Ah dammit you were here first with that XD But glad to see I am not the only sassy/funny sarcastic one here XD And boy yours is good, I already forgot mine
I love how most of these videos are like "This vehicle used a very unique aerodynamic phenomenon to fly" but this one is just "they strapped a jet to it"
Even better is that blister on the roof of the Budd cars (or most railmotors/railcars/DMU's) is just the radiators for the engines, so you'd just have the hot jet exhaust cooking down through the roof with no climate control at all
Two J47 turbojet engines were mounted outboard of the three Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major piston engines on each wing of the B-36 - that's where they came from
Plus, the B-58 used J79 engines, NOT J47's. The B-58 was NOT surplus until 1970, 4 years after this timeframe. And yes, that is a B-36 paired engine pod with drag louvers. My question is, how the heck did the thing back up, reverse?
@@paulholmes672 Since this was a prototype, my guess is that they just shunted it with another locomotive. If they really had to, they might've reconnected the driveshafts (idk how they disconnected them), but I bet they just asked for a little shunter and called it a day.
The J-47's were installed in their original pods from a surplus B-36 bomber. The B-58 had four J-79 after burning turbojets that were much more powerful than the J-47 even without the afterburner.
I am pretty sure that the engines are not from a B-58 but from a B-36. The mounting looks exactly the same as those found on the B-36D onwards. Also, in one picture of your video, one sees that the jets have can-type combustors, which the B-58's J-79s did not have (they had more advanced annular combustors instead), but the B-36's J-47s did have. Finally, in one picture showing the salvaged engines before mounting, one can still see the intake shutter panels that allowed the B-36 to turn off its Jet engines in cruise (for fuel economy) and rely only on its 6 radials instead. Nice video as always.
Japan: Let´s build a highly aerodynamic high speed train that changes rail travel. France: Let´s build something that could compedte with airplanes similar to what japan built and embarres the brithish. Britain: We´re too broke to build a highspeed railline so let´s build a crappy train that leans into curvs but the leaning mechanism will make the passengers sick and break, then we will sell the patent to italy, see them improove it, get jeluos and buy it back. Sounds good, doesn´t it. Germany: Let´s build a huge diesel train that consumes ungodly ammounts of electricity while not being in service(TEE Trans Europa Express). East Germany: What´s luxury and highspeed?????? Merica: Yall think a bit: railcar + jet engine = FREEDOOOOOOOM!
Australia: an average speed of 80kmh will be plenty for our trains, after all we are a very very small country with no massive expanses of desert or anything...
In Belgium, as in France, we have very very fast trains. It's to compensate the DAYS long strikes every year. Usually at the precise moment people try/hope to go on holiday. So, on average, we should take strikes into account. And Japan would win again !!!!
That ‘record’ in 1893 was never authenticated which if they wanted to they could have with a Dynamometer car. They based this record on using a stopwatch and the distance between miles posts and not with actual measuring equipment.
It was a great era for trying new and crazy things so much optimism , One of the biggest downsides would have been the noise, diesel trains are pretty loud as they are with two jet engines on them it would have been deafening. Be like having a low flying jet go past each time. Still shame it was not rebuilt and ran again or at least in a museum.
Actually, it never ever stood a chance of being put to practical use, but even knowing that, man, I would have killed for the chance to work on such a project! Fun, or what? Whatever the positives or negatives of the engineering, the jet wash would have destroyed anything sitting trackside. Loved your animations, but look at the telephone lines running alongside and imagine how many split seconds they would survive as it passed.
Another thing not mentioned in this video, those jet engines are loud! Can you imagine it pulling away from a train station just how deafening that would be due to the proximity of you on the platform to the jet engines on the train. It would give some people perminant hearing damage.
There's another train in this same vein that's right up your alley - the Soviets actually made a full jet-powered 7-unit trainset in the 1970's that was basically this, but bigger! It was called the SVL.
Yes, L standing for laboratory. They were testing performance of train cars that are not powered by internal means. A lot of that research data was later used for trains that would potentially reach 250kph under locomotive power. But in reality they ended up with distributed power just like everyone else.
We did (sort of) get jet powered trains, with the turbine powered UAC TurboTrain and Bombardier LRC both being relatively successful, especially on the Quebec-Windsor corridor.
The no reversing capability would also make it hard to start going with many freight cars. A normal train backs up a bit before going into the intended direction, to create a bit of a slack that lets each car overcome its static friction one after another, instead of all at once. Not to mention potentially blowing materials like coal or sand out of uncovered hopper cars, that would be ridiculous.
The Black Beetle wasn't a prototype, it was an experimental engine. New York Central was never going to put jet propelled trains into revenue earning service, this was only ever an experiment to test the viability of high speed rail before making any commitment to the development of a conventionally propelled high speed rail vehicle. And the jet engines were from a B-36 not a B-58. Also Penn Central didn't abandon high speed rail, they just went with the Budd Metroliner which was already in production. And had already started being delivered to the Pennsylvania Railroad before the merger.
Planes need too much space, are unconveniant and just a pollution hazard, America should be ashamed, Europe has a whole network of high-speed trains, that are cheap and get you anywhere, America ? Mostly cargo trains, lmao
@talpatv512 rails use land too, planes only need a runway while trains need rails from point a to b, so trains actually use way more land than planes.
@@yeoldeseawitch and? Are you saying that I’m stupid for liking them or since they are stupid and they shouldn’t be covered? They’re still an important part of history, and frankly, aren’t that bad. The S1 was the only one that was truly stupid due to size. The others were fairly good at hauling ass down to NYC with three broadway limited. Not to mention they are potentially faster than mallard.
Based on all the corrections in the comments, you should take the video down and correct it to remove all references to the B-58, including all of the footage that you reused from the B-58 video. I'm curious how that got through research since it's such an easy fact to check.
The way it sounded like to also include into this there was also the part that other trains on the tracks would also get in the way for this to be fast and would need its own tracks. While also they didn't test it out on everything that comes down to it of what challenge trains with curves, bumps, and weight for if the jet train would be also having added carts onto it that it would reduce the speed.
Love your stories. One technical issue. The flickering film effect you use on the edges of the archival images, while a good visual cue about what we're watching, is irritating and distracting if you're watching on a big screen.... at least to me.
Aerotrain was an attractive concept but the passenger cars were based on GM buses and just couldn't take the pounding of railroad operations. I would love to see that engine mated with suitable passenger cars built by Budd.
Jet engines were designed to work efficiently at high altitudes, this unit was on the ground. The main braking force on a jet aircraft is it's ability to reverse thrust after landing. they couldn't do it in this application. They were right about the signals needing to be upgraded as a train going nearly 200 MPH would require more stop time (even using cab signals). You can't begin to imagine the devastation that would occur should a collision happen at a railroad crossing. Another fact is this train would need nearly perfect tracks to operate on. If they thought the cost of jet fuel was high in the 60's, they could never afford to operate it now a days, at current fuel costs.
It would never work, the noise of those turbines would be impossible to silence, and no city would allow that thing near it. If Jet-engines on trains were a good at all, other countries or even the US would eventually tried more. Obviously, fuel cost were probably major, specially now that most trains are electrical.
I can't help thinking that this must also have been HORRIBLY noisy. Nobody wants to live next to an airport, and there you only get noise from aircraft at take off and landing: most of the time they are thousands of feet up and the noise is barely detectable. This is a "jet" which would spend all its time on the ground.
6:57 - The reason you "CAN NOT figure out how", is because the B-58 NEVER used the J-47 engines. The engines mounted on the B-58 are the J-79. The same type used in the F-104 Starfighter & the F-4 Phantom fighters. If you look at the jet engine pod used, with it's 2 J-47 engines, it looks exactly like what was found on later models of the B-36 Bombers. The reason they were able to get these engines was because the US Air Force had evolved way past the B-36 & they were all being scrapped. That is a SIGNIFICANT ERROR in making a video like this. Even a simple Wikipedia check of the B-58 indicates that its' power-plant is the J-79, NOT the J-47. Bad Video.
Fine way to travel if you didn't care about a loss of hearing. How loud do you reckon it got inside that thing? Anyone been in a rear engine airliner, and sat at the back would know where I'm coming from.
You dont have to change signal systems. In germany you can drive 160kph with the Standart train security system (Indusi/PZB). Faster trains like IC/ICE use a train security system called LZB. All informations are shown on display in the cab. This system is is quit old from the 60/70s
It would be interesting to revisit the concept with modern turbofan engines for better fuel economy and, with suitable mixing nozzles, would have a much reduced exhaust temperature. If you really want the minimal exhaust tempeeature possible, use the components of a modern turbofan arranged according to the aechitecture of the Garrett ATF-3 engine which was used for its minimal thermal signature in Noerhrop's Tacit Blue "stealth" demonstrator. Oh, the turboprop (well, turboshaft reall) locomotive was tried by 16:55 United Aircraft with the Turbotrain; it was not successful.
Apparently they are according to the sources. However they were not the primary engines from the production model b-58, so likely they are the small ones like the j47
I imagine someone also realized that the airlines they were competing with could put jet engines on their vehicles too, go even faster, and not have to deal with constant track maintenance or inflexible routes.
You forgot to mention that another big reason why the black beetle never worked, is because with how much thrust and speed the train had, it Actualy kicked up track ballast. which not only would require the track to be re-ballasted, but also would hit bystanders at stations and crossings, and also passing trains, which could result in bad consequences
One thing to remember when talking about NA steam speed records is none were measured by a dyno car so numbers were not fully accurate though it is speculated that the PRR had trains that did 130+ which would put them well above mallard's record On that note though the 1893 record was not an official record. Even NYC's own engineers doubted 999 would be able to achieve that speed and NYC and the PRR were in a pissing contest for who had the fastest trains at the time so it is highly contested weather or not it's true because the fastest trains at the time only did mid to high 80's
7:16 If this is an actual photo of the engines used, they are clearly not from a B-58. I don’t even see how anyone could think they were. Seeing how electric trains can now hit 225mph with greater efficiency, this was always going to be a technological dead end.
Did the jet engine power the wheels like a gas turbine generator, or was it used as on a plane, just pushing out fast air. The latter case seems very inefficeint in a land based application.
"Why did jet powered trains never take off" sounds like a good thing to me, if it takes off then it's just a missile.
Jet powered train that flys..... sounds alot like Deception Astrotrain
Ah dammit you were here first with that XD
But glad to see I am not the only sassy/funny sarcastic one here XD And boy yours is good, I already forgot mine
i mean, it could have just been coz of the lack of wings but what do i know
😂
LMAO
I love how most of these videos are like "This vehicle used a very unique aerodynamic phenomenon to fly" but this one is just "they strapped a jet to it"
Tiny (huge) correction, the engines were taken from a decommissioned B-36 and not a B-58.
i heard this in trumps voice
@@usualsuspectsgarage real
Lives rent free @@usualsuspectsgarage
B-58 had re-heat, that would have been spectacular.
That's a massive error
I love the efficiency of having a jet engine blasting 400 degree exhaust right into the air conditioners.
MMM, Pure oven train
Even better is that blister on the roof of the Budd cars (or most railmotors/railcars/DMU's) is just the radiators for the engines, so you'd just have the hot jet exhaust cooking down through the roof with no climate control at all
Oh, come on! The speed of the train would have kept things cool. :P ;D
that is not an air conditioner, that car was originally diesel powered and the engine was in that roof bubble not the a/c unit.
Two J47 turbojet engines were mounted outboard of the three Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major piston engines on each wing of the B-36 - that's where they came from
I kept wondering what they were talking about thats clearly a B-36 dual engine pod.
@@natehill8069 right ? I had to stop mid video , go confirm , type my comment then keep watching lol .
@@daveogarf "Feather six!" "Which six?"
@@daveogarf"two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking and two more unaccounted for"
That engine pod looks an awful lot like the one used on the B-36D, not the B-58.
An internet check shows this to be the case.
He literally has the book from the head engineer of the project I highly doubt the man that built it is wrong.
@@DanielMartin-eq2kk try again. All you needed to do was look it up.
@@DanielMartin-eq2kkyou said this in another post and were corrected. He's made similar mistakes before. Idkw you can't imagine he misspoke.
Plus, the B-58 used J79 engines, NOT J47's. The B-58 was NOT surplus until 1970, 4 years after this timeframe. And yes, that is a B-36 paired engine pod with drag louvers. My question is, how the heck did the thing back up, reverse?
@@paulholmes672 Since this was a prototype, my guess is that they just shunted it with another locomotive. If they really had to, they might've reconnected the driveshafts (idk how they disconnected them), but I bet they just asked for a little shunter and called it a day.
The rock thats on the rail: im boutta end this train whole career
Wouldn't that rock get vaporized?
@@merafirewing6591more like atomized
@@RedBeardTheFirst yeah if anything, the rock is going to get his career rocked.
@@merafirewing6591 i see wat u did there
@@Borsuk988 lel.
*Somewhere in the USA*
"So hear me out, we will strap jet engines to a New York Metro rail car"
"Genious! Youre getting a bonus!"
Genius***
The J-47's were installed in their original pods from a surplus B-36 bomber. The B-58 had four J-79 after burning turbojets that were much more powerful than the J-47 even without the afterburner.
I am pretty sure that the engines are not from a B-58 but from a B-36. The mounting looks exactly the same as those found on the B-36D onwards. Also, in one picture of your video, one sees that the jets have can-type combustors, which the B-58's J-79s did not have (they had more advanced annular combustors instead), but the B-36's J-47s did have. Finally, in one picture showing the salvaged engines before mounting, one can still see the intake shutter panels that allowed the B-36 to turn off its Jet engines in cruise (for fuel economy) and rely only on its 6 radials instead. Nice video as always.
How to make something faster?
Put a jet engine on it
Not fast enough?
Put two jet engines on it
real
Japan: Let´s build a highly aerodynamic high speed train that changes rail travel.
France: Let´s build something that could compedte with airplanes similar to what japan built and embarres the brithish.
Britain: We´re too broke to build a highspeed railline so let´s build a crappy train that leans into curvs but the leaning mechanism will make the passengers sick and break, then we will sell the patent to italy, see them improove it, get jeluos and buy it back. Sounds good, doesn´t it.
Germany: Let´s build a huge diesel train that consumes ungodly ammounts of electricity while not being in service(TEE Trans Europa Express).
East Germany: What´s luxury and highspeed??????
Merica: Yall think a bit: railcar + jet engine = FREEDOOOOOOOM!
Very good summary ! (You forgot Ze Germanz...)
@@302ci1968 Sry, couldn´t think of anything better.
Australia: an average speed of 80kmh will be plenty for our trains, after all we are a very very small country with no massive expanses of desert or anything...
@@AusKipper1 excellent ;)
In Belgium, as in France, we have very very fast trains.
It's to compensate the DAYS long strikes every year. Usually at the precise moment people try/hope to go on holiday.
So, on average, we should take strikes into account.
And Japan would win again !!!!
The NYC is not called the New York City railroad. It's the New York *Central*.
then engines are from a b-36 peacemaker
I was wondering why the engine housing didn’t look quite right for a B58
That ‘record’ in 1893 was never authenticated which if they wanted to they could have with a Dynamometer car. They based this record on using a stopwatch and the distance between miles posts and not with actual measuring equipment.
And? You wanna say that time tables were off? There’s a margin of error with just about everything.
It was a great era for trying new and crazy things so much optimism ,
One of the biggest downsides would have been the noise, diesel trains are pretty loud as they are with two jet engines on them it would have been deafening.
Be like having a low flying jet go past each time.
Still shame it was not rebuilt and ran again or at least in a museum.
Actually, it never ever stood a chance of being put to practical use, but even knowing that, man, I would have killed for the chance to work on such a project! Fun, or what?
Whatever the positives or negatives of the engineering, the jet wash would have destroyed anything sitting trackside. Loved your animations, but look at the telephone lines running alongside and imagine how many split seconds they would survive as it passed.
Freebird Solo is legally required to ride on this train.
The song keeps playing from the starting train station to the end
Looks like the engine pod is from a B-36.
Yeah. Saying the engines are from a B-58 is categorically incorrect. Different engine completely.
Maybe the inboard pair of J -47’s from the B-47. Definitely not the B-58’s J-79. Disappointing for a normally good product
True, I don't know how I forgot about the pods on the B-47.
Another thing not mentioned in this video, those jet engines are loud! Can you imagine it pulling away from a train station just how deafening that would be due to the proximity of you on the platform to the jet engines on the train. It would give some people perminant hearing damage.
I like how the jet powered black beetle was almost the same jet train from coilbook 9 years ago
Okay am I tripping because last night I was just thinking about the picture of an abandoned train with two jets on the back what the hellllll
Thunderbirds flashback :)
Thank you for doing a video about this. It was much needed! I am fascinated by trains, especially the weird ones!
There's another train in this same vein that's right up your alley - the Soviets actually made a full jet-powered 7-unit trainset in the 1970's that was basically this, but bigger! It was called the SVL.
Yes, L standing for laboratory. They were testing performance of train cars that are not powered by internal means. A lot of that research data was later used for trains that would potentially reach 250kph under locomotive power. But in reality they ended up with distributed power just like everyone else.
We did (sort of) get jet powered trains, with the turbine powered UAC TurboTrain and Bombardier LRC both being relatively successful, especially on the Quebec-Windsor corridor.
If concepts like this didn't succeed, how could a concept like Hyperloop, that's a 1000 fold more complex, ever succeed.
Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated
“Behold, the jet engine inator!”
The no reversing capability would also make it hard to start going with many freight cars. A normal train backs up a bit before going into the intended direction, to create a bit of a slack that lets each car overcome its static friction one after another, instead of all at once. Not to mention potentially blowing materials like coal or sand out of uncovered hopper cars, that would be ridiculous.
I would say a video about trains that are a mobile base would be awesome too! Great vid so far ❤❤❤
The Black Beetle wasn't a prototype, it was an experimental engine. New York Central was never going to put jet propelled trains into revenue earning service, this was only ever an experiment to test the viability of high speed rail before making any commitment to the development of a conventionally propelled high speed rail vehicle. And the jet engines were from a B-36 not a B-58.
Also Penn Central didn't abandon high speed rail, they just went with the Budd Metroliner which was already in production. And had already started being delivered to the Pennsylvania Railroad before the merger.
Nick. Are you sure the jet engines were from a B-58? They look exactly like one of the engine pods from a B-47 turned upside down.
But, jet powered trains did take off... We just identifiy them as planes
Not really, plane has many inconvenience
Planes need too much space, are unconveniant and just a pollution hazard, America should be ashamed, Europe has a whole network of high-speed trains, that are cheap and get you anywhere, America ? Mostly cargo trains, lmao
@talpatv512 rails use land too, planes only need a runway while trains need rails from point a to b, so trains actually use way more land than planes.
@@thefancydoge8668 that's true, but train are far better at carrying volumes, wether it's a cargo or passenger.
Now imagine this, but with the engines of the SR71
😛😛😛😛😛😛ppornoooooooooo.........
I think you need to look at the Pennsylvania Railroad Duplexes. You’ll like them. Especially considering one has been said to have gone 150mph.
the duplexes were an extremely stupid design
@@yeoldeseawitch and? Are you saying that I’m stupid for liking them or since they are stupid and they shouldn’t be covered? They’re still an important part of history, and frankly, aren’t that bad. The S1 was the only one that was truly stupid due to size. The others were fairly good at hauling ass down to NYC with three broadway limited. Not to mention they are potentially faster than mallard.
I would not refer to railroads during the 1960s as have a monopoly, as they had lost their monopoly on transport decades earlier.
Based on all the corrections in the comments, you should take the video down and correct it to remove all references to the B-58, including all of the footage that you reused from the B-58 video. I'm curious how that got through research since it's such an easy fact to check.
The way it sounded like to also include into this there was also the part that other trains on the tracks would also get in the way for this to be fast and would need its own tracks. While also they didn't test it out on everything that comes down to it of what challenge trains with curves, bumps, and weight for if the jet train would be also having added carts onto it that it would reduce the speed.
Love your stories.
One technical issue. The flickering film effect you use on the edges of the archival images, while a good visual cue about what we're watching, is irritating and distracting if you're watching on a big screen.... at least to me.
Best information I've heard about this train ,, Special Thanks for sharing
30k USD to build the prototype. Probably 30k USD to fuel it each run
The engines are from a B-36 the engines from the Hustler are a dirivitave of the A-12/SR-71
The 1st 5 A-12's were fitted with J75 engines, until the J58's were ready.
The J79's were not a derivative or development of the J58.
Wtf?
Leaving on a jet train-- I'm still waiting to catch the first train to the moon.
The level of details is insane...
I'm no engineer but found it easy to guess why this wasn't a good idea lol :D
"Ok, so how do we make trains faster?"
"That's a terrible idea"
"But it'd work"
"It would..."
that ending, heartbreaking :(
So interesting content! I can't wait to see more
So, the Aerotrain but not on a monorail and on the other side of the Atlantic and it didn't lost to a high speed classic train program ?
Aerotrain was an attractive concept but the passenger cars were based on GM buses and just couldn't take the pounding of railroad operations. I would love to see that engine mated with suitable passenger cars built by Budd.
Seems like this concept would have worked better underground like a coast to coast subway.
Ah, the twin jet engine cowling is certainly evocative of an age.
16:30 Where's the link to check out the book? I don't see it in the description at all
Jet engines were designed to work efficiently at high altitudes, this unit was on the ground. The main braking force on a jet aircraft is it's ability to reverse thrust after landing. they couldn't do it in this application. They were right about the signals needing to be upgraded as a train going nearly 200 MPH would require more stop time (even using cab signals). You can't begin to imagine the devastation that would occur should a collision happen at a railroad crossing. Another fact is this train would need nearly perfect tracks to operate on. If they thought the cost of jet fuel was high in the 60's, they could never afford to operate it now a days, at current fuel costs.
Hi!!! Remember when you said that you'd make a 777X video? Pls do that next? Btw, good video!
He was the last trained steam engineer on the central . There are still tons of trained steam engineers
It would never work, the noise of those turbines would be impossible to silence, and no city would allow that thing near it. If Jet-engines on trains were a good at all, other countries or even the US would eventually tried more. Obviously, fuel cost were probably major, specially now that most trains are electrical.
2:12
But isn't flying scotsman the first steam locomotive to cross 100 mph??
I can't help thinking that this must also have been HORRIBLY noisy. Nobody wants to live next to an airport, and there you only get noise from aircraft at take off and landing: most of the time they are thousands of feet up and the noise is barely detectable. This is a "jet" which would spend all its time on the ground.
6:57 - The reason you "CAN NOT figure out how", is because the B-58 NEVER used the J-47 engines. The engines mounted on the B-58 are the J-79. The same type used in the F-104 Starfighter & the F-4 Phantom fighters.
If you look at the jet engine pod used, with it's 2 J-47 engines, it looks exactly like what was found on later models of the B-36 Bombers. The reason they were able to get these engines was because the US Air Force had evolved way past the B-36 & they were all being scrapped.
That is a SIGNIFICANT ERROR in making a video like this. Even a simple Wikipedia check of the B-58 indicates that its' power-plant is the J-79, NOT the J-47. Bad Video.
And given the J-47 wiki page links to the Black Beetle page, I presume the Black Beetle page states it’s a J-47 as well…
I can’t imagine what would go wrong…
Wow Mustard your voice has changed!
🤭🤭
🤭🤭🤭🤭🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
this dude's motto:say that 5 times
Fine way to travel if you didn't care about a loss of hearing. How loud do you reckon it got inside that thing? Anyone been in a rear engine airliner, and sat at the back would know where I'm coming from.
You dont have to change signal systems. In germany you can drive 160kph with the Standart train security system (Indusi/PZB). Faster trains like IC/ICE use a train security system called LZB. All informations are shown on display in the cab. This system is is quit old from the 60/70s
Use mph instead that heathen number.
@@merafirewing6591 use brain
The 1 thing you didn't compare.
How loud is it compared to a diesel electric?
the engine from one of the the internal twin nacel of a boeing b47 stratojet or a comvair b-36 pacemaker.. not a b58 those would have after burners
OMG the next video is about Su-75 Checkmate
It would be interesting to revisit the concept with modern turbofan engines for better fuel economy and, with suitable mixing nozzles, would have a much reduced exhaust temperature. If you really want the minimal exhaust tempeeature possible, use the components of a modern turbofan arranged according to the aechitecture of the Garrett ATF-3 engine which was used for its minimal thermal signature in Noerhrop's Tacit Blue "stealth" demonstrator.
Oh, the turboprop (well, turboshaft reall) locomotive was tried by 16:55 United Aircraft with the Turbotrain; it was not successful.
ah yes, nice use of Practical Engineering's signature music, i doubt anyone will notice
Are those really B-58 engines (J79)? Look too small. More like J47 engines (used on the F-86, B-47, B-36 and many other late 1940s/early 1950s jets).
Apparently they are according to the sources. However they were not the primary engines from the production model b-58, so likely they are the small ones like the j47
I imagine someone also realized that the airlines they were competing with could put jet engines on their vehicles too, go even faster, and not have to deal with constant track maintenance or inflexible routes.
Vickers Viscount, the s in Viscount is silent.
36 seconds in and the first mistake, Engines were from a B-47 complete with pod. B-47 had J47 engine
B58 had J79.
The next video a Milwaukee Road f7 streamlined steam locomotive trains for my found and explained very exciting.❤😊😊😊❤
U.S. in 1966: Let's put two jet engines on top.
Japan in 1966: 2nd anniversary of The Shinkansen.🤣
Made one about Soviet N1 Rocket 🚀
Can it even be classed as a "train" if there's only a single carriage?
More as a locomotive, but i guess they left the carriage problem for later
“This video is brought to you by square-“ YEAH YEAH WE KNOW
I've always suspected that the Pyke Syndicate repulser train drew some inspiration from this
So the jet mounted over the front of the train. How thick is the shielding used to prevent the aluminium roof from melting?
2:18 You just became a worthy opponent for Eminem!
You forgot to mention that another big reason why the black beetle never worked, is because with how much thrust and speed the train had, it Actualy kicked up track ballast. which not only would require the track to be re-ballasted, but also would hit bystanders at stations and crossings, and also passing trains, which could result in bad consequences
It's a darn good thing these trains never "took off" if you ask me!
One thing to remember when talking about NA steam speed records is none were measured by a dyno car so numbers were not fully accurate though it is speculated that the PRR had trains that did 130+ which would put them well above mallard's record
On that note though the 1893 record was not an official record. Even NYC's own engineers doubted 999 would be able to achieve that speed and NYC and the PRR were in a pissing contest for who had the fastest trains at the time so it is highly contested weather or not it's true because the fastest trains at the time only did mid to high 80's
Surely this would be about 1/100th as efficient as a diesel engine simply driving the wheels
The engines were from the Convair B-36 Peacemaker, not the Hustler. 🤦♂
Vickers Visscount? FFS!
Beginning to think he and Simon Whistler are voiced by bots.
@@ABrit-bt6ce Absolutely! If it's not a Bot, then I despair at the level of public ignorance being proudly displayed. Welcome to the future!!
please make a video about the 1910 coanda, first ever "jet" biplane to possibly ever fly that was created before ww1.
Looks more like the Boeing B-47 Stratojet pair of turbines.
7:16 If this is an actual photo of the engines used, they are clearly not from a B-58. I don’t even see how anyone could think they were.
Seeing how electric trains can now hit 225mph with greater efficiency, this was always going to be a technological dead end.
2:16 that was never proved because the mph were done based on mph between mile post.
Engines are also from the B-47
This is definitely what New York needs
I swear they tested every possible engineering contraption in the 1960's
Vi count with i being lengthened as in high. Not vis-count.
Did the jet engine power the wheels like a gas turbine generator, or was it used as on a plane, just pushing out fast air. The latter case seems very inefficeint in a land based application.
Transportation option in the US is absolutely limited.
Once again, we don't have fast trains because we have faster planes!
$30,350 might be the least amount of money spent on one of these wild projects.
Didnt the Pennsylvania RR have a S1 or S2 duplex steam train that had an averave running speed of 120 mph and a all out 150ish speed?
It’s Action Chugger - wheels to the rails!