What would have happened if...

[corfield]

It's a problem on high spec knitting as well. At high speeds the first pantograph will set a wave in motion in the contact wire and that means the second panto may struggle to stay in contact with the wire. TGVs on high speed lines will only have the rear power car's pantograph raised, the front being fed by the rooftop bus line. Eurostars are long enough for the initial wave to dissipate but you'll still see a lot of sparking from the rear powercar. 395s in multiple will use the Front on the leading unit and Rear on the trailing to put as much space as possible between them...

What happens with Pendolinos then ? do they only raise one pantograph as well ?, if not - what has changed since APT ?

Are such limitations common, as in many EMUs have two pantographs, especially when operating in multiple (e.g. Thameslink, Electrostars and Desiros) - and I'm sure I've seen them running with both up ?


Couple of questions;
a) Why was ATP 12 cars (2 central power plus 2 end driving/passenger and 8 other passenger) ?, given that it is only literally now that we are seeing that length of train & capacity on the WCML ?

b) Could an ATP with a single power/driving car (as per ECML 225 arrangement) have pulled that many trailers ?, or sufficient for a WCML service replacing 8X and Mk2s as was.

It strikes me that these High Speed BR plans suffered from the classic British overstretch, 155mph for instance, on infrastructure that despite vast sums of money and technological progress, 30 years later still limits trains to 125mph, suggesting that whatever a view of the management/efficiency of the spend, there are underlying issues about trying to raise speeds to such levels. Was there a disconnection between the idealists who were specifying the trains (and what the technology could deliver in pure train speed) - and the reality of actually operating them ? The reference to the Operating Authorities not permitting ATP to run at full speed with limits on paths suggests that such speeds weren't able to sensibly be accommodated within the network.

HST seems a much more evolutionary approach, building on top/tail and push/pull concepts that long pre-dated it, hence perhaps it's success rather than the revolutionary ATP.

Very interesting to read about the changes from ATP as we know it to what would have been a production version.

 

[Wyvern]

What happens with Pendolinos then ? do they only raise one pantograph as well ?, if not - what has changed since APT ?

Are such limitations common, as in many EMUs have two pantographs, especially when operating in multiple (e.g. Thameslink, Electrostars and Desiros) - and I'm sure I've seen them running with both up ?

Yes they raise only one pan (see earlier post)

Couple of questions;
a) Why was ATP 12 cars (2 central power plus 2 end driving/passenger and 8 other passenger) ?, given that it is only literally now that we are seeing that length of train & capacity on the WCML ?

That was the usual length of trains in those days.

b) Could an ATP with a single power/driving car (as per ECML 225 arrangement) have pulled that many trailers ?, or sufficient for a WCML service replacing 8X and Mk2s as was.

They expected problems with propelling, which is why the HST has two power cars also.

It strikes me that these High Speed BR plans suffered from the classic British overstretch, 155mph for instance, on infrastructure that despite vast sums of money and technological progress, 30 years later still limits trains to 125mph, suggesting that whatever a view of the management/efficiency of the spend, there are underlying issues about trying to raise speeds to such levels. Was there a disconnection between the idealists who were specifying the trains (and what the technology could deliver in pure train speed) - and the reality of actually operating them ? The reference to the Operating Authorities not permitting ATP to run at full speed with limits on paths suggests that such speeds weren't able to sensibly be accommodated within the network.

THe APT was initially very much a concept vehicle and that is perhaos that's how it should have stayed for a few more yearsn

HST seems a much more evolutionary approach, building on top/tail and push/pull concepts that long pre-dated it, hence perhaps it's success rather than the revolutionary ATP.

THe HST was a stop gap until the APT was supposed to be ready and, yes, it was built on conventional designs, following on from the Blue Pullman, for instance, but it wouldn't have been the success it became without the technology developed for the APT.

It was said the APT project cost £8 million, which was a lot of money in the seventies, but I bet it earned it all back in patent royalties and more efficicient trains.

 

[sprinterguy]

Couple of questions;
a) Why was ATP 12 cars (2 central power plus 2 end driving/passenger and 8 other passenger) ?, given that it is only literally now that we are seeing that length of train & capacity on the WCML ?

b) Could an ATP with a single power/driving car (as per ECML 225 arrangement) have pulled that many trailers ?, or sufficient for a WCML service replacing 8X and Mk2s as was.

It strikes me that these High Speed BR plans suffered from the classic British overstretch, 155mph for instance, on infrastructure that despite vast sums of money and technological progress, 30 years later still limits trains to 125mph, suggesting that whatever a view of the management/efficiency of the spend, there are underlying issues about trying to raise speeds to such levels. Was there a disconnection between the idealists who were specifying the trains (and what the technology could deliver in pure train speed) - and the reality of actually operating them ? The reference to the Operating Authorities not permitting ATP to run at full speed with limits on paths suggests that such speeds weren't able to sensibly be accommodated within the network.

HST seems a much more evolutionary approach, building on top/tail and push/pull concepts that long pre-dated it, hence perhaps it's success rather than the revolutionary ATP.

Very interesting to read about the changes from ATP as we know it to what would have been a production version.

It's APT, not ATP: Advanced Passenger Train, rather than Automatic Train Protection

The APT-Ps were intended to be twelve passenger carriages in length, plus two power cars, giving a total length of fourteen coaches (Two seven carriahe half-sets joined back to back). At the beginning of the APT project, in 1973, a sixteen carriage stretched version of the APT-P was also being considered, as if fourteen carriages still wasn't enough! The fourteen carriage APT-P was intended to seat 540 passengers, the stretched sixteen carriage version 684.

One of the biggest limitations at the time on train length when using a single power car was the damaging effect the propulsive force against the end coach was expected to have on the suspension with a longer formation; which was another reason for initially placing the power cars at the centre of the train. As far as I know, train lengths longer than ten carriages and a DVT were never considered for a single power car during either the APT or IC225 projects.

It can be theorised that the APT-Ps were engineered to the highest level in order to test the concept to destruction and provide for as many possibilities as possible: The APT was BRs' flagship train of the future in the seventies. I suppose it was thought that if you can get these trains to work at 155mph, they should definitely work at 125!

 

[yorksrob]

Hmmm, I think I'd add a caveat, before Sectorisation. Sectorisation was the worst thing that happened to the railways (since Beeching, at any rate), it anyone was to ask me. That was the end of any ideas of a rational cascade programme, when Intercity (Sorry, INTERCITY) withdrew stock and scrapped it straight away because Regional Railways was so obsessed with two-car DMUs for everything.

I would say that Sectorisation was one of the best things to happen since nationalisation. I don't think it's a co-incidence that the end of line closures roughly co-incides with sectorisation (i.e. when the regional railway ceased to be just an unwanted add on to the mainline).

It's also not true that cascades didn't happen after sectorisation. 308's to Yorkshire, Mk2's to NSE. Even planned new builds were switched between 158's for the North and 159's for the South.

Unfortunately InterCity stock doesn't always lend itself to easily to use elsewhere (although it would have been interesting to see if a New Zealand style conversion of loco hauled stock to units could have been tried).

By the way, don't knock the two car DMU's. There's little doubt in my mind that the rennaissance in railway travel in the regions has a lot to do with the switch more frequent services, for which shorter DMU's are more suited.

 

[RobShipway]

It's APT, not ATP: Advanced Passenger Train, rather than Automatic Train Protection

The APT-Ps were intended to be twelve passenger carriages in length, plus two power cars, giving a total length of fourteen coaches (Two seven carriahe half-sets joined back to back). At the beginning of the APT project, in 1973, a sixteen carriage stretched version of the APT-P was also being considered, as if fourteen carriages still wasn't enough! The fourteen carriage APT-P was intended to seat 540 passengers, the stretched sixteen carriage version 684.

One of the biggest limitations at the time on train length when using a single power car was the damaging effect the propulsive force against the end coach was expected to have on the suspension with a longer formation; which was another reason for initially placing the power cars at the centre of the train. As far as I know, train lengths longer than ten carriages and a DVT were never considered for a single power car during either the APT or IC225 projects.

It can be theorised that the APT-Ps were engineered to the highest level in order to test the concept to destruction and provide for as many possibilities as possible: The APT was BRs' flagship train of the future in the seventies. I suppose it was thought that if you can get these trains to work at 155mph, they should definitely work at 125!

A fair bit of the problem though as has been discussed before in this forum was that fact that BR brought in Scientists that did not know anything about the railways and how slow to change the railways can be at times, especially during the 1970's.

The HST won approval, with those in the know in the railways because it was using ideas or methods that all ready existed within the railway system, even if some of those ideas had originally come from the APT project in it's early years.

 

[colchesterken]

The other point is if we had seen the APT project through to production we would have led the world in high speed trains and the rest of Europe would have been buying trains from us and wine from Italy ...how it should have been !
G B always misses the boat by not acting when we have a good idea..Thameslink 2000
Crossrail could have been operating by 2005..and APT

 

[jopsuk]

A fair bit of the problem though as has been discussed before in this forum was that fact that BR brought in Scientists that did not know anything about the railways and how slow to change the railways can be at times, especially during the 1970's.

That was a deliberate move on BR's part though, wasn't it? They were trying to "shake up" things.

As for train lenght, how long were each of the individual car sections on the APT? Was a 6+2+6 APT-P actually longer than an 11-car Pendolino?

If the project hadn't had such acceptance issues, and had moved faster, could we have seen a diesel version, perhaps for the GWML?

 

[Wyvern]

The scientists were brought in because it was perceived that a step change in thinking was needed.

That's why they came under the civil engineers rather than the M&EE.

THeir first job was to work out for the first time why goods wagons kept coming off the rails. For the first time we knew exactly how wheels, rails and suspensions interacted. From then on, this knowledge informed the design of all new railway vehicles worldwide.

And yes the UK could have been a world leader. It was at the time so why not now? One problem was it was a nationalised company - anathema to the capitalists and the politicians.

 

[deltic1989]

Been looking for an excuse to upload this for ages, and this thread seems ideal.
Please excuse the quality of the re paint, it was done on MS Paint one night when I was extremely bored.
Just what an APT could look like in VT livery.

 

[Wyvern]

Is there not a "like" button on this board?

 

[sprinterguy]

As for train lenght, how long were each of the individual car sections on the APT? Was a 6+2+6 APT-P actually longer than an 11-car Pendolino?

The intermediate trailers were either 21.2 or 21.44 metres long. The driving trailers were either slightly longer or slightly shorter, I can't remember which but I can check later.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Been looking for an excuse to upload this for ages, and this thread seems ideal.
Please excuse the quality of the re paint, it was done on MS Paint one night when I was extremely bored.
Just what an APT could look like in VT livery.

That's a very good render. Similar to this:
http://www.fictitiousliveries.co.uk/photo.php?370008.jpg

Or probably more likely if there had been a squadron fleet of APTs, this:
http://www.fictitiousliveries.co.uk/photo.php?370007.jpg

 

[Schnellzug]

Been looking for an excuse to upload this for ages, and this thread seems ideal.
Please excuse the quality of the re paint, it was done on MS Paint one night when I was extremely bored.
Just what an APT could look like in VT livery.

That doesn't look at all bad; the windows do look bigger than a Pendo, don't they ...

 

[Whistler40145]

What would have happened if BR's original order for Classes 33 & 50 had been larger?


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?a450nx

 

[sprinterguy]

The intermediate trailers were either 21.2 or 21.44 metres long. The driving trailers were either slightly longer or slightly shorter, I can't remember which but I can check later.

APT-P vehicle lengths:
Driving cars: 21.44 metres
Intermediate trailers: 21.20 metres
Power cars: 20.40 metres

Total fourteen carriage train length: 295.68 metres

Class 390 Pendolino eleven carriage train length: 264.7 metres

 

[Jobsworth]

Having been involved with the APT project briefly in 1977, once the problem of 2-pan pick up had been identified, the option of running with one power car was seriously considered. The limiting factor with train length in this configuration was Shap and if memory serves me correct, it would have been 1+10.

Although possibly not minuted, it was suggested that a fare supplement could be applied to limit passenger demand, which infers that the market research people had already calculated the need for the longer formation.

By the way, the scientists I worked with were actually known as engineers.

 

[DXMachina]

APT-P vehicle lengths:
Driving cars: 21.44 metres
Intermediate trailers: 21.20 metres
Power cars: 20.40 metres

Total fourteen carriage train length: 295.68 metres

Class 390 Pendolino eleven carriage train length: 264.7 metres

I think the APT could have been helped by the fact that the most outward passenger doors were at the extreme inbound end of the driving cars. So a 296 metre train only needed 260 metre platforms as long as the driver didnt want to get out.

Erm, except at Terminus stations I guess.

 

[Wyvern]

By the way, the scientists I worked with were actually known as engineers.

Well yes,they were Chartered Engineers.