Kestrel ,APT-E, Prototype HST video

[33011]

Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9rBcSZb3bE

 

[starrymarkb]

Is that a Mk1 buffet in the HST rake?

 

[CallySleeperKid]

Is that a Mk1 buffet in the HST rake?

I believe it is, sort of spoils it really, The train, not the video that is!

 

[90019]

Is that a Mk1 buffet in the HST rake?

Yes, I believe it was modified with new bogies (anything else?) for running at 125.

 

[jopsuk]

Is that a Mk1 buffet in the HST rake?

If it is the same as the lab car here then no, it predates even mrk1s according to where I got that from
though in this rake, yes, mrk1 buffet

 

[mumrar]

If it is the same as the lab car here then no, it predates even mrk1s according to where I got that from
though in this rake, yes, mrk1 buffet

Mk1s were built starting around 1951, the HST prototype power cars were built in 1972, would they really use something as old as that for a new 125mph test bed?!?!

 

[jopsuk]

I'm going to go with "yes, yes they would". As they clearly did.

 

[mumrar]

I'm going to go with "yes, yes they would". As they clearly did.

I don't dispute that coach which looks ex-LMS running with it in that test photo, I'm merely questioning if it would have been present when running at 125mph, that's what I'm questioning.

 

[route:oxford]

I don't dispute that coach which looks ex-LMS running with it in that test photo, I'm merely questioning if it would have been present when running at 125mph, that's what I'm questioning.

Back in the olden days engineers were allowed to use their experience to take a reasonable judgement on the risks.

They would have been able to back up their judgement by the knowledge that coaching stock from 40/50 years earlier were operated at around the same speed when drawn by Mallard.

 

[Geezertronic]

I'm glad the prototype HST evolved into how the Class 43's look now, the prototype looks awful

 

[sprinterguy]

The mark 1 buffet definitely did run at 125mph, as it was mounted on the same BT10 bogies as the mark 3s. I don't know for sure, but it seems probable that this carriage was the development vehicle for the BT10 bogie before the prototype mark 3 rake was constructed. At the time, mark 1s were the perfect test beds for various modifications: They were plentiful in number and fairly basic. Mark 1s have had all sorts of things done to them over the years.

I'm not sure about the LMS Dynamometer Car, under the identity of Test Car 3, being included in the rake at 125 mph. However, it doesn't seem too far fetched, as this or a similar Dynamometer car would have been involved in the LMS "Coronation" speed record of 114mph in the thirties, which isn't far away from 125. Whilst regular use above 100mph wouldn't be suitable for this design of carriage in everyday service, a dynamometer car suitably maintained would probably be fine for occasional use at higher speeds.

 

[WillPS]

Such a shame the APT project was stubbed out at the point it was.

 

[j0hn0]

aye, APT-E is such a beautiful and graceful train whilst still looking aggressive.

I love the tilting articulated bogies, they look so slick along the length of the train.

You have to wonder though, all these so called developments, all done without any hint towards electrification.

In my view, the baby boomer generation have a lot to answer for, our archaic railway network with high polluting engines used throughout is one of them

 

[Lampshade]

That was the whole point of the APT-E, it was powered by gas turbines so electrification wasn't necessary... until British Leyland stopped production.

 

[mumrar]

That was the whole point of the APT-E, it was powered by gas turbines so electrification wasn't necessary... until British Leyland stopped production.

But gas turbines were less fuel efficient than their diesel counterparts, and unreliable, which is why it has never been taken up en masse.

 

[At_traction]

I'm glad the prototype HST evolved into how the Class 43's look now, the prototype looks awful

Perhaps not so awful, but the less inclined front with the buffers was not so slick, admittedly (although for a long time that was the only right design for the HST for me ). But I guess that it takes an outsider to think outside the box (in this case the consulting designer) and question the need for buffers in the first place. The redesign was succesful also in the re-thought window layout.

That was the whole point of the APT-E, it was powered by gas turbines so electrification wasn't necessary... until British Leyland stopped production.

And the oil crisis didn't help an iota either... After that the envisaged powerplant choice could be seen as dead just due to economical factors. But the choice of electrification with the obstacle of a high-speed pantograph design was no easy feat either, thus the compromise of a non-tilting power car to cut the technological corners at least a bit.

But the "E" was really something else when compared to what had been seen before at the BREL in terms of engineering and methods of construction, more akin to aerospace industry. Indeed, the Flight International once featured a cutaway drawing of the APT-E in the late 1960s in lieu of the more common aircraft subjects...

 

[LE Greys]

But gas turbines were less fuel efficient than their diesel counterparts, and unreliable, which is why it has never been taken up en masse.

Not quite. Gas turbines are a bit like the old steam turbines, very efficient when running at high revs for a long time. So perfectly suited for racing accross the Great Plains of North America (not that they get much chance) but not very good for a semi-fast to Wolverhampton, because of all the stopping and starting. They can either be very slow to build up power, or guzzle fuel like nothing else on Earth.

By the way, where were the doors on the APT-E?

 

[WillPS]

In the vestibules at the end of carriages, as with all InterCity stock.

More interestingly, the bogies were between the carriages, with an articulation above them.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

Went to Locomotion's cab it weekend on Saturday, and got the chance to let my kids "drive" APT-E. The engine compartment of the power car was not remotely what I was expecting - surprised as to just how small the gas turbine units are!

A truly unique train thats better for being somewhere it won't be left to rot. And all these years on its still an astonishing shape!

 

[jopsuk]

Not quite. Gas turbines are a bit like the old steam turbines, very efficient when running at high revs for a long time. So perfectly suited for racing accross the Great Plains of North America (not that they get much chance) but not very good for a semi-fast to Wolverhampton, because of all the stopping and starting. They can either be very slow to build up power, or guzzle fuel like nothing else on Earth.

By the way, where were the doors on the APT-E?

Quite. Jaguar's new concept hybrid car has a pair of mini gas turbines- these charge the batteries, so run at near constant revs and can have a slow spool up.

as for doors- from I can find, they seem to be above the bogies?

 

[CallySleeperKid]

as for doors- from I can find, they seem to be above the bogies?

That has got to be the worst idea I have ever seen for doors to a train!

 

[At_traction]

Not quite. Gas turbines are a bit like the old steam turbines, very efficient when running at high revs for a long time. So perfectly suited for racing accross the Great Plains of North America (not that they get much chance) but not very good for a semi-fast to Wolverhampton, because of all the stopping and starting. They can either be very slow to build up power, or guzzle fuel like nothing else on Earth.

Hmm? Never heard of gas turbines being particularly (or at all) fuel-efficient... For aircraft propulsion, for example, the truly high speeds (and altitude attained for lesser friction et al advantages) attainable with turbojets as opposed to piston engine usage justified the high fuel consumption. But only with the introduction of the turbofan, or by-pass, powerplant was the fuel consumption, noise and pollution cut to such an extent that the jets came into their own as proper airline accountant's choice. And trains, of course, can't utilize the oversized compressor stage as a "no cost", high-revolution by-pass propeller like a plane going through the air can.

The wonderfully monstrous Union Pacific gas-turbine engines used specifically in cross-US routes for super-heavy cargo haulage held their own until the oil crisis of the early 1970s made even large-scale unit use with no stops (no acceleration fuel consumption for a mile-long cargo train) uneconomical.

As for a British example (http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_cas_18000.htm):

Neither engine was a great success since like all gas - turbine prime movers that operate at or near sea level, their high fuel consumption under part load conditions made them expensive to operate (the Metrovick's fuel consumption averaged 2.97 gallons per mile, roughly three times that of an equivalent diesel - electric engine). In addition, they were noisy and unpopular with the drivers. Both were withdrawn by 1960.

 

[WillPS]

That has got to be the worst idea I have ever seen for doors to a train!

It was only an experimental proof of concept, never designed to enter passenger service.

 

[LE Greys]

as for doors- from I can find, they seem to be above the bogies?

That has got to be the worst idea I have ever seen for doors to a train!

Think I agree. That must be a nightmare on a tightly-curved platform. APT-P seems to have moved them to a rather more conventional position, which looks a much more effective way of getting in and out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hmm? Never heard of gas turbines being particularly (or at all) fuel-efficient... For aircraft propulsion, for example, the truly high speeds (and altitude attained for lesser friction et al advantages) attainable with turbojets as opposed to piston engine usage justified the high fuel consumption. But only with the introduction of the turbofan, or by-pass, powerplant was the fuel consumption, noise and pollution cut to such an extent that the jets came into their own as proper airline accountant's choice. And trains, of course, can't utilize the oversized compressor stage as a "no cost", high-revolution by-pass propeller like a plane going through the air can.

The wonderfully monstrous Union Pacific gas-turbine engines used specifically in cross-US routes for super-heavy cargo haulage held their own until the oil crisis of the early 1970s made even large-scale unit use with no stops (no acceleration fuel consumption for a mile-long cargo train) uneconomical.

As for a British example (http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_cas_18000.htm):

From my understanding, it's more like a helicopter of marine engine, using extra turbine stages to generate more rotational forces rather than thrust (which you can't really use out of a reversible locomotive).

Didn't Kerosene Castle actually burn heavy fuel oil? I did hear talk of having her burn pulverised coal, but I think it would have caused problems with flyash wrecking the turbine blades.

 

[WillPS]

They weren't actually passenger-minded doors at all though - they panels to cover the articulation point - the ATP-P had them too I'm sure.

 

[jopsuk]

No, those were the doors- the vestibules were in those articulation joints. P-trains didn't have those sections- the cars joined directly together over the bogie. Other than the doors for the cabs and acccess to the power units, that was it.

 

[At_traction]

From my understanding, it's more like a helicopter of marine engine, using extra turbine stages to generate more rotational forces rather than thrust (which you can't really use out of a reversible locomotive).

But neither marine turbines nor helo turboshafts can be called particularly fuel-efficient either. The helicopter engine runs at constant revs and the "thrust" is generated by the angle of the rotor blades alone (also no gliding/coasting aspect of fixed-wings - or trains - to save juice), whereas the world's largest (and fastest) turbine passenger ship, Finnjet, used, if I remember correctly, two engines such as used by the DC-9 - and was notoriously thirsty for fuel. Slow-clunking (relative term!) diesel just gives the oomph with so much more fuel-efficiency. Probably diesel oil is also very notably cheaper than kerosine or like.

Compared to a hogging gas-turbine, the Valenta doesn't use any fuel or oil at all. Honestly. But both make wonderful sounds.

 

[Grumpy]

When the APT was running its high speed trials on the Western Region it was refuelled several times at Reading triangle DMU sidings.
The local tale at the time was that if they left the engines ticking over whilst refuelling then it actually burnt up the fuel at a faster rate than they could pump into it