Can a steam train do a loop da loop?

[@Johndoe-jd]

Yes but only once

[@Hyce777]

I realized I didn't make that joke while editing and was sad

[@Jupiter-rs4zl]

In a row

[@Godzilla20191]

You can until like half way through the loopty loo before the boiler fails

[@Johndoe-jd]

@@Godzilla20191 hence the only once.

[@leechowning2712]

​@@Godzilla20191centrifical force should still be a thing here, since if the train is going slower that the force of gravity on it... well... it will find other ways to answer the problem. The main thing I worried about is the sloshing effect afterwards.

[@rexman971]

"Is this a hold up?" "Its a science experiment!"

[@ColtonRMagby]

"Stop the train just before you hit the switch track up ahead!" "Doc!" "Uncouple the cars from the tender!" "I've wanted to do that all my life!" "What are these things, anyway?" "My own version of Presto logs."

[@rexman971]

@ColtonRMagby "The Doc can dance?" Haha glad someone got the reference.

[@ColtonRMagby]

@@rexman971 I love those movies.

[@PendragonDaGreat]

Me, with a degree in Physics: I assume that it's possible, now it's up to you engineers to make it happen. (ignore the fact that I'm also assuming it's a spherical train in a vacuum) ;)

[@Hyce777]

spherical train in a vacuum... lmao!

[@BrooksMoses]

When a spherical train does a loop-the-loop, how can you tell?

[@Wandering_4ever]

@@BrooksMoses a Vacuum? How do you keep the fire going ?? 😄

[@Streaky100001]

Never mind a spherical train. I assume it's a point mass :P

[@SkorjOlafsen]

Spherical train in a vacuum uniformly radiating steam. :)

[@strasburgrailfan90]

Rocket powered 0-4-0s are the way to go

[@peregrina7701]

get outta my head :)

[@littlebacongreengreatweste2606]

*BWBA Thomas intensifies*

[@thegreenrobott.g.r1609]

-Percy and the jet engine-

[@rgsrrofnc]

With enough thrust, pigs fly just fine.

[@MegaLokopo]

You and some friends proved in railroads online, that a steam train can do a loop da loop, without track.

[@itsjustaviper]

Keyboard Warriors: "Steam engines could do a loop de loop!" *_Physics, Gravity, and Hydrodynamics, the fuckin engine crew would all like to know your location_*

[@Idaho-Cowboy]

Tonight on Bottom Gear! Hyce does math, The Mallard flies and does a loop, and I throw limes. If you fail a to complete a loop do you just fall, or does the crown sheet get exposed and then it explodes on the way down?

[@andrewadams3894]

First the water fills the dry pipe, superheater header, superheaters, the delivery pipes and the cylinders, resulting in hydraulic lock, bent rods, and blown cylinder heads. Shortly after this the now exposed side sheets, door sheet and throat sheet next to the mudring overheat and pull away from the staybolts initiating a boiler explosion. This assumes enough air resistance that the water falls slightly faster than the boiler. If you want to further complicate things, consider the effect of the overbalance in the main drivers.

[@gearandalthefirst7027]

I think "bottom gear" is usually called a butt plug

[@Zoeymacelroy0811]

​@@andrewadams3894Better question, can you keep enough fire in the box without it all being forced out through the grates from centrifugal force?

[@aitorror3659]

Okay, watching physics calculations with imperial units was certainly entertaining.

[@alexhajnal107]

I'd forgotten that slugs were a thing.

[@osageorangegaming5128]

Point of the video: Theory: The Mallard could, mathematically, do its own version of a roller-coaster loop-da-loop Practice: Its complicated.... Nice little thing to watch, Hyce

[@Weird...101]

SPOILERS

[@katherinec2759]

My husband's suggestion: put an 0-4-0 in the front and the Mallard in the back. Uncouple the Mallard at the bottom of the loop, so that the 0-4-0 gets the speed, but the Mallard can stop without dealing with the curve.

[@Hyce777]

Something tells me the bearings on the 0-4-0 might explode before that but that could be worth a shot. Lol

[@daniellewis1789]

Dutch drop the Turbo Porter into the loop track!

[@ryano.5149]

@@Hyce777 Clearly the answer is an 0-4-0 with 80-inch drivers.

[@smyset1112]

Smoky Joe. Name it that and paint it on the saddle-tank.

[@katherinec2759]

@@ryano.5149 My husband: "Yeah... that's taller than the entire engine (Betsy) I was picturing..."

[@GoldenSpikeRailroadStories]

“Can a train do a loop?” Give me “What is a roller coaster?” For 500, Hyce!

[@tf_9047]

"The thing about steam trains...is that they follow the laws of physics." - Stand Up Railroading

[@pranavghantasala6808]

One thing to consider is that the locomotive can only reach 126 mph, not at the _top_ of the loop, but only on the flat ground at the _bottom._ Assuming no losses due to friction (spherical cow tumbleweeds across the background), the total energy (KE plus PE) is the same at the top and bottom of the loop, meaning: E_bottom = E_top (m*v_bottom^2) / 2 = m*g*(2*r) + (m*v_top^2)/2 After some quick algebra, the velocity at the top of the loop would be: v_top = sqrt(v_bottom^2 - 4*g*r) Running this new expression through the centrifugal formula (mg = mv^2/r), we reach the expression: r = (v_bottom^2) / (5*g) …which works out to roughly 64.67 meters, or 212.17 feet. There, I'm sure the civil engineers will be fine with that! EDIT @ 11:25: Oh by the way it would be going 56.35 mph at the top. Absolutely nuts. EDIT 2: Also at the top of the loop we assume that the centrifugal and gravitational forces cancel each other out perfectly, so the water and coal would probably stay where they are, and there wouldn't be much force on the wheels either. It may just be possible!

[@desmondk-o7148]

"can reach 126 on flat ground" I think you mean "can reach 126 downhill with a tailwind" my friend :P

[@paulw.woodring7304]

@@desmondk-o7148 Not only that, but according to the history I read about the record run, that trip did some significant damage to the running gear and it didn't just continue on after that.

[@desmondk-o7148]

and also back to the original comment again, honestly really surprised this wasn't where hyce's brain went immediately, although I guess thats just engineer brain vs physicist brain, cause to me "physics of object going round a loopdeloop" is basically a high-school level physics problem, and the math works out that mass completely cancels out, and for any given entry speed to a loop, (assuming usual range of spherical cow stuff, no friction, no air resistance, earth gravity, etc), theres a maximum height of loop that that object can clear; of course, if we at least keep ignoring the problems of what a locomotive boiler does when you turn it upside-down, we can stretch that a little bit further by working out how much power the engine might be able to still put down in the bottom part of the loop, but that math sounds a good deal more complicated. although actually wait, trig to determine what the normal force is, figure out how much friction you can still put down without wheelslip, and assume the engineer is *perfect* and you can figure out how much force the engine can put down in the first quarter of the loop, and then you've still gotta do some probably nasty calculus to figure out how much speed that means the engine has at the 90 point where its vertical and cant put down any more power; wait, except if the loop is tighter than the maximum, the centripetal force will result in extra normal force, even once you arent getting any from gravity, so you *should* be able to put down more power in the loop; although, of course, the tighter loop gives you more of hyce's problems of "can the engine actually ride through this loop or not". Solution for "most likely steam engine to be able to do a loopdeloop" might honestly actually be an 0-4-0 with the biggest drivers possible, and then throwing it at the smallest loop possible and praying, and the physics will at least work out as long as it doesnt explode and the engineer doesnt die from the g-forces

[@polybius223]

Somewhere in an English railroad museum… “Hey William?” “Yeah?” “Where’s the Mallard?”

[@smyset1112]

"Right here. Why do you-" "So here's the plan." *sets a model of a roller-coaster on the table* "Wh-" "FUCKIN' MALLARD LOOPDELOOP-"

[@robertgarrett5009]

Fyi, the national railway museum in York where the Mallard is stored, has a e-mail address.

[@catfish552]

"Dear National Railway Museum, what is the suspension travel on Mallard?" "About ____, why?" "...no reason."

[@schwarzermoritz]

MS Paint: most essential engineering tool. Period.

[@SpiceRainbow]

0:00 The design team at tyco coming up with the super turbo train

[@railenthusiast88]

As a Brit I appreciate the video. The only issue is Mallard achieved it's run on a downhill gradient and kinda overheated afterwards (to the extent it never made it to the station the press were waiting at) There was a tv doc now on KZbin titled "The Drakes Progress from a series Going Loco" and has footage and interviews along with Mallard in steam in the 1980s if interested.

[@Cullerin112]

How does a steam train over heat?

[@Knsgf]

@@Cullerin112 Bearings can overheat and seize up.

[@Cullerin112]

@@Knsgf I didn't think of that

[@tzor]

My first thought, although you could try to do the math exactly right (and that's not the same math as a simple loop) is the question of the boiler water, the fire pipes, and the forces involved. And the vertical elements of the loop seem that it is almost impossible to keep the sloshing water from causing conditions which could easily lead to boiler explosions. I think a better question would be "would the sheer momentum of the train get you through the loop" and "will the various forces involved result in the boiler not going critical on you at any point in the curve" because I don't thnk you can depend on tractive effort at the top of the curve.

[@GrizzlyFlats_Brakeman]

* sips Kenosha Whiskey * !!W T F is a Kilometer!! 🇺🇸 🦅 🇺🇸 🦅

[@schwarzermoritz]

The superior unit of measurement all of the world uses except yous and Myanmar :p

[@kornaros96]

1000 M16 stock to muzzle

[@ViperZero523]

​@@schwarzermoritz a superior system that hasn't landed somebody on the moon

[@Stant123]

@@schwarzermoritz superior depends on use. For most uses, imperial and US standard are actually superior. For ease of conversion either between fidelity (millimeter/meter/kilometer) or type (lengths converted to volumes as in a cubic cm is the same as a milliliter) typically only need to be done in classrooms and labs, metric is superior. Fun fact 1: The US would have been the first country to use metric if it weren't for the fact pirates sunk the boat bringing the gram weight and meter rod to the US, requests for a second set were never honored by France due to them having a serious case of overthrowing the government. So don't blame us for not using it, blame Atlantic pirates and/or France. We tried twice (technically 3 times if you count the half assed 1970's attempt). Fun fact 2: US Standard/Customary Units were modified from Imperial when it was created to actually be based on the metric system anyway. So while the names of measurements and how they are divided up are based on Imperial, the base units from which all of these other measurements are derived from are metric. Example: the inch as defined in US Standard/Customary Units is exactly 2.54 centimeters. The centimeter of course being defined as 1/100th of a meter, and a meter being defined as of 2019 as the length light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second. Try measuring that when you're pulled over on the side of a road asking for directions. Of course, originally it was just one ten millionth of the distance from the equator to the pole of the Earth as travelled along the surface, but science likes to overly complicate things in the name of precision. Fun fact 3: Imperial was created over centuries (in agricultural societies, remember the industrial revolution was not even a fantasy people had yet) so reliable day to day measurements could be made out in the field (literally in the fields) without scientific equipment. A bushel (the measurement), for example, is literally a bushel (the basket from which the measurement is named). To know how many bushels of apples you've picked at the end of the day, you'd simply count the filled baskets. To trade 6 bushels to the local bakery, you'd give them 6 baskets. No need to weigh or measure volumes as you would have to in metric. An acre was how much field you could plow in a day. If you reasonably took 4 days to plow your field, you had a 4 acre field. Measurements like this may not be as precise as using a laser tape measure and/or GPS coordinates, but several hundred years before those things were invented, this system worked plenty good enough. Fun fact 4: The average US resident actually uses both US Standard and metric daily. (Miles per hour when driving, grams of sugar or fat in the food when calculating out their diet if they're on one, gallons of milk and 2 liter bottles of soda.) Most Americans are equally capable of using both and are readily able to switch between them without even having to think about it. So who really needs to be poked fun at? Americans who can and do use both, or Europeans who can only use one and freak out and complain that Americans don't use the metric system for everything because they don't know how to use US or Imperial measurements because their educational system decided to only spend a week in 4th grade on it (or however much it's actually done, I'm told it's very little and then they avoid touching the system like it's the plague)?

[@espenschjelderup426]

​@@Stant123as an European inches are very scary🥸 Actually I have a basic education as a mechanic. We learned how to measure with the inch standard. Even though my country has been metric for ages, the inch still lingers for certain things like hydraulic and pipe threads. And I guess most carpenters still know what a 2x4 is, even though the actual size is somewhat smaller due to reasons. On American cooking channels i often hear things about European metric measuring I view as a myth. The thing that we measure everything by grams, even for home cooking. I guess that may be true in some countrys, but where I would not know. Most of the time I see recipies with a mix between volume and weight, often some ingredients listet both by volume and weight. Yes and I know cooking aren't the main thing on this channel😂

[@apollosaturn5]

If a circular loop gives you more g forces, I think that would be the better option. You want to keep the water nice and settled at the bottom of the boiler, not to mention keeping the fire on the grate.

[@MatthijsvanDuin]

no, a circular loop means that if you have enough speed to make it around the loop, then at the bottom you'll have enough g-force to completely destroy the locomotive and kill everyone on board.

[@enderhugo]

I love that seeing the title, I immediately thought about the traction of the wheels against the rail not about the speed, or the boiler, or the train getting squashed

[@Tristan_S346]

I love how Hyce’s physics homework goes about as well as my physics homework always did… *see horrible units realization mid way through*

[@barrageballoon4845]

I think as long as you keep positive g's the fire and water should be fine

[@leechowning2712]

Same. Centrifical force means water still wants to go straight, train still wants to go straight, all of it. Math amathing says it would be able to do it... what the company (and crew) say about the idea is another thing.

[@alexhajnal107]

Yea, I reckon even hitting 0 G at the apex should be fine as long as there's forward momentum.

[@jackboerner1901]

For what it’s worth, let’s take a look at some roller coaster history. In the 1890s, the first loop on a coaster was built, Flip Flap Railway on Coney Island. It featured a circular loop which kept the car on the track, but also inflicted a strong gravitational pull on its riders, enough so to cause spinal injuries. So if you wanna try on a locomotive, knock yourself out. Nowadays, modern coasters have a device called an up stop wheel that rides on the bottom of the rail. A guide wheel rides the side of the rail. This effectively locks a coaster train on the track. So if you can make an up stop wheel set strong enough to hold mallard and give it the momentum to make the loop, there’s a answer.

[@andrewframe8046]

The little edits throughout this video, more so than your usual videos, are just *chef's kiss*

[@Hyce777]

I was hoping this would appeal to the general public as well, but I guess not. Maybe it'll take off later. Either way I put a little extra sauce on this one, lol! Glad you appreciated.

[@TylerEaves]

Think you might have missed a trick here.. Don't go for a fast big locomotive... get a fast(ish) small 0-4-0. All the articulation problems just go away with only 2 axles That said you also totally didn't address the bigger issue...any locomotive is going to lose massive speed going up the loop, and it would actually probably be most accurate to use the roller coaster conversation of energy equations and just assume no useful power output at all, which depending on scale will usually result in a speed at the top of perhaops 1/3-1/2 of the entry speed.

[@Hyce777]

My head canon was; if I can prove it wouldn't stick on the track at the top, we don't need to bother to do the conservation of energy coming up to the top of the loop. That's absolutely a huge factor, of course. That said... fast small 0-4-0? Possibly...

[@TylerEaves]

@@Hyce777I’m thinking to have e a chance you’d need to get the loop down to about 150ft. In rollercoaster terms that’d translate to about 65mpg entrance speed, with 4g at the bottom and 1ish at the top. Basically look at the big loop on Superman Krypton Coaster at Fiesta Texas and that’s about the geometry and speeds we’re talking about. Pair that with a small but very balanced 0-4-0 with a wheel base of 7 or 8ft and that should actually handle the curvature fine, not that different than a coaster car with two rows per car, really.

[@sambrown6426]

@@Hyce777 If the 0-4-0 doesn't dance itself off the track first, sure.

[@JonsGarage89]

@@sambrown6426 An atlantic should solve that.

[@sambrown6426]

@@JonsGarage89 Sure, but the whole point of using an 0-4-0 was to avoid issues with floating center drivers and the articulation of leading and trailing trucks, so while using an Atlantic would solve the floating center driver bit, you'd still need to worry about the leading and trailing trucks, hence using an 0-4-0

[@Eternon2000]

Hello hyce, i´d like to explain a few things about physics that dont involve dealing with units of measure. I personally think this kind of problem is as difficult as you want it to be, because you can have as many restrictions as you want; for instance, I was looking forward to you mentioning something like the water on the boiler needing to be on a certain way or something like that. Instead, at least in my oppinion the video is really a ton of physics and not a lot of train knowledge, nothing bad with that, i actually love physics problems and because of that i found some common misunderstandings and id like to clear them out. The first and biggest one is the centripetal acceleration. I dont know if you wanted to simplify the explanation but id love to try and explain how the centripetal force works, and hear me out, props to you for calling it by its name, most people call it centrifugal force. Centripetal force is not equal to the weight of the object when its on top so that it cancels out, its equal because they are the same thing, we need to remember that theres nothing appart from the tracks keeping the train from "exiting the loops orbit", in other examples theres a rope tied to the center making sure the object doesnt leave the trayectory but here the "rope" is the rails. The object and its tangent speed are always trying to leave the circle only on a tangent direction from the radius, and thats what the centripetal force is for, in this case the force imposed to the rails on top of the loop is actually opposite from the direction of the center, but that force is being imposed onto the rails not the train, the train on top is like your clothes on a dryer or a washing machine, there isnt a force making them stick to the top, its just the barrel constantly changing the direction the clothes want to go. Given the complexity of this argument, (Because i dont even know if i made my point clear as its really hard to explain without a drawing or an animation), I´d rather solve this problem with the laws of the conservation of energy. That way we have our speed, height, radius... all under control under formulas that dont involve ghost forces we dont understand. The next one is way simpler: Why the mallard? Why determine that its impossible just because of the trains wheel arrangement? There are 4-4-0s capable of reaching 100mph, i think the calculations are hard but I would have loved to be asked something like this when i was learning physics. Please dont take any of my points as an attack, i loved this video because it made me remember about the goofy things we can come up with.

[@1TruNub]

How dare you measure something in anything than Oil barrels per well times cheeseburgers per french fries

[@brillbusbootcamp2320]

I mean, they gave Mallard the record even though it broke down and was going downhill. Why not push it off a cliff into a ridiculous loop and just see what comes out the other side? Oh, it came out a mangled mess? Well, according to precedent, it counts.

[@nathanchan4653]

Real life steam locomotives: We can’t do a loop-de-loop Polar Express: Actually I can…..with a loose cotter pin on my throttle

[@ajaxengineco]

We talk about the bearings frying themselves from axles floating, but on Mallard they do that automatically at 126 in any case. The big end would be a rotating red mass before the loop came into view.

[@geyrnauch]

Hyce! I feel as if a few things were missed which are important: 1. If you did in fact have 0 acceleration at the top of the loop, the structure of the engine either doesn't really matter, unless the engine is constructed in such a way that gravity is important to hold the engine together. 2. Are ALL the mechanical components PERFECTLY balanced? If not, while in the 0 acceleration state, the engine WILL get thrown around as the wheels spin, and wheelslip WILL occur ensuring you have as chaotic acclerations as possible given the sudden speed of the drivers and all attached components. This may very well cause a derailment if the components are heavy enough. 3. The train is NOT GOING TOP SPEED at the top of the loop, there is NO way the Mallard has enough tractive effort to yank itself up the sides of the loop vertically due to gravity actively fighting the Mallard in its climb, and you must also ensure enough acceleration to the outside of the loop so the Mallard can actually have adhesion. These things being said: YOU ABSOLUTELY NEED a smaller loop, significantly so. If you can't make a smaller loop, then perhaps the Mallard needs to pull a huge amount of loaded steel flatbeds or something to ensure it is continued to be pushed up and around the loop by cars loaded which are not on the loop via their momentum. Cars on the loop do not help the situation (the Mallard would be pulling them vertically).

[@bussesandtrains1218]

You are a massive nerd (that's a good thing)

[@geyrnauch]

@@bussesandtrains1218 🤓

[@friendlyneighbourhoodcabba5762]

Done some maths, here's what I found - The LBSCR Terrier can top out at 60mph, according to multiple sources - Given the tiny wheel base and wheel size, the minimum loop radius would need to literally be 73.3 metres - It weighs basically nothing compared to Mallard (27.5 long tons) Therefore, LBSCR Terrier could actually pretty easily do this (if anyone was bothered to ) :D

[@PennsyPappas]

So time for Hyce to modify Montezuma to do loop de loops GOT IT. Or can we have loop de loop trains in Century of Steam.

[@Hyce777]

I was *sorely* tempted to use the CoS Editor to film a loop da loop but that would be irresponsible. lol!

[@Idaho-Cowboy]

It will need some spoilers and go faster stripes first.

[@PennsyPappas]

@@Hyce777 I just know your intrusive thoughts were telling you it was a good idea.

[@PennsyPappas]

@@Idaho-Cowboy Everyone knows flames and spoilers makes everything go faster.

[@AShadowboxsFSX]

@@Hyce777 good promo material for the Studio 346 channel tho! Lol

[@The-Signal-Man]

1:48 That is one beautiful looking A4

[@stevedurrell]

2.26" max bearing/axle vertical leniency. Know this owing to having a copy of the LNER drawings which I scaled down to build a 1:8th model. The one you'll have more trouble with is the tender bearing vertical lenience which is only 1.25"

[@peregrina7701]

that is definitely the worst/best homework problem. thank you for the fun! and I know the pain of a long time out of college...... I returned to grad school nine years after finishing my undergraduate, most of it not in the field. My first homework in graduate thermodynamics (makes frantic signs against the evil eye) required use of calculus. I had forgotten the indefinite integral of x. I had to go to some classmates in the thermo lab and say "Help."

[@jameschase11]

So since this sounds like it might become a series, id like to see the math for a Heisler (the fastest geared steam loco) 😂

[@Clouds_2914]

2-2-2T with a huge center wheel. Then make the approach a downhill to insure it could get speed.

[@christianfritz6333]

The clothoid loop is less for the g-forces and more for the push pull on a lengthy train also the upstop wheels on a coaster are for negative G's like going over a hump or down a hill they aren't used in loops unless the loop is designed with negative G's which is very rare.

[@BrooksMoses]

I'm dubious about picking the center driver up by a whole inch. My math says that the difference is 12400 - sqrt(12400^2 - 92^2), which is only 3/8 of an inch. Also notice that, although the center driver is floating, there's much less loading on it because we're nearly weightless, so you probably don't have as much loading on the bearing as you think. (On the other hand, you have more than 1G at the bottom of the loop, so that's an extra problem.) With that said, the Mallard has knuckle joints in its rods, so you don't have that particular problem. Instead, what you have is the problem of the drivers being pulled inwards horizontally as you mention, but that's only by 92 - sqrt(92^2 - (3/8)^2), which is less than a thousandth of an inch. I expect that's fine. (As far as I can tell, there aren't any steam locomotives that have continuous rods that span more than two drivers; either they have knuckle joints or they simply have separate rods that both attach to the crankpin -- UP's 844 being an example of the latter. Are there any? That generally seems like a bad idea -- and, in particular, why would you have suspension travel on the drivers if the rods couldn't accommodate the suspension movement?)

[@Hyce777]

Hmm. I wouldn't be shocked if I did math wrong. So perhaps, it's possible?

[@SkorjOlafsen]

It's a reminder that Hyce has become the fun kind of enginer instead of the math kind of engineer. The "lift" (versine) over a small angle is s^2/2r, where s is the distance and r is the radius. 3/8" checks out. But the hard problem is that you'd need to hit a 2120 foot tall climb at 250 MPH to roll to the top.

[@alexhajnal107]

@@SkorjOlafsen _"But the hard problem is that you'd need to hit a 2120 foot tall climb at 250 MPH to roll to the top."_ Starting atop a really big hill should suffice. (Bearings still work when they're molten, right?)

[@WasatchWind]

I have a _maybe_ less cursed question - could you have a ride like Big Thunder Mountain Railroad powered by an actual steam locomotive? Replace the lift hills with shallower grades the locomotive can climb up, and give the locomotive side friction and up stop wheels to stay on the track - can you modify it some way to handle it? Even if you find some way to circumvent the dangerous problem of water slosh, would the track even be capable of handling that much weight being thrown around?

[@KarolOfGutovo]

The clotoid/circular distinction is important I think, cuz for the same height of loop the clotoid would have a smaller radius at the top

[@erumaaro6060]

20:00 the fact that the train would most likely experience less then 1G of upward acceleration also means that the suspension wont compress as it would normally. so the wheels are very likely to float even if the suspension has enough travel.

[@erumaaro6060]

You could in theory design a loop shape that would let the train experience close to 1G outward acceleration throughout the loop. (exactly 1g throughout the entire loop is technically impossible since the loop goes up, so you add upward acceleration on top of gravity when entering the loop.)

[@BigMoTheBlackDragon]

I found a website listing the wheel base of the LNER locomotives (the ones that Mallard was a part of): I found it in the offsite reading for the Wikipedia article. The one with LNER dot info. It lists the wheel base as follows: Total: 60ft 10.6in Engine: 35ft 9in Tender: 16ft Don't know how helpful this is, but seeing you said Google couldn't help you, I thought I'd try & scrounge around for it. Maybe it makes it worse, maybe it drops that 1in down.

[@Cullerin112]

This is a question i wasn't asking but I'm glad i now know the answer Thanks hyce

[@James-the-idiot]

Depends, do we have the s1 and a LOT of alcohol? Or a maglev train with the polarity of the magnets changed to attract instead of repel. God damn it HYCE ya got me actually trying to make it work and do the thing

[@legdig]

Mallard is a 3 cylinder locomotive, the middle cylinder drives the two front drivers so maybe JUST MAYBE that would help with the floating centre driver problem!

[@blacksmeim8791]

Can your trains do a loop-de-loop, without loosing their freight? If you can do it, we will leave town, and will never come back, But if you fail, you can take your rail and shove it up your crack. -Cyanide & Gappiness, The Railroad Man

[@JonsGarage89]

So what Im hearing is we need an atlantic with 84" drivers borrowed from an S1.

[@andrewadams3894]

The Atlantic in the Henry Ford Museum already has 84" drivers.

[@JonsGarage89]

​@@andrewadams3894 Problem solved. HYCE GET THE COAL ITS TIME TO DO SCIENCE

[@billyrueckert5113]

13:07 "Oh." That almost got a spit take.

[@MegaLokopo]

Given a large enough hill or rocket boosters, anything can do a loop da loop.

[@Biker_Gremling]

Wellcome to BeaNGdrive

[@MegaLokopo]

@@Biker_Gremling True, Hyce and his friends actually proved in railroads online you can do a loop da loop without a track.

[@TrainTrackTrav]

"...and exploding in a flame of ridiculous British fried duckness." -Mark Huber 2024

[@anthonyj.adventures9736]

My favorite Adam Savage from myth busters is - "I reject your reality and substitute my own".

[@shaunrichardson2346]

Its so weird you did this.. just Wednesday i took my daughter to Busch Gardens and she was noticing the similarities between trains and roller coasters. what a wild coincidence.

[@RustyorBroken]

😂😂😅😅 as soon as you said imperial measurements I knew that slugs were going to bite you right in the caboose.

[@MrPhoenixQuill]

I think the real solution is not to find the fastest engine but a small light engine that can maintain a top speed over 60 miles an hour with an 040 setup. The reason why I pick 60 miles an hour, is because most of your looping roller coasters go through loops at speeds varying between 35 to 60 mph.

[@hueyiroquois3839]

4:30 I'm have the kind of migraines that mimic strokes, so it took me a minute to figure out that I wasn't the only one having trouble with the math.

[@hueyiroquois3839]

12.55 At this point, I think one of us must be having a more serious neurological issue than I thought. Using 1060.5 feet, 92.5 inches, and Pythagoras, I get 12,725.66 inches, with the gap being 0.34 inches.

[@pux0rb]

Imagine a 0-2-2-0 with a massive boiler and 12 foot drivers. With only 4 wheels touching the rails it can take any gradient, and although it would take forever to get up to speed, it could theoretically move really really fast. It would probably also have either really good or really bad traction, and might shake itself to pieces. This is probably a horrible design but fun to think about!

[@malcolmmackenzie9202]

Down a massive mountain so you have a lot of gravity assistance going into it im sure it could be done but likely only once because that is a lot of force to put through the engine and drivetrain plus the track itself wpuld likely come apart from it.

[@YourLocalRailfan]

Okay but you forgot that mallard was going down a 2% grade when setting the record, so you should put a giant 2% grade ramp like something from Railroads Online!

[@connorjohnson7834]

The Railroad Man he spent a month looping up his track. Then he gathered up the townsfolk and he told'em to stand back. The train had started chugging, and the loop-de-loop drew near. The train it was America, its freight our hopes and fears. Everyone watched in silence, you could hear a needle drop. The train it went straight up the loop and right on to the top...

[@jeffreyblack666]

This depends on if you are using pounds or pounds force. Pound force is the weight due to gravity. Pound is just the mass. They are different units. The simpler way is to entirely ignore the mass. The acceleration from gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 down. The acceleration for the loop is v^2/r This means for a given loop radius, you have a v_min=sqrt((9.8*m/s^2)*r) With v in m/s, and r in m. Or for a given velocity, r=v^2/(9.8 m/s^2) So putting in 56.3 m/s as a velocity, that gives r = 323 m = 1060 archaic units. And the mass of the train doesn't matter (other than for requirements to make the loop out of some strong material, and if you want to go down the path of air resistance).

[@kam833]

im surprised im not seeing anyone mention this even in the comments. traction. poor mallard is gonna flatten it's tires before it makes it a quarter the way around

[@sunrailfan100]

Another problem with a a4 or any tender engine would be the top of the tender would come into the cab, giving the engineer no room to use the controls, also if it did make it all the coal would fall out of the tender, probably falling onto the Same track the mallard is on.

[@patricksheary2219]

Hi Mark, what a fun descent into nerdom! Math always scares me (that part of my brain is basically dead 🤣), but your easy to follow explanations made this analysis understandable in concept. You got my brain to follow along regardless with lots of giggles! A great brain/train teaser. This bit of fun made my day, thanks for making the video and cheers to you Professor!

[@GoodTIMeMoviesNL]

The problem is the triple axle driving gear, is it then an option to use the 2′B1′ h2 Milwaukee Road class A, has also held the record at 181 km/h before the mallard did. Or if suspention allows any of the american duplexes with a B' B' arrangement regardless of pilot and trailing wheel configuration.

[@sp3jfz]

Hi Mark! I can run this steam locomotive through this loop. In case of failure, there will be no big loss.😂😂😂 Warm greetings, well, and see you on our railroad! Kristof.

[@briannem.6787]

Something I'm more curious about: would the water stay still enough to prevent boiler failure? Given the outwards acceleration, I think it could- if you swing a bucket full of water upside down at high speed, it won't spill out- but even backwards-and-forwards sloshing could cause some damage right? If it is comparable to the sloshing experienced under emergency braking, it should be okay, but more than that and it might be messy

[@DonQuixotedeKaw]

Because of consequential fluid dynamics in the boiler on the way up, on the way down the cylinders would hydraulically explode.

[@burdizdawurd1516Official]

So if the locomotive reaches the top of the loop upside down, doesn't that mean that gravity will pull the middle driver back toward alignment? Also worth considering here, would there be enough centripetal force to keep the water at the... oh cardinal directions don't work here... on the belly of the boiler? We didn't get to speed here, but I'm wondering if the locomotive will be doing Amtrak on a good day or Amtrak on a bad day speed at the top, because that loop is nearly the height of the Burj Khalifa. Imagine looking down off that building and seeing the bottom of the locomotive - GREAT opportunity for Richard Hammond-style advertising!

[@VixessRin1702]

I have NEVER clicked a Hyce video so fast lmao

[@shawndoyle7531]

So what about one of the Pennsy 4-4-4-4's? They were built for speed and with the drivers paired up you wouldn't have to worry about the suspended center driver. I know that they had a poor factor of adhesion and were prone to slipping but the centrifugal force should help push down on the locomotive and provide more traction.

[@alexhajnal107]

There's only one way to be sure. I'll distract British Rail, you get Mallard steamed up!

[@kellys.6047]

This was fun. Thank you. Discworld's Iron Girder would be able to do it. She flew over a busted bridge. (Raising Steam by Terry Prattchett.

[@NikiKiji]

Mallard does have a rod buckle between the centre and rear driver though.

[@stevedurrell]

Hope you've accounted for the middle cylinder between y The frames to which spacing is VERY tight

[@tushardewde5715]

Does anyone remember that old video, I don't know the place (well the environment) but it was somewhere in east Europe where some kids made an loop on the track, and a boxy diesel locomotive hauling passenger coaches crossed it ,I know it was CGI ,BUT IT WAS COOL .It's description or tittle was something like HERO.

[@Agsotro]

These Century of steam updates are getting wild

[@Microbe_obliterator]

I don’t think so, think about the poor little crown sheet 😅

[@Deurklink]

In Rollercoaster Tycoon this is definitely possible!

[@tonythetanuki]

This is the stuff you'll watch at 3 in the morning

[@Ethan-k7d]

Just to let you know Hyce that all greasley engine's that have a rear pony axle is part of the frame's. This also extends to later C.M.E.'s which are Thomson and Peppercorn. This is know as a kerkarsi truck. Some examples are in order C.M.E.'s: Greasley:A1/A3, A4, V2, P1, P2, and more. Thomson:A1/1, A2/1(which were changed part way through construction from V2), A2/2 (the then 6 matanance heavy P2 Mikado rebuilt),A2/3 Thomson only true new Pacific. Peppercorn:A1,A2. I hope this doesn't come out offensive.

[@Hyce777]

Ah.... That makes it even less likely, lol! What a neat detail. Cheers!

[@Ethan-k7d]

I forgot to mention that this only applies to the tender engine's and the W1 which technically is a 4-6-4 but is actually a 4-6-2-2. Also, us Brit's invited the duplex as the L.N.W.R. had two 2-2-2-0 and the greater Britton class which were 2-2-2-2 and they were both compounds as the rear diver was powered by Stevenson and the front is slip eccentric. This made both only 2 chuffs per revolution as they had 3 cylinders. This has been documented on the greater Britton the the wheels would slip in opposite direction.

[@C.I...]

@@Ethan-k7d PLEASE stop using apostrophes in plurals. You’re melting my brain.

[@RileytheRailRunner]

I didn’t think I needed a visual representation of a Heisler running at speeds it shouldn’t be able to, but apparently I did

[@Hyce777]

I was trying to find clips I had of locomotives going fast and then realized that would be way funnier lol

[@kornaros96]

if you long gear it...

[@RileytheRailRunner]

@@Hyce777 You made the right call!

[@patrickfleming8200]

Probably better to use the mallard regardless since it’s shorter which means a smaller diameter loop

[@aceproductions43]

As a US citizen, i can say that metric is better than imperial except when talking about the weather temperature

[@godlugner5327]

16:45 subtle Josh Peck is subtle... SUBTLE

[@Pystro]

I think you made two mistakes in your math (or rather, SolidWorks probably did the first one), and according to my math it *is possible:* *Firstly,* I re-calculated the center driving wheel drop and got a different result. It's a Pythagorean triangle (with vertices at the center of the loop, the contact patch of an outer driver, and right angle at the "bottom" or "contact" patch of the non-dropped center driver). Solving the resulting equation yields 1060.5*12-sqrt((1060.5*12)^2-92^2)=0.33 inches of drop. *Secondly,* the tolerances on the connecting rods of 1/32nd of an inch are _length-wise_ aren't they? That means (rough math) that you get a whole inch of _vertical_ articulation with the same _horizontal_ axle positions if your connecting rods are at least 32 inches long. (Pythagorean triangle again.) And with wheels 92 inches apart, that doesn't seem like a problem. You can probably drop that center wheel down by 2.5 to 3 inches. Calculating the drop for the 212.17 feet that @pranavghantasala6808 calculated for when the locomotive looses speed between bottom and top due to gravity gives: 212.17*12-sqrt((212.17*12)^2-92^2)=1.66 inches. Still seems very much doable (wheel geometry wise). The only problem with running a locomotive through that loop is is that their calculation again assumed a circular loop. And taking those doubles the gravity at the bottom, and cancels gravity at the top. Since the 1.66 inches are far enough away from the 2.5 to 3 inch limit, we can probably tighten the loop so that we get 0.5gees outwards at the top and 2.5 gees at the bottom. So the real question is, "can a locomotive run in 2.5-fold gravity? And what about half gravity?"

[@santranquil]

The Wright Brothers they challenged him they said, You think you're great? Can your steam trains do a loop de loop without losing their freight?

[@Zebrails]

You went from "Can a steam train...?" to "can Mallard...?" to "What will it take for Mallard to...?" and, I would say the answer is "No"... not at the maximum speed of Mallard. Mallard reached its max' speed going a bit downhill. Albeit also pulling a set of coaches. Not at 126 miles per hour... and, not on Earth, anyway. John

[@king_zeldar8442]

This was a wonderfully and interesting silly video.

[@RailFanAthena]

ngl even the drawing of mallard looks better than the actual thing, also the comments about buckeyes being less safe is actually incorrect

[@lordsherifftakari4127]

HYCE!!!! Stop making my Braincells Scream! when you introduce the Alphabet to Maths, things go Kerblooey! your best possible choice to pull off a loop Coaster style would be a Pennsy T-1 4-4-4-4 Duplex.

[@michaelimbesi2314]

As much as you may malign us for our love of water-tube boilers, triple expansion engines, and turbines, you now know why we boat people mostly switched to metric, even here in the USA. ;)

[@Biker_Gremling]

Graduated engineer forgetting how to do basic engineering and math. Glad I'm not alone.

[@KidarWolf]

I think no matter how you tried it, you'd end up with kaboom. Either it shakes itself to bits, or something very unhappy happens with steam vessels being angled for too long, or it just plain falls off the loop.

[@sambrown6426]

1:20 I'm currently trying to make a ref sheet for one of my OCs in MS Paint, and it's a slow, painful process

[@a101a6]

Interestingly enough since you mentioned Garrett’s. There is a Garrett locomotive class that holds the record for the fastest articulated locomotive in the world. I forget the exact class but I’m pretty sure it was French in origin.