I love the polar express movie because the music, the locomotive, the passenger cars, the characters are all just iconic. Definitely my favorite Christmas movie of all time
@@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.
The German locomotive was without water for 40 minutes and the PE would be without water for about 5 seconds. Would 5 seconds be enough for the firebox to overheat like that? Don't ask the know-it-all kid. He doesn't even know what type of locomotive the PE is. He gets it wrong when he tells the other kids.
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
The momentum of the train and Newtons Laws of physics prove that on the first hill the water would NOT rush to the front of the Boiler, but instead stay at the back as the train is traveling too fast for gravity to affect the water.
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
Most crew understand this principle, and will actually run the water a bit higher while going downhill, as the throttle will be closed and not using any steam, most likely the safety valve would have also popped by this point
I Also Love The Polar Express So Much, And 0:08 I Also Feel That About It, Also This Joke Was Actually Funny And Cool, But I Personally Think That If The Polar Express Was Real Then It’s Trip Would Be Just In The Book, I Mean That If The Polar Express Was Real I Think If It Piked Us Up From Our Homes To Take Us To The North Pole After That It Would Just Thunder Through Could Dark Forests, Climb Very High Mountains, Thunder Through Tunnels, Bridge’s And Vales Until It Finally Arrives At The North Pole
You know what’s funny about that the designers of the tracks would have never made the second incline because they would know of the risk im sure there are regulations for rail design and safety kind of like Osha or something
Im the guy that'll say It is real cause it definitely is the train they modeled polar express off of is pere Marquette 1225 and it's a Berkshire but it was built by lima not Baldwin locomotive works
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
I don’t think this would truly happen, due to it being so cold that a whole frozen lake could support a train, I don’t think the train would over heat because of that and explode that quickly, on top of that I don’t think steam pressure would go up much mainly because of speed it’s not like the train was at a standstill it was going fast, and it also shows is by steam was bursting out of the pistons and if anything the fire would’ve die out from it moving around in the firebox, the only way they all could of die was from the derailment on the ramps or turns or after the “Ice” section.
@@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.
Tom lake already covered the " it was five seconds not forty minutes that the water wasn't above the firebox" in his comment. But if let's say was going to explode and the boiler was overpressured. Since the previous locomotive was stopped when it exploded... What would happen to a locomotive that had it's throttle WIDE open? Would it accelerate? Or blow it's pistons instead of the boiler?
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.
This video didn’t ruin The Polar Express for me. If you think about it, the fact that the Polar Express didn’t explode from pressurisation in the boiler of the locomotive when going through Glacier Gulch is just like how it didn’t crack the ice it was sliding across on the ice lake. If it were realistic then during the ice lake scene the Polar Express would break through the ice and sink immediately as it hit it and everyone on board would drown, just like how everyone would fall to their deaths or get blown away due to the explosion from massive pressurisation in the boiler. I’m just saying that this isn’t the only unrealistic thing that would be deadly in real life in The Polar Express.
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.
I can see why it is childhood ruining, but you don't HAVE to comment "OH, THIS RUINED MY CHILDHOOD, UNSUB NOW!!!1!!!!1!1". So, This video is more interesting to me then, well... childhood ruining.
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.
You know, maybe because the polar express is not exact to the real life train he could’ve upgraded it with a gyroscopic firebox built on hinges, specifically designed to move when climbing and moving down hills so the water doesn’t flow everywhere and cause an explosion
well any fictional train is held together by Magic , Polar Express more so Hogward Express and Thomas the Tank Engine (Magic Railroad)= so many accidents yet everyone got away unscaved including the Engines always back in action after a few repairs
Ok ok the Polar Express is not my favorite train The other train is my favorite the name is Plate 764 legacy nickel aaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!! Oofffff then boooooom
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
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
this video is mess up wen the PE was falling and do you think it crash but it did not Crash it just keep on going with out derailing so you lied about it crashing but it did not .
New, updated version here: th-cam.com/video/bxPvxWSdlIQ/w-d-xo.html
I love the polar express movie because the music, the locomotive, the passenger cars, the characters are all just iconic. Definitely my favorite Christmas movie of all time
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
The German locomotive was without water for 40 minutes and the PE would be without water for about 5 seconds. Would 5 seconds be enough for the firebox to overheat like that? Don't ask the know-it-all kid. He doesn't even know what type of locomotive the PE is. He gets it wrong when he tells the other kids.
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!
The 1225 was actually part of a series of locomotives known as the Van Swergian type. 2-8-4s that looked similar were built before and during WWII.
The momentum of the train and Newtons Laws of physics prove that on the first hill the water would NOT rush to the front of the Boiler, but instead stay at the back as the train is traveling too fast for gravity to affect the water.
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.
Well the Girl Did said it's a Magic Train
So thats why did not Exploded
Pls Don't Get Offended
yes i will no explode
I can't wait to see the real polar Express in real life
I bet the people that hates this movie would loved that ending
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.
Well if it was real. It would be a magic train so that wouldn’t happen.
yess
My childhood (as a railway enthusiast) is now, destroyed.
I agree but the movie polar express paid no attention to physics
Kaboom!!! The End
H O T H O T O H W E G O T I T
Insert earrape explosion noise here
the polar express technically is real Pere Marquette 1225 is actually the basis locomotive for the polar express
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
Woah!
Fiction is fiction and this is exactly what happens when it's not in the right place. It could get really nasty.
Most crew understand this principle, and will actually run the water a bit higher while going downhill, as the throttle will be closed and not using any steam, most likely the safety valve would have also popped by this point
Let's be real, a Berkshire would fly off the top of that first hill 😂 the momentum involved would just obliterate the tracks
But can the "Real" Polar Express still go really fast? And then EMERGENCY BREAK? 👀
Of course
The real one top speed is 74 mph I've heard
@@jpwein88 amazing
I Also Love The Polar Express So Much, And 0:08 I Also Feel That About It, Also This Joke Was Actually Funny And Cool, But I Personally Think That If The Polar Express Was Real Then It’s Trip Would Be Just In The Book, I Mean That If The Polar Express Was Real I Think If It Piked Us Up From Our Homes To Take Us To The North Pole After That It Would Just Thunder Through Could Dark Forests, Climb Very High Mountains, Thunder Through Tunnels, Bridge’s And Vales Until It Finally Arrives At The North Pole
You know what’s funny about that the designers of the tracks would have never made the second incline because they would know of the risk im sure there are regulations for rail design and safety kind of like Osha or something
That's not an OSHA thing, it's just physically impossible
Wow the comments are a mess anyways nice video.
When the train went down the sharp Hills how did it not derail
Im the guy that'll say It is real cause it definitely is the train they modeled polar express off of is pere Marquette 1225 and it's a Berkshire but it was built by lima not Baldwin locomotive works
HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD THE REAL POLAR EXSPRESS ECSPILOD!!!
Great video
321 explore boooooom!!!!!
5:44 Have there ever been train tracks built on such a ridiculous grade?
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.
If it was real it would be called kidnappers taken way to far
YOU DESTROYED MY CHILDHOOD!!!
If a 10 minute video is enough to destroy your childhood, then you probably didn't really have a childhood to begin with lol
I don’t think this would truly happen, due to it being so cold that a whole frozen lake could support a train, I don’t think the train would over heat because of that and explode that quickly, on top of that I don’t think steam pressure would go up much mainly because of speed it’s not like the train was at a standstill it was going fast, and it also shows is by steam was bursting out of the pistons and if anything the fire would’ve die out from it moving around in the firebox, the only way they all could of die was from the derailment on the ramps or turns or after the “Ice” section.
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.
Better the Polar Express than the Snowpiercer.
Tom lake already covered the " it was five seconds not forty minutes that the water wasn't above the firebox" in his comment. But if let's say was going to explode and the boiler was overpressured. Since the previous locomotive was stopped when it exploded... What would happen to a locomotive that had it's throttle WIDE open? Would it accelerate? Or blow it's pistons instead of the boiler?
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.
This video didn’t ruin The Polar Express for me. If you think about it, the fact that the Polar Express didn’t explode from pressurisation in the boiler of the locomotive when going through Glacier Gulch is just like how it didn’t crack the ice it was sliding across on the ice lake. If it were realistic then during the ice lake scene the Polar Express would break through the ice and sink immediately as it hit it and everyone on board would drown, just like how everyone would fall to their deaths or get blown away due to the explosion from massive pressurisation in the boiler. I’m just saying that this isn’t the only unrealistic thing that would be deadly in real life in The Polar Express.
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.
Well if it was real, the train wouldn’t even make it up the first hill.
Do American steam locomotives not have safety valves? Safety valves are supposed to prevent the steam over-pressurizing the boiler
They do, but a sudden spike of pressure will overload any type of safety valve
I can see why it is childhood ruining, but you don't HAVE to comment "OH, THIS RUINED MY CHILDHOOD, UNSUB NOW!!!1!!!!1!1". So, This video is more interesting to me then, well... childhood ruining.
WHERE WAS THIS VIDEO MY ENTIRE LIFE?!?!
A real life (and realistic) Polar Express would probably just be a way to transport Russian employees to an article oil facility.
Cp 1278 also suffers a crown sheet failure
average train ride at the basque railway museum be like
Correct me if I'm wrong wouldn't the momentum cause the water to be glued to the fire box until the track leveled out
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.
2:23 the titanic’s iceberg!
Objective complete! Save The Titanic!
Title WhAt iF The PoLaR EXpResS WaS ReAl BOI DO YOU KNOW TRAINS
I Love The Polar Express
Thx for reminding me about this terrifying movie. I just finishing recovering from daily nightmares of cg tom hanks. :)
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
I think that it is pronounced "pair mar-kett".
Pere marquette of course. He said PRE marquette.
You know, maybe because the polar express is not exact to the real life train he could’ve upgraded it with a gyroscopic firebox built on hinges, specifically designed to move when climbing and moving down hills so the water doesn’t flow everywhere and cause an explosion
well any fictional train is held together by Magic , Polar Express more so Hogward Express and Thomas the Tank Engine (Magic Railroad)= so many accidents yet everyone got away unscaved including the Engines always back in action after a few repairs
Chris we almost have 1k subsribers!
when he said the locomotive would explode i was thinking: *boiler explosion*
So when it was going uphill is it possible that if you were to turn off the Firefox would you know it not explode
Since the Locomotive that the polar Express design is based on would somehow do somthing like that
100% that May would happen
I'm not sure if you are bullied the true meaning
wat
My favorite character is the goast hobo
Anybody told me that it wasn't very interesting I'd tell them that there nuts
Probably it woulded destroy erlier, since those crazy rails would destroy the whole train
He he he it was fake
Childhood RUINED
It’s a Magic train
If it's real... Then i will get 1223 (sister engine of 1225) to be the polar express
the amazing spiderman robert peterson
CP 1278 boiler explosion?
Ok ok the Polar Express is not my favorite train
The other train is my favorite the name is
Plate 764 legacy nickel aaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!! Oofffff then boooooom
*765
Chris with a K the Polar express is real already
You didn't watch the video
1:12 1:13 1:16
You forgot somthing. This train is magic train.
Not magical enough for logic 😏
It’s funny when the polar express explode
Because the camera goes into the grass
lol
but what does this have to do with the polar exspress exsploding
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
Wdym bro I was on the train when we drifted it on ice
Ngl, that’s pretty cringe bro
It’s pronounced Peer Marquette not Pre Marquette fyi
wdym if it was real??? it is real, just its not called the polar express, it is just the same model as the one used in the polar express movie
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
this video is mess up wen the PE was falling and do you think it crash but it did not Crash it just keep on going with out derailing so you lied about it crashing but it did not .
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
It is real
What if your mom was real?
What if I was real?
@@ChriswithaK what if my channel was real?
it did not explode
You didn’t watch the video
All about the polarexpress