Tilting trains: Did BR screw-up right from the start?

[Death]

Hail All!
It would seem that I have learned a few interesting facts today...Facts that - Though not changing my opinion of the 370 APT-P itself in any way - Do make me think that the whole project might've been a pointless runaround on BR's part! hock:

OK...After noting the similarities in appearance between the APT-E and a Canadian design of train from the same era earlier today, I ran through a few Wikipedia pages...And it would appear that a rough timeline for tilting train development in Europe and North America runs thus:

• 1968CE: UAC TurboTrain introduced into passenger service by Canadian Railways (And later on, Amtrak in the US),
• 1972CE: British Rail commission and begin tilt-train testing using the APT-E,
• 1980CE: Following pressure from the most retarded bunch of shareholders in history (Hang on...Wern't BR supposed to be Government owned? :roll BR commission and rush-build three APT-P sets for passenger service use. Thanks to associated bad press and these greed-infested shareholders, one of history's most ground and speed-breaking train projects falls flat on it's face.
• 1981CE: Meanwhile, VIA Rail (Canadian Railways in a privatised form?) develop and commission the LRC - A successful train design similar in some ways to the APT-P, but much better received by the Canadian and American public.

So - Going on the above approximate timeline, we can infer that the tilting train was actually a Canadian or American version, as opposed to the British invention that I'd always thought it was. Although I'll add that we appear to be the first to use a powered tilt system, as the TurboTrain made use of an air-damped pendular tilting arrangement.

However - After learning all of this today - The question that I'd like to pose to people is: Why on Earth did BR decide to work on a brand new project right from scratch when a possibly suitable design of train was already available in North America? :roll:
Although I'd consider that the initial research and design into the APT-E would be a sensible project in all cases (Just in case the Canadian design wasn't suitable for use in Britain without cost-ineffective modifications) surely it would've made a LOT more sense for BR to have ordered two of these UAC Turbos - Adapted to fit our loading guage - For testing and possible passenger use purposes. In the best case scenario, we would've found that the UAC Turbo was a good design of train and we'd have probabally purchased a whole fleet of the things for the WCML...Thus cutting out a lot of R&D time, an unduly rushed project, and a lot of embarassment for British Rail!

On top of that, we'd probabally still be using those trains today along the WCML, at speeds of 170mph or more, and wouldn't have had to bother with these cramped, undersized, constantly-overtaken-by-a-snail Pendolinos in the first place! 8)

Thoughts on this, anyone?
>> Death <<

 

[djw1981]

Gauge, technology, safety case?

Could of course be that BR R&D (one of teh foremost railway R&D institutions in the world prior to its break up) had done a lot of the ground work but in the 1970''s with a recession, workers on strike, huge deficit, growing unemployment, government in danger of falling any minute, oil crisis and a world financial crisis, that the Callaghan government could not fund the full implementation as rapidly as other countries could, so they adapted the BR research and made it operable. A common pattern across British science and technology - we do the proving work but rarely the commercialisation. This is just a theory....... I await those who remember the time adding their recollections.

 

[Pumbaa]

I don't think so... the LRCs could reach 130mph only, and only the cars tilted...

 

[gordonthemoron]

didn't BR buy TOPS from Canadian Railways?

 

[Royston Vasey]

Could of course be that BR R&D (one of teh foremost railway R&D institutions in the world prior to its break up) had done a lot of the ground work but in the 1970''s...

A common pattern across British science and technology - we do the proving work but rarely the commercialisation. This is just a theory....... I await those who remember the time adding their recollections.

Much of the technology developed by those very engineers forms the backbone (or at least the genesis) of the tilt equipment on the Pendolino some 30+ years later, after they sold the IP to Fiat. The Peter Snow documentary a couple of months back covered this very topic.

Telegraph article here

 

[Yank 119]

didn't BR buy TOPS from Canadian Railways?

Yes, they bought it from CN.

TOPS was an invention of the Southern Pacific Railroad.

TOPS

 

[Death]

Hail All!

Gauge, technology, safety case?

Gauge is an obvious issue, as standard North American loading guage is big enough to accommodate double-deck container wagons and the mahoosive Amtrak SuperLiner cars...Although AFAIK, the North American system uses standard British track gauge. However, the APT-E proves without a doubt that a gas-turbine powered train can fit easily inside the British loading guage, and it would've been a simple matter for UAC to have re-designed the arrangement of the train slightly (I.E: Reducing the carriage profile and doing away with the inter-unit passage) to meet a unit order from BR. 8)

As for safety case: This train was designed primarily for the Canadian market, and we all know that safety is taken very seriously in Canada. Indeed, I imagine that they would release a report on a "Serious railway incident" when the incident in question was actually something relatively minor, such as a headlamp failing.
Personally, I'd say that anything that meets Canadian safety standards would easily meet our own as well.

My original point to this thread, of course, was to start a discussion as to whether or not the APT project was really necessary in the first place. If Id've been one of the managers at BR at the time, my first move into tilting trains would've been to contact UAC, ask if they could adapt the design of the TurboTrain so that it could meet British Rail standards without problems, and then ordered a couple of units for experimentation and testing purposes.

...But in the 1970''s with a recession, workers on strike, huge deficit, growing unemployment, government in danger of falling any minute, oil crisis and a world financial crisis, that the Callaghan government could not fund the full implementation as rapidly as other countries could, so they adapted the BR research and made it operable.

Hmmm...That situation sounds very familiar with our current financial climate. Maybe this would be a good time for me to submit my designs for a louder, harder and much faster version of the APT-P to Alstom?...

Looking at the dates though, the TurboTrain preceeds the APT-E by at least four years...And the date that I have for TurboTrain was the year that it entered revenue-earning service. After a brief search, it looks like some research into tilting train technology was being conducted in North America as far back as 1950CE! hock:

As a footnote: Thinking of the similarity in appearance between the UAC TurboTrain and the APT-E, I am now beginning to wonder if the APT-E's design was in fact inspired by the TurboTrain...If so, then it would prove that BR already knew of those developments over the Pond not long after the APT project was begun, or even beforehand!

Regardless though, only a member of BRs APT project team would be able to answer that question for sure. I don't suppose any of them use this forum at all, do they?

I don't think so... the LRCs could reach 130mph only, and only the cars tilted...

Not as fast as the APT-E/P to be sure, but AFAIK the LRC was the first tilting train in North America to use a powered tilt system, and I'd guess that might have been developed with reference to BR's work on the APT-E. Indeed, IIRC Amtrak did express a lot of interest in the APT project in it's earlier stages, and there might've been some discussion as to the possibility of APT-P/S trains being sold to Amtrak for high-speed North-East corridor services. 8)

As far as I'm aware, tilting the train doesn't make any difference as to it's potential to derail and is provided entirely for passenger comfort, therefore, it's not really necessary to tilt the power cars. As the only people inside them would be the driver and co-driver, they could easily lean over in their seats (I do this when driving my car around tight corners, and when travelling in virtually any vehicle) to negate the lateral forces of a bend if they found any discomfort.

I don't know why BR decided to tilt the power cars on the APT-E/P, but it could've been to allow for experimentation with whether tilting them would cause less track and component wear. Alternatively, the practice could've been entirely for aesthetic purposes. It's interesting to note here that - While the static Mark IV coaches used on the APT-U (Better known as the IC-225) could be modified at a later date to include tilting body suspension - The Class 90's and 91's (Which are basically an APT-P's power car with drivers cabs added) cannot be modified in the same way, but would've still been used to haul services where "tilters" were necessary! 8)

Much of the technology developed by those very engineers forms the backbone (or at least the genesis) of the tilt equipment on the Pendolino some 30+ years later, after they sold the IP to Fiat.

Aye...The entire history of the Pendolino owes itself to the work done on the APT project. If we had adopted a British equivalent of the TurboTrain though, I presume that Fiat (Later Alstom) would've either begun their own research programme, or might've just adopted the standard TurboTrain for their own use.

Farewell...
>> Death <<

 

[djw1981]

One factor back in the 70's would be the difficulty in international exchange of information - no internet. international travel was less direct etc. ALso countries were more protective of what they had discovered / patented, and had not see n the potential in selling their ideas to others as intellectual property. We had not yet as a society made the move from the manufacturing to the knowledge-based economic model.