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?
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.
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.
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 !!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
imagine this with todays technology,and every time the train goes into a tunnel the jet engines hide like a landing gear while a diesel engine keeps runing the train in the tunnel,and when comes out,jet engines come out again,......greetings from Lima Peru......
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
"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
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?
How to make something faster?
Put a jet engine on it
Not fast enough?
Put two jet engines on it
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.
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.
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
*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***
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
I would not refer to railroads during the 1960s as have a monopoly, as they had lost their monopoly on transport decades earlier.
Freebird Solo is legally required to ride on this train.
The song keeps playing from the starting train station to the end
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.
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 !!!!
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.
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.
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.
Now imagine this, but with the engines of the SR71
😛😛😛😛😛😛ppornoooooooooo.........
Thank you for doing a video about this. It was much needed! I am fascinated by trains, especially the weird ones!
I like how the jet powered black beetle was almost the same jet train from coilbook 9 years ago
Leaving on a jet train-- I'm still waiting to catch the first train to the moon.
I would say a video about trains that are a mobile base would be awesome too! Great vid so far ❤❤❤
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.
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.
Best information I've heard about this train ,, Special Thanks for sharing
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.
that ending, heartbreaking :(
30k USD to build the prototype. Probably 30k USD to fuel it each run
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.
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 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.
ah yes, nice use of Practical Engineering's signature music, i doubt anyone will notice
The next video a Milwaukee Road f7 streamlined steam locomotive trains for my found and explained very exciting.❤😊😊😊❤
Vickers Viscount, the s in Viscount is silent.
Ah, the twin jet engine cowling is certainly evocative of an age.
The level of details is insane...
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.
Seems like this concept would have worked better underground like a coast to coast subway.
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
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.
It's a darn good thing these trains never "took off" if you ask me!
Vi count with i being lengthened as in high. Not vis-count.
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.
Interesting train👍
2:18 You just became a worthy opponent for Eminem!
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.
Made one about Soviet N1 Rocket 🚀
nice video... nice animation
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
Hi!!! Remember when you said that you'd make a 777X video? Pls do that next? Btw, good video!
36 seconds in and the first mistake, Engines were from a B-47 complete with pod. B-47 had J47 engine
B58 had J79.
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??
Engines are also from the B-47
Once again, we don't have fast trains because we have faster planes!
This is definitely what New York needs
The engines were from the Convair B-36 Peacemaker, not the Hustler. 🤦♂
OMG the next video is about Su-75 Checkmate
So the jet mounted over the front of the train. How thick is the shielding used to prevent the aluminium roof from melting?
16:30 Where's the link to check out the book? I don't see it in the description at all
Looks more like the Boeing B-47 Stratojet pair of turbines.
“This video is brought to you by square-“ YEAH YEAH WE KNOW
$30,350 might be the least amount of money spent on one of these wild projects.
Transportation option in the US is absolutely limited.
I've always suspected that the Pyke Syndicate repulser train drew some inspiration from this
Someone asked what if we put jet engines on a train?
And everyone who lives next to a rail line said no, I would like to still be able to hear
It’s Action Chugger - wheels to the rails!
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.
Keep making videos of tarin please
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
Please can you do a video about the f35 and its variants A/B/C/I
please make a video about the 1910 coanda, first ever "jet" biplane to possibly ever fly that was created before ww1.
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.
The 1 thing you didn't compare.
How loud is it compared to a diesel electric?
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.
Wow Mustard your voice has changed!
🤭🤭
🤭🤭🤭🤭🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
“Black beetle in the city…”
I swear they tested every possible engineering contraption in the 1960's
The reason this didn’t take off is, (apart from no flight surfaces) noise cancelling headphone tech didn’t exist yet…
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!!
@@indigohammer5732Alas, the future is now.
No way that would actually work long-term without those tracks being totally rebuilt and the train wheels being remade as well for speed🥺
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?
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?
imagine this with todays technology,and every time the train goes into a tunnel the jet engines hide like a landing gear while a diesel engine keeps runing the train in the tunnel,and when comes out,jet engines come out again,......greetings from Lima Peru......
Any running train in the north america can be considered as fastest in north america
Hopefully Brightline will beat the fastest US train record.
MAN that thing would be loud. You think trains make too much noise now? Imagine that with a jet engine that's louder than current train horns. Yeesh!
The "grandfather" of the now modern bullet train.
How much fuel would this have to carry to be used daily?
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
Can u make a video abaout the soviet version of the jet train the ER22
correction, Soviet jet-train was built out of ER22 cars. But ER22 was quite common EMU. A facelift, if you wish, of an even more iconic ER2.
2:16 that was never proved because the mph were done based on mph between mile post.
Aren't there trains today using jet engines? not using the thrust directly, but using the power from the shaft to drive an electric system