What if APT had been a success ?

[Pugwash]

Watching the age of the train programme the other night, the APT seemed so close to being accepted.

If it had worked how would the UK train landscape be different today do we think.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Virgin would be claiming to have introduced them.

 

[D365]

T'was a good programme, that was. I reckon that it was the media that killed it, and the problems would have been ironed out. If they had made it to squadron service, I can imagine a non-tilting version on the ECML and an electrified GWML, as well as possibly MML. Ditto the IC250 if there was the money for it.

 

[Lampshade]

Then by now they'd be life expired and we'd probably have Pendolinos anyway

 

[Yew]

Then by now they'd be life expired and we'd probably have Pendolinos anyway

I dunno, they probably would have came in mid80's so 10/20 years life left.

Personally I could see APT's on the WCML, then somethign similar to IC225's/Non-tilt apt's on the east coast, with HST's on crosscountry and FGW and EMT.

I'm not sure if we would see 150mph running or not though, however maybe 125 with 150 in reserve in case of delays.

 

[Flamingo]

Then by now they'd be life expired and we'd probably have Pendolinos anyway

Well, 125's are the same vintage and there is life left in them yet...

 

[sprinterguy]

Then by now they'd be life expired and we'd probably have Pendolinos anyway

By 1981 the in-service date for a production fleet of APTs on the WCML was 1987 (Slipping from an earlier stated target date of 1983, presumably when the APT-P was first launched). So I think they would have remained in service until towards the end of this decade. Perhaps their lifespans would have been extended further to last until HS2 Phase 1 is intended to come into operation.

 

[Beveridges]

Well, 125's are the same vintage and there is life left in them yet...

They arent on the WCML anymore though are they
In fact if you live in the north west its easy to forget they still exist

 

[jopsuk]

I reckon that with 4hr-ish services to Glasgow and Edinburgh up the WCML, the ECML may have languished somewhat. It may have been fully electrified, but there's a chance that by 1997 the WCML would have been the "premier" London-Edinburgh route, with the ECML viewed something akin to the state the WCML was in reality.

 

[Yew]

I reckon that with 4hr-ish services to Glasgow and Edinburgh up the WCML, the ECML may have languished somewhat. It may have been fully electrified, but there's a chance that by 1997 the WCML would have been the "premier" London-Edinburgh route, with the ECML viewed something akin to the state the WCML was in reality.

Thats interesting, maybe we could have seen an additional order of NOL Eurostar sets to become the staple for the ECML.

 

[sprinterguy]

Personally I could see APT's on the WCML, then somethign similar to IC225's/Non-tilt apt's on the east coast, with HST's on crosscountry and FGW and EMT.

I'm not sure if we would see 150mph running or not though, however maybe 125 with 150 in reserve in case of delays.

BR dropped the idea of 155mph running from the APT specification fairly quickly even while the project was a going concern, when they realised the negligible saving in journey time that would be offered over 140mph, or even 125mph, running.

A production fleet of sixty APT-S trains would have been introduced into service on the WCML at a 125mph maximum, with intentions to increase running speeds to 140mph at a future date once signalling constraints had been overcome. Of course, we have heard exactly the same aspirations promised firstly when the ECML was electrified and more recently with the WCML upgrade, so I will leave it up to you to decide how likely it would have been that APT would have gotten above 125. :roll:

The ECML would have been the second route to gain APT-S trains, and in formation and in several of the features portrayed by the 225 trains that we actually received (Tapered body profiles, DVTs and some of the equipment fitted to the 91s) the scene on the ECML today would not have been dramatically different to what we have today: The APT-S trains would have had a streamlined power car at one end and a DVT at the other, sandwiching nine intermediate passenger vehicles. The carriages would, however, have been articulated.

 

[Manchester77]

The ECML would have been the second route to gain APT-S trains, and in formation and in several of the features portrayed by the 225 trains that we actually received (Tapered body profiles, DVTs and some of the equipment fitted to the 91s) the scene on the ECML today would not have been dramatically different to what we have today: The APT-S trains would have had a streamlined power car at one end and a DVT at the other, sandwiching nine intermediate passenger vehicles. The carriages would, however, have been articulated.

I'm not saying that you're wrong but in one of the leaflets made about apt it gave a map with the WCML, ECML and GWML on and showed WCML in yellow for apt and ECML and GWML in red for hst. So does this mean that it was produced before this was thought of or... M77

 

[ainsworth74]

It's likely it was produced before the ECML was confirmed for wiring. If APT had been produced at the end of the 80s as planned and the ECML got wired as happened in the real world then it's logical to assume that APT would have been deployed on a wired ECML.

 

[jopsuk]

There were BR leaflets that showed APT running to East Croydon (and possibly further south) through a version of Thameslink, with OHL...

 

[NSEFAN]

It would have been nice to have the APT, and I reckon that it would have been made to work if there had been more political will behind the project. It doesn't help matters when your prime minister and government have a dislike of railways.

That said, if ATP had suceeded, then we might have risked falling into the trap the French did, whereby all the money is spent on the mainlines, and the secondary and rural routes get stuck in a timewarp (even more than they already were!)

 

[bronzeonion]

Who here remembers the old concourse area at Ealing Broadway before it got refurbished by FGW? The CLOSED blinds on the ticket office windows used to have APT's on them with the InterCity logo and some sort of slogan.

 

[sprinterguy]

I'm not saying that you're wrong but in one of the leaflets made about apt it gave a map with the WCML, ECML and GWML on and showed WCML in yellow for apt and ECML and GWML in red for hst. So does this mean that it was produced before this was thought of or... M77

I have seen that map (It also shows proposed journey times from Euston to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow by APT), too, and admittedly it can be difficult to unravel exactly what was proposed for APT at various times during it's short life when looking back from the present day. It seems that that particular map was current in 1981. There was a report published sometime in the early 80s that advocated a rolling programme of electrification of the main lines, so the expansion of the APTs' scope may have come off the back of that. However I have a feeling that the intentions to introduce APT on more than just the WCML was an aspiration earlier in the programme, at the time when the HST was being developed and was seen as a stop-gap, with a lifespan of no more than 15-20 years, before electrification and APTs displaced them from their original routes, as the Ford/Dain report of 1982/83 apparently put paid to the APT project in its' original form.

 

[jopsuk]

Aye- I'd reckon the enthusiastic widespread deployment of APT everywhere(!!!) with electrification was little more than a dream- I guess we'd have seen 317 varients running a lot of the local services, with Sprinters for the non-wired branches and no Pacers, under such a utopian plan.

 

[Oswyntail]

It would have been nice to have the APT, and I reckon that it would have been made to work if there had been more political will behind the project. It doesn't help matters when your prime minister and government have a dislike of railways.....

Actually, the PM and Government were quite pragmatic about the railways, and authorised investment where it was needed. Did the WCML need APT at the time? There was a relatively modern fleet of electric stock providing the required services, and, by comparison with the rest of the network, replacement was not a priority. ECML electrification could be justified, but obviously did not need the bells and whistles APT. As has been pointed out, a lot of the technology of APT was incorporated into 225. IMHO, the significant failure was not in failing to introduce APT into squadron service, but in not continuing development and research, so that, when the WCML actually did need investment, we had to look abroad.

 

[jon0844]

It would have been nice to have the APT, and I reckon that it would have been made to work if there had been more political will behind the project. It doesn't help matters when your prime minister and government have a dislike of railways.

As the HST programme said, Thatcher wasn't a fan of the railways but didn't do anything to stop it operating. APT failed for other reasons.

That said, if ATP had suceeded, then we might have risked falling into the trap the French did, whereby all the money is spent on the mainlines, and the secondary and rural routes get stuck in a timewarp (even more than they already were!)

There is every chance that this would have happened. There's also a chance that this would have happened without privatisation, given BR was making a profit primarily on the Intercity routes, and just beginning to make money in the NSE area.

London and the surrounds might have been okay, but what of the rest of the country? People can argue it's already done badly post 1997, but would it have been better or worse under BR management?

 

[370001]

BR dropped the idea of 155mph running from the APT specification fairly quickly even while the project was a going concern, when they realised the negligible saving in journey time that would be offered over 140mph, or even 125mph, running.

A production fleet of sixty APT-S trains would have been introduced into service on the WCML at a 125mph maximum, with intentions to increase running speeds to 140mph at a future date once signalling constraints had been overcome. Of course, we have heard exactly the same aspirations promised firstly when the ECML was electrified and more recently with the WCML upgrade, so I will leave it up to you to decide how likely it would have been that APT would have gotten above 125. :roll:

The ECML would have been the second route to gain APT-S trains, and in formation and in several of the features portrayed by the 225 trains that we actually received (Tapered body profiles, DVTs and some of the equipment fitted to the 91s) the scene on the ECML today would not have been dramatically different to what we have today: The APT-S trains would have had a streamlined power car at one end and a DVT at the other, sandwiching nine intermediate passenger vehicles. The carriages would, however, have been articulated.

I believe the APT was one of the biggest missed opportunities in the history of British railways. Interesting what Sprinterguy says about the formation of the APT-S. I agree we see a lot of the APT in the 91s (particularly the gearboxes mounted in the body and connected to the axles via carden shafts to reduce unsprung weight) and the tapered profiles of the Mk IV coaches.

I know that the full APT-P was formed of 12 coaches and 2 centrally located power cars - mainly because HST-style powers cars at each end would have an impact on the trailing power car pantograph being able contact the wires at 125mph+. How did the 14 units of APT-P fit on the platforms at Euston and intermediate stations to Glasgow? Were the trailers so much shorter because they were articulated?

 

[sprinterguy]

I know that the full APT-P was formed of 12 coaches and 2 centrally located power cars - mainly because HST-style powers cars at each end would have an impact on the trailing power car pantograph being able contact the wires at 125mph+. How did the 14 units of APT-P fit on the platforms at Euston and intermediate stations to Glasgow? Were the trailers so much shorter because they were articulated?

The carriages of the APT-P are 21 metres long. This is quite long for an articulated vehicle compared to the 18.7 metre length of a TGV or Eurostar carriage, and when you consider that a mark 3 has a distance between bogie centres of 16 metres. This gives a total train length, for a 12+2 APT-P formation, of 294 metres, compared to approximately 264 metres for an 11-car Pendolino.

I have occasionally wondered how BR were planning on accommodating a train of this length in the platforms of the stations on the WCML when platform lengthening work has been required just to fit the Pendolinos. At the development phase BR were even proposing an APT formation that was even longer, formed of two power cars and fourteen passenger cars, totalling 336 metres!

 

[NSEFAN]

As the HST programme said, Thatcher wasn't a fan of the railways but didn't do anything to stop it operating. APT failed for other reasons.

My point wasn't that APT was deliberately undermined, more that it might have worked if there was the will, and more money available. I know the government of the time had a laissez-faire attitude to things, but there's only so much you can do with a limited pile of cash. I still find it incredible that the HST has done so well, considering the comparitively small budget and timescale in which it was developed.

There is every chance that this would have happened. There's also a chance that this would have happened without privatisation, given BR was making a profit primarily on the Intercity routes, and just beginning to make money in the NSE area.

London and the surrounds might have been okay, but what of the rest of the country? People can argue it's already done badly post 1997, but would it have been better or worse under BR management?

From what I understand, passenger operations haven't changed much with regards to profit. Rural lines simply don't pay for themselves, whereas commuter and intercity flows do. Freight has done very well out privatisation, the competition ethos has certainly worked here.

Things are gradually improving, but it's a slow process. We do now have tilting trains, but only at 125mph because of higher safety expectations with the signalling.

Actually, the PM and Government were quite pragmatic about the railways, and authorised investment where it was needed. Did the WCML need APT at the time? There was a relatively modern fleet of electric stock providing the required services, and, by comparison with the rest of the network, replacement was not a priority. ECML electrification could be justified, but obviously did not need the bells and whistles APT. As has been pointed out, a lot of the technology of APT was incorporated into 225. IMHO, the significant failure was not in failing to introduce APT into squadron service, but in not continuing development and research, so that, when the WCML actually did need investment, we had to look abroad.

What needs replacement is very subjective sometimes. I've heard commuters talking about new Desiros and Electrostars needing replacing! Also, with a good refurbishment, many trains can hide their age quite well. The class 314 fleet is a good example of this. I was very impressed with the refurbished sets when I used them earlier this year.

The trains on the WCML could have been cascaded onto other routes. Given passenger numbers at the time were reaching a low point, I suppose there was less need for additional capacity on other routes.

 

[Yew]

Its a shame the power cars where not at both at one end, so they could overhang platforms, as then 12*21m carriages woud have been only a little longer than a 2+9 HST.

Also, its a shame the Motor cars didnt have a cab, to allow rakes to be split up if required

 

[jon0844]

I have occasionally wondered how BR were planning on accommodating a train of this length in the platforms of the stations on the WCML when platform lengthening work has been required just to fit the Pendolinos. At the development phase BR were even proposing an APT formation that was even longer, formed of two power cars and fourteen passenger cars, totalling 336 metres!

With trains of that length, was the thinking at the time to have longer trains running less frequently? Surely demand wasn't so high that anyone would have been thinking of extra long trains AND a high frequency timetable?

Despite now having to buy advance tickets to afford to travel, I do think a turn up and go service is better for the railway. Only when capacity is used up do you then need to think of extending the trains to such lengths, or building a new line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I still find it incredible that the HST has done so well, considering the comparitively small budget and timescale in which it was developed.

The documentary suggests the HST and APT were in competition with each other, and given the surprising success of HST, was it perhaps the HST that killed APT more than anything else?

Besides people initially feeling ill (yes, that might have been fixed but the damage was done once the media told everyone you got sick on them), the fact that the speeds weren't increased made them pretty much obsolete.

But that wasn't any fault of the train, but suggests they really were ahead of their time. Sadly, I doubt throwing loads of taxpayer money at them would have made them more successful. Ditching HSTs (or slowing them right down) might, however!

 

[sprinterguy]

Its a shame the power cars where not at both at one end, so they could overhang platforms, as then 12*21m carriages woud have been only a little longer than a 2+9 HST.

That’s essentially what the APT-U, the last development of the APT project, would have been. An electric power car at either end, sandwiching ten (non-articulated) carriages. At that stage of the project in the eighties BR had overcome the problem of loss of contact with the overhead wires for the rear power car, although I cannot remember what lead to this achievement, whether it was the reduction in top speed (140mph) or advances in technology. The IC225s drew on elements of both the APT-S and the APT-U design.

Also, its a shame the Motor cars didnt have a cab, to allow rakes to be split up if required

From all the photographs that are available of the APT workings and tests on the WCML during the seventies and eighties it appears that the half-sets were split and re-marshalled quite regularly, even to the extent of removing the articulated intermediate carriages as required. Of course even if only one half-set was being used then two passenger vehicles (a driving car and the vehicle against the power car) still needed to be provided at the other end to allow the train to be operated in the opposite direction.

 

[John55]

The carriages of the APT-P are 21 metres long. This is quite long for an articulated vehicle compared to the 18.7 metre length of a TGV or Eurostar carriage, and when you consider that a mark 3 has a distance between bogie centres of 16 metres. This gives a total train length, for a 12+2 APT-P formation, of 294 metres, compared to approximately 264 metres for an 11-car Pendolino.

There was an interesting letter in Modern Railways a couple of years ago from one of the engineers involved in the APT project. He highlighted the very unusual articulation of the APT as the major weakness. The vehicles were supported at the ends of a "plank" which was fitted to the bogie and extended beyond the ends of the bogie. This meant the coaches were supported close to a normal bogie pivot point though still carried on a common bogie between the vehicles.

The advantage of this form of articulation was longer coaches could be allowed than with conventional articulation. His view on this form of suspension was that it amplified the disturbances to the vehicles caused by track irregularities and was a major cause of the travel sickness which was a feature of the initial running of the APT. The poor ride of APT was commented on in the railway press several times during its development. His conclusion was that the suspension wasn't good enough and the train would never have been deliverable with an acceptable ride.

I think BR accepted this internally as the final paper designs for APT dropped the articulation. Interestingly this form of articulation was developed by the LMS in the late 1930s and used on the articulated DMU and some new coaches built for the Coronation Scot.

To answer the original question. The class 90s would not have been built.

 

[Yew]

From all the photographs that are available of the APT workings and tests on the WCML during the seventies and eighties it appears that the half-sets were split and re-marshalled quite regularly, even to the extent of removing the articulated intermediate carriages as required. Of course even if only one half-set was being used then two passenger vehicles (a driving car and the vehicle against the power car) still needed to be provided at the other end to allow the train to be operated in the opposite direction.

Yeah, thats the problem, I would have hoped that In Squadron service, there would have been at least a shunting cab in the power car, to allow it to go backwards, or Ideally a full cab there, to allow it to operate at full speed in either direction as a half set, and possibly couple/uncouple in to run splitting services.

I wonder if we could have seen a diesel version of the APT for cross country routes, Or even the MML?

 

[jopsuk]

For those wanting to see physical dimesions, there's drawings here and here (pdf files).

 

[sprinterguy]

I wonder if we could have seen a diesel version of the APT for cross country routes, Or even the MML?

No. We had (have) HSTs to fulfil that requirement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There was an interesting letter in Modern Railways a couple of years ago from one of the engineers involved in the APT project. He highlighted the very unusual articulation of the APT as the major weakness. The vehicles were supported at the ends of a "plank" which was fitted to the bogie and extended beyond the ends of the bogie. This meant the coaches were supported close to a normal bogie pivot point though still carried on a common bogie between the vehicles.

The advantage of this form of articulation was longer coaches could be allowed than with conventional articulation. His view on this form of suspension was that it amplified the disturbances to the vehicles caused by track irregularities and was a major cause of the travel sickness which was a feature of the initial running of the APT. The poor ride of APT was commented on in the railway press several times during its development. His conclusion was that the suspension wasn't good enough and the train would never have been deliverable with an acceptable ride.

I think BR accepted this internally as the final paper designs for APT dropped the articulation. Interestingly this form of articulation was developed by the LMS in the late 1930s and used on the articulated DMU and some new coaches built for the Coronation Scot.

That's incredibly interesting stuff, thanks It certainly explains why articulation was dropped from the final APT proposals.