What if the Polar Express was Real? 

Same!

​@@nunya6537 I've actually been listening to the soundtrack of the movie pretty regularly while going railfanning And I really love it

@@adventuresofamtrakcascades301 Oh, really? I wish I had the money to go travelling like that lol. I do NOT live in a railroad town, unfortunately. I am still a huge train fan, though.

@@adventuresofamtrakcascades301 BTW, an I the only one who only really watched the polar express for the train scenes?

​@@nunya6537 Honestly, I mix up sometimes

That is a fair point, most steam locomotive boiler explosions happened after the locomotive ran with low water for an extended period of time. (IE UP 9018 and C&O 3020) The angle I was coming at was that the entire firebox of the Polar express would be fully exposed to the flames compared to basically every other boiler explosion where only the crown sheet was exposed, albeit only for a few seconds. That being said, the fire in the firebox (depending on the speed of the locomotive) could reach upwards of 2500ish°F which is well over the safe temperatures for steel for a long period of time. Would 5 seconds be enough to weaken the steel? I don't know, I have no way to test it lol. This was supposed to be more of a stupid fun video anyways haha, didn't put too much thought into it except for the "kaboom!" part

@@ChriswithaK That's good! I like the KABOOM part, too!

If that was the case, then everything on the locomotive would have been violently thrown back during the descent of the first hill. The people on the locomotive are lighter than the water in the boiler and therefore we can assume whatever happens to them happens to the water. In the case of the movie, we can see the conductor and the kids at the front of the locomotive start to experience weightlessness shortly after they start going down the hill. This means that they most likely had their feet planted against the ground until that very moment. Based on that assumption, this means the water would have rushed to the front of the boiler shortly after the bump of the hill and then proceed to experience weightlessness as seen in the movie. If momentum did cause the water to stick to the back of the locomotive, then we would have seen similar repercussions to both the engineers and the conductor and kids. If the water stuck to the back of the locomotive on top of the boiler, this means that the acceleration of the locomotive would have been quick enough to throw both the water and the characters on the locomotive backward. We would have seen the engineer and fireman flung into the tender and also would have seen the conductor and kids immediately experience weightlessness directly after the locomotive went over the hill. Since we do not see any of these things in the movie, we can safely say that the acceleration of the locomotive was not strong enough to throw any of the characters backward and therefore not strong enough to pin the water to the back of the boiler, on top of the firebox. But that's just a hunch lol

@Train099 LOL absolutely destroyed also i subbed to your channel chris

Its a.... movie

@@tjprptchable It's more like food for thought, it's fun to apply real-world physics to scenes in Hollywood to see what would happen, at least for me.

yes i will no explode

Some dark stuff right there

@@antizoom6855 I'm serious the abmit of time I heard my classmates talk shack about The Polar Express is nutd

people hate it because of the CGI. the CGI is REALLLYY bad everything else was amazing.

yess

I agree but the movie polar express paid no attention to physics

H O T H O T O H W E G O T I T

Insert earrape explosion noise here

I explain it in the video and show it in the thumbnail. I guess I wasn't able to make the first 10 seconds of the video entertaining enough lol

@@ChriswithaK u did make it entertaining but its just some people who see this already know the movie and pere marquette 1225 pretty well

Of course

The real one top speed is 74 mph I've heard

@@jpwein88 amazing

That's not an OSHA thing, it's just physically impossible

If a 10 minute video is enough to destroy your childhood, then you probably didn't really have a childhood to begin with lol

wat

Depends. I would say if the ice on the lake was thin enough to cause the codder pin to break the ice, then yes the train would of sank onto the tracks as soon as it sank into the "lake". Which was actually more likely a giant Ice puddle made from a heavy rain storm that took place right before the tundra started to freeze.

Wha... what are you even talking about, I never talked about any of those points lol. Did you even watch the video?

@@ChriswithaK you’re right you didn’t I did.

@@the25thdoctor Ok... Still don't understand your point. 1. Never brought up the lake since the train wouldn't have made it to the lake as said in the video. 2. Never said the train would overheat, from my knowledge, steam locomotives don't overheat. They do get hotter as they go faster though 3. Never said there would be an increase in steam pressure. Steam locomotives usually don't explode from overpressure (which I think was your point). They have systems in place to prevent that from happening 4. The locomotive was going fast, yes 5. "fire would’ve die out from it moving around in the firebox" I don't understand this either, it doesn't make sense. If water, pressured or un-pressured, is around the firebox, nothing will happen. That's basically normal. Maybe by "around in the firebox" you meant if water went inside? Well if nonpressurized then yes the fire would go out, but there's no way for water to go inside without a failure of the firebox or heat tubes connected to the firebox. If it was pressurized then that would mean the water would be coming in from the boiler into the firebox. For that to happen, there would need to be a depressurization of the 150psi boiler into the firebox would cause an explosion, like poking a needle into a balloon. This is what I explained in the video and is something I feel like you didn't really understand 6. They would die from a boiler explosion, it has happened multiple times in the past as explained in the video. The derailment part was more of a joke, but the engineer and most likely anyone in the first car would die. I like reading comments revolving around critical thinking, but your comment is uhh... it's definitely something else

@@ChriswithaK you said that the train would have a large buildup In pressure from the water vapor however that wouldn’t happen from the all of it being released from the down hill slope.

@@ChriswithaK and the crown sheet would take far longer to melt and “over heat” due to the freezing cold temperatures “in the Arctic” and it shows this BY THE TRAIN DRIFTING ON THE ICE! Which means there has to be 28 layers of ice *no clue how...* so it must be scarily cold at glacier gulch.

Pere marquette of course. He said PRE marquette.

The pressure in the boiler would need to be absolutely immense if it were to blow out the pistons, probably something like 10-15 times (low balling it) the amount of pressure the boiler is rated for. Pistons will blow out from either poor maintenance or when there's an uncompressible force acting against it like water. If the boiler didn't have any safety precautions on overpressure and for some reason didn't explode even when it had 10-15 times the pressure it was designed for the inside of it, most likely nothing would change with the steam locomotive, at least nothing majorly noticeable. There are multiple reasons for this: 1. There's only so much steam pressure you can push through the regulator, let alone all the valves and piping to and inside the pistons. Yes, you can put more pressure on one side to push more through, but at a certain point, the laws of diminishing returns come into play. Basically, if you overpressurize a boiler, the steam would most cause failures through valves, tubes, and/or mechanics well before it can blow out the pistons. 2. The Steam Locomotive in Question (Polar Express) was not designed for high pressured steam use. This kinda coincides with the point up above. The valves, tubes, mechanics, etc were not designed to take the extra steam load and therefore most likely would not benefit from extra pressure. The internal piston head and tubes leading to said piston heads were specifically designed with a specific size and shape to maximize efficiency at a certain pressure and speed. If you try to increase pressure in this system then there will in fact be a bottleneck somewhere since it was not designed for it in the first place which would prevent the steam pressure from reaching its final destination (aka the piston). Where that bottleneck specifically would be I don't know 3. Higher steam pressure does NOT = Faster Locomotives. There are many experimental locomotives out there that had multiple times the amount of steam pressure that the Polar Express, or in the real world Pere Marquette 1225, had and none of them were really built for speed. If you wanted to add more steam pressure for speed then you would need to expand and modify things like valves, tubes, boiler strength piston face sizes and etc. which would just add to the amount of stuff the steam would need to go through reducing its efficiency at speeding up the train. Typically high-pressure steam locomotives would be designed for cheaper usage since: higher pressure boiler pressure = ability to heat steam to higher temperature = more power behind said steam. There's a lot of things I'm simplifying here. but in general... TL:DR - If the Polar Express had its throttle wide open, neither higher steam pressure would accelerate or blow out the locomotive pistons.

They do, but a sudden spike of pressure will overload any type of safety valve

The cgi isn't bad, geez. I get no uncanny valley vibes from their eyes. Don't let the humans distracts you from the beautiful visuals too.

This movie is goofy to me

If the momentum glued the water to the back of the locomotive then it would have also launched the three characters in the front of the locomotive into the air. When the train goes over the hill, they don't start raising out of the air until they start going down.

Max I've personally seen was 52 degrees, those are purposely built trains meant to transport people up steep mountains. I don't think theres ever been a grade built at a near vertical drop lol

If it’s a vertical drop it should’ve said something like 89 degrees, not 179 degrees.

Your comment makes no sense in context of the video, but ok

@@ChriswithaK Why exactly?

@@prehistorichero2755 What does the train being magic have anything to do with the video. The video was pointing out how the engine going up and down steep grades would cause the water to shift around in the boiler. On top of that, all of the steam crew, main characters, and kids in the back of the train felt the changes in direction. This can be seen and was explained in dialogue in the movie There was also no mention of acceleration in the video, this video talked about how the water would move forward or backward based on the level of the locomotive. The video also didn't talk about the passengers until the very end of the video. Again, your comment doesn't make any sense to me.

@@ChriswithaK I know what you're saying, you don't have to be mean by saying how my comment makes no sense.

@@prehistorichero2755 Being mean would be like me saying that your comment was stupid or pointless. I literally just said that your comment doesn't make sense

Ngl, that’s pretty cringe bro

I explained it in the video, the crown sheet would get exposed and weaken due to the heat. The weakened crown sheet would give into the steam pressure causing a decompression which in turn would cause an explosion

You didn't watch the video

Not magical enough for logic 😏

*765

Because the camera goes into the grass

lol

The Polar Express is based on the Pere Marquette 1225. It is based on, not exactly the same. I also put the Para Marquette in the thumbnail AND talked bout it in the video. If you're gonna try to act like a smart, atleast watch the video first lol

@@ChriswithaK I basically just said that it was not the same as the polar express, and it was just the same model

I never said it crashed in the video

​@@ChriswithaK I mean it did not explode

@@kellyfairbanks5330 I don't think you understood the point of the video

What if I was real?

@@ChriswithaK what if my channel was real?

You didn’t watch the video