-clothes-rationing-affected-fashion-in-the-second-world-war https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-clothes-rationing-affecte... Not to be confused with IngSoc, coined in 1949: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_geography_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Oceania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_geography_of_Ninetee...
rsynnott 2y ago
> My point is that it should have been easy to just continue with shipping, as it seems to me that it has to be the default. But maybe I am wrong? ... Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. What made you think that they used ships? Most or all British nuclear plants are coastal, but they mostly don't have port facilities, I don't think. And nuclear plants in _other_ countries often aren't coastal, so it's not like ships could be a global standard practice or anything. This project was an attempt to increase safety and improve public confidence (the train crash bit was the latter), but I'm fairly sure they were already using trains.
- fifilura 2y ago
  > What made you think that they used ships? Probably because Sweden use ships and most - if not all? - nuclear plants have access to waterways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Sigyn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Sigyn And I had some idea that they are used for intercontinental transportation of fuel. But maybe that is not so common? But I am here for the discussion. I don't need to be right.
Reason077 2y ago
> "My point is that it should have been easy to just continue with shipping, as it seems to me that it has to be the default. But maybe I am wrong?" I don't think it was ever the default for domestic nuclear fuel shipments. Despite being on the coast, many of the UK nuclear sites do not have easy access to harbours, and the processing facility at Sellafield itself does not have a harbour either: ships carrying foreign nuclear fuel would dock further up the coast at Workington [1]. Since the fuel would be transferred to rail for the final leg to Sellafield anyway, presumably it just made more sense to transport domestic fuel flasks directly via the rail network rather than have a longer, slower, and more complex journey with multiple mode transfers. It was also likely considered the lower-risk option: train collisions in the UK are very rare (much more rare than shipwrecks!) and the flasks were proven to be able to withstand even the worst-case collision scenario. In some cases, like at Dungeness for example, old rail infrastructure already existed nearby that could be re-used for a nuclear rail terminal pretty cheaply [2]. [1] https://cumbriashipphotos.weebly.com/nuclear-carriers.html https://cumbriashipphotos.weebly.com/nuclear-carriers.html [2] https://kentrail.org.uk/dungeness_nuclear_terminal.htm https://kentrail.org.uk/dungeness_nuclear_terminal.htm

arethuza 2y ago

I don't think the UK military has ever operated on the basis of "endlessly deep pockets" e.g. At one point the PM relied on using AA phone boxes and reverse charges calls to launch the V bombers: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/08/britains-bizarre-cold-war-nuclear-plan-involved-aa-telephone/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/08/britains-bizarre... Edit: Mind you, the hand written "letters of last resort" and regarding not being able to receive Radio 4 as indicating the end of civilisation as we know it do have a certain charm.

fifilura 2y ago
I can not read the article, but maybe this was by design. They expected the telephone boxes to be more resilient than building a custom system. Either way - what did the V bomber program cost?
timthorn 2y ago
It wasn't the AA phone boxes but their radio network. From the article: > Whitehall arranged for the prime minister’s car to have a radio link – with which the AA used to communicate with its mechanics – that would tell the driver that he needed to reach a public phone box, from which Macmillan would call Whitehall. It was suggested that government drivers carried four pennies, as that was the minimum sum needed in a GPO phone box. I once heard a Radio 4 programme about the letters of last resort, where a senior military figure described the responsibility on a PM's shoulders whilst writing them as "Awesome, with a capital F"
qingcharles 2y ago
How very British to use a system like this. I think it's just in our bones from a lifetime of scrappy existence. I always think of this: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/make-do-and-mend-0 https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/make-do-and-mend-0
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  Thats's a great site, thanks for the link! I'm chuffed to learn from it about IncSoc: > The Incorporated Society of London Fashion Designers (IncSoc) was founded in 1942 to represent the collective interests of the fashion industry in Britain, promote exports and develop standards of design. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-clothes-rationing-affected-fashion-in-the-second-world-war https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-clothes-rationing-affecte... Not to be confused with IngSoc, coined in 1949: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_geography_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Oceania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_geography_of_Ninetee...

rsynnott 2y ago

> My point is that it should have been easy to just continue with shipping, as it seems to me that it has to be the default. But maybe I am wrong? ... Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. What made you think that they used ships? Most or all British nuclear plants are coastal, but they mostly don't have port facilities, I don't think. And nuclear plants in _other_ countries often aren't coastal, so it's not like ships could be a global standard practice or anything. This project was an attempt to increase safety and improve public confidence (the train crash bit was the latter), but I'm fairly sure they were already using trains.

fifilura 2y ago
> What made you think that they used ships? Probably because Sweden use ships and most - if not all? - nuclear plants have access to waterways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Sigyn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Sigyn And I had some idea that they are used for intercontinental transportation of fuel. But maybe that is not so common? But I am here for the discussion. I don't need to be right.

Reason077 2y ago

> "My point is that it should have been easy to just continue with shipping, as it seems to me that it has to be the default. But maybe I am wrong?" I don't think it was ever the default for domestic nuclear fuel shipments. Despite being on the coast, many of the UK nuclear sites do not have easy access to harbours, and the processing facility at Sellafield itself does not have a harbour either: ships carrying foreign nuclear fuel would dock further up the coast at Workington [1]. Since the fuel would be transferred to rail for the final leg to Sellafield anyway, presumably it just made more sense to transport domestic fuel flasks directly via the rail network rather than have a longer, slower, and more complex journey with multiple mode transfers. It was also likely considered the lower-risk option: train collisions in the UK are very rare (much more rare than shipwrecks!) and the flasks were proven to be able to withstand even the worst-case collision scenario. In some cases, like at Dungeness for example, old rail infrastructure already existed nearby that could be re-used for a nuclear rail terminal pretty cheaply [2]. [1] https://cumbriashipphotos.weebly.com/nuclear-carriers.html https://cumbriashipphotos.weebly.com/nuclear-carriers.html [2] https://kentrail.org.uk/dungeness_nuclear_terminal.htm https://kentrail.org.uk/dungeness_nuclear_terminal.htm