because art inspires humans, then post ww2 certain people took over that dont want inspiration, rather endless consumption of products for profits and destruction of nations inspiration is dangerous, so they made sure that beauty was supressed
It was definitely a beautiful train, stylish, and even aerodynamic. it would be really cool if that design could be reintroduced today. only with running gear suitable for high speed rail travel. but rounding corners would be scary because of how tall it is. it would have to be somewhat top heavy? but with all the amenities that were mentioned. it could stir all new interest in travel by rail.
The height wouldn't have been an issue for the original gauge. Would you accept a maglev version of this train? Being maglev, the train hugs the track and can make up for the top heaviness of the design.
i would love to see a replica of this locmotive made and shown off in a museum. i know its huge but seeing it in person would really put it into persepctive of its sheer size
@@coolertuep I didn't even think about that. A VR experience of walking around and or getting on this would also put it into scale and be a hell of alot cheaper than actually building one lol
@@liamturner6424 I personally think that VR will be the future for lots of areas related to history, like exhibits, archeology, reconstruction you name it.
@@timbackman5915 VR is certainly promising, but as it is currently, it's nothing like actually seeing things in person. So tourism-wise, it'd probably only be used for places that are either too dangerous or too fragile for conventional tourism to be possible. But the reconstruction point, a VR simulation of reconstructed landmarks would be good. Like seeing the pyramids of Giza, the colosseum of Rome, Pompeii, etc, all brought back to their prime. That would be brilliant.
the standard gauge was actually first used in the mines of England in the 1700s, the standard gauge was popularized by George Stephenson. also it is pronouced, Stevenson
Actually the rail gauge originates from the ancient Rome, where the first paved road network was designed to accomodate two horses in front of a carriage. So actually our standard gauge is exactly as wide as two horses arse… :)
Standard gauge comes from Ancient Rome, where the ruts in the streets were 4 foot, 8 and a half inches apart. The ruts were made to speed traffic in Rome's crowded streets.
@@lawrencelewis2592 When George Stephenson designed the Stockton & Darlington Railway in the north of England in 1825, he used a gauge of 4 feet, 8 inches simply because he had been familiar with it on a mine tramway called the Willington Way on the Tyne River below Newcastle.
I was on a 60 mph 12k ton 2 mile long freight train today (freight conductor job) and we woulda destroyed anyone if they were on a crossing or tried to beat us...
@@alexander1485 The biggest mistake America made with rails aside from not investing in them better is never making it all grade separated. I mean we would consider a crossroad on a freeway to be unthinkable.
@@filanfyretracker we have lots of rail crossings here in the netherlands but they are extremely safe and have warning signs and signals and booms that close down. its very rare for accidents to happen. with how densely populated this country is i dont think we could avoid having crossings.
Reminds me of the Combine trains in Half-Life 2, and also of something I actually dreamed about, in an actual literal dream. To be honest, this project sounds really cool. If only they hadn't had such a horrendously evil vision for, basically, which people do or don't get to _live,_ and if only they hadn't had such inhumane rules of behaviour even for their favoured people.
As always with the railways, The trains themselves aren't that expensive. The cost of new rail lines is staggering, not to mention maintenance. What a great video and great channel! It's so good to see something other than stock photos or a guy talking into a camera in his spare room! Great, high quality content here!
@@mememachine5244 it's an investment, my friend. And in the long run is much cheaper than cars. See, us European litterally just dug a tunnel in the alps (which are much, much taller than any mountain in the US) and made a line between Rome and Paris. Do you think oil rigs are free? Do you have the slightest idea of how much costed to clean the gulf of Mexico from Deep Water Horizon? Stop with the bullshit. People prefer cars because they are lazy asses, not because cars are cheaper.
At 6:22 I would certainly agree that 1.4 _millimeters_ would qualify as narrow-gauge! Even N-gauge model railways [the smallest common scale] have a gauge of 9mm.
@@GWJUK the original video was referring to George Stephenson, and his name was mispronounced. George Stephenson was the original inventor of the steam locomotive in Great Britain, during the 1820s. (Possibly earlier.)
I love all the absolutely crazy ideas people had from ww2. Giant train, giant planes, giant boats, air craft carrier submarine, and of course giant bombs.
Crazy Dreams? No other event in human history advanced technology so rapidly. The rate of engineering and manufacturing advancement in such a short time has never been seen before or since. Most of these crazy dreams all came true to some extent.
@@powertothesheeple5422look at AI. Will Smith eating spaghetti and new images. Will Smith eating spaghetti is great, because he clearly enjoys it, but you can see, it's not real. But the new images are great, and this technology advanced rapidly. Soon we don't have to hire actors anymore to eat spaghetti in movies 🙂
A 3 metre gauge is kind of crazy, and such a wide gauge severely inhibits how tight a curve can be which makes terrain following in even moderately hilly regions tricky and expensive and the tunnels for those trains would have been simply huge. As far as I'm aware the widest railway gauge ever used on a large scale, was Isambard Kingdom Brunel's 7ft 1/4 inch, or 2,140 mm designed in 1838 and which was used throughout most of the GWR network. It was in use until 1892. (The gauge was original 7 ft, but clearance problems were found in testing, so another 1/4 inc was added). If that gauge had remained, then it would have been mightily impressive today, but it was killed in the interests of inter-operability, and since the considerable majority of UK rail was to the "standard" gauge, and the costs of upgrading that would be prohibitive, it was GWR that had to give way and, with Brunel dead, it's greatest proponent wasn't around to defend it. Strangely, Ireland was left with a different gauge - 5ft 3 inches, which is in use to this day. Ironically, in light of Nazi ambitions in the area of broad gauge, it was the Russian gauge of 5 ft (1,524 mm), which caused massive logistical problems in the invasion of the Soviet Union as it was incompatible with the standard gauge and required either transhipment of goods between trains or extensive track relaying.
It is not "Breitspurbahn" it is "Reichsspurbahn". "Breitspur" are all railways that are wider than 1435mm, which includes quite a lot real existing railways like Finlands 1524mm railways or Indias 1676mm. The "Reichsspur" is the specific 3000mm wide Railway planned for the "Lebensraum im Osten" (living space in the east).
I'm no engineer, but I think due to the massive size of this train, that the concept would be more fitting on a magnetic style track like the bullet train or the monorail, where the rails themselves don't need to be structured to support the considerable weight. Though I guess this would be problematic for operating through any extreme weather conditions
But they do have to be engineered to handle the voltage capacity of the magnets to hold the train up! Ergo the engineering cost would be steered toward the train weight and lifting it!
@@sbrunner69 yeah 100% Even reading my comment now im like "uhhhhh" because yeah obviously magnetic force doesn't eliminate the weight of the object being magnetically repelled.. I don't know. I must have been super baked
I too am German and I have only heard about this, because my father is a massive railroad fan. He even went to the U.S. for his honeymoon, just to see the Durango-Silverton line and we have a pretty extensive model railroad line in our basement.
@@tomanderson6335 Disco Nazi Supertrain? sigh, if only politically correct wokies didn't freak out over everything, there could be some real old school, Mel Brooks, Leslie Neilson type comedy gold in that.
Too big for Germany and the rest of the world - within years they would have had to deal with more severe environmental problems than us today, 80 years later ;)
They were thinking about a 1000 years and not just a 4 year election cycle. It's terrifying and at the same time astonishing where a unified culture being forced to create infrastructure that reflects your dominance in innovations. Dominance through innovation
It's probably because we know it represents something we are taught is bad. And we all like to go against the rules of society a little bit. I mean, if this train was rainbow coloured and was invented by Greta Thunberg, driven by Conchita Wurst and powered by sustainable stuff we wouldn't be as impressed. But we hear that it's Nazi and we think Eagles, Swastikas, Skulls, Heavy Iron, Flak 88, MG42, Diesel engines, Mercedes, BMW, power and black smoke. And well dressed bad guys with scarred faces discussing plans in the carriages.
@@99ron30 the germans and Italians just had naturally stylistic engineering prowess, they were ahead of their time in all industries such as fashion and engineering
@@jacksonsparrow8865 Yeah it took the entire World going to War with them and even still they almost won, it makes me wonder if what we are taught about History is correct after all the victors write the History books.
Because hitler was just massively debt spending. If germany would not go to war around years 1939-1950 it would economically collapse. Some people think that nazi germany was socialist, some that it was capitalist. In truth nazi germany had no economic system. It was all debt, money printing, MEFO bills and appropriation jewish/enemies of state property. That and megalomania to the point of complete lack of functionality, Maus, Tiger II, Panther, Bismarck. Fascists also depend on emotions not logic, that's why show of force is necessary, and megalomania helps with that.
Germans did really well during those times in terms of inventions and creating advance machinery. They are still doing well but the rate at which they came out with new weapons was really astounding.
Yeah I mean, the issue with a lot of these inventions is that they are actually pretty unimpressive. A lot of them can be boiled down into the “OOOH, BIGGER” logic and little else. The point has been discussed to tired completion.
They are weak, defeated and degenerate society now. America controls everything in Germany. Germans have to buy American weapons. How do you expect them to innovate?
It's ironic that many of advances in aircraft and weapons systems after WW II in the United States and Soviet Union were made by ex Nazi engineers. Even our Space Program in 1960s would not have been possible with them.
What's what fear does. Look of the innovations between ww1 to the end of the cold war. even nowadays not long ago digital cameras, wireless internet, small cellphones etc. Everything in our cellphone was made to spy and kill during the cold war proxy wars/ for ww3 that never came
Early M4's (Shermans) at 1:16...WRT comments about superiority of broad gauges (5'+) over standard gauge railways (4' 8 1/2") one must bear in mind that the minimum negotiable curve radius increases with track gauge. Railway wheels and axles are 1 piece with no ability for differential rotation speed. The outer wheels on a curve must rotate faster than the inner, or else slipping of the inner wheel or skidding of the outer will happen, causing massive wear to the wheels and tracks(anyone who has travelled on a city subway/underground will know the screeching on tight curves). The tighter the radius the greater the calculated rotational differential. To overcome some of that effect railway wheels are conic section and rails are crowned. The conic section results in the wheels self-centring between the rails with the wheel flanges not contacting the rail sides. If a curve is the correct radius and is negotiated at a specific speed the outer wheel of the curve rides closer to the flange where the wheel radius is greater while the inner wheel moves away from the rail, running on a smaller radius section. At the same rotational speed the outer wheel will naturally travel further than the inner. The system is engineered to reduce track and wheel wear to a minimum. As gauge increases the requisite conic sections and track crowning that enable smooth running become impracticable. Standard gauge, or close to it gives a good compromise of requirements. It is interesting to note that for railways in mountainous terrain, where tight curves have to be used, narrow gauge railways are preferred (as small as 2' 6"). The same often applies to streetcars in cities.
Beuatiful explanation ! Thank you! BTW, I' ve always wondered of a train system with independent wheels on an axle, for not being need for large curve radii.
The issue with independently rotating wheels on a stationary axle is side thrust. modern freight cars (loaded) can weigh 130 tons. Solid axles (as used commonly) ensure the spacing of the wheels while requiring only 2 lateral thrust faces. For wheels on their own bearings 4 thrust supports would be needed; 1 on each side of each wheel. The complexity and catastrophic results of failure largely override any benefit when current technology works very well. On a classic steam locomotive the wheel sets have to be solid to maintain the synchronization of the pistons on each side. On an electric or Diesel-Electric the weight, cost and reliability issues of differential drive to the wheels is also not worth the effort. For light rail transit applications where low floors and tight turns are needed independent wheel sets have proven practicable.
"you can't underestimate" - so how ever low I estimate it, it can't be too low? It seems no one understands this expression anymore. It's either: - You shouldn't underestimate or - You can't OVERestimate Saying "you can't underestimate" literally means the exact opposite of what's intended. It baffles me that otherwise intelligent people don't get that. Great video by the way, the animations were very well done.
If it werent for the atrosities that the Nazis commited, I'd of loved to see how Germany in that era would have turned out had they been succesful with thier engineering projects. It'd definitely be up there with Japan in terms of productivity and technological advancement. Very many "American" advancements were accomplished by Germans or their descendants.
The Nazi economy would have collapsed within years even without the atrocities and if they had won. The idea that Germany was magically super advanced is complete nonsense. The Nazis had a huge brain drain. Huge amounts of resources were put into development that is all.
This is wonderful! There is not all the much information out there about the Breitspurbahn; I "discovered" it in a display case at the German Railway Museum in Nuremberg but there don't seem to be many books about the plan. Amazingly, even as the 1000 Year Reich shrank rapidly, planning continued right up until the Russians came to Berlin. There were some serious engineering issues, such as the massive curves needed with such a broad gauge, but also things like having to ferry passengers out to the train with smaller trains as the giant steam locomotives would asphyxiate everyone inside a station!
imagine the tunnels... damn that would be expensive. also the pressure on rails. germany only needed 50-100 cm wider trains for their tanks. everything else is just overkill
"locomotives would asphyxiate everyone inside a station" ... sounds like the sort of thing that suits the nazis, they probabally thought they could double it up for something
@@jebise1126 The soviets carried their moon rocket (a Saturn V competitor, and after, it was used for Buran, their space shuttle) on rails. It used twin parallel tracks (like the Dora/Gustav nazi railgun) and a transporter-mobile-launch-platform-wagon with 64 axles (or 128 wheels). Weight is not an issue on railway tracks, as you can just expand the thing to ridiculous measurement, all without increasing the friction that much. (and yeap the massive wagons still exists at Baikonur...)
@@Damien.D NASA also did and does use railroads for transportation of rocket parts and delivering smaller rockets to the launchpad. The French also built a railway for their spaceport in French Guiana.
I'd love to see an engineer analyze whether such a railway would actually be cheaper to operate (economies of scale). Obviously building it would cause many problems, but assuming you had it, would it be better?
Way ahead of his time on this one. Imagine how many intermodal containers a train of such scale could carry. Combined with the expansive international route which is pretty much impossible nowadays it would quickly become a vital connection on the world stage. And it would bring the luxuries of cruise ships to the much faster rails.
This thing would be an intermodal beast. I'm not sure what the actual loading gauge would be, but looking at it, this thing could probably do triple, maybe even quadruple, container stacks two wide on railcars. Compared to a modern American freight train that carries about 150-250 40' containers, this could probably do 800-1200 containers on a train of the same length. That's equivalent to about 7%-14% the capacity of a container ship which is crazy.
@@drosera88 This is the kind of back of the envelope calculation which sounds cool in abstract, but doesn't really solve anything in practical terms. The major bottleneck for rail freight isn't the length of the trains, or their speed (which become ever more solvable with modern stock tracking and computerized route management), it's the loading and unloading at their destinations. Which this does nothing to solve.
@@Bustermachine I was just making a size comparison. Obviously this thing would be a different beast entirely when it came to loading and offloading. It's a logistical nightmare and very inflexible. Having so many containers on a single car complicates things so much. A modern freight train allows you to just pluck any container off a train, and at most, you have one container in your way if it's at the bottom of a stack. On this thing, a container at the bottom of a stack would mean moving up to three containers, maybe even more depending on the design of the crane being used to move the containers. That's a lot of time and money. The only way to avoid that is making sure containers are stacked in a particular order, but doing so makes you train inflexible because now you can't just put containers on to the train as needed without taking into account of the containers already on the train, as well as the containers the train may be picking up at a different destination. Coming up with an efficient logistical solution to organize and stack these things on the trains and running it would be not only costly, but also very inflexible as well. I really don't think you'd be able to fully economically utilize such large container cars for these reasons.
Hitler just was: Take this and make it big! 🫵😡 It's like Kathleen K. Take this, put a chick in it and make it lame and gay. Doesn't take a genius for that. He ruined most projects he was involved in, because he didn't really understand the matter 🤷♂️
@@jebise1126, on the contrary, the carry cargo is traditionally slow, especially in Germany, mostly not faster than 80 km/h. To cross the continent, it takes many days. Big trains could even replace the slow cargo ships, travelling around Europe.
@@frankg.gerigk9122 Cargo trains today are traveling at 90-120 km/h, container or mail trains usually at 120-140 km/h so they are quite fast. The limiting factor today is not technology, rather than track capacity and, as the by far largest factor, cost effectiveness because one would need disc brakes and dampers in order to travel faster than 120-140 km/h.
i agree, this could be asian- european Megaprojekt. imagine such an extra size railway between the fareast and europe, it would make containership nearly obsolete.
When Brunel first built the Great Western railroad in the UK, it used a broad gauge of just over 7 feet/2 meters. He believed that trains would be faster and more comfortable at this gauge. But others were using at standard gauge, and he was simply outnumbered. So he abandoned it. It is a pity. If he had won that argument, our modern trains would probably be a lot better! We kind of missed a trick.
Usa has the best freight trains, my territory can handle almost 20,000 feet (ive been on a 19,300 foot long train) and these days 10-12k feet is almost common
Brunel's original intention with the broad gauge was to run fast by reducing bearing friction - effectively narrow coaches fitted between oversize wheels that could rotate more slowly for any given track speed. That was a problem that was solved pretty quickly by better bearings and better lubrication, but the system left behind allowed the GWR to still achieve greater speed than then average elsewhere, simply because the broad gauge gave more room to build a powerful locomotive than standard, with mid-Victorian technology. The width probably also helped stability, given the contemporary understanding springs/dampers and available materials, but that's also a problem that passed. Fast forward 100-150 years, and the broad gauge wouldn't help us go faster - there is an optimum figure for gauge for high speed stability, which is very close to 1435mm. If you were to just widen a 'normal' truck to suit 7ft gauge, and try and run it at 180mph+, the changed length/width ratio would bring down the bogie critical speed (the point at which hunting is endemic, and develops more or less spontaneously) - it might not be as low as 180mph, but you'd definitely be closer to the absolute limits. There are things you might do to try and offset that - increase the wheelbase, change the wheel profile, etc., but all of them have knock on consequences. The wider gauge is forcing you into other compromises that would otherwise be unnecessary.
@@alexander1485 Europe doesn't need a US style freight rail network. The geography and European geopolitics mean that the existing rail network is adequate. America's focus on freight is the reason why passenger rail is so poor in the US - and never likely to improve. Some small European countries have larger High Speed Rail networks than the entire USA. America is about 30 years behind the times.
@@eduardosantabaya5348 yes, and apart from some tolerance issues, that also matches the gauges in Spain and Portugal (which are very slightly different from each other). And then there's 5'3" gauge in Ireland, and 1520mm in Russia and neighbouring states.. Standardisation was a dirty word 150 years ago, apparently. High speed can be made to work on 1676mm if you need it to, but RENFE have gone for standard gauge HS lines, and variable gauge trains where they need to run through. Probably the better choice in the long run.
I suppose that 'the measurement of 1.4 millimeters' mentioned at 6:23 is supposed to be: 1.4 METERS. Otherwise we would have had pretty small railways :-)
5:00 So this is EXACTLY the type of level you'd come across in one of those early 2000s WW2 games, sneaking into Germany, coming upon that snowy train stop only for the player to see those MASSIVE rails and just have a "whoa.." moment.
Hitler's megarailway's ambitiousness was something of a controversy itself. Part of his engineering team described it as "a marvelous feat of engineering but feasible" while others described it as, quote, "foolish and impossibOH MY GOD FÜHRER I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE HERE PLEASE DON'T KI-BLEARGHAUGHAUGH". We've tried contacting the latter to establish why they deemed it unfeasible but for some reason we can't find them.
This was a megalomaniac bullshit project. I don't see why it is glorified here. All the engineers were probably happy not to have to fight at the eastern front and kept being the yes men.
News Flash Hitler wasnt like Stalin..you could critisize him even to his face many of his generals did and lived. Stalin would have anyone shot for the most absurd reasons.
Interestingly, Brunel in UK had created the 2,140mm gauge which was the largest gauge ever built on railway line. Brunel argued that the 2,140mm was superior to everything duo to stability, greater speeds, and much much larger ability to carry cargo. Brunels superior gauge almost became the UK standard but his death meant that other opportunistic selfish venture Capitalists would pressure for inferior standard gauge. Other than that, the largest gauge in use are the 1600+mm gauges of Iberia (Spain & Portugal) and then the Indian area, its also used as freight gauge in some parts of US. Needless to say, a 2140mm gauge today would been most optimal considering HOW much bulk is being transported on sea, the USSR was investigating 4000mm gauges during the 70s to boost transportation of goods, USSR made great use of rivers and large transport planes but felt that transporting goods by sea from Siberia to western part of USSR was too much of a risk and too slow hence the need for a larger gauge, USSR collapsed before any serious work could be done however, a shame really, it was intended to be dual purpose, able to support both the larger trains and the standard ones, so it would be backwards compatible, a great idea to be honest.
Almost always it seems that upfront cost kills genius. 2140mm or 3m Wide Gauge would be expensive upfront, other than basically building a whole new network (the main cost) the only downside is the upfront cost per mile.
Wider gauge is NOT "superior in any way". It does allow to carry larger-sized cargo, but there's not enough demand for this anyway. And gauge doesn't matter at all for bulk cargo.
@@AlexBesogonov Not enough demand? Yes there is, there actually lots of freight train going from Europe to China now to transport goods because its cheaper and quicker than to transport by ship. A large gauge may not be in demand under an inefficient system like free market, but in a resource driven economy such larger gauge railway would probably be common place in order to move goods and people far more efficient than by ship and plane. Also its less pollution to have a large train than having to move cargo by sea or air.
@@SMGJohn I actually think that a wider gauge would allow for shorter trains for the same load, making lower lead times possible. ÍThe idea of implementing a wide gauge rail network for international freight surfaces every 10-15 years, but it won't get built, because of cost, ROI, and transhipment concerns.
I like the idea of the Breitspurbahn even if I don't like where it came from. There was once a very short lived American TV show that explored a very similar concept and used it as a setting for poorly written drama/comedy, "Supertrain". It aired six episodes in 1979.
As a German, I can tell you, I´m not proud either to hear from who it came from. Even if there were some great inventions, it´s often weird to me, when people "pick up on positive things from that era of crime"....
In the USA, there you have sparce flat terrain, building bigger railways makes auctually sence. In fact I am surprized Texas never build an oversized Rail as Gadetbahn (on the saner edge) for industrial transport: Texas is flat, industrial, and megalomaniac. Perfect match.
@Ithecastic That's the funniest shit I've read this month. Like goddamn you could not be talking more shit. Texas is slamming more highway lanes through Austin, destroying entire communities for it, just to try and speed traffic by a few minutes
Standard gauge dates back to the chariots of ancient Rome. It was adopted in the mines of northern England in the 18th century. In the early days of steam, it was too narrow to fit the machinery into the space between the wheels without compromises. The GWR was originally built to a gauge of 7 feet, and the locomotives could be made more powerful.
Even older than that. Google the Malta cartruffs. They continue underwater into places that hadn't been dry land since the last ice age, over 12K years ago.
I wonder to this day, seeing these projects in Wolfenstein and Amazon's Man in the High Castle, whether these trains are actually, really, credible. The weight would've been immense. The start-stop times, immense. The momentum, immense. How would two tracks support that. How would they cross Alps. There's just so many questions.
I am a little disappointed with the little information and especially why it was NOT a useful project. Just read a little on Wikipedia: "After Fritz Todt's proposal, which Hitler enthusiastically received, to build a high-performance long-distance railway (" Reichsspurbahn ") with a significantly wider gauge than the standard gauge, all the advice from the Reichsbahn and the experts went unheeded, 1) that all conceivable transport tasks can also be mastered with conventional railway technology, 2) that nobody knows how to utilize such a large-sized railway and 3) that the incompatibility with the standard-gauge railway would require considerable additional infrastructure. Alternative plans for a standard-gauge, four-track long-distance line were discarded. From the beginning, the broad-gauge railway was considered a personal "toy of the Führer". " Points 2 and 3 are particularly important: No standard: In south-west England, for example, there was a 2,140 mm wide track gauge for a long time, until it was recognized around 1900 that this led to considerable problems when reloading between standard-gauge and broad-gauge trains. That's why the broad gauge was nailed to standard piece by piece. The same thing happened to a considerable extent in the occupied eastern territories: it was simply easier to nail down the russian gauge of 1522 mm to drive through russia up to the front on the standard lane than having to constantly reload trains somewhere. Rebuilding or building new tracks and needed buildings (buildings, loco sheds, support stations, power plants) also need very much time and money. Energy: It was originally planned to operate the new electric trains via an overhead contact line with a considerably higher voltage of 100 kilovolts. Then Hitler got in the way again: "The planning became obsolete in April 1943, when Hitler ordered that the traction current of the broad-gauge railway was not allowed to be supplied via an overhead line, but had to be supplied by a lateral bushbars. The reason was given in military transport tasks and the operational capability of the flak wagons, which were also carried by the Führer's decision. The transmission of the required output of up to 22,000 kilowatts via a side busbar is practically not feasible due to the high voltages required and the resulting large safety distances (three meters safety distance at 50 kilovolt voltage). These planning inconsistencies were not eliminated until the end of the war. " Need of space and savety: "The introduction and crossing of the broad-gauge lines in Munich should be planned in the new central station on the express orders of the Führer in the middle of the track hall, not on the edge or even in a basement. The building, which was already misplaced as a gallery train station on the embankment, was very unfavorable in terms of traffic in its execution as a circular dome with the dome circumference as the only track crossing option (with a hall diameter of almost 300 m), was further delayed because the hall will not be significantly larger due to the new tracks could. The introduction of the electrified broad gauge tracks could not be accomplished satisfactorily either with overhead lines or with busbars, since in the first case the height of the hall and in the second case the distance between the platforms became problematic due to the necessary protective distances. The "solution" was therefore not to lay any overhead lines and to shunt the broad gauge trains in the track hall with steam storage locomotives." So this project was nothing than an idea of Hitler to do things bigger, larger, wider. (Sorry i translated from german - hopefully understandable)
Yes, I mean, you are correct about the infeasibility. But I am getting some serious Albert Speer vibes here. Speer was accused by later biographers (famously Breloer) of just producing lots of impressive looking small scale models of Germania as a way to keep Hitler happy. Most of it never had a chance of being built. And given that it was Todt who proposed the "Reichsspur" I'm thinking Todt was on the same strategy: Just impress Hitler with something big and next week impress him with a new oversized bonkers idea. And so on. Todt must have known it would never really be built. That's just the plausible reason how you end up with stacks of plans and drawings but no actual train. The drawings were the important part all along.
@@jcxz983 It makes sense. It played into two of the noted traits of Hitler. His habit of playing his supporters off against one another and cultivate their rivalries to keep them too preoccupied to scheme against him. And his infatuation with rebuilding Germany and the Rest of Europe to conform to his vision.
"All conceivable transport tasks" Excuse me but what utter bullshit. From fucking tanks to modular homes to turbines to ship parts, everything for the last century has been severely limited in what we can actually do thanks to the ridiculous constraints of standard gauge rail. Wider railways would allow an incredibly more efficient transport of goods.
If all objections to any project needed to be overcome before start of construction, nothing would ever get built. Hmmm, where have I seen this? In the western world?
Great to see this brought to life with the animated graphics. The designers would have only had paper drawings for all those years, they would be staggered at seeing what you have created.
Absolutely. Really mind boggling engineering. Remember life with only a slide ruler- no CAD/CAM, no computers- Only the power of the Human Brain & the ability to dream. Awesome.
Todt was a brilliant engineer, even today we can see how his network of Autobahn connects Germany and parts of Central Europe together. Sadly, modern long-distance and overnight trains can't compete with the too cheap air traffic.
@@Theo-vn9hm Todt became member of the Nazi party NSDAP in 1922. The HA-FRA-BA project, an autobahn from Hamburg via Frankfurt to Basel, was founded in 1926.
@@paulsehstedt6275 *_" Todt became member of the Nazi party NSDAP in 1922. The HA-FRA-BA project, an autobahn from Hamburg via Frankfurt to Basel, was founded in 1926."_* And that's why you call the autobahn a nazi invention?! Okay, right-wingers do be known for their pretty simple views of life *. . .*
@@letoubib21 I've never claimed, that the autobahn was a Nazi project. It was founded as a private society in 1926 and later got under Nazi rule, when Hitler came to power. So please correct your comment.
While they have cool concept, many of them are for the shows instead of actual engineering. It's similar to Soviet projects. Many of them look cool but majority of them are a pipe dream.
They created a lot of that technology at human expense. Yes there were others who were taking advantage and exploiting people. Mostly the corporations and factories.. Many of those moved to other countries.. Like the USA. Ford used to make engines for the NAZI's so did Porsche. Pfizer is such a strange name for a company because it's a NAZI company just like BMW and Volkswagen.
As awful as Hitler was, I do like that he supported all sorts of crazy engineering projects, things that would greatly improve the world if done. The giant trains, space stations, jet aircraft, and limited access freeways are all terrific concepts.
One main point he missed that I've heard elsewhere is that these were intended as ocean-liners of the land, and it can be noted that many of the features these had were similar to that of ocean liners of the time. Britain had a vast maritime empire connected by lavish ocean liners, and Hitler envisioned a similar land-based lavish luxury transport for his land empire. It's also interesting to ponder if he was right about standard gauge being smaller than would make sense now. This was way over the top, but is standard gauge smaller than optimal? Wouldn't make sense to change given how difficult that would be, but could ponder that as a hypothetical, if we had to do it over again sort of thing. The standard gauge was established when rail vehicles were tiny, and fit entirely between the rails. Gradually they grew to tower over the rails, often as much as twice as wide as them, still using the same gauge. They've done so quite effectively, and it can be noted that it's more common to go narrower for specialized purposes than to go wider, with very few exceptions standard gauge is seen as good enough. Some countries have established wider standards, it could probably be compared to see if they are actually better in any way. I've seen a few niche cases where it's used in places it isn't standard, such as the BART (San Francisco) 5' 6" gauge that I once heard was to make it more tolerant of high winds in the area. But with specialized uses for broad-gauge being less common than specialized uses for narrow gauge would imply there aren't really any compelling advantages of any gauge wider than standard.
Changing the gauge now would be horrifically expensive. Every bridge, tunnel and station would need to be modified as well as moving all the track the electricity lines if electrified the signals, everything., not to mention every train and carriage. It would be more economical to build an entirely new railway. Train journeys would be more comfortable for passengers though with a wider gauge, it's just not practical.
@@Iain1962 That's the point I was making - converting existing rail lines or infrastructure to broad gauge wouldn't be economically viable, nor would building new broad-gauge as it would be incompatible with existing infrastructure. Keeping with standard gauge makes the most sense with it already existing. My question is if that weren't a factor if a broader gauge would be better, or if standard gauge as we know it is the optimum balance of trade-offs. Say if somehow every railroad and rolling stock item in the world (or even a given country) were Thanos-snapped out of existence and we had to start over from scratch, would we want to go with the same gauge or would we decide to go for something wider? I don't really know, the current gauge doesn't seem to be much of a limitation. Structure gauge, which restricts the size of vehicles, is a bigger limitation, and a broader gauge wouldn't make any sense unless the structure gauge (loading gauge) were substantially larger as well.
@@quillmaurer6563 Well the wider the gauge the lower the centre of gravity so the more pleasant the trip and smoother the cornering. Isambard Kingdom Brunel actually wanted a Broad Gauge for his GWR line from London to Bristol, and some of it was built and engines ordered but they turned out to be unsatisfactory and it was built in Standard Gauge instead. It would have been interesting though because the Locomotives being much bigger would have been an incredible sight.
@@Iain1962 So you're saying mostly from a passenger comfort perspective? I suppose you'd get more stability out of it. Would be interesting to compare the ride quality of standard- versus narrow-gauge trains at the same speed. Typically in my experience narrow gauge is rougher, but probably mostly due to track as the narrow gauge lines in question are historic lines used for tourists, non-welded and not maintained to the same alignment precision as modern standard-gauge passenger lines. Speed doesn't seem to be a limitation, as 300km/hr is commonplace on some standard-gauge lines. However the Japanese built the high-speed Shikansen system to standard gauge, unlike the rest of their network which is narrow gauge, implying broader is better for high-speed service. Not by a big enough margin to justify high speed trains elsewhere (TGV, ICE, Acela, etc) going broader than standard gauge, implying that standard gauge is "good enough" for high speed service. I don't know if broader gauge could handle more lateral acceleration (taking tighter turns faster) than standard or narrow, my understanding is typically trains derail by jumping the track rather than tipping off of it (as model/toy trains tend to do in my experience). In fact narrower might help prevent this, as narrower will shift more weight onto the outside wheel and make it less likely to jump the track. The practical limit on cornering for passenger trains (freight doesn't care so much) from what I've heard is passenger comfort more than derailment, hence the use of tilting trains. Thinking of Brunel, we have to keep in mind that tracks were far rougher then than they are now - unwelded, no modern alignment technologies, etc. That might have been a factor then that isn't so significant now. Especially if the track were to be tilted at all - one rail higher than the other - this would tilt a narrower gauge more than a wider gauge. Likewise locomotive and carriage suspension of the time was far more primitive than now, a major factor if passenger comfort is a consideration. I also get the sense that at the time low CG relative to the track width was thought to be important, an idea that has since been debunked. Steam locomotives of the era - especially high-speed ones - had the boiler between very large driving wheels, trying to keep a low CG while having large driving wheels suitable for high speed as they were limited on how fast they could turn (due to the piston and cylinder design). As the track gauge limited the boiler width, a broader gauge could allow a bigger boiler. But it was found that higher CGs on locomotives aren't that big a problem, and technology advanced to allow wheels to spin faster, thus didn't need to be as big. This allowed the boiler to be above the wheels rather than between them, removing this constraint and eliminating that advantage of broader gauge.
@@quillmaurer6563 Yes, comfort, carrying capacity, and cornering, are the main advantages, but of course it carries a higher price tag for construction. The high speed lines all have to be built as straight as possible to allow the high speeds safely, that's why we have to build a completely new line for HS2, to eliminate as many curves as possible. It makes sense to have a standard gauge for ease of equipment manufacturing and what we are using is probably sub optimal but too late to change.
6:29 ‘by railroad pioneer George Stepson’ I’m ngl that pronunciation of ‘Stephenson’ had me going back to make sure I actually heard it right because I genuinely didn’t believe I just heard what I heard
Given that both George and Robert Stephenson (father and son) are both gods in railway circles, and therefore not entirely unheard of, you could have pronounced their name correctly - "Stephenson", not "Stepson". In short Stephenson is (somewhat rarely for the English language) pronounced exactly as it is written.
@@stevebarnes2 That's bs. The fact that I am cutting him some slack on his pronunciation or perhaps a slip of the tongue, doesn't mean I am comfortable with ignorance or the quality of the presentation is poor. One doesn't need to speak the Queen's English to provide accurate information. In this case, most readers probably never heard of this grand railway proposal and the video was very informative. So get lost and save your criticism for something of substance.
@Fred Carr A name isn't a matter of "the queen's english", it's a fact. One that, thanks to this video, may be repeated incorrectly by those without further knowledge. The correction is both relevant and necessary.
Just a note on early railway (not *railroad*) pioneers, It was George and Robert *Stephenson* - pronounced as _Stevenson_ (NOT "Stepenson") - that came up with what a lot of us know as "Standard Gauge." Russia, Ireland, Victoria (Australia) and South Australia all use a wider gauge, with all but Russia using 5' 3" or 1600mm gauge.
@@thhseeking Some people take no notice of what you tell them. I've had a similar argument elsewhere online and got told that *_I_* was wrong, in no uncertain terms! It's alright, I've just studied Stephenson and Brunel's works quite extensively, what would I know?
At 6:30 you talk about George STEPSON (not Stephenson, as on screen). He's rather well known in Railway history. So is his sometimes derided choice of the "Coal Wagon Guage" once worked by horses around Newcastle.
I could see some serious potential for trains like this. Particularly in their ability to move smaller naval vessel hulls from inland factories to the sea. That actually offers a huge asset in building a navy. Otherwise, this is right at home for a wolfenstein title.
Doubling all 3 dimensions means factor 2³=8 in volume, at least factor 8 in weight and energy. How should they have moved this at all? May be, bike speed was possible, this would have become a comfortable but very lengthy journey. Go to Japan and look what travelling standard gauge trains can be like.
@@akronymus They could have used shorter trains instead. I don't think the benifit is making bigger trains but making wider trains that don't feel as cramped because a large portion of the space has to be the passage way. The main problem I see with it is that it's a mass infrastructure program.
Also this railway project was shown in "Joachimstaler A. Die Breitspurbahn Munchen-Berlin : Herbig 1993". I had pay attenton to one thing - cross-section of wide-gauge locomotive that show its traction drive. Due to that project, wide-gauge locomotives will use Tschanz-drive (Tschanzantrieb), that's 3-class drive with hollow shaft on wheelset axle and traction motors mounted on the main frame. And Tschanz joint is a pack of springs (viscous elements) mounted on the wheel center, that was the way in pre-war era, before Alsthom rod joint was invented.
Fascinating . The name is George STEPHENSON. How can you not mention one of the greatest railway and shipping engineers of all time and pioneer of Broad Gauge Brunel? The standard guage is based on the width of an horse's arse , as per Roman or early rail horse drawn vehicles
A small correction; The quadrouple lines were also planed for the Breispurbahn. The idea was to have two lines going into each direction, one for passenger trains, one for cargo trains. Something that could have realistically been done with the standard railnetwork, without having to add a whole lot of infrastructure to transition from standard rails width to Breitspuhr. That's why the experts suggested to just build out standard rail quadrouple, instead of the absolute gigantuan overkill of "Breitspur quadrouple!". Like a lot of concepts Hitler latched on, it was simply too massive to be realistically practical, tbh one has to seriously wonder if Hitler was trying to compensate for something by always going "MACHT ES GRÖßER!!1"
Actually, some groundwork for the Breitspurbahn had already been started in the east of Nuremberg before the project was canceled. If you know what to look for, you can find some remains in the forest west of Fischbach.
@@offichannelnurnberg5894 Naja, das liegt halt auch daran, dass in Nürnberg die erste deutsche Eisenbahn fuhr und der Stadt im dritten Reich als "Stadt der Reichsparteitage" eine besondere Bedeutung zukam. Aber stimmt schon, unsere schöne Heimatstadt hat in Sachen Eisenbahn eine Menge zu bieten.
As I know the Project gone more far than one would expect: In the South of Berlin you can still see bridges and traces build for that giant train. I remember that I found theese tracks together with my father in the late 90s. They still exists...
@@T.P.030 south o Berlin! also nicht in Süddeutschland:) Dreilinden, da ist ein totes stück autobahn mit einer brücke, wenn man genau hinguckt sind das die Überreste. Ich glaube die Gleise sind aber nicht mehr da...
@@Erichder5te ja, das ist schon klar, aber könnten das nicht eher die Gleise der ehemaligen Stammbahn sein? Wo genau meinst du denn? Ich fahre dort regelmäßig die Autobahn lang.
@@T.P.030 So hab jetzt mal auf google maps nachgeschaut. So richtig kann ich das leider nicht mehr nachvollziehen, ist ja schon paar Jahrzehnte her :) Aber ich glaube die Brücke findet man in Maps unter dem Namen Stammbahnbrücke, nicht bei der aktiven Autobahn sondern bei dem stillgelegten Teil. Stillgelegt, da das Stück Autobahn ja noch durch Albrechts Teerofen ging. Es gibt noch heute eine Brücke, eben für die Stammbahn. Die Fundamente der Brücke sind aber deutlich breiter als für die kleine Stammbahn notwendig. Da bin ich der Meinung hat man früher noch die Gleise gesehen. Da ich aber auch länger nicht mehr da war müsste man mal eine Video Expedition machen und auf Youtibe hochladen ;) gerne mir dann eine Nachricht schreiben wenn du was gefunden hast:)
It would only be moderately more than the cost building tunnels to for double-stacked container trains, since the height is comparable, primarily the width is greater.
@@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis It's not just the size of the tunnels (and bridges). The wider track forces a straighter track alignment. That means more tunnels and bridges to go through obstacles instead of around them. It might be alright on flat terrain but building such a railway in hilly or mountainous terrain would be massively expensive.
@@userofthetube2701 we gotta think about the long term cost-efficiency. Building the infrastructure might cost a fortune but the advantages of a train this large can easily pay back the cost
@@castoli44 I'm really not convinced about the long term economic benefits of such a system. Let's look at the supposed advantages. First speed: we now know that 300 kph+ speeds can be routinely achieved on standard gauge railways. So for speed the Breitspurbahn is really not necessary. Second is capacity. Sure, you can put more in a single carriage. But the point about a train is that you can simply make it longer. And if you really need even more capacity you can add an extra track and still be narrower than the Breitspurbahn. Third is luxury. Sure, it's nice to have these cruise liner like spaces in a train. But it probably would have very limited applications on a few special trains. And it's still quite possible to build a very luxurious train on standard gauge. All in all I don't think these benefits outweigh the downsides like higher build and operating costs and limited integration with existing infrastructure. It's a fascinating vision but not a very sensible one. Which knowing where the idea is coming from shouldn't be that surprising.
2:52 Finland was never under direct or proxy control of Nazi Germany. In the Lapland War (after the Winter War and Continuation War against the Soviets) we fought against Nazi Germany.
I found this annoying enough to comment on as a railfan, but George Stephenson's name was mispronounced often in this video (it's pronounced George Steven-Son), which is admittedly quite minor compared to the amount of correct information in this video. I'm also somewhat surprised the original gauge of the Great Western Railway at 2.14m wide, possibly the closest thing we ever actually got to the Breitspurbahn.
Plus Stephenson wasn't the first either . Richard Trevithick was the first steam railway , merthyr to Cardiff canal , a 9 mile run . Built 1803 first run February 1804 .
Sound a bit like the machine translated adds you can „enjoy“ around and between YT videos. There is even one for a handheld translation tool, that clearly shows it‘s limits. Totally mispronouncing things not matched by AI is the evidence.
This reminds me of the TV show that nearly destroyed NBC years ago called “Super train “ about a fictional train that was NBC’s answer to ABC’s “Love Boat”. Interesting concept
The Germans were not as crazy as you are making out.... After Brunel journeyed on Stephensons (coach guage) Manchester to Liverpool line, he surmised that increasing the guage to 7ft would deliver a smoother and more importantly faster ride. The key reason Britian used 4ft 8" guage was price, laying track, buildig bridges, tunnels would be cheaper. When it comes to moving fast freight over long distances...... The British turned to borad guage when it built it's railways in India.
But they didn't use Brunel's broad gauge of 7ft 1/4 inch, the railways were mainly built to 5' 6" gauge, which is still in use today. I don't know of anywhere else where anything appreciably wide was built.
Whilst the wide gague would be good from the capacity point of view, it comes with a major difficulty. Straight lines are fine, but curves have to be very shallow at that gague. The line cannot take advantage of geography at that size, it has to make its own at vast expense.
Interesting subject. Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the man who was arguably the greatest engineer in British history, built his Great Western Railway on broad-gauge tracks, but in the end (perhaps caused in part by Brunel's sudden early death), the narrow triumphed in Britain. Alas, a lot of the footage and photos in this video had absolutely nothing to do with Nazi Germany.
No, he did not. That's why he was not accepted at art school ;D ...BUT his workforce had some. For architectural things look up Albert Speer who was the one and only major architect for all the projects back then.
I’ve had dreams with an Art Deco train like this (not Nazi associated) including depot stop by a lake and some other stops with huge platforms, 1st time I’ve seen something that matches up so close, thanks for posting 👍
We have a team that in current day is actively pursuing a train like this. There is a suggestion for a new track with a gauge of 2.8 meter, and there is sort of a "infiltration" to make the loading gauge 5x6 meters. There is just a tiny test track suggested for now, and of cause nothing planed. The planed loading gauge is 3,7x5 meter so even at that its quite a bit bigger than current tracks
Seeing this reminds me of how stagnant the modern world really has become, as these sorts of ideas were not a German exclusive, and many nations had their own ideas like this. It seems like everything is being put in computing now, and yeah yeah I know "computing is the future" and all that, but there is something to be said for monuments and grand scale projects like this, maybe we'll see this kind of ambition again some day, who knows.
Ideas are a lot easier when you never have to actually put them into practice. In reality, the only way this would ever have been built is with mass slave / death labour (already widely employed by the Nazis by that stage). So forgive me if I’m rather glad we are usually slightly less grandiose in our ideas these days.
Exactly!!! In the early 20th Century, there were so many new things. There was not even 40 years between the first powered air flight, and the first jet airplanes. Now look at the world, the only thing that’s changed in decades is the shitty technology like phones. Id rather see regular people going to space and flying supersonic!!
@@Zveebo he means in general not this specifically. And no, it would not absolutely require slaves I don’t know why you say that. Many major projects were completed in history without slavery.
Ah.. So its seems that Hitler himself had Actually foresaw the Future, that the World is about to be covered in Snow and Ice, Which is why he Prepared the Great Breitspurbahn.
Fun fact: The Breitspurbahn is still smaller than TV Snowpiercer and Big Alice. It feels like a Metro train or a freight train when you realized it’s still not “like” Snowpiercer.
Scale models of this can still be seen in the transport museum of Nürnberg. There wouldn't just be luxury passenger trains but also "Fremdarbeiterzüge" (foreign worker trains) that had basic accommocation in huge capacity, to move thousands of cheap workers in from "the East" which would be colonized in Hitler's fantasy. Economies of scale aside, it would be very difficult to integrate such a system in existing structures. The space and curve radii required mean that part of cities would need to be torn down to make space, that a lot of tunnels and bridges would be needed in hilly terrains. Another thing is strange: Would it be electrified or not? If so the only sane thing would be to run all trains electric. They also designed steam, turbine and diesel locomotives though, which means that not all lines would be electrified. Which seems strange: if you plan big, why not go the whole way?
Availability of power, the same reason locomotives like the GG1 never saw use outside of the northeast USA. In the 30s it wasnt clear what the future of motive power would be, electric lines spanning as far as hitler wanted would have been prohibitively expensive at the time, major cities still had their own grids in the 30s, and large factories and hospitals and their own power plants.
They also didn’t want to hang wires inside fancy arched terminal stations, which means that they would have needed either third rail or energy storage to enter and leave those stations.
So let me get this straight - they were planning to run a railway straight through China, bypassing Shanghai, Nanjing and Beijing, to reach *Vladivostok*?
There is a vast and excellent detailed book on this project (in German) by the historian Anton Joachimstaler who gives a great deal of context in terms of the Reichsbahn leadership and internal Nazi power struggles and Hitler's personal wishes. It was truly mad but several engineers gained very useful exemption from being called up to the Front so long as they could keep busy at the design work. I have translated a large amount of the book and it should appear in due course on the website of the Military Railways Group. The video is nicely made but relies largely on footage of an American troop train (an armoured unit) or some well-known aerial shots. The loco shown is one of many designs postulated by different firms who were asked for their ideas. Hitler's idea was for a continental land-based Empire rather than one involving overseas possessions that would require a large Merchant Marine and Navy - as had been the case with Germany's Empire before World War 1. The question of Todt's sudden death is a bit of a distraction. It was actually Todt who had first suggested a high-capacity broader-gauge railway. One can make a good argument for the theory that the Third Reich lost the war largely because they had not invested adequately in logistics and specifically rail transport before the Russian campaign. Plus the leader was a psychotic madman who told his generals in 1941 ''There will NOT be a Winter Campaign!!'' and then discovered a few months later that he did not in fact control the weather, leaving thousands of under-supplied Wehrmacht soldiers to freeze to death without winter clothing. To those who dream of travelling in such a train - be aware that the carriages for the conveyance of slave workers were not so luxurious as in Robin Barnes ('Broader than Broad') fascinating watercolour illustrations. In the Nazi scheme of things you had to be either one of the élite - or you were a Nothing without even the right to your own life. or any life at all. Never, ever forget that.
@@MechaShadowV2 You are right, it is just that this element is also not specifically mentioned. One could assume for example that slave labour would have been used to build the lines, just as slave labour was used on the Reichsbahn tracks and in the German (and Occupied) locomotive factories, also on the abortive Trans-Sahara line and - by the Japanese - on the infamous railways in the Far East (of which the Burma Railway was only one of several). One reads comments like ''a corpose for every sleeper laid'' and one wonders how many sleepers would have been necessary to reach Istanbul.... But thanks for the comment.
Nonsense, that's ridiculous propaganda. If that was remotely true why did the German people fight with the Reich to the very end? Gets the old noggin joggin doesn't it, perhaps you have been lied to about a lot of things your entire life?
the most impressive thing is that they were right as in the modern era highspeed railways are all mostly larger than standard gauge like the shinkansen and the TGV but mostly the use standard gauge for regular freight but upgrading to larger gauges would be expensive or impossible due to terrain but none are as large as this but the future might change that
Gotta love these videos! It's amazing how you can keep on producing content of these crazy and exciting vehicles out frequently out of pure effort. Bravo!
Knew the story, came for the renderings of this thing, and wasn't disappointed. Only few original drawings (and a model) exists of this project, it's nice to see it as it could have been. By the way we're now in a time where we're thinking of depending less of fossil fuels and, thus, trying to think of a world with less planes, and less crude-oil fueled cargos. Night (sleepers) trains are somewhat envisioned as a way to travel for tomorrow, and every developed country in the world tries to get goods back on tracks (pun intended). So i'm sure that somewhere there's a little Hitler imp-like creature mocking us, telling us we can now regret his idea of a worldwide network of 3 meters gauge tracks that would have accommodated long distance rolling-cities trains or freight consists massive enough to carry as many goods as a container ship....
This was actually a good idea, there were even ideas for 4000mm, 6000mm, and 8000mm Designs. Imagine what could be moved with these trains if you add a nuclear powered locomotive. I think it would help with lowering pollution.
@UCPJ740AF_qfCZehmBLtddTA Train locomotives are one of those vehicles where a high weight is actually desirable, since it increases tractive force before wheels start slipping. So, theoretically it would be possible, though it's probably a better option to use the French option and electrify every railway with low carbon energy from a large stationary nuclear power plant.
![Nazi Super Tank - P-1000 Ratte - [ Largest Tank EVER ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6mfhalEjUrw/mqdefault.jpg)
![Nazi Super Tank - P-1000 Ratte - [ Largest Tank EVER ]](/img/tr.png)
Man back in the 40s everything looked like a piece of art. Absolutely incredible.
because art inspires humans, then post ww2 certain people took over that dont want inspiration, rather endless consumption of products for profits and destruction of nations
inspiration is dangerous, so they made sure that beauty was supressed
@@tango976 who could those people be goyim?
@@tango976 why did Mr H fail⁉️
@@treystephens6166 yids
@@tango976 the yids? How did they win?
ah yes Thomas the Tank Engine's bigger German cousin, Eric the Fascist Engine!
Always arrives exactly on time.
...or else.
"Eric was just following orders"
Frida: If my brother is a German, it's not mean that him is a fascist.
Guess Eric is ..... Claustrophobic?
😏
Nah, thats Gustav the Angry Railway Gun
Well, this is "If Snowpiercer is made by Germans, For Germans."
No, this is Supertrain!
Yup! Saw the design of the engine and thought “Snowpiercer” right away….😳🤣🤣👍
@@johnruschmeyer5769 I can hear the music right now...
Snowpiercer 1940s
with...or WITHOUT...
necessitating child sacrifice to maintain operation?
It was definitely a beautiful train, stylish, and even aerodynamic. it would be really cool if that design could be reintroduced today. only with running gear suitable for high speed rail travel. but rounding corners would be scary because of how tall it is. it would have to be somewhat top heavy? but with all the amenities that were mentioned. it could stir all new interest in travel by rail.
Yes is Art Deco you commie
The height wouldn't have been an issue for the original gauge.
Would you accept a maglev version of this train? Being maglev, the train hugs the track and can make up for the top heaviness of the design.
But it looks so easy to derail, then who knows how much destruction that could cause.
@@Packguardian_gacha8684 Derailing a train is something that seems a lot simpler than it actually is.
@@user-xu2pi6vx7o he said derailing, not detailing
i would love to see a replica of this locmotive made and shown off in a museum. i know its huge but seeing it in person would really put it into persepctive of its sheer size
Somebody could put the 3D model shown in this video into a Vr headset so you could see it’s full size and scale
what program was used to make this train for the video?
@@coolertuep I didn't even think about that. A VR experience of walking around and or getting on this would also put it into scale and be a hell of alot cheaper than actually building one lol
@@liamturner6424 I personally think that VR will be the future for lots of areas related to history, like exhibits, archeology, reconstruction you name it.
@@timbackman5915 VR is certainly promising, but as it is currently, it's nothing like actually seeing things in person. So tourism-wise, it'd probably only be used for places that are either too dangerous or too fragile for conventional tourism to be possible. But the reconstruction point, a VR simulation of reconstructed landmarks would be good. Like seeing the pyramids of Giza, the colosseum of Rome, Pompeii, etc, all brought back to their prime. That would be brilliant.
the standard gauge was actually first used in the mines of England in the 1700s, the standard gauge was popularized by George Stephenson.
also it is pronouced, Stevenson
No it is pronounced Stephenson which stev-en-sun
@@mikeoxsmal8022 that's what I mean
Actually the rail gauge originates from the ancient Rome, where the first paved road network was designed to accomodate two horses in front of a carriage. So actually our standard gauge is exactly as wide as two horses arse… :)
Standard gauge comes from Ancient Rome, where the ruts in the streets were 4 foot, 8 and a half inches apart. The ruts were made to speed traffic in Rome's crowded streets.
@@lawrencelewis2592 When George Stephenson designed the Stockton & Darlington Railway in the north of England in 1825, he used a gauge of 4 feet, 8 inches simply because he had been familiar with it on a mine tramway called the Willington Way on the Tyne River below Newcastle.
imagine getting your truck stuck on the rails then that thing obliterates every single atom belonging to the truck
This things weight on the wheels would probably split the atoms in your body and/or vehicle
I was on a 60 mph 12k ton 2 mile long freight train today (freight conductor job) and we woulda destroyed anyone if they were on a crossing or tried to beat us...
What railroad
@@alexander1485 The biggest mistake America made with rails aside from not investing in them better is never making it all grade separated. I mean we would consider a crossroad on a freeway to be unthinkable.
@@filanfyretracker we have lots of rail crossings here in the netherlands but they are extremely safe and have warning signs and signals and booms that close down. its very rare for accidents to happen. with how densely populated this country is i dont think we could avoid having crossings.
Reminds me of the Combine trains in Half-Life 2, and also of something I actually dreamed about, in an actual literal dream. To be honest, this project sounds really cool.
If only they hadn't had such a horrendously evil vision for, basically, which people do or don't get to _live,_ and if only they hadn't had such inhumane rules of behaviour even for their favoured people.
I'm pretty sure that's the reason we are hearing the train horn from Half Life 2 in the animations.
Ocean liner on land!
But those are real. You’ve seen the nuclear powered land trains, right?
@@The_ZeroLine
Source or you're lying.
@@theuncalledfor ua-cam.com/video/KpWv68xECrY/v-deo.htmlsi=oFHlAczowM4PDnGs
Excellent sound effect choice for the train horn, anyone who's played HL² must see this train's resemblance to Combine razor trains.
That sound makes me reflexively reach for Left Shift.
@@AubriGryphon *gets yeeted off the map*
Same
" Achtung , Achtung !!!!, der train ist leaving for Stalingrad, Moscow, und all points East !!!". The ultimate troop transport..
I could definitely see the Combines using this Train in Germany when they took over Earth.
As always with the railways, The trains themselves aren't that expensive. The cost of new rail lines is staggering, not to mention maintenance. What a great video and great channel! It's so good to see something other than stock photos or a guy talking into a camera in his spare room! Great, high quality content here!
still cheaper than the environmental cost of cars
@@GP-qi1ve Do you think money grows on trees and people world for free?
it wasn't like he went out shooting these videos or spoke in front of a tree.
I dunno, Elon thinks he can dig railway tunnels for pennies!
🤣🤣🤣
Knock Knock Elon, Crossrail is here to die laughing for your entertainment.
@@mememachine5244 it's an investment, my friend. And in the long run is much cheaper than cars. See, us European litterally just dug a tunnel in the alps (which are much, much taller than any mountain in the US) and made a line between Rome and Paris. Do you think oil rigs are free? Do you have the slightest idea of how much costed to clean the gulf of Mexico from Deep Water Horizon? Stop with the bullshit. People prefer cars because they are lazy asses, not because cars are cheaper.
At 6:22 I would certainly agree that 1.4 _millimeters_ would qualify as narrow-gauge! Even N-gauge model railways [the smallest common scale] have a gauge of 9mm.
At one time there was "Z" gauge, fairly close to 1.4mm. I had a Z gauge boxcar, but cant find it now, i think one of my cats ate it.
Ah yes, the famous 1.4 millimetre railway made for fleas, bedbugs and ants.
And who is Stepson 😂
@@GWJUK the original video was referring to George Stephenson, and his name was mispronounced. George Stephenson was the original inventor of the steam locomotive in Great Britain, during the 1820s. (Possibly earlier.)
@@paulsmith5398 yes ta I know who George Stephenson is. I was enjoying the pronouncement
I love all the absolutely crazy ideas people had from ww2. Giant train, giant planes, giant boats, air craft carrier submarine, and of course giant bombs.
The giant bomb was built.
Crazy Dreams? No other event in human history advanced technology so rapidly. The rate of engineering and manufacturing advancement in such a short time has never been seen before or since. Most of these crazy dreams all came true to some extent.
@@powertothesheeple5422look at AI. Will Smith eating spaghetti and new images. Will Smith eating spaghetti is great, because he clearly enjoys it, but you can see, it's not real. But the new images are great, and this technology advanced rapidly. Soon we don't have to hire actors anymore to eat spaghetti in movies 🙂
Like draining the Mediterranean
A 3 metre gauge is kind of crazy, and such a wide gauge severely inhibits how tight a curve can be which makes terrain following in even moderately hilly regions tricky and expensive and the tunnels for those trains would have been simply huge. As far as I'm aware the widest railway gauge ever used on a large scale, was Isambard Kingdom Brunel's 7ft 1/4 inch, or 2,140 mm designed in 1838 and which was used throughout most of the GWR network. It was in use until 1892. (The gauge was original 7 ft, but clearance problems were found in testing, so another 1/4 inc was added).
If that gauge had remained, then it would have been mightily impressive today, but it was killed in the interests of inter-operability, and since the considerable majority of UK rail was to the "standard" gauge, and the costs of upgrading that would be prohibitive, it was GWR that had to give way and, with Brunel dead, it's greatest proponent wasn't around to defend it.
Strangely, Ireland was left with a different gauge - 5ft 3 inches, which is in use to this day.
Ironically, in light of Nazi ambitions in the area of broad gauge, it was the Russian gauge of 5 ft (1,524 mm), which caused massive logistical problems in the invasion of the Soviet Union as it was incompatible with the standard gauge and required either transhipment of goods between trains or extensive track relaying.
Feet is not a valid unit of measure, there are different sizes of feet.
@@kiadel7502 Not for the purpose of linear measurements in the 19th century.
@@kiadel7502 lmao
@@kiadel7502 i've been trying to tell the rest of my american friends that and they won't hear any of it, stupid customary units lol
@@james_fisch
In fact USA have British-Imperialist roots including a superiority complex, and serious difficulty to accept mistakes.
@Steve Jones
It is not "Breitspurbahn" it is "Reichsspurbahn". "Breitspur" are all railways that are wider than 1435mm, which includes quite a lot real existing railways like Finlands 1524mm railways or Indias 1676mm. The "Reichsspur" is the specific 3000mm wide Railway planned for the "Lebensraum im Osten" (living space in the east).
There is also Brunel's 7ft gauge Great Western to think about if that had survived 1892 ??
Breispur would be a really mushy thing. I don't think anything could drive on Brei
6:22 one point four millimeters?
Breitspurbahn is correct. It's not only a general term, it also refers to this specific project.
"living space in the east". what a polite way to say invade, annex, genocide, colonize
Who thinks of the scene from Wolfenstein The new Order ? I do!
Seems to be that those are inspired by the real plans that were drafted
Same, I imagine the scene with Irene Engel
@@georgivanev7466. Don't forget her handsome companion Hans "Bubi" Winkle.
The Wolfenstein games really captured the Nazi style of robotics, vehicles and engineering pretty accurately coming to think of it.
You reminded I need to buy the game :)
I'm no engineer, but I think due to the massive size of this train, that the concept would be more fitting on a magnetic style track like the bullet train or the monorail, where the rails themselves don't need to be structured to support the considerable weight. Though I guess this would be problematic for operating through any extreme weather conditions
But they do have to be engineered to handle the voltage capacity of the magnets to hold the train up! Ergo the engineering cost would be steered toward the train weight and lifting it!
The weight is still transferred to the rails or earth based magnetic structure.
@@sbrunner69 yeah 100%
Even reading my comment now im like "uhhhhh" because yeah obviously magnetic force doesn't eliminate the weight of the object being magnetically repelled.. I don't know. I must have been super baked
@@asylumental Yes sometimes when I’m baked I lose site of gravity as well….:-)
you re definitely not an engineer...
i am german and know of many nazi projects, but i have never heard of this before, wow
I too am German and I have only heard about this, because my father is a massive railroad fan. He even went to the U.S. for his honeymoon, just to see the Durango-Silverton line and we have a pretty extensive model railroad line in our basement.
@@generalripper7528 wo wohnst du
There is very good book: Die Breitspurbahn: Das Projekt zur Erschließung des groß-europäischen Raumes 1942-1945
You arent a true German then, you might have a little belgium in you
69 likes, make a wish!
So basically, Hitler wanted to make _Snowpiercer_
(Please note that this comment predates the current title of the video.)
Actually it sounds like Snowpiercer wanted to copy Hitler
Or Supertrain, but with less disco...
Go out of my head :D
@@tomanderson6335 Disco Nazi Supertrain? sigh, if only politically correct wokies didn't freak out over everything, there could be some real old school, Mel Brooks, Leslie Neilson type comedy gold in that.
That was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw this.
That is one mind blowing train. Kind of like a Queen Mary on tracks. Hitler and Company were definitely not afraid to think big.
Such examples are the massive Gustav railway gun and the giant Ratte super heavy tank
Too big for Germany and the rest of the world - within years they would have had to deal with more severe environmental problems than us today, 80 years later ;)
when you have the power to execute millions on command it's understandable why
@@andrewmontgomery5621 But those weapon systems were big to the point of being useless.
They were thinking about a 1000 years and not just a 4 year election cycle. It's terrifying and at the same time astonishing where a unified culture being forced to create infrastructure that reflects your dominance in innovations.
Dominance through innovation
How is everything they build always so badass looking?
It's probably because we know it represents something we are taught is bad. And we all like to go against the rules of society a little bit. I mean, if this train was rainbow coloured and was invented by Greta Thunberg, driven by Conchita Wurst and powered by sustainable stuff we wouldn't be as impressed.
But we hear that it's Nazi and we think Eagles, Swastikas, Skulls, Heavy Iron, Flak 88, MG42, Diesel engines, Mercedes, BMW, power and black smoke. And well dressed bad guys with scarred faces discussing plans in the carriages.
@@99ron30 the germans and Italians just had naturally stylistic engineering prowess, they were ahead of their time in all industries such as fashion and engineering
@@99ron30 Yeah, that's probably true for sure. Great comment by the way!
@@jacksonsparrow8865 Yeah it took the entire World going to War with them and even still they almost won, it makes me wonder if what we are taught about History is correct after all the victors write the History books.
Because hitler was just massively debt spending.
If germany would not go to war around years 1939-1950 it would economically collapse.
Some people think that nazi germany was socialist, some that it was capitalist.
In truth nazi germany had no economic system. It was all debt, money printing, MEFO bills and appropriation jewish/enemies of state property.
That and megalomania to the point of complete lack of functionality, Maus, Tiger II, Panther, Bismarck.
Fascists also depend on emotions not logic, that's why show of force is necessary, and megalomania helps with that.
Germans did really well during those times in terms of inventions and creating advance machinery. They are still doing well but the rate at which they came out with new weapons was really astounding.
I think the issue was funding. Any crazy old idea can become really impressive if enough money is poured in to development.
Yeah I mean, the issue with a lot of these inventions is that they are actually pretty unimpressive. A lot of them can be boiled down into the “OOOH, BIGGER” logic and little else. The point has been discussed to tired completion.
They are weak, defeated and degenerate society now. America controls everything in Germany. Germans have to buy American weapons. How do you expect them to innovate?
It's ironic that many of advances in aircraft and weapons systems after WW II in the United States and Soviet Union were made by ex Nazi engineers. Even our Space Program in 1960s would not have been possible with them.
What's what fear does. Look of the innovations between ww1 to the end of the cold war. even nowadays not long ago digital cameras, wireless internet, small cellphones etc. Everything in our cellphone was made to spy and kill during the cold war proxy wars/ for ww3 that never came
I can't help but get reminded of snowpiercer when looking at this train.
Same this is what come to mind first.
Snowpiercer within The Man In The High Castle
Omg yes I have been looking for this comment
Early M4's (Shermans) at 1:16...WRT comments about superiority of broad gauges (5'+) over standard gauge railways (4' 8 1/2") one must bear in mind that the minimum negotiable curve radius increases with track gauge. Railway wheels and axles are 1 piece with no ability for differential rotation speed. The outer wheels on a curve must rotate faster than the inner, or else slipping of the inner wheel or skidding of the outer will happen, causing massive wear to the wheels and tracks(anyone who has travelled on a city subway/underground will know the screeching on tight curves). The tighter the radius the greater the calculated rotational differential. To overcome some of that effect railway wheels are conic section and rails are crowned. The conic section results in the wheels self-centring between the rails with the wheel flanges not contacting the rail sides. If a curve is the correct radius and is negotiated at a specific speed the outer wheel of the curve rides closer to the flange where the wheel radius is greater while the inner wheel moves away from the rail, running on a smaller radius section. At the same rotational speed the outer wheel will naturally travel further than the inner. The system is engineered to reduce track and wheel wear to a minimum. As gauge increases the requisite conic sections and track crowning that enable smooth running become impracticable. Standard gauge, or close to it gives a good compromise of requirements. It is interesting to note that for railways in mountainous terrain, where tight curves have to be used, narrow gauge railways are preferred (as small as 2' 6"). The same often applies to streetcars in cities.
Beuatiful explanation ! Thank you! BTW, I' ve always wondered of a train system with independent wheels on an axle, for not being need for large curve radii.
Solution: Make railway wheels and axles that are not 1 piece.
This snippet came from WW2 American PR film 'The Troop Train'.
@@AaronHorrocks compound bolster trucks/bogies?
The issue with independently rotating wheels on a stationary axle is side thrust. modern freight cars (loaded) can weigh 130 tons. Solid axles (as used commonly) ensure the spacing of the wheels while requiring only 2 lateral thrust faces. For wheels on their own bearings 4 thrust supports would be needed; 1 on each side of each wheel. The complexity and catastrophic results of failure largely override any benefit when current technology works very well. On a classic steam locomotive the wheel sets have to be solid to maintain the synchronization of the pistons on each side. On an electric or Diesel-Electric the weight, cost and reliability issues of differential drive to the wheels is also not worth the effort. For light rail transit applications where low floors and tight turns are needed independent wheel sets have proven practicable.
"you can't underestimate" - so how ever low I estimate it, it can't be too low?
It seems no one understands this expression anymore. It's either:
- You shouldn't underestimate
or
- You can't OVERestimate
Saying "you can't underestimate" literally means the exact opposite of what's intended. It baffles me that otherwise intelligent people don't get that.
Great video by the way, the animations were very well done.
The CG or graphics used in this video were superb. It actually looked like the train was real.
it was real, did not you notice ? :) It's an old video colorized by AI :)
@@sliiiin
I had no clue.
@@sliiiin But there is still CGI in this video, and it's pretty good.
Yeah the germans must be very good with cgi back then.
But it's out of scale (6x7m).
If it werent for the atrosities that the Nazis commited, I'd of loved to see how Germany in that era would have turned out had they been succesful with thier engineering projects. It'd definitely be up there with Japan in terms of productivity and technological advancement. Very many "American" advancements were accomplished by Germans or their descendants.
truly a tragedy. so many brilliant minds groomed and led staggeringly astray by evil men and the "I'm better than you in every way" mentality.
You would have probably been in a slave labor camp supporting thier economy. That was their plan for the rest of the world.
The Nazi economy would have collapsed within years even without the atrocities and if they had won.
The idea that Germany was magically super advanced is complete nonsense. The Nazis had a huge brain drain. Huge amounts of resources were put into development that is all.
@@WilliamHamilton29464 He did say except for the atrocities, which is a big exception.
@@WilliamHamilton29464 What bullcrap.... Besides eastern europeans, people outside of germany would have been just fine
This is wonderful! There is not all the much information out there about the Breitspurbahn; I "discovered" it in a display case at the German Railway Museum in Nuremberg but there don't seem to be many books about the plan. Amazingly, even as the 1000 Year Reich shrank rapidly, planning continued right up until the Russians came to Berlin. There were some serious engineering issues, such as the massive curves needed with such a broad gauge, but also things like having to ferry passengers out to the train with smaller trains as the giant steam locomotives would asphyxiate everyone inside a station!
imagine the tunnels... damn that would be expensive. also the pressure on rails. germany only needed 50-100 cm wider trains for their tanks. everything else is just overkill
"locomotives would asphyxiate everyone inside a station" ... sounds like the sort of thing that suits the nazis, they probabally thought they could double it up for something
@@jebise1126 The soviets carried their moon rocket (a Saturn V competitor, and after, it was used for Buran, their space shuttle) on rails. It used twin parallel tracks (like the Dora/Gustav nazi railgun) and a transporter-mobile-launch-platform-wagon with 64 axles (or 128 wheels). Weight is not an issue on railway tracks, as you can just expand the thing to ridiculous measurement, all without increasing the friction that much.
(and yeap the massive wagons still exists at Baikonur...)
Der Uber Train !!!.
@@Damien.D NASA also did and does use railroads for transportation of rocket parts and delivering smaller rockets to the launchpad. The French also built a railway for their spaceport in French Guiana.
I'd love to see an engineer analyze whether such a railway would actually be cheaper to operate (economies of scale). Obviously building it would cause many problems, but assuming you had it, would it be better?
6:23 - 1.4 millimeter rail gauge? That's pretty tiny.
First used by George Stepson himself...
Should be cheap!
All they could afford due to the reperiations.
...quibbed Hitler himself
I think that was a mixup with the size of Hitler's pecker
“The enemy is being reinforced with an armoured train”
(BF1 flashbacks)
Places tank mines on rails
@@thefrenchcommander5770 yeeeah.
Tbh that’s what makes the train the worst behemoth
Way ahead of his time on this one. Imagine how many intermodal containers a train of such scale could carry. Combined with the expansive international route which is pretty much impossible nowadays it would quickly become a vital connection on the world stage. And it would bring the luxuries of cruise ships to the much faster rails.
This thing would be an intermodal beast. I'm not sure what the actual loading gauge would be, but looking at it, this thing could probably do triple, maybe even quadruple, container stacks two wide on railcars. Compared to a modern American freight train that carries about 150-250 40' containers, this could probably do 800-1200 containers on a train of the same length. That's equivalent to about 7%-14% the capacity of a container ship which is crazy.
@@drosera88 That kind of capacity combined with the speed of a train would without a doubt be the freight backbone of the modern world.
@@drosera88 This is the kind of back of the envelope calculation which sounds cool in abstract, but doesn't really solve anything in practical terms. The major bottleneck for rail freight isn't the length of the trains, or their speed (which become ever more solvable with modern stock tracking and computerized route management), it's the loading and unloading at their destinations. Which this does nothing to solve.
@@Bustermachine I was just making a size comparison. Obviously this thing would be a different beast entirely when it came to loading and offloading. It's a logistical nightmare and very inflexible. Having so many containers on a single car complicates things so much. A modern freight train allows you to just pluck any container off a train, and at most, you have one container in your way if it's at the bottom of a stack. On this thing, a container at the bottom of a stack would mean moving up to three containers, maybe even more depending on the design of the crane being used to move the containers. That's a lot of time and money. The only way to avoid that is making sure containers are stacked in a particular order, but doing so makes you train inflexible because now you can't just put containers on to the train as needed without taking into account of the containers already on the train, as well as the containers the train may be picking up at a different destination. Coming up with an efficient logistical solution to organize and stack these things on the trains and running it would be not only costly, but also very inflexible as well. I really don't think you'd be able to fully economically utilize such large container cars for these reasons.
I didn't see any in-suite toilet facilities. Imagine the lines in the hall. 😆
Coolest thing ever! If anyone else but Hltler had suggested this, they'd be hailed as a genius!
Hitler just was:
Take this and make it big! 🫵😡
It's like Kathleen K. Take this, put a chick in it and make it lame and gay. Doesn't take a genius for that. He ruined most projects he was involved in, because he didn't really understand the matter 🤷♂️
Great idea. That's what we' d need today for international freight transport. Instead of slow trucks crossing Europe.
well... the thing is there already are fast trains that carry cargo. no new super mega train is needed for that
@@jebise1126, on the contrary, the carry cargo is traditionally slow, especially in Germany, mostly not faster than 80 km/h. To cross the continent, it takes many days. Big trains could even replace the slow cargo ships, travelling around Europe.
@@frankg.gerigk9122 Cargo trains today are traveling at 90-120 km/h, container or mail trains usually at 120-140 km/h so they are quite fast. The limiting factor today is not technology, rather than track capacity and, as the by far largest factor, cost effectiveness because one would need disc brakes and dampers in order to travel faster than 120-140 km/h.
i agree, this could be asian- european Megaprojekt.
imagine such an extra size railway between the fareast and europe, it would make containership nearly obsolete.
@@frankg.gerigk9122 And what is the speed limit of the trucks? moreover due to the nature, railway is more narrow than roads even highways
I see that Found and Explained is fan of "The Man in the High Castle" as well 😃
When Brunel first built the Great Western railroad in the UK, it used a broad gauge of just over 7 feet/2 meters. He believed that trains would be faster and more comfortable at this gauge. But others were using at standard gauge, and he was simply outnumbered. So he abandoned it. It is a pity. If he had won that argument, our modern trains would probably be a lot better! We kind of missed a trick.
Usa has the best freight trains, my territory can handle almost 20,000 feet (ive been on a 19,300 foot long train) and these days 10-12k feet is almost common
Brunel's original intention with the broad gauge was to run fast by reducing bearing friction - effectively narrow coaches fitted between oversize wheels that could rotate more slowly for any given track speed. That was a problem that was solved pretty quickly by better bearings and better lubrication, but the system left behind allowed the GWR to still achieve greater speed than then average elsewhere, simply because the broad gauge gave more room to build a powerful locomotive than standard, with mid-Victorian technology. The width probably also helped stability, given the contemporary understanding springs/dampers and available materials, but that's also a problem that passed.
Fast forward 100-150 years, and the broad gauge wouldn't help us go faster - there is an optimum figure for gauge for high speed stability, which is very close to 1435mm. If you were to just widen a 'normal' truck to suit 7ft gauge, and try and run it at 180mph+, the changed length/width ratio would bring down the bogie critical speed (the point at which hunting is endemic, and develops more or less spontaneously) - it might not be as low as 180mph, but you'd definitely be closer to the absolute limits. There are things you might do to try and offset that - increase the wheelbase, change the wheel profile, etc., but all of them have knock on consequences. The wider gauge is forcing you into other compromises that would otherwise be unnecessary.
@@alexander1485 Europe doesn't need a US style freight rail network. The geography and European geopolitics mean that the existing rail network is adequate. America's focus on freight is the reason why passenger rail is so poor in the US - and never likely to improve. Some small European countries have larger High Speed Rail networks than the entire USA. America is about 30 years behind the times.
@@jonathanj8303 British Empire built broad gauge lines in India and Argentina, 1,676 mm, still in use today.
@@eduardosantabaya5348 yes, and apart from some tolerance issues, that also matches the gauges in Spain and Portugal (which are very slightly different from each other). And then there's 5'3" gauge in Ireland, and 1520mm in Russia and neighbouring states.. Standardisation was a dirty word 150 years ago, apparently.
High speed can be made to work on 1676mm if you need it to, but RENFE have gone for standard gauge HS lines, and variable gauge trains where they need to run through. Probably the better choice in the long run.
Swimming pools, in it of itself, is just honestly crazy.
I suppose that 'the measurement of 1.4 millimeters' mentioned at 6:23 is supposed to be: 1.4 METERS. Otherwise we would have had pretty small railways :-)
I was gonna say the same thing! Lol. No biggie great video!!!
Astonishing. A land- based luxury superliner. Complete with lounges, dining rooms, pools, and promenade decks.
Fascinating, Captain.
5:00 So this is EXACTLY the type of level you'd come across in one of those early 2000s WW2 games, sneaking into Germany, coming upon that snowy train stop only for the player to see those MASSIVE rails and just have a "whoa.." moment.
Big return to castle wolfenstein, original COD, MOH, vibes.
Hitler's megarailway's ambitiousness was something of a controversy itself. Part of his engineering team described it as "a marvelous feat of engineering but feasible" while others described it as, quote, "foolish and impossibOH MY GOD FÜHRER I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE HERE PLEASE DON'T KI-BLEARGHAUGHAUGH".
We've tried contacting the latter to establish why they deemed it unfeasible but for some reason we can't find them.
This was a megalomaniac bullshit project. I don't see why it is glorified here. All the engineers were probably happy not to have to fight at the eastern front and kept being the yes men.
News Flash Hitler wasnt like Stalin..you could critisize him even to his face many of his generals did and lived. Stalin would have anyone shot for the most absurd reasons.
Interestingly, Brunel in UK had created the 2,140mm gauge which was the largest gauge ever built on railway line.
Brunel argued that the 2,140mm was superior to everything duo to stability, greater speeds, and much much larger ability to carry cargo.
Brunels superior gauge almost became the UK standard but his death meant that other opportunistic selfish venture Capitalists would pressure for inferior standard gauge.
Other than that, the largest gauge in use are the 1600+mm gauges of Iberia (Spain & Portugal) and then the Indian area, its also used as freight gauge in some parts of US.
Needless to say, a 2140mm gauge today would been most optimal considering HOW much bulk is being transported on sea, the USSR was investigating 4000mm gauges during the 70s to boost transportation of goods, USSR made great use of rivers and large transport planes but felt that transporting goods by sea from Siberia to western part of USSR was too much of a risk and too slow hence the need for a larger gauge, USSR collapsed before any serious work could be done however, a shame really, it was intended to be dual purpose, able to support both the larger trains and the standard ones, so it would be backwards compatible, a great idea to be honest.
Almost always it seems that upfront cost kills genius. 2140mm or 3m Wide Gauge would be expensive upfront, other than basically building a whole new network (the main cost) the only downside is the upfront cost per mile.
Brunel was pretty good
Wider gauge is NOT "superior in any way". It does allow to carry larger-sized cargo, but there's not enough demand for this anyway. And gauge doesn't matter at all for bulk cargo.
@@AlexBesogonov
Not enough demand? Yes there is, there actually lots of freight train going from Europe to China now to transport goods because its cheaper and quicker than to transport by ship.
A large gauge may not be in demand under an inefficient system like free market, but in a resource driven economy such larger gauge railway would probably be common place in order to move goods and people far more efficient than by ship and plane.
Also its less pollution to have a large train than having to move cargo by sea or air.
@@SMGJohn I actually think that a wider gauge would allow for shorter trains for the same load, making lower lead times possible. ÍThe idea of implementing a wide gauge rail network for international freight surfaces every 10-15 years, but it won't get built, because of cost, ROI, and transhipment concerns.
I like the idea of the Breitspurbahn even if I don't like where it came from. There was once a very short lived American TV show that explored a very similar concept and used it as a setting for poorly written drama/comedy, "Supertrain". It aired six episodes in 1979.
As a German, I can tell you, I´m not proud either to hear from who it came from. Even if there were some great inventions, it´s often weird to me, when people "pick up on positive things from that era of crime"....
In the USA, there you have sparce flat terrain, building bigger railways makes auctually sence. In fact I am surprized Texas never build an oversized Rail as Gadetbahn (on the saner edge) for industrial transport: Texas is flat, industrial, and megalomaniac. Perfect match.
Watch snowpiercer the movie & show
@Ithecastic That's the funniest shit I've read this month. Like goddamn you could not be talking more shit. Texas is slamming more highway lanes through Austin, destroying entire communities for it, just to try and speed traffic by a few minutes
Standard gauge dates back to the chariots of ancient Rome. It was adopted in the mines of northern England in the 18th century. In the early days of steam, it was too narrow to fit the machinery into the space between the wheels without compromises. The GWR was originally built to a gauge of 7 feet, and the locomotives could be made more powerful.
Even older than that. Google the Malta cartruffs. They continue underwater into places that hadn't been dry land since the last ice age, over 12K years ago.
But that "theory" only applies to 🐏 who believe the masonic doctrine called an education
I wonder to this day, seeing these projects in Wolfenstein and Amazon's Man in the High Castle, whether these trains are actually, really, credible.
The weight would've been immense. The start-stop times, immense. The momentum, immense. How would two tracks support that. How would they cross Alps. There's just so many questions.
I am a little disappointed with the little information and especially why it was NOT a useful project. Just read a little on Wikipedia:
"After Fritz Todt's proposal, which Hitler enthusiastically received, to build a high-performance long-distance railway (" Reichsspurbahn ") with a significantly wider gauge than the standard gauge, all the advice from the Reichsbahn and the experts went unheeded,
1) that all conceivable transport tasks can also be mastered with conventional railway technology,
2) that nobody knows how to utilize such a large-sized railway and
3) that the incompatibility with the standard-gauge railway would require considerable additional infrastructure. Alternative plans for a standard-gauge, four-track long-distance line were discarded. From the beginning, the broad-gauge railway was considered a personal "toy of the Führer". "
Points 2 and 3 are particularly important:
No standard:
In south-west England, for example, there was a 2,140 mm wide track gauge for a long time, until it was recognized around 1900 that this led to considerable problems when reloading between standard-gauge and broad-gauge trains. That's why the broad gauge was nailed to standard piece by piece.
The same thing happened to a considerable extent in the occupied eastern territories: it was simply easier to nail down the russian gauge of 1522 mm to drive through russia up to the front on the standard lane than having to constantly reload trains somewhere.
Rebuilding or building new tracks and needed buildings (buildings, loco sheds, support stations, power plants) also need very much time and money.
Energy:
It was originally planned to operate the new electric trains via an overhead contact line with a considerably higher voltage of 100 kilovolts. Then Hitler got in the way again:
"The planning became obsolete in April 1943, when Hitler ordered that the traction current of the broad-gauge railway was not allowed to be supplied via an overhead line, but had to be supplied by a lateral bushbars. The reason was given in military transport tasks and the operational capability of the flak wagons, which were also carried by the Führer's decision. The transmission of the required output of up to 22,000 kilowatts via a side busbar is practically not feasible due to the high voltages required and the resulting large safety distances (three meters safety distance at 50 kilovolt voltage). These planning inconsistencies were not eliminated until the end of the war. "
Need of space and savety:
"The introduction and crossing of the broad-gauge lines in Munich should be planned in the new central station on the express orders of the Führer in the middle of the track hall, not on the edge or even in a basement. The building, which was already misplaced as a gallery train station on the embankment, was very unfavorable in terms of traffic in its execution as a circular dome with the dome circumference as the only track crossing option (with a hall diameter of almost 300 m), was further delayed because the hall will not be significantly larger due to the new tracks could.
The introduction of the electrified broad gauge tracks could not be accomplished satisfactorily either with overhead lines or with busbars, since in the first case the height of the hall and in the second case the distance between the platforms became problematic due to the necessary protective distances. The "solution" was therefore not to lay any overhead lines and to shunt the broad gauge trains in the track hall with steam storage locomotives."
So this project was nothing than an idea of Hitler to do things bigger, larger, wider.
(Sorry i translated from german - hopefully understandable)
Your comment has more accurate information than this joker of a narrator. Thank you friend.
Yes, I mean, you are correct about the infeasibility.
But I am getting some serious Albert Speer vibes here.
Speer was accused by later biographers (famously Breloer) of just producing lots of impressive looking small scale models of Germania as a way to keep Hitler happy. Most of it never had a chance of being built.
And given that it was Todt who proposed the "Reichsspur" I'm thinking Todt was on the same strategy: Just impress Hitler with something big and next week impress him with a new oversized bonkers idea. And so on. Todt must have known it would never really be built.
That's just the plausible reason how you end up with stacks of plans and drawings but no actual train. The drawings were the important part all along.
@@jcxz983 It makes sense. It played into two of the noted traits of Hitler.
His habit of playing his supporters off against one another and cultivate their rivalries to keep them too preoccupied to scheme against him.
And his infatuation with rebuilding Germany and the Rest of Europe to conform to his vision.
"All conceivable transport tasks"
Excuse me but what utter bullshit.
From fucking tanks to modular homes to turbines to ship parts, everything for the last century has been severely limited in what we can actually do thanks to the ridiculous constraints of standard gauge rail.
Wider railways would allow an incredibly more efficient transport of goods.
If all objections to any project needed to be overcome before start of construction, nothing would ever get built. Hmmm, where have I seen this? In the western world?
Great to see this brought to life with the animated graphics. The designers would have only had paper drawings for all those years, they would be staggered at seeing what you have created.
Absolutely. Really mind boggling engineering. Remember life with only a slide ruler- no CAD/CAM, no computers- Only the power of the Human Brain & the ability to dream.
Awesome.
Yeah snowpiercer is also a great documentary on this
@@AbuHajarAlBugatti
Everyone loves the sequel to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
Todt was a brilliant engineer, even today we can see how his network of Autobahn connects Germany and parts of Central Europe together. Sadly, modern long-distance and overnight trains can't compete with the too cheap air traffic.
The autobahn, among other projects and programs, was started during the Weimar years, but appropriated by the Nazis as solely their own work
@@Theo-vn9hm Todt became member of the Nazi party NSDAP in 1922. The HA-FRA-BA project, an autobahn from Hamburg via Frankfurt to Basel, was founded in 1926.
@@paulsehstedt6275 *_" Todt became member of the Nazi party NSDAP in 1922. The HA-FRA-BA project, an autobahn from Hamburg via Frankfurt to Basel, was founded in 1926."_*
And that's why you call the autobahn a nazi invention?! Okay, right-wingers do be known for their pretty simple views of life *. . .*
@@letoubib21 I've never claimed, that the autobahn was a Nazi project. It was founded as a private society in 1926 and later got under Nazi rule, when Hitler came to power. So please correct your comment.
@paul sehstedt
*ua-cam.com/video/um3dndb4-os/v-deo.html*
beautiful design , would still look state of the art today .
As bad as what the Nazis did was, the engineering stuff they did was incredible and would honestly have been cool too see
I also want to build. I'm going to ask you to cover the seats with the leather of your relatives? you'll go?
isn't that basically what modern day germany is without the radicalization?
eh i think the world could've done without seeing the engineering they put into concentration camps
While they have cool concept, many of them are for the shows instead of actual engineering. It's similar to Soviet projects. Many of them look cool but majority of them are a pipe dream.
They created a lot of that technology at human expense. Yes there were others who were taking advantage and exploiting people. Mostly the corporations and factories.. Many of those moved to other countries.. Like the USA. Ford used to make engines for the NAZI's so did Porsche. Pfizer is such a strange name for a company because it's a NAZI company just like BMW and Volkswagen.
As awful as Hitler was, I do like that he supported all sorts of crazy engineering projects, things that would greatly improve the world if done. The giant trains, space stations, jet aircraft, and limited access freeways are all terrific concepts.
@@SarcasticCynic Note “As awful as Hitler was”
@@SarcasticCynic wasn't hitlers/germanys Investitionen Invention
Aparently, sometimes allowing _some_ megalomania is good
@@davisdf3064 _Some_ megalomania is what we call engineering.
Reminder: this is the same guy who dismissed nuclear science as Jewish science.
One main point he missed that I've heard elsewhere is that these were intended as ocean-liners of the land, and it can be noted that many of the features these had were similar to that of ocean liners of the time. Britain had a vast maritime empire connected by lavish ocean liners, and Hitler envisioned a similar land-based lavish luxury transport for his land empire.
It's also interesting to ponder if he was right about standard gauge being smaller than would make sense now. This was way over the top, but is standard gauge smaller than optimal? Wouldn't make sense to change given how difficult that would be, but could ponder that as a hypothetical, if we had to do it over again sort of thing. The standard gauge was established when rail vehicles were tiny, and fit entirely between the rails. Gradually they grew to tower over the rails, often as much as twice as wide as them, still using the same gauge. They've done so quite effectively, and it can be noted that it's more common to go narrower for specialized purposes than to go wider, with very few exceptions standard gauge is seen as good enough. Some countries have established wider standards, it could probably be compared to see if they are actually better in any way. I've seen a few niche cases where it's used in places it isn't standard, such as the BART (San Francisco) 5' 6" gauge that I once heard was to make it more tolerant of high winds in the area. But with specialized uses for broad-gauge being less common than specialized uses for narrow gauge would imply there aren't really any compelling advantages of any gauge wider than standard.
Changing the gauge now would be horrifically expensive. Every bridge, tunnel and station would need to be modified as well as moving all the track the electricity lines if electrified the signals, everything., not to mention every train and carriage.
It would be more economical to build an entirely new railway.
Train journeys would be more comfortable for passengers though with a wider gauge, it's just not practical.
@@Iain1962 That's the point I was making - converting existing rail lines or infrastructure to broad gauge wouldn't be economically viable, nor would building new broad-gauge as it would be incompatible with existing infrastructure. Keeping with standard gauge makes the most sense with it already existing. My question is if that weren't a factor if a broader gauge would be better, or if standard gauge as we know it is the optimum balance of trade-offs. Say if somehow every railroad and rolling stock item in the world (or even a given country) were Thanos-snapped out of existence and we had to start over from scratch, would we want to go with the same gauge or would we decide to go for something wider? I don't really know, the current gauge doesn't seem to be much of a limitation. Structure gauge, which restricts the size of vehicles, is a bigger limitation, and a broader gauge wouldn't make any sense unless the structure gauge (loading gauge) were substantially larger as well.
@@quillmaurer6563 Well the wider the gauge the lower the centre of gravity so the more pleasant the trip and smoother the cornering.
Isambard Kingdom Brunel actually wanted a Broad Gauge for his GWR line from London to Bristol, and some of it was built and engines ordered but they turned out to be unsatisfactory and it was built in Standard Gauge instead.
It would have been interesting though because the Locomotives being much bigger would have been an incredible sight.
@@Iain1962 So you're saying mostly from a passenger comfort perspective? I suppose you'd get more stability out of it. Would be interesting to compare the ride quality of standard- versus narrow-gauge trains at the same speed. Typically in my experience narrow gauge is rougher, but probably mostly due to track as the narrow gauge lines in question are historic lines used for tourists, non-welded and not maintained to the same alignment precision as modern standard-gauge passenger lines.
Speed doesn't seem to be a limitation, as 300km/hr is commonplace on some standard-gauge lines. However the Japanese built the high-speed Shikansen system to standard gauge, unlike the rest of their network which is narrow gauge, implying broader is better for high-speed service. Not by a big enough margin to justify high speed trains elsewhere (TGV, ICE, Acela, etc) going broader than standard gauge, implying that standard gauge is "good enough" for high speed service. I don't know if broader gauge could handle more lateral acceleration (taking tighter turns faster) than standard or narrow, my understanding is typically trains derail by jumping the track rather than tipping off of it (as model/toy trains tend to do in my experience). In fact narrower might help prevent this, as narrower will shift more weight onto the outside wheel and make it less likely to jump the track. The practical limit on cornering for passenger trains (freight doesn't care so much) from what I've heard is passenger comfort more than derailment, hence the use of tilting trains.
Thinking of Brunel, we have to keep in mind that tracks were far rougher then than they are now - unwelded, no modern alignment technologies, etc. That might have been a factor then that isn't so significant now. Especially if the track were to be tilted at all - one rail higher than the other - this would tilt a narrower gauge more than a wider gauge. Likewise locomotive and carriage suspension of the time was far more primitive than now, a major factor if passenger comfort is a consideration. I also get the sense that at the time low CG relative to the track width was thought to be important, an idea that has since been debunked. Steam locomotives of the era - especially high-speed ones - had the boiler between very large driving wheels, trying to keep a low CG while having large driving wheels suitable for high speed as they were limited on how fast they could turn (due to the piston and cylinder design). As the track gauge limited the boiler width, a broader gauge could allow a bigger boiler. But it was found that higher CGs on locomotives aren't that big a problem, and technology advanced to allow wheels to spin faster, thus didn't need to be as big. This allowed the boiler to be above the wheels rather than between them, removing this constraint and eliminating that advantage of broader gauge.
@@quillmaurer6563 Yes, comfort, carrying capacity, and cornering, are the main advantages, but of course it carries a higher price tag for construction.
The high speed lines all have to be built as straight as possible to allow the high speeds safely, that's why we have to build a completely new line for HS2, to eliminate as many curves as possible.
It makes sense to have a standard gauge for ease of equipment manufacturing and what we are using is probably sub optimal but too late to change.
I am very sad that the train wouldn't have gone through Romania who supplied his war machine with oil! :(
Yeah, Hitler often undervalued His allies
6:29 ‘by railroad pioneer George Stepson’
I’m ngl that pronunciation of ‘Stephenson’ had me going back to make sure I actually heard it right because I genuinely didn’t believe I just heard what I heard
Pronounced Stevenson
He also pronounced grandiose as "grandose"
.... Even Some English Folk Find it Difficult to Spoke Good England Property.... OOOPS EVEN ME!... 😂🏴✌️ 5:08
Yep I went back to check I heard correctly as well
Given that both George and Robert Stephenson (father and son) are both gods in railway circles, and therefore not entirely unheard of, you could have pronounced their name correctly - "Stephenson", not "Stepson". In short Stephenson is (somewhat rarely for the English language) pronounced exactly as it is written.
Not relevant as the message about ths train was received loud and clear
@Fred Carr It is relevant, not everyone is as comfortable with ignorance as you clearly are.
@@stevebarnes2 That's bs. The fact that I am cutting him some slack on his pronunciation or perhaps a slip of the tongue, doesn't mean I am comfortable with ignorance or the quality of the presentation is poor. One doesn't need to speak the Queen's English to provide accurate information. In this case, most readers probably never heard of this grand railway proposal and the video was very informative. So get lost and save your criticism for something of substance.
@Fred Carr A name isn't a matter of "the queen's english", it's a fact. One that, thanks to this video, may be repeated incorrectly by those without further knowledge. The correction is both relevant and necessary.
when I heard him say the name I was like "Who" ????? completely wrongly pronounced.
Just a note on early railway (not *railroad*) pioneers, It was George and Robert *Stephenson* - pronounced as _Stevenson_ (NOT "Stepenson") - that came up with what a lot of us know as "Standard Gauge." Russia, Ireland, Victoria (Australia) and South Australia all use a wider gauge, with all but Russia using 5' 3" or 1600mm gauge.
I was wondering about the way he mispronounced Stephenson's name. Almost as if the narrator wasn't a native English speaker.
@@thhseeking Some people take no notice of what you tell them. I've had a similar argument elsewhere online and got told that *_I_* was wrong, in no uncertain terms! It's alright, I've just studied Stephenson and Brunel's works quite extensively, what would I know?
At 6:30 you talk about George STEPSON (not Stephenson, as on screen). He's rather well known in Railway history. So is his sometimes derided choice of the "Coal Wagon Guage" once worked by horses around Newcastle.
I could see some serious potential for trains like this. Particularly in their ability to move smaller naval vessel hulls from inland factories to the sea. That actually offers a huge asset in building a navy.
Otherwise, this is right at home for a wolfenstein title.
its just easier to build them along the coast, we have massive and powerful engines, the big boy and the Allegheny are two of the worlds most powerful
This was actually a great idea. A wide gauge railway would have enabled far more comfortable journeys and made rail travel much more attractive.
It wasn't a great idea. Not economic. Luxury trains already exist.
Doubling all 3 dimensions means factor 2³=8 in volume, at least factor 8 in weight and energy. How should they have moved this at all? May be, bike speed was possible, this would have become a comfortable but very lengthy journey.
Go to Japan and look what travelling standard gauge trains can be like.
@@akronymus They could have used shorter trains instead. I don't think the benifit is making bigger trains but making wider trains that don't feel as cramped because a large portion of the space has to be the passage way.
The main problem I see with it is that it's a mass infrastructure program.
@@christopherstein2024
Calculate the Physics. The answer is: NO.
@@akronymus Wider and shorter trains => no problem
Well, now I know where they got the design idea for snowpiercer.
Also this railway project was shown in "Joachimstaler A. Die Breitspurbahn Munchen-Berlin : Herbig 1993".
I had pay attenton to one thing - cross-section of wide-gauge locomotive that show its traction drive. Due to that project, wide-gauge locomotives will use Tschanz-drive (Tschanzantrieb), that's 3-class drive with hollow shaft on wheelset axle and traction motors mounted on the main frame. And Tschanz joint is a pack of springs (viscous elements) mounted on the wheel center, that was the way in pre-war era, before Alsthom rod joint was invented.
Like titanic, but never built. Both are awe inspiring.
Titanic never went down, it was it's pre-damaged sister-ship the 'Olympic' under insurance fraud.
Fascinating . The name is George STEPHENSON. How can you not mention one of the greatest railway and shipping engineers of all time and pioneer of Broad Gauge Brunel? The standard guage is based on the width of an horse's arse , as per Roman or early rail horse drawn vehicles
Thank you, that error deeply offended me. To further clarify - STEPHENSON is pronounced: STEVENSON.
A small correction; The quadrouple lines were also planed for the Breispurbahn. The idea was to have two lines going into each direction, one for passenger trains, one for cargo trains.
Something that could have realistically been done with the standard railnetwork, without having to add a whole lot of infrastructure to transition from standard rails width to Breitspuhr. That's why the experts suggested to just build out standard rail quadrouple, instead of the absolute gigantuan overkill of "Breitspur quadrouple!".
Like a lot of concepts Hitler latched on, it was simply too massive to be realistically practical, tbh one has to seriously wonder if Hitler was trying to compensate for something by always going "MACHT ES GRÖßER!!1"
Only if we had that in America Amtrak is trash
Wow, 1.4mm gauge. That's STAGGERING!!
I love how one leg goes from Delhi to Beijing. You know, right through the Himalayas.
Facts aren't very important if you're a Nazi, so that shouldn't have been an issue...
Hey, the Germans had an actual plan to drain the Mediterranean sea. Tunnel through the Himalayas isn't exactly out there, by comparison.
I'm sorry but that huge coliseum looks absolutely amazing.
Actually, some groundwork for the Breitspurbahn had already been started in the east of Nuremberg before the project was canceled. If you know what to look for, you can find some remains in the forest west of Fischbach.
Nürnberg hat echt alles was Eisenbahn betrifft.
@@offichannelnurnberg5894 Naja, das liegt halt auch daran, dass in Nürnberg die erste deutsche Eisenbahn fuhr und der Stadt im dritten Reich als "Stadt der Reichsparteitage" eine besondere Bedeutung zukam. Aber stimmt schon, unsere schöne Heimatstadt hat in Sachen Eisenbahn eine Menge zu bieten.
The only hope to be truly free was ruined by allies...
As I know the Project gone more far than one would expect: In the South of Berlin you can still see bridges and traces build for that giant train. I remember that I found theese tracks together with my father in the late 90s. They still exists...
Wo genau sollen den Gleise mit einer Spurweite von 3 Meter seien? Wo im Süden? Das wäre ja eine Sensation…
@@T.P.030 south o Berlin! also nicht in Süddeutschland:)
Dreilinden, da ist ein totes stück autobahn mit einer brücke, wenn man genau hinguckt sind das die Überreste. Ich glaube die Gleise sind aber nicht mehr da...
@@Erichder5te ja, das ist schon klar, aber könnten das nicht eher die Gleise der ehemaligen Stammbahn sein? Wo genau meinst du denn? Ich fahre dort regelmäßig die Autobahn lang.
@@T.P.030 So hab jetzt mal auf google maps nachgeschaut. So richtig kann ich das leider nicht mehr nachvollziehen, ist ja schon paar Jahrzehnte her :)
Aber ich glaube die Brücke findet man in Maps unter dem Namen Stammbahnbrücke, nicht bei der aktiven Autobahn sondern bei dem stillgelegten Teil. Stillgelegt, da das Stück Autobahn ja noch durch Albrechts Teerofen ging.
Es gibt noch heute eine Brücke, eben für die Stammbahn. Die Fundamente der Brücke sind aber deutlich breiter als für die kleine Stammbahn notwendig. Da bin ich der Meinung hat man früher noch die Gleise gesehen. Da ich aber auch länger nicht mehr da war müsste man mal eine Video Expedition machen und auf Youtibe hochladen ;) gerne mir dann eine Nachricht schreiben wenn du was gefunden hast:)
6:22 "1.4 millimeters"
That's a very tiny train. Maybe a dust mite could ride it.
The cost of tunnels for such a high and wide train would be huge.
It would only be moderately more than the cost building tunnels to for double-stacked container trains, since the height is comparable, primarily the width is greater.
@@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis It's not just the size of the tunnels (and bridges). The wider track forces a straighter track alignment. That means more tunnels and bridges to go through obstacles instead of around them. It might be alright on flat terrain but building such a railway in hilly or mountainous terrain would be massively expensive.
@@userofthetube2701 we gotta think about the long term cost-efficiency. Building the infrastructure might cost a fortune but the advantages of a train this large can easily pay back the cost
@@castoli44 I'm really not convinced about the long term economic benefits of such a system. Let's look at the supposed advantages.
First speed: we now know that 300 kph+ speeds can be routinely achieved on standard gauge railways. So for speed the Breitspurbahn is really not necessary.
Second is capacity. Sure, you can put more in a single carriage. But the point about a train is that you can simply make it longer. And if you really need even more capacity you can add an extra track and still be narrower than the Breitspurbahn.
Third is luxury. Sure, it's nice to have these cruise liner like spaces in a train. But it probably would have very limited applications on a few special trains. And it's still quite possible to build a very luxurious train on standard gauge.
All in all I don't think these benefits outweigh the downsides like higher build and operating costs and limited integration with existing infrastructure. It's a fascinating vision but not a very sensible one. Which knowing where the idea is coming from shouldn't be that surprising.
2:52 Finland was never under direct or proxy control of Nazi Germany. In the Lapland War (after the Winter War and Continuation War against the Soviets) we fought against Nazi Germany.
I found this annoying enough to comment on as a railfan, but George Stephenson's name was mispronounced often in this video (it's pronounced George Steven-Son), which is admittedly quite minor compared to the amount of correct information in this video. I'm also somewhat surprised the original gauge of the Great Western Railway at 2.14m wide, possibly the closest thing we ever actually got to the Breitspurbahn.
He can't seem to pronounce "reparations" correctly either. :D
"Grandiose" too. lol
Plus Stephenson wasn't the first either . Richard Trevithick was the first steam railway , merthyr to Cardiff canal , a 9 mile run . Built 1803 first run February 1804 .
Sound a bit like the machine translated adds you can „enjoy“ around and between YT videos. There is even one for a handheld translation tool, that clearly shows it‘s limits. Totally mispronouncing things not matched by AI is the evidence.
Yep not gonna lie, this video actually made me pause and look up George Stephenson to see if his name was really pronounced “Stepson” 😂
Can you imagine the attempt at pronouncing Trevithick?
This reminds me of the TV show that nearly destroyed NBC years ago called “Super train “ about a fictional train that was NBC’s answer to ABC’s “Love Boat”.
Interesting concept
had the same thought.
The Germans were not as crazy as you are making out.... After Brunel journeyed on Stephensons (coach guage) Manchester to Liverpool line, he surmised that increasing the guage to 7ft would deliver a smoother and more importantly faster ride. The key reason Britian used 4ft 8" guage was price, laying track, buildig bridges, tunnels would be cheaper. When it comes to moving fast freight over long distances...... The British turned to borad guage when it built it's railways in India.
Yea but Indian Broad Gauge is 5'6", not 9'10" and 1/8. The capacity would be immense but it's just excessive.
But they didn't use Brunel's broad gauge of 7ft 1/4 inch, the railways were mainly built to 5' 6" gauge, which is still in use today. I don't know of anywhere else where anything appreciably wide was built.
the intro is just spectacular.
The quality of the renderings in this video is out of this world! Fantastic job! Hopefully there'll be more trains related content in the future
The fact it got 300k views in 3 days almost garentees it
@@njcummins *every planet has been manipulated by communist media to turn thieves into heroes and vice versa* - My name by yahoo = evidence
Whilst the wide gague would be good from the capacity point of view, it comes with a major difficulty. Straight lines are fine, but curves have to be very shallow at that gague. The line cannot take advantage of geography at that size, it has to make its own at vast expense.
Sounds about right for the Nazis. They seemed to like to work in broad and shallow strokes that decimated the natural world around them.
Interesting subject. Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the man who was arguably the greatest engineer in British history, built his Great Western Railway on broad-gauge tracks, but in the end (perhaps caused in part by Brunel's sudden early death), the narrow triumphed in Britain. Alas, a lot of the footage and photos in this video had absolutely nothing to do with Nazi Germany.
I like hearing more about Hitlers architectural and infrastructure projects over those death camps. As evil as he was, he had style.
No, he did not. That's why he was not accepted at art school ;D ...BUT his workforce had some. For architectural things look up Albert Speer who was the one and only major architect for all the projects back then.
I’ve had dreams with an Art Deco train like this (not Nazi associated) including depot stop by a lake and some other stops with huge platforms, 1st time I’ve seen something that matches up so close, thanks for posting 👍
We have a team that in current day is actively pursuing a train like this. There is a suggestion for a new track with a gauge of 2.8 meter, and there is sort of a "infiltration" to make the loading gauge 5x6 meters. There is just a tiny test track suggested for now, and of cause nothing planed. The planed loading gauge is 3,7x5 meter so even at that its quite a bit bigger than current tracks
@@matsv201 👍
I mean this is a bootleg of the real Hiawatha trains form America.
Take a look at the Henry Dreyfus and Otto Kuhler trains.
@@wildwomanofthewoods 👍
Seeing this reminds me of how stagnant the modern world really has become, as these sorts of ideas were not a German exclusive, and many nations had their own ideas like this. It seems like everything is being put in computing now, and yeah yeah I know "computing is the future" and all that, but there is something to be said for monuments and grand scale projects like this, maybe we'll see this kind of ambition again some day, who knows.
The old world is dying and the new struggles to be born.
Computers aid ambition, not the other way around. It's the people and companies in charge that are causing the stagnation.
Ideas are a lot easier when you never have to actually put them into practice. In reality, the only way this would ever have been built is with mass slave / death labour (already widely employed by the Nazis by that stage). So forgive me if I’m rather glad we are usually slightly less grandiose in our ideas these days.
Exactly!!! In the early 20th Century, there were so many new things. There was not even 40 years between the first powered air flight, and the first jet airplanes. Now look at the world, the only thing that’s changed in decades is the shitty technology like phones. Id rather see regular people going to space and flying supersonic!!
@@Zveebo he means in general not this specifically. And no, it would not absolutely require slaves I don’t know why you say that. Many major projects were completed in history without slavery.
Ah.. So its seems that Hitler himself had Actually foresaw the Future, that the World is about to be covered in Snow and Ice, Which is why he Prepared the Great Breitspurbahn.
Fun fact: The Breitspurbahn is still smaller than TV Snowpiercer and Big Alice. It feels like a Metro train or a freight train when you realized it’s still not “like” Snowpiercer.
Scale models of this can still be seen in the transport museum of Nürnberg.
There wouldn't just be luxury passenger trains but also "Fremdarbeiterzüge" (foreign worker trains) that had basic accommocation in huge capacity, to move thousands of cheap workers in from "the East" which would be colonized in Hitler's fantasy.
Economies of scale aside, it would be very difficult to integrate such a system in existing structures. The space and curve radii required mean that part of cities would need to be torn down to make space, that a lot of tunnels and bridges would be needed in hilly terrains.
Another thing is strange: Would it be electrified or not? If so the only sane thing would be to run all trains electric. They also designed steam, turbine and diesel locomotives though, which means that not all lines would be electrified. Which seems strange: if you plan big, why not go the whole way?
Availability of power, the same reason locomotives like the GG1 never saw use outside of the northeast USA.
In the 30s it wasnt clear what the future of motive power would be, electric lines spanning as far as hitler wanted would have been prohibitively expensive at the time, major cities still had their own grids in the 30s, and large factories and hospitals and their own power plants.
They also didn’t want to hang wires inside fancy arched terminal stations, which means that they would have needed either third rail or energy storage to enter and leave those stations.
At that scale, why bother electrifying, they can have nearly the same efficiency as a power plant (using fossil fuel)
So let me get this straight - they were planning to run a railway straight through China, bypassing Shanghai, Nanjing and Beijing, to reach *Vladivostok*?
You have to take into account the political view of the countries at that time. At that time China was a nobody, just a farmer country, very poor one.
There is a vast and excellent detailed book on this project (in German) by the historian Anton Joachimstaler who gives a great deal of context in terms of the Reichsbahn leadership and internal Nazi power struggles and Hitler's personal wishes. It was truly mad but several engineers gained very useful exemption from being called up to the Front so long as they could keep busy at the design work. I have translated a large amount of the book and it should appear in due course on the website of the Military Railways Group.
The video is nicely made but relies largely on footage of an American troop train (an armoured unit) or some well-known aerial shots. The loco shown is one of many designs postulated by different firms who were asked for their ideas. Hitler's idea was for a continental land-based Empire rather than one involving overseas possessions that would require a large Merchant Marine and Navy - as had been the case with Germany's Empire before World War 1. The question of Todt's sudden death is a bit of a distraction. It was actually Todt who had first suggested a high-capacity broader-gauge railway. One can make a good argument for the theory that the Third Reich lost the war largely because they had not invested adequately in logistics and specifically rail transport before the Russian campaign. Plus the leader was a psychotic madman who told his generals in 1941 ''There will NOT be a Winter Campaign!!'' and then discovered a few months later that he did not in fact control the weather, leaving thousands of under-supplied Wehrmacht soldiers to freeze to death without winter clothing.
To those who dream of travelling in such a train - be aware that the carriages for the conveyance of slave workers were not so luxurious as in Robin Barnes ('Broader than Broad') fascinating watercolour illustrations. In the Nazi scheme of things you had to be either one of the élite - or you were a Nothing without even the right to your own life. or any life at all. Never, ever forget that.
I don't think anyone is "forgetting" that. Nothing in the video or comments suggest that.
@@MechaShadowV2 You are right, it is just that this element is also not specifically mentioned. One could assume for example that slave labour would have been used to build the lines, just as slave labour was used on the Reichsbahn tracks and in the German (and Occupied) locomotive factories, also on the abortive Trans-Sahara line and - by the Japanese - on the infamous railways in the Far East (of which the Burma Railway was only one of several). One reads comments like ''a corpose for every sleeper laid'' and one wonders how many sleepers would have been necessary to reach Istanbul.... But thanks for the comment.
Nonsense, that's ridiculous propaganda.
If that was remotely true why did the German people fight with the Reich to the very end?
Gets the old noggin joggin doesn't it, perhaps you have been lied to about a lot of things your entire life?
The idea is actually kinda cool
the most impressive thing is that they were right as in the modern era highspeed railways are all mostly larger than standard gauge like the shinkansen and the TGV but mostly the use standard gauge for regular freight but upgrading to larger gauges would be expensive or impossible due to terrain but none are as large as this but the future might change that
Gotta love these videos! It's amazing how you can keep on producing content of these crazy and exciting vehicles out frequently out of pure effort. Bravo!
@@user-gr3zk3vw8e The F101 Voodoo, you're welcome!
Knew the story, came for the renderings of this thing, and wasn't disappointed.
Only few original drawings (and a model) exists of this project, it's nice to see it as it could have been.
By the way we're now in a time where we're thinking of depending less of fossil fuels and, thus, trying to think of a world with less planes, and less crude-oil fueled cargos. Night (sleepers) trains are somewhat envisioned as a way to travel for tomorrow, and every developed country in the world tries to get goods back on tracks (pun intended). So i'm sure that somewhere there's a little Hitler imp-like creature mocking us, telling us we can now regret his idea of a worldwide network of 3 meters gauge tracks that would have accommodated long distance rolling-cities trains or freight consists massive enough to carry as many goods as a container ship....
I would definetly like to see this design today
This was actually a good idea, there were even ideas for 4000mm, 6000mm, and 8000mm Designs. Imagine what could be moved with these trains if you add a nuclear powered locomotive. I think it would help with lowering pollution.
Tell that to Hitler and he'll approve it.
@UCPJ740AF_qfCZehmBLtddTA Train locomotives are one of those vehicles where a high weight is actually desirable, since it increases tractive force before wheels start slipping. So, theoretically it would be possible, though it's probably a better option to use the French option and electrify every railway with low carbon energy from a large stationary nuclear power plant.
Who is George Stepson?
I don’t know 🤷♂️
They should make a model train set after this. That would be cool.
Fact is that between Dresdens Radebeul and the village Radenburg still a steam traction service (official DB line) is in place!
Im just trying to picture how wide and tall the train would’ve been. Amazing.
Same
5:51 "Thicc with two c's" 🤣😂😂🤣
Stephenson is pronounced Steven son. Not stepson, or steffson.
Ein ganz tolles Video! Wenn man ergänzend noch das Buch "Die deutsche Breitspurbahn" zur Hand hat, ist das Vergnügen perfekt!
👍😎🇦🇹