Talk:Advanced Passenger Train

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Braking system[edit]

I seem to recall that the APT tried to use an experimental water-brake system which was highly unreliable, and one of the reasons for its failiure. I definately recall seeing the APT broken down at Rugby station on several occasions. Shouldn't something be said about this on the article. G-Man 19:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes! It had hydraulic brakes but used environmentally friendly water rather than oil, which then froze. The tilting system also broke down, and the tilt equation meant that ppl on the first run over shap with tilt were violently ill as (1) they were appearing to turn and not feeling it at all, and (2) I think they were vibration problems. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Though I've heard stories that a good deal of the early "motion sickness" reports were thanks to the members of the press downing large quantities of the complimentary alcohol on the inaugural run ... —Morven 20:45, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
I travelled on the first run, Glasgow to London, and I'm not Press so I bought my own alchohol and my own ticket. The attendant in the buffet complained of motion sickness but as the bar was orientered along the carriage she was facing the window all the time. So I think the problem was seeing the horizon moving violently over Shap (I was in the bar at Shap); and I'm not aware of any vibration, the tea / coffee cups on the carriage tables did not move about, only the liquid level. The train failed on the return journey, the brakes froze; not the first run. Over the next two days, some of the carriages lost their tilt capability and they therefore had to be locked in the vertical position. People siting in one of these carriages probably suffered the problems listed above. Pyrotec 15:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article says:

The trains were quietly reintroduced into service in the summer of 1982, and ran regularly, the problems having been corrected, but the political and managerial will to continue the project and build the projected APT-S production vehicles had evaporated.

Is there any reference for the claim that the problems were corrected. From what I recall it had serious problems with reliabillity, especially from its brakes. I remember seeing it broken down in sidings at Rugby station on several occasions. G-Man 19:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS, note to self, one of these days I'll get to Crewe and take a photo of the remaining APT.
Sorry to split hairs, the words you refer to are not mine. The problems with the APT-P, as expressed by the media, was its lack of reliablity, especially when compared against the HST. The inital planned passenger service was one ATP-P to make three runs per week: Glasgow, London, Glasgow per day. To acheive that they had three APT-P's: one in service, one reserve and one scheduled for workshop overhauls, etc (see Williams page 83).
If the "symptons" were failures of the (hydrokinetic) brakes and the tilt mechanisms then BR appeared to have solved them. However Dec 1981 was very cold; and the reintroduced APT-P's did not survive in revenue service to be used the following winter, so I don't know if they solved the problem of "Cold winters". P.S. there were two sets of brakes, hydrokinetic at high speed and friction at slow speeds. There's a whole chapter (Ch. 9) in Williams as to whether the APT-P project was a success or not; he suggests that to get full value from an APT-S fleet the WCML signals needed to be upgraded and that was never budgetted for. However, BR management get's most of the blame, so the statement about lack of managment will is correct, there never were any APT-S's in BR's time. Could the "broken down" APT-P at Rugby be the standby one?
P.S. I've never worked for the railways so I'm not trying to defend them. I travelled on the first (successful) run to London, then Woolwich, and I used to see a APT-P parked at Glasgow's Shields Road Depot. For me, the journery by APT-P from Glasgow to Woolwich (via change of trains) was so more civilised than the Shuttle to Heathrow and the dreadfull tube to Charing Cross. Pyrotec 21:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion[edit]

I reverted User:Gothicform's recent addition to this article. The removals were the following:

This was of course realised by the Thatcher government who committed to road transport rather than rail travel were determined to try and kill the project if at all possible, deliberately setting it to fall on it's launch.

This is highly POV and not, I believe, wholly accurate. The Thatcher government was rather anti-railway, to be sure - mostly because of their general anti-union, anti-public sector attitude. But I think even (rational) opponents of Thatcher can't show that the APT was deliberately sabotaged. The APT's failures were shown as terminal rather than simply teething troubles, and this was definitely a partisan act, but it's stretching the point here.

although it later turned out this was more due to drunken journalists than anything else - the effect was such though that it became an urban myth that the APT made people vomit

Possibly true, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this, so if you want to re-add it that's fine, but I think we should find a cite or two.

as replacements for the 125s when they had a broken set

Um, no. The 125s were diesel-powered ECML trains. The APT, being electric, could not substitute for a 125 even if it wanted to, and they served on the west coast main line anyway. —Morven 11:24, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)


It wasn't sabotaged by the government but by reactionary thinking inside the railway hierarchy. Not the first time it has happened. I've reworked the page a bit, but some of the external links are duff, so I've got to come back.Chevin 18:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the bit about "The French approached the pantograph problem" because to cover the subject properly (i.e. EMU's on 25 kV AC) would be a bit complicated Chevin 19:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a book reference. The problems appear to be a combination of those discussed above: the Government was unwilling to invest sufficient money into the project (Telegraph magazine said BR paid half and DoT paid half the development costs); and many of the APT development team had an aerospace background which did not endear them to "railway engineers" - the "not invented here syndrome"! There was an Open University TV programme about the APT in the early 1980s but I've long lost the Betamax copy I made of it.Pyrotec 15:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger[edit]

Should this article be merged with British_Rail_Class_370 and British_Rail_APT-E to provide a single point of reference for the APT programme? —Achmelvic

The page started out as an overall description of the Advanced Passenger Train Programme, with separate pages for APT-E and APT-P then they grew by themselves. I think the existing page stands by itself with the others perhaps giving more specific detail. Possibly repeated info could be edited out. I seem to remember there was another page for the POP train - and what about HSFV? If it was all merged together it would be far too large. To my mind it was the most important train built by British Rail, but then I'm biassed (not NPOV). Chevin 17:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

APT vs Pendolino:[edit]

Interestingly enough at the foot of the Wikipage (As it stands at time of writing this.) it mentions that even today the Virgin Pendolino takes 15 minutes longer than the APT (Going on the 1980/81 timetable) to do a London > Glasgow run. One thing I would like to add to this in discussion is the habit that BR seemed to have of making cross-country trains call at virtually every vaugely important station on the way. I've used the WCML every so often for the last 18 years and remember that back in BR days, each train used to have a stop list longer than the Nile. Nowadays however, a lot of train routes (Especially Virgin) cut out most of these stations completely, meaning that a whole route now only involves about six station calls.

Assuming that all APT services would have been subject to the same huge list of stations on each route, the fact that they could STILL do the journey in less time than a six-stop Pendolino is not just good, it's completely astounding! Obviously the APT must have had something unheard of in the accelleration department if it was able to call at 25-odd stations in four hours! :-D

Hyperspeed - 12th May 2006CR at 04:10 GMT

In fairness, the Pendolino schedule contains an awful lot of recovery time - I went to Glasgow last August and we had a few extended stops and hung around near Polmadie for so long I reckon we'd have arrived half an hour early if we'd just pressed on. I think you're exaggerating a bit about 25 stops on the way! BR was known to run the occasional London - Preston non-stop, and the stopping pattern would probably have been Euston - Watford Jn (p.u,) - Rugby - (maybe Litchfield - Tamworth -) Stafford - Crewe - Warrington - Wigan - Preston - Lancaster - Oxenholme - Penrith - Carlisle - Lockerbie - Motherwell - Glasgow hmm, OK, maybe a maximum of 16 stops, but I think they'd probably have left out the Trent Valley stops, one of Oxenholme or Penrith, and Lockerbie. -- Arwel (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did travel on the first APT journey Glasgow to London (the one with the "sick" journalists) as a paying passenger; the APT broke down on several of the subsequently three journeys, but I returned the following day on the standard Intercity service. Sorry I can't remember all the APT stops but they were not many; Glasgow, Motherwell, Carlisle, Lancaster, Warrington and Euston, I think.
The Intercity Glasgow London trains, I used between 1979 and 1991, did not stop at Warford Jn, Litchfield or Tamworth, but the others mentioned by Arwel - Yes. One north bound APT did stop at Penrith to drop off a certain female TV personality, it caused quite a "stink" as it was not a scheduled stop for the APT. Pyrotec 19:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly travelled Euston - Glasgow on the Royal Scot. First stop Preston next stop Glasgow Central. If you were putting a relative on the Royal Scot you wee warned before the train arrived at Preston that UNLESS YOU ARE TRAVELLING ON THIS TRAIN DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BOARD IT. Scheduled time at Preston was less than 5 minutes and it usually left on time. I also managed to get a ride one day on the APT from Euston before it entered service on one of its testing runs from Euston to Glasgow. I encountered no motion sickness, the horizon did ride up and down the window and it was as close to low flying that the public could ever get. Incidentally just before it was supposed to enter service an APT did a non-stop Glasgow - Euston at night on a clear track. Rail distance is about 424 miles, the train ran the route without a hitch at an average speed of about 135 MPH taking just under 3 hours 15 minutes to travel the whole route. I know about the run because I know personally the driver who did the run it wasn't me but a relative! Considering that the train had to slow to pass through Carlisle, Preston, Crewe it was travelling in excess of 150 MPH - 240 KPH, which is only 30 MPH - 48 KPH, slower than the TGV or Spanish AVE, and it did it on existing albeit upgraded track. Both the TGV and AVE had to have new tracks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.61.231 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of APT compared with HST[edit]

The Background paragraph infers that the APT was developed as a result of the HST success on the GWML. This is not the case. The APT-E came first (out of Derby), and the HST-P was a parallel development that enhanced existing technology. I think the first paragraph of background needs to be revised accordingly. Discuss...... --Stewart 06:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and there is considerable documentary evidence to back this up.Pyrotec 09:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm a bit confused here. The paragraph doesn't mention the Great Western Main Line. Perhaps the confusion arises on the ECML because High Speed Train is caps rather than high speed trains. The ECML was the first line where attempts were made to increase the speed. This was in the early sixties using Class 86's (I think). While there was some success, it was clear that it could not be replicated on the other main lines. Research began in Derby in 1963 into wheel profiles and improved suspensions, which led to the High Speed Freight Vehicle (about which an article ought to be written). The idea for an advanced train came about towards the end of the sixties, if I remember rightly, with design work for the APT and HST proceeding pretty well concurrently through the seventies. Chevin 11:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Class 86s on the ECML in the 60s?? I think not, as the line wasn't electrified until the late 80s. Perhaps you mean the Class 55s (Deltics)? -- Arwel (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. You are probably right. My involvement was within the laboratory and not on the larger network so may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Chevin 08:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK a Class 86 was fitted with a nose cone for trials - whether this was for the HST or the APT I am not sure. --Stewart 08:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That loco was E3173, a Class 86 nicknamed 'Zebedee' at the time, and the aerodynamic nose cone was designed and built by the CM&EE Dept. to test the proposed nose for the HST. It also had the new Flexicoil secondary suspension which solved many of the hard riding problems of the Class 86s.

Regards, Kit Spackman (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is relevant. The problem with higher speeds was to do with train/track dynamics. The ECML (having been built somewhat later than the others) is much straighter. When the earlier lines were built the problems were thought to be gradients rather than curves, also placating landowners. By the mid 20th century the land had been built up so, unlike Japan, it was not practible to realign the track.Chevin 08:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC) skirseeTh[reply]

Window size[edit]

"Neither can the Pendolinos match the window area provided by the demonstrably superior APT, which had 19.0 m² of glass area against the 10.1 m² of the Pendolino". This data (which I personally researched) has been removed on the grounds that it is not relevant under the section "further uses of APT technology". So where is it relevant to put it ? I am firmly of the view that this is one area where the APT is overwhelmingly superior to the Pendolino, and it most certainly not a minor point either, every time I travel by Pendolino I`m shocked by how claustrophobic the interior is and how many passengers have restricted (or very restricted) views out of the windows. JustinSmith (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research is an issue here, since you measured it. However, if you wrote to a railway magazine, then they published it, then you can cite it. Crazy world... Wongm (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Statements of trivial fact are not OR. For instance, it's not OR to state that the sun rises in the east, having seen it do so. That said, I'm not sure this passage needs mentioning anyway - unless the APT has more window space than every other high speed train, this statement is then a case of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several oddities[edit]

The background states that BR had experience with "High Speed Trains" on one route. However, HST post-dates APT. I believe this passage is incorrectly implying that train due to capitalization? The article goes on to state that the HST was developed with "conventional technology", but fails to mention what that is - nor does the HST article state this either. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The HST and the APT were developed in parallel by different projects / departments of BR. Thanks for this comment. I will see what can be done.Pyrotec (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other passengers on this demonstration run, or subsequent runs, noticed the problem. It turned out that the tilting mechanism was, in effect, working too well

So, which it? The first sentence implies nothing was wrong, but the second states there was. One of these statements needs to be revised. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph is consistent, no changes are necessary; other than the addition of suitable citations.Pyrotec (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A random observation...[edit]

I wonder if people had trouble with the APT because it seems to be painted in the colours of the (at-the-time "West") German flag? Just with a teeeny disruptive white stripe... :D 77.102.101.220 (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brits Who Made The Modern World: Series 1 - Tilting Train[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Uy8o21JBM

Excellent documentary by John Snow about the two engineers that developed the tilting train. Liverpool-8-boy (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not fixed[edit]

"Experience with High Speed Trains on the East Coast Main Line from London to Edinburgh "

This implies that runs of HST had been carried out on the ECM, and that led to the decision to make APT. However, APT pre-dates HST. This statement is as confusing as ever, and, I suspect, wrong.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coach number[edit]

You should say how many coaches the APT had. 85.210.144.225 (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A unit at the time of the trials was 6 cars, front passenger - power unit - two passenger - rear power unit - rear passenger. However the intention, which never happened was to run them as a typical west coaster of 18 or 24 all coupled together. Most WCML expresses had more than 12 carriages behind the locomotive. I have travelled on a 24 coach all pulled by one locomotive and such long trains are the reason why many of the stations on the WCML have such long platforms. Overcrowding on the route would be reduced iff the man with the beard put longer trains on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.61.231 (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

There seems to have been an amount of POV in this article. Aircraft engineering is of course equally familiar with condensation and compressed air systems and APT-E had not given trouble, though it had been allowed to run at speed for extended periods. APT-P was also a product of the CM&EE who were "traditional" railway engineers, who had nmade many changes, some concerned with economy. If one is discuss the reasons why the project was a failure in such detail, perhaps internal railway jealousies should be included. 2.31.5.223 (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this.Successive edits have meant that the article jumps back and forward in time. Though the engineers of the original APT-E were from outside the industry, those who designed the APT-P were of the CM&EE who had railway experience and had, in fact designed the HST, were responsible for the faulty brakes. Something else that might be mentioned was a run after the record breaker on the GWML, which was made on the MML and was arguably a better demonstration f APT-E's capabilities. Chevin (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Advanced Passenger Train. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Massive cleanup[edit]

I have (largely) completed a massive cleanup of this article that I hope makes it much easier to read. There is still much useful information that could be added and lots of required refs, but at least I think we have the shell of an article now. Please go over it and look for any spelling and GR mistakes, there was a lot of copy-and-paste so that likely introduced all sorts of little problems. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence of the second paragraph seems to be a little politically charged, as with other parts of the article. "<Margaret Thatcher> made it clear she felt anyone working for a nationalized company like BR was second rate". Also, in the same paragraph: "The result was a media circus ... the entire project derided as a white elephant and a further example of BR's incompetence" - seems a little strongly worded, no? Some minor punctuation work needs to be done there too, as I've noticed a couple of missing full stops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmccartin (talk • contribs) 10:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Advanced Passenger Train. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did the engine cars tilt?[edit]

I can't seem to find a direct statement of whether or not the driving cars tilted, or just the passenger cars. Does anyone have a good ref one way or the other? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the driving cars tilted. Here's a photo of one on a curve, tilting toward the platform - if anything, the driving car is tilting further than the second car. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the Bill Gunston article "The aerospace train". https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202778.html?search=aerospace%20trainPieter1963 (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverton bend[edit]

At Wolverton railway station#Wolverton bend and Northampton Loop, there are two statements that need a citation or they will have to be deleted.

Can anyone oblige with a book reference as apparently the only info online is wp:CIRCULAR. Thank you if you can. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GEC and English Electric[edit]

The article mentiones Boath GEC & EE gaining contracts. This appears to be post 1968, GEX & EE merged in 1968. Wales Wide Web (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Advanced_Passenger_Train&oldid=1204548962"