In gas turbine form, I am seriously doubtful that an APT-E would work out cheaper than a Voyager, in build costs or operating costs. How I wish there'd been a fleet of APT-S trains on the WCML since 1985 though. The tilting sections of the WCML are fun enough at 125mph. It would have been incredible at 155mph.
I second that...The APT-S would've been a superior contender to the Pendolino (Lighter, faster, cheaper, more responsive...) had it been available when Richard Branson took a wander down to his local train dealership!
As for the cost of an APT-E versus a Voyager: I believe BR had thrown about £2 million into the APT project by the time "E" had been built, and remember, that included building the facilities at Old Dalby as well as the train itself. I don't have a Bombardier dealership guide to hand here...But even a 220 (Let alone a 222) costs more than that delivered, doesn't it?
I think thats more likely to be APT-P Power car 49006, the only carriage of an APT-P that isnt at Crewe, and is currently looking considerably the worse for wear, prior to a restoration attempt being started on it.
I wrote my assessment at work (totally legitimate Internet use
) and now poring over my photos from last summer's visit, it indeed is the power car with collection equipment on the roof.
Is it only me that's noticed that - Whilst the APT-E seems to be being taken care of now - Everyone seems to have forgotten about the APT-P which has seemingly been left to rust and blister in her DC'd siding at Crewe? :cry:
I know that there were originally three APT-P units built (Well in truth, it was six half-sets. I
think that's why the Eurostar was given the APTs neighbouring TOPS class) compared to the APT-E's one - But with BR scrapping 370001-370003 and 370005, the "P" is still just as much an endangered species as the "E" now...At least until the West Coast superspeed build gets underway! </dream>
But only if the signalling distances issues had been solved for such speeds. Ie. effectively in-cab signalling with related trackside improvements. Wonder why that never materialised?
Granted, BR's Hydrokinetic (HK) braking system never worked out to be as effective as planned, which was (As far as I can ascertain) the sole flaw of the APT. If the APT-S were to be built today, those HK brakes would be substituted for electromagnetic regenerative/inductive braking systems (Which perform better on paper than HKs, and I
think might be lighter) and together with the APTs very low weight, those brakes could probably stop the train from as much as 166mph in the standard allocated braking distance for a pneumatic system at 100mph...So no extra signal work required, and no real in-cab signalling bar maybe an in-cab repeater (Retrofitted onto the back of C-APT?) with a cluster of LEDs showing the current aspect of the next signal to be passed!
PS. I've always thought that the APT-E's nose looks like a baboon...
What I find quite amusing and ironic - Given the eventual (Tragic) history of the poor APT - Is that if ye look up any photos of "Futuristic" trains as visualised during the late 70's and early 80's, the APT-E features in a good 90-odd percent of them! I wonder how BR explained the sudden disappearance of this new, high-tech, futuristic train that everyone was looking forward to bashing?
Given that BR tried as best as possible to sweep that whole APT project under the carpet after the disastrous press run (Fault of the journalists, mind...The train itself performed
perfectly) even going so far as to rename the
APT-U as the
Intercity 225, it's at least refreshing to see that I'm not the only person out there who
really wants to see this mile-Slaughtering behemoth take to the rails once more!
And thinking of the APT-U again for a moment: Does anyone have a clue why EC still havn't gotton around to fitting the tilting system on yet? I know the ECML is a little less kinky than the West Coast, but it'd still be a worthwhile retrofit for handling the bendy bits (Gjorvik, especially) at speed...