-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
What happened to the Intercity APT?
- Thread starter paulo
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Dennis
Established Member
not to mention punters feeling sick.
That was the over-exaggerating tabloid reporters who had had a bit too much of the "complimentary beverages" and had nothing bad to say. The only reason people might have been sick is because the tilting mechanism was too perfect (ie. they saw the turn but didn't feel it).
Thatcher
No, that was one of the effortless reasons to close the program down, after it met masses of bad press due to delayed start dates, and general wick wam. What prototype project/experiment has gone without fail?
Engineers could have easily rectified the problem with substancial government dosh. After all, the concept worked. But i am biased.
No, that was one of the effortless reasons to close the program down, after it met masses of bad press due to delayed start dates, and general wick wam. What prototype project/experiment has gone without fail?
Engineers could have easily rectified the problem with substancial government dosh. After all, the concept worked. But i am biased.
ChrisCooper
Established Member
On the sickness thing, it's also interesting that a fair number of people comment on feeling sick travelling on Pendolinos.
As for the trains built, there was the APT-E, which was Gas Turbine powered and largely successful, but was never intended to be anything more than experimental. It's main downside was that Gas Turbines were costly to build, maintain and run, so a similar production design would have struggled to be economic, wheras at that time diesel engines couldn't produce the power to weight ratio needed.
The APT-P was the electric version, and was a prototype for a series of production trains to be built for the WCML. One big problem was that it was rushed into production before all of the lessons from APT-E could be learned, and then it was rushed into service before it's own problems were sorted. Futher mistakes were having the press run in the middle of winter in cold and snowy conditions (something that can cause trouble for all transport), which lead to problems with the hydrokinetic brake fluid freezing, and as has been said, to serve lots of alcohol which almost certainly increased the reports of motion sickness. The desire for a top speed in excess of 140mph required 2 powercars, which for various reasons had to be in the centre of the train, which therefore was made of 2 identical half sets, yet speeds above 125mph were never achieved due to lack of cab signalling. 3 trains were built in total, and only one survives.
The planned production train was the APT-S for Squadron. These were to be similar to the APT, with tilting, articulated vehicles, but with a lower top speed of 140mph, which allowed just 1 powercar at one end of the train, with a driving trailer at the other end. Having the powercar at one end of the train also allowed it to not tilt (since the seated driver could experiance higher cornering forces than potentially standing or walking passengers or crew), and this allowed the elimination of equipment to keep the pantograph level on the wires. Due to the problems with the APT-P, these were cancelled before production began.
A further simplified design was the APT-U (can't remember what that stands for). This was to be similar to the APT-S, but without articulation, and using passive rarther than active tilt. This allowed it to be much cheaper and simpler. This was also cancelled, but a modified version was supplied to the Eastern Region for use on the newly electrified ECML. The main alteration from the APT-U was that rarther than being a unit, it became a loco and coaching stock push pull set, with the loco able to work trains independantly. To distance it from the APT, the trains were originally called "Electra" and later "Intercity 225", with the locos designated Class 91 and the coaching stock Mk4.
The knowledge of tilting trains gained from the APT was passed on to other countries who also wished to experiment, in particular Italy, who developed the passive or Pendular tilt into the Pendolino, so whilst the APT might have been a "failure" it's decendants live on on both the WCML and the ECML.
As for the trains built, there was the APT-E, which was Gas Turbine powered and largely successful, but was never intended to be anything more than experimental. It's main downside was that Gas Turbines were costly to build, maintain and run, so a similar production design would have struggled to be economic, wheras at that time diesel engines couldn't produce the power to weight ratio needed.
The APT-P was the electric version, and was a prototype for a series of production trains to be built for the WCML. One big problem was that it was rushed into production before all of the lessons from APT-E could be learned, and then it was rushed into service before it's own problems were sorted. Futher mistakes were having the press run in the middle of winter in cold and snowy conditions (something that can cause trouble for all transport), which lead to problems with the hydrokinetic brake fluid freezing, and as has been said, to serve lots of alcohol which almost certainly increased the reports of motion sickness. The desire for a top speed in excess of 140mph required 2 powercars, which for various reasons had to be in the centre of the train, which therefore was made of 2 identical half sets, yet speeds above 125mph were never achieved due to lack of cab signalling. 3 trains were built in total, and only one survives.
The planned production train was the APT-S for Squadron. These were to be similar to the APT, with tilting, articulated vehicles, but with a lower top speed of 140mph, which allowed just 1 powercar at one end of the train, with a driving trailer at the other end. Having the powercar at one end of the train also allowed it to not tilt (since the seated driver could experiance higher cornering forces than potentially standing or walking passengers or crew), and this allowed the elimination of equipment to keep the pantograph level on the wires. Due to the problems with the APT-P, these were cancelled before production began.
A further simplified design was the APT-U (can't remember what that stands for). This was to be similar to the APT-S, but without articulation, and using passive rarther than active tilt. This allowed it to be much cheaper and simpler. This was also cancelled, but a modified version was supplied to the Eastern Region for use on the newly electrified ECML. The main alteration from the APT-U was that rarther than being a unit, it became a loco and coaching stock push pull set, with the loco able to work trains independantly. To distance it from the APT, the trains were originally called "Electra" and later "Intercity 225", with the locos designated Class 91 and the coaching stock Mk4.
The knowledge of tilting trains gained from the APT was passed on to other countries who also wished to experiment, in particular Italy, who developed the passive or Pendular tilt into the Pendolino, so whilst the APT might have been a "failure" it's decendants live on on both the WCML and the ECML.
87015
Established Member
Don't forget that for 18 months or so the sets DID operate reliably on WCML relief services a few times a week so they did work pretty well once they had bedded in a bit. Just lacked the will to spend the dosh, not esactly an uncommon theme in railways or elsewhere...
Come to think of it, I have felt slightly ill on Pendolinos quite often.
Just a faint travelsickness.
Maybe it is due to the tilt...
O L Leigh
Established Member
A slight feeling of nausea is common if the brain does not get the expected response from a certain stimulus, such as not getting the required sensation of motion to match what is coming through the eyes. I felt it when I had a go on the Cl315 simulator at Stratford. Because it's bolted to the floor and doesn't move in conjunction with the projected image on the screen, I got motion sickness. This was particularly bad when I stopped at a station because there wasn't the expected "jerk" on the suspension.
I would imagine that the same is felt on tilting stock, but then I'm not so sure it isn't imagined. Because the punters can't see ahead or behind they don't really know when they are cornering and when they aren't so there should be no mismatch between vision and the sensation of motion. Besides, unlike the APT which would tilt at up to 14 degrees, modern tilting stock only goes over to a very modest 3 degrees or so, which is about the same as you'd get with the cant on the track on a high speed bend.
As for the APT, it was actually a resounding success. It proved many many technologies for use on the railway and promised to usher in a new age of truly high speed travel. It wasn't even very expensive. The boffins at BR (at a time when BR was one of the places to go if you wanted to get involved in cutting edge science and technology) pretty much knocked the thing up in a garden shed with a shoestring budget.
It wasn't even one train, but two. The original APT-E was a pure prototype unit to test out various different technologies and techniques, and was never intended to enter passenger service. There was always the chance that there would be a high-speed train made with an aluminium monocoque and powered by gas turbines, but it wouldn't have been the APT. In any case, gas turbines had been tried and found less suitable for the railways than diesel, so the HST came along and filled that gap.
The APT-P was a totally different train, though it shared a number of features with the APT-E. This really was a winner and promised to race up and down the WCML at up to 155mph (though it never exceeded 125mph in service). To achieve these sorts of speeds with conventional traction would have required the entire route to have been relaid in addition to the cost of the new trains. Spending a bit more on super-duper trains was, therefore, a much more cost-effective solution.
In addition to their testing duties (in which they ran in a bewildering array of configurations), the APT-P's ran in service for a while and with some success. However, the undoing of the APT project was that BR rushed them into service before all the teething problems were ironed out. Generally they ran reliably, but one or two did fall over every now and again with things like tilt pack failure or frozen brake pipes (though the winter in question was particularly hard). Of course, it seemed at the time that things were much worse because each and every failure seemed to make the Six O'Clock News. Of course, there were other train failures at the same time affecting all classes of train (as there are now), but the media coverage made thing seem especially bad for the APT. All of these problems could have been dealt with if BR had the will to do so, but they didn't and so the project was shelved.
Of course, it didn't help that the product was built to a rigid specification that prevented it being applied elsewhere, but the real killer was a lack of foresight and commitment from the management rather than any failing of the train. Regrettably BR failed to play "the long game" and insisted that the APT be made to pay when perhaps the APT-P should have been treated as an intermediate developmental step between the APT-E and a full service version. Let's not forget that it's taken Alsthom a significant number of years to perfect the technology for use in the Pendolino during which time they've been content to pour in the investment in the confident expectation of a handsome return once the product was ready for market. It's just unfortunate that publicly funded projects don't have the luxury of such a long timescale.
If BR had done things properly and placed a sensible order for enough train to get the private sector interested, Litchurch Lane could have been turning out APT variants for export and minting enough coin of the realm as a result to underwrite the next big rail vehicle research and development project. Instead of which, UK TOC's and FOC's are increasingly looking to overseas suppliers for their traction and rolling stock requirements.
Chris: I don't think I follow the lineage you trace from APT-P to IC225. While it is true to say that there are shared features (most notably the way in which the traction motors are hung), I think it is a leap too far to say that one is based on the other. For one thing, the Mk4 owes much more to the Mk3 than it does to the APT. Besides, the original option for an electrified ECML was a fleet of Cl89's hauling Mk3 stock.
Demps: The APT's only operated sporadically during the early 1980's, with the majority of their trouble-free running on the WCML happening during 1982. There was a set maintained at Glasgow Shields for a while, but that only got a local outing once in a while as a special which certainly didn't constitute regular workings.
one TN
I would imagine that the same is felt on tilting stock, but then I'm not so sure it isn't imagined. Because the punters can't see ahead or behind they don't really know when they are cornering and when they aren't so there should be no mismatch between vision and the sensation of motion. Besides, unlike the APT which would tilt at up to 14 degrees, modern tilting stock only goes over to a very modest 3 degrees or so, which is about the same as you'd get with the cant on the track on a high speed bend.
As for the APT, it was actually a resounding success. It proved many many technologies for use on the railway and promised to usher in a new age of truly high speed travel. It wasn't even very expensive. The boffins at BR (at a time when BR was one of the places to go if you wanted to get involved in cutting edge science and technology) pretty much knocked the thing up in a garden shed with a shoestring budget.
It wasn't even one train, but two. The original APT-E was a pure prototype unit to test out various different technologies and techniques, and was never intended to enter passenger service. There was always the chance that there would be a high-speed train made with an aluminium monocoque and powered by gas turbines, but it wouldn't have been the APT. In any case, gas turbines had been tried and found less suitable for the railways than diesel, so the HST came along and filled that gap.
The APT-P was a totally different train, though it shared a number of features with the APT-E. This really was a winner and promised to race up and down the WCML at up to 155mph (though it never exceeded 125mph in service). To achieve these sorts of speeds with conventional traction would have required the entire route to have been relaid in addition to the cost of the new trains. Spending a bit more on super-duper trains was, therefore, a much more cost-effective solution.
In addition to their testing duties (in which they ran in a bewildering array of configurations), the APT-P's ran in service for a while and with some success. However, the undoing of the APT project was that BR rushed them into service before all the teething problems were ironed out. Generally they ran reliably, but one or two did fall over every now and again with things like tilt pack failure or frozen brake pipes (though the winter in question was particularly hard). Of course, it seemed at the time that things were much worse because each and every failure seemed to make the Six O'Clock News. Of course, there were other train failures at the same time affecting all classes of train (as there are now), but the media coverage made thing seem especially bad for the APT. All of these problems could have been dealt with if BR had the will to do so, but they didn't and so the project was shelved.
Of course, it didn't help that the product was built to a rigid specification that prevented it being applied elsewhere, but the real killer was a lack of foresight and commitment from the management rather than any failing of the train. Regrettably BR failed to play "the long game" and insisted that the APT be made to pay when perhaps the APT-P should have been treated as an intermediate developmental step between the APT-E and a full service version. Let's not forget that it's taken Alsthom a significant number of years to perfect the technology for use in the Pendolino during which time they've been content to pour in the investment in the confident expectation of a handsome return once the product was ready for market. It's just unfortunate that publicly funded projects don't have the luxury of such a long timescale.
If BR had done things properly and placed a sensible order for enough train to get the private sector interested, Litchurch Lane could have been turning out APT variants for export and minting enough coin of the realm as a result to underwrite the next big rail vehicle research and development project. Instead of which, UK TOC's and FOC's are increasingly looking to overseas suppliers for their traction and rolling stock requirements.
Chris: I don't think I follow the lineage you trace from APT-P to IC225. While it is true to say that there are shared features (most notably the way in which the traction motors are hung), I think it is a leap too far to say that one is based on the other. For one thing, the Mk4 owes much more to the Mk3 than it does to the APT. Besides, the original option for an electrified ECML was a fleet of Cl89's hauling Mk3 stock.
Demps: The APT's only operated sporadically during the early 1980's, with the majority of their trouble-free running on the WCML happening during 1982. There was a set maintained at Glasgow Shields for a while, but that only got a local outing once in a while as a special which certainly didn't constitute regular workings.
one TN
schmoo_smith
Member
i think i might win the lottery a pay to gett it running. i love the apt-p!
O L Leigh
Established Member
Lets hope it's a big win, then.
one TN
one TN
There's a couple of websites about the project:
http://apt-e.org
http://apt-p.com
The APT-P site also tells you the remaining vehicles. A full (well, nearly full) APT-P set at The Railway Age, Crewe; the only APT-E set and an APT-P power car at Locomotion, Shildon.
http://apt-e.org
http://apt-p.com
The APT-P site also tells you the remaining vehicles. A full (well, nearly full) APT-P set at The Railway Age, Crewe; the only APT-E set and an APT-P power car at Locomotion, Shildon.
91101
Member
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2007
- Messages
- 439
The APT project has always been a particular interest of mine, and so to it would appear yours oneTN.
One thing I don't understand, is why when 390's needed the TASS system, did the 370's (the tops number for the APT-P) didn't, or did they use another method to ensure they didnt tilt in inappropriate places?
To what degree did they tilt?
One thing I don't understand, is why when 390's needed the TASS system, did the 370's (the tops number for the APT-P) didn't, or did they use another method to ensure they didnt tilt in inappropriate places?
To what degree did they tilt?
Respite
Member
To me the APT project sums up everything about the 1980's & railways that I hate.
APT= good & would of been world class if allowed to develop,sadly it wasnt.
Goverment of the time wanted the whole rail network paved over as a super motorway.
But the APT still beat the pendo's non stop run on the WCML much to the bearded ones embaressment.
APT= good & would of been world class if allowed to develop,sadly it wasnt.
Goverment of the time wanted the whole rail network paved over as a super motorway.
But the APT still beat the pendo's non stop run on the WCML much to the bearded ones embaressment.
O L Leigh
Established Member
Perhaps the requirement for TASS is something that H&S brought along later. I don't honestly know.
However, the APT never used TASS or any other similar systems. I believe that each car had an accelerometer that measured the lateral forces caused by cornering and tilted the car by an appropriate amount to counteract. I'm sure it could be isolated in the event that the system became defective in service, but I think it was just a "dumb" system that was always on. Not that it would matter enormously because the APT's profile was such that it would remain "in-gauge" even when cranked right over at full tilt.
I believe it was up to 14 degrees.
one TN
I believe the main issue was the fact that they needed to have 2 power cars, as mentioned earlier. However with the low-specification standard of electrification, they could only have one pantograph up, as the first would otherwise cause waves in the wiring and upset the contact at the 2nd pantograph.
However in order to get enough "juice" from one power car to the other, they would need a high-voltage 25kv bus from one end of the the train to the other. At the time this could not be authorised, leading to the 2 power cars being placed in the middle of the train and all the associated problems with having "2 trains" for one, requiring double of staff and facilities.
Interestingly, I believe the pendolinos were the 2nd train to have a high-voltage bus from transformer car to the other, after the original W&C line stock, if not the first trains. One rule for one train and another rule for another...
However in order to get enough "juice" from one power car to the other, they would need a high-voltage 25kv bus from one end of the the train to the other. At the time this could not be authorised, leading to the 2 power cars being placed in the middle of the train and all the associated problems with having "2 trains" for one, requiring double of staff and facilities.
Interestingly, I believe the pendolinos were the 2nd train to have a high-voltage bus from transformer car to the other, after the original W&C line stock, if not the first trains. One rule for one train and another rule for another...
O L Leigh
Established Member
That certainly was a problem, but it wasn't what sunk it.
As mentioned already, all the technical problems with the APT-P could have very easily been dealt with if only those managing the project had a clear idea of what they were trying to achieve, the will and determination to keep faith with it and the courage and commitment to insist on a proper programme of development. The APT project was a management failure rather than a technical or operational failure.
W&C line stock never had a 25kV bus. The voltages on the W&C line are far more modest at around 650V DC, which is permitted to be sent from one end of a unit to the other via a bus.
one TN
As mentioned already, all the technical problems with the APT-P could have very easily been dealt with if only those managing the project had a clear idea of what they were trying to achieve, the will and determination to keep faith with it and the courage and commitment to insist on a proper programme of development. The APT project was a management failure rather than a technical or operational failure.
W&C line stock never had a 25kV bus. The voltages on the W&C line are far more modest at around 650V DC, which is permitted to be sent from one end of a unit to the other via a bus.
one TN
T
Tom
Guest
Angel Trains own the Pendolino fleet ... and leased off them.
- Status