Hello

In response to safety concerns the web link was one of the first
pages to appear on the internet concerning APT a few years back and
as such there are a few innacuracies.

I am pretty sure - and Kit may confirm that there were no issues of P
Train carriages falling over or sticking as the tilt mechanism was
designed for them to return to the upright position - unlike e-train
where they would fall over onto stops.

As you indicate I am sure that because of the profile of the APT you
could run two APTs next to each other with cars tilted towards each
other and the distance between the two would be the same as two Mk 1
coaches passing. I think there is a graphic on Rob Lathams site
which shows the moving profile of P train within the Mark 1 (or C1)
loading gauage.

Simon Argyle


--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, "jengimac"
<jengimac@y...> wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> I have a question regarding the P trains. I have seen some

accounts recently that one of the reasons for the demise of the P
trains was a safety concern regarding tilt failures. Has anyone else
heard anything about this?

>
> The basic concern seems to have been to do with a train sticking in

the full tilt position facing inwards. I can see mention of this in
the press feeding frenzy of December 1981, but it is also repeated in
other more credible sources, and on the link below.

>
> http://www.aether.demon.co.uk/coolkit/apt.html
>
> I thought the whole point of the APT profile was that it fitted

into the profile of a Mark 1 regardless of tilt position.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Gordon McLeod,

Thanks for the reply Simon. I asked the question because I was having trouble believing it myself. However, I did some digging today at the library and came across a more credible source. This issue is mentioned in a book by E. A. Gibbons called Britain's Railways, the Reality (p192). I have included this below.

Clearly the train tilted again, so the issue must have been resolved - or found not to be a risk after all. It would have caused a big stink at the time though, and my guess is that it spawned the rumours which later found their way onto the Cool Kit Page. If nothing else, it gives some insight into the challenges that were going on behind the scenes.

Has anyone else heard of the issue?

"...During public trials, the APT tilt system sometimes failed, and had to be isolated, because of the discomfort factor, limiting trains to line speed - then 100mph. In December 1980, I was told that APT was having 2 types of tilt failure. The aforementioned was a "soft" failure where it failed to tilt when it should. The new variety - "hard" failure - was when a train tilted when no tilt was required. This appeared to pose the risk, of a train with such a failure, striking a train on the ajoining line. I called a meeting and asked which sections of the route might pose a risk. The Chief Civil Engineer would not clear any section of the line, and said the whole route must be treated as posing a hazard if a train had a "hard" tilt failure. He said that pending investigation, the APT would need to be treated as out-of-gauge and other trains not allowed to pass, when the APT was running through junctions or connections. This was not a practical option. In view of the risk, I directed that, until the problem was resolved, the train must run with the tilt isolated, and hence at line speed limits. It was not a popular descision, but proactive action is the best way to avoid fatalities. There were critics - none of whom would share the responsibility for safety on the region if the worst happened. The descision received the full support of the general manager of the London Midland Region."

Gordon,

--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Argyle" <simonargyle@h...> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> In response to safety concerns the web link was one of the first
> pages to appear on the internet concerning APT a few years back and
> as such there are a few innacuracies.
>
> I am pretty sure - and Kit may confirm that there were no issues of P
> Train carriages falling over or sticking as the tilt mechanism was
> designed for them to return to the upright position - unlike e-train
> where they would fall over onto stops.
>
> As you indicate I am sure that because of the profile of the APT you
> could run two APTs next to each other with cars tilted towards each
> other and the distance between the two would be the same as two Mk 1
> coaches passing. I think there is a graphic on Rob Lathams site
> which shows the moving profile of P train within the Mark 1 (or C1)
> loading gauage.
>
> Simon Argyle
>
>
> --- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, "jengimac"
> <jengimac@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have a question regarding the P trains. I have seen some
> accounts recently that one of the reasons for the demise of the P
> trains was a safety concern regarding tilt failures. Has anyone else
> heard anything about this?
> >
> > The basic concern seems to have been to do with a train sticking in
> the full tilt position facing inwards. I can see mention of this in
> the press feeding frenzy of December 1981, but it is also repeated in
> other more credible sources, and on the link below.
> >
> > http://www.aether.demon.co.uk/coolkit/apt.html
> >
> > I thought the whole point of the APT profile was that it fitted
> into the profile of a Mark 1 regardless of tilt position.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gordon McLeod,

Gordon,

>The basic concern seems to have been to do with a train sticking in the

full tilt position >facing inwards. I can see mention of this in the press
feeding frenzy of December 1981, >but it is also repeated in other more
credible sources, and on the link below.<

This has come up numreous times and in the link you quote that part is
reasonbaly well reported. I'm not sure sure about other parts of the link
though....

>I thought the whole point of the APT profile was that it fitted into the

profile of a Mark 1 >regardless of tilt position.<

The failure mode mentioned is a full tilt failure of one vehicle combined
with a full tilt failure of another veihicle ON AN APT-P COMING IN THE
OPPOSITE DIRECTION (my capitals) and both vehicles failing toward each
other.

A little thought will show that one failure has to be an inward tilt
failure and the other has to be an outward failure. Not only that, the
vehicles would have to hold the full tilt failed position for long enough
for them to hit each other. Remember that the geometry of the P-Trains was
specifically changed from the E-Train system to enable the vehicles to
'pendelum' back parallel with the track.

There were places on the WCML where this contact was a theoretical
possibility, where the 6 ft was right on it's lower limit and where the
track curvature was rather tight. However, the chance of all those things
happening at once must have been extremely low.

This sort of calculation has never stopped people who are looking for
excuses though, especially if they have vested interests that lie
elsewhere...........

Regards
Kit (Cynic hat very firmly on)

Surely a railway vehicle has to conform to the loading gauge of the
railway it's to run on. Surely a railway vehicle that tilts must
conform to the same loading gauge and must never be allowed to tilt
beyond it, even under tilt failure conditions.

Two tilting railway vehicles that are passing each other and tilting
towards each other to the fullest extent of their tilt ability
(controlled or failed) will be within the loading gauge and therefore
pass each other safely.

I find it hard to believe that APT-P was allowed to breach BR's
loading gauge and potentially hit another APT-P just because
the chance of it happening was extremely low.

Alan,

>Surely a railway vehicle has to conform to the loading gauge of the
>railway it's to run on. Surely a railway vehicle that tilts must
>conform to the same loading gauge and must never be allowed to tilt
>beyond it, even under tilt failure conditions.<

The loading gauge isn't as precisely defined a 'hole' as people seem to
think. Because the 'hole' itself is fixed relative to the track, and the
track can move relative to the world, ergo the 'hole' moves too. While the
track gangs do their best to keep the track in the same place (or they used
to anyway.....) it's not always where they think it is.

Not only that, the 'soft' machanical stops on the tilt system and the rest
of the suspension tolerances meant the P-Train shape itself wasn't fixed
relative to the track either, thus the build up of these tolerances could
have resulted in the possible (but not probable) conflicts mentioned.

The sensible solution would have been to limit the speed in such areas and
thus reduce the dynamic forces causing the suspension to move etc. but that
might have resulted in P-Train remaining in service, which patently wasn't
the object of the exercise......

Regards
Kit (Cynic hat even more firmly on now)

Some interesting thoughts guys. Kit I think that I confused inwards and outwards. I meant towards each other, but I think you mean into the curve.

So I still have 2 questions (sorry if I am missing the obvious):

1) The original tilt ban seems to have been December 1980, from the book article - and I guess it was tilting again pretty early in 1981. Did they BR quantify the risk and approve, or was something fixed?

2) Did this have any bearing on the scrapping in 1986?

Gordon,

--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, Kit Spackman <101453.3657@c...> wrote:
> Alan,
>
> >Surely a railway vehicle has to conform to the loading gauge of the
> >railway it's to run on. Surely a railway vehicle that tilts must
> >conform to the same loading gauge and must never be allowed to tilt
> >beyond it, even under tilt failure conditions.<
>
> The loading gauge isn't as precisely defined a 'hole' as people seem to
> think. Because the 'hole' itself is fixed relative to the track, and the
> track can move relative to the world, ergo the 'hole' moves too. While the
> track gangs do their best to keep the track in the same place (or they used
> to anyway.....) it's not always where they think it is.
>
> Not only that, the 'soft' machanical stops on the tilt system and the rest
> of the suspension tolerances meant the P-Train shape itself wasn't fixed
> relative to the track either, thus the build up of these tolerances could
> have resulted in the possible (but not probable) conflicts mentioned.
>
> The sensible solution would have been to limit the speed in such areas and
> thus reduce the dynamic forces causing the suspension to move etc. but that
> might have resulted in P-Train remaining in service, which patently wasn't
> the object of the exercise......
>
> Regards
> Kit (Cynic hat even more firmly on now)

Gordon,

>Some interesting thoughts guys. Kit I think that I confused inwards and

outwards. I meant towards >each other, but I think you mean into the
curve.<

I think we BOTH got confused. That's not difficult where railway directions
are concerned. ... <G>

Assuming we're on the WCML so the line runs roughly North-South, we could
call the possible tilt directions East or West, say. If we're heading north
and the curve goes to the right, our train has to tilt East, ie clockwise
from the driver's position. (termed 'positive tilt' in E-Train terms BTW) A
failure in this direction will be 'inwards' in your nomenclature.

The train coming toward us would be tilting East as well, but in it's case
an 'inwards failure' would have to be in the opposite direction, ie West or
anti-clockwise from the drivers position. (Guess what we called that
direction on E-Train............? <g>)

1) The original tilt ban seems to have been December 1980, from the book
article - and I guess it >was tilting again pretty early in 1981. Did they
BR quantify the risk and approve, or was something >fixed?<

Sadly I wasn't with BR at that time, so I can't shed any detailed light on
the exact problem, but it would not have been difficult to limit the
maximum tilt angle on the P-Trains. It would have been MUCH easier than it
was on E-Train when we had to exactly the same but for different reasons.

Putting a 'soft bump stop' inside the P-Train tilt jacks would have been
quick and easy, albeit a bit 'boilerplate'. Limiting the tilt
electronically would not work as there could be a failure mode, indeed many
failure modes, when the electronics would not have had any effect. Maybe
Rob could say if the Last P-Train has such bump stops fitted? They'd be
short elastomer tubes around the tilt jack piston rods but inside the
cylinder itself, maybe 1" or 1.5" long and the full diameter of the piston.

On E-Train we used an over-complex system of pull cables and hydraulic
shut-off valves as the tilt jacks were of such short stroke. I was pretty
upset at the time that we'd built a super-performance tilt system and then
they wanted us to STOP it tilting! It took a large amount of design, build
and development to get this stuff to work and it always looked a bodge job
to me. I had great pleasure in having to have these bits of E-Train removed
during the Shildon move so that we could get access to the steering beam
pin joints <g>

2) Did this have any bearing on the scrapping in 1986?

I don't know, but I doubt it. By that time P-Train was running with the
Full Monte tilt system. Leading vehicle acclerometers, jack stroke feedback
and partial compensation were all active by then, and some form of physical
tilt angle limitation would have made a lot of sense. Only some input by
someone actively involved at the time or considerable reverse engineering
on Rob's train would reveal the truth.

Regards
Kit

Thanks again for the info Kit, it's fascinating to hear a view from the inside. After reading your reply, I did a bit more digging around and found that the mods to the tilt mechanism were documented by a paper to the Insititution of Mech. Eng. in 1982 by Boocock and King (see below).

Do you think the train which ran in December 1981 had the Mark 3 system fitted? Didn't BR patent any of this at the time? Bombardier have filed a number of tilting train patents in the US recently.

"when the mark 3 system was adopted, system duplication was partially impared because of difficulties modifying existing vehicles. Thus the chances of a 'hard- over' (9 degrees) tilt failture were increased. To overcome this a supervisory system for detecting tilt failure was devised. A detection unit mounted in each vehicle continuously monitors tilt deficiency. If tilt is eroneos by a threshold angle for a set period,the vehicle is actively uprighted. A tilt locking device device mounted on the bogie is then engaged , so retaining the vehicle in its upright attitude."

That said, the supervisory system itself sounds quite complex. I would have added the boilerplate mechanical limit that you suggest as a backup. It also strikes, me that after partial compensation was adopted, the limits could have been set very conservatively laying the safety concerns to rest one and for all. It would certainly be interesting to see what the end result was from Rob's train.

I grew up close to Shields Depot in Glasgow - I watched the APT come and go, and always wondered about it. I finally rode the 'full-montey' APT in 1984 and can confirm that performance of the tilt mechanism was exemplary. For me the sensation was of whisked along on an expertly driven motorbike. The recent tilt renaisance has started me wondering again... especially when I read blurbs saying that the latest WCML technology is 'light years ahead of the APT'. Whoever said that clearly hadn't taken the trouble to compare the specs or the working timetables.

Gordon,

--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, Kit Spackman <101453.3657@c...> wrote:
> Gordon,
>
> >Some interesting thoughts guys. Kit I think that I confused inwards and
> outwards. I meant towards >each other, but I think you mean into the
> curve.<
>
> I think we BOTH got confused. That's not difficult where railway directions
> are concerned. ... <G>
>
> Assuming we're on the WCML so the line runs roughly North-South, we could
> call the possible tilt directions East or West, say. If we're heading north
> and the curve goes to the right, our train has to tilt East, ie clockwise
> from the driver's position. (termed 'positive tilt' in E-Train terms BTW) A
> failure in this direction will be 'inwards' in your nomenclature.
>
> The train coming toward us would be tilting East as well, but in it's case
> an 'inwards failure' would have to be in the opposite direction, ie West or
> anti-clockwise from the drivers position. (Guess what we called that
> direction on E-Train............? <g>)
>
> 1) The original tilt ban seems to have been December 1980, from the book
> article - and I guess it >was tilting again pretty early in 1981. Did they
> BR quantify the risk and approve, or was something >fixed?<
>
> Sadly I wasn't with BR at that time, so I can't shed any detailed light on
> the exact problem, but it would not have been difficult to limit the
> maximum tilt angle on the P-Trains. It would have been MUCH easier than it
> was on E-Train when we had to exactly the same but for different reasons.
>
> Putting a 'soft bump stop' inside the P-Train tilt jacks would have been
> quick and easy, albeit a bit 'boilerplate'. Limiting the tilt
> electronically would not work as there could be a failure mode, indeed many
> failure modes, when the electronics would not have had any effect. Maybe
> Rob could say if the Last P-Train has such bump stops fitted? They'd be
> short elastomer tubes around the tilt jack piston rods but inside the
> cylinder itself, maybe 1" or 1.5" long and the full diameter of the piston.
>
> On E-Train we used an over-complex system of pull cables and hydraulic
> shut-off valves as the tilt jacks were of such short stroke. I was pretty
> upset at the time that we'd built a super-performance tilt system and then
> they wanted us to STOP it tilting! It took a large amount of design, build
> and development to get this stuff to work and it always looked a bodge job
> to me. I had great pleasure in having to have these bits of E-Train removed
> during the Shildon move so that we could get access to the steering beam
> pin joints <g>
>
> 2) Did this have any bearing on the scrapping in 1986?
>
> I don't know, but I doubt it. By that time P-Train was running with the
> Full Monte tilt system. Leading vehicle acclerometers, jack stroke feedback
> and partial compensation were all active by then, and some form of physical
> tilt angle limitation would have made a lot of sense. Only some input by
> someone actively involved at the time or considerable reverse engineering
> on Rob's train would reveal the truth.
>
> Regards
> Kit

'A Promise Unfulfilled' for sale:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=7541&item=4520163513

Happy Bidding!
Andy

http://AA-Rail-Pics.fotopic.net


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gordon,

>Do you think the train which ran in December 1981 had the Mark 3 system

fitted? Didn't BR patent any of this at the >time? Bombardier have filed a
number of tilting train patents in the US recently.<

I doubt it was the Mk 3 that was installed in Dec 1981. At the time they
quite often ran with different systems at each end of the train, to compare
performance with the same track input. This resulted in loads of hybrid
systems all in service at the same time. Spread this across 3 trains and
you can see the breadth of possibility here.....

I don't know about patents. It wouldn't suprise me if BR never did anything
about it at all, ever. APD never had enough time to do the nice little
extras like that. Bombardier may well be pushing their luck, if anyone took
the trouble to dig deep enough, as their system is, or was, derived from
APT technology, not the least because Trevor Easton, who was one of the
Tilt Development guys on the E-Train, went to Canada to work on the LRC.
The rest, as they a say, is history.

>.....To overcome this a supervisory system for detecting tilt failure was

devised. A detection unit mounted in each >vehicle continuously monitors
tilt deficiency.....<

We did a similar thing on E-Train, but in our case we monitored the angle
between vehicles with the aid of potentiometer and a linkeage made from
model boat propeller shafts and universal joints! (One of these was
'recovered' during the Shildon move and now resides in my garage....) The
idea was that if the train was opearting properly, the angle would never
exceed particular values, depending on train speed. As the E-Train system
was not capable of being locked parallel, we used the pot. to switch
channels, but of course this was a 'one shot deal'. We couldn't afford a
switch back to the failed channel so such a switch meant we should have
slowed down to zero tilt speed. In reality we rarely did...........

That said, the supervisory system itself sounds quite complex. I would have
added the boilerplate mechanical limit that you suggest as a backup. It
also strikes, me that after partial compensation was adopted, the limits
could have been set very conservatively laying the safety concerns to rest
one and for all. It would certainly be interesting to see what the end
result was from Rob's train.

I grew up close to Shields Depot in Glasgow - I watched the APT come and
go, and always wondered about it. I finally rode the 'full-montey' APT in
1984 and can confirm that performance of the tilt mechanism was exemplary.
For me the sensation was of whisked along on an expertly driven motorbike.
The recent tilt renaisance has started me wondering again... especially
when I read blurbs saying that the latest WCML technology is 'light years
ahead of the APT'. Whoever said that clearly hadn't taken the trouble to
compare the specs or the working timetables.
<

Hmmm, having read my reply to Gordon's last comment y'day, it looks as if
CServe cut the second bit of my reply right off the msg. Sorry on their
behalf............

I'll try and remember what I wrote and post it again.

Regards
Kit

--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, Kit Spackman <101453.3657@c...> wrote:

> Hmmm, having read my reply to Gordon's last comment y'day, it looks as if
> CServe cut the second bit of my reply right off the msg. Sorry on their
> behalf............
>
> I'll try and remember what I wrote and post it again.
>
> Regards
> Kit

I'd be interested to see the rest if you can remember Kit. For me it's a revelation that the P-train ran with a mix of tilt systems in December 81. Sounds like the tech team had solved the issues but didn't get time to retrofit properly before the public runs.

Were you on the train on the first Monday Kit? If so did the tilt perform OK on your coach. At the time Sc Region management briefed the press that the tilt failure had been root caused to a circuit breaker having tripped and that this had been rectified. He then went on to say (to a journalist) that the press boys had obviously been overdoing it the night before and were not used to early starts. With hindsight we know that some of the journalists may well have felt sick without proportional tilt. Public relations students probably still use that week as an classic example how to pour petrol on a fire.

Gordon,

Gordon,

>Were you on the train on the first Monday Kit?<

I certainly was!

Even having left BR a few years before, I kept in touch with the project,
as well I could, and managed to buy a ticket for the first southbound trip
after lots of prevarication by BR itself. Apparently there were only 13
real fare paying passengers on that run, the rest being 'media' and guests.
Obviously Ron Puntis had a hand in seat allocation as I ended up in the
very rearmost seat row on the train, along with 3 more ex-APT-E colleagues!

>If so did the tilt perform OK on your coach.<

Superbly! It was pitch black as we left Glasgow and as far as the passenger
view was concerned the track was totally straight. There was no sensation
of curving whatsoever, and until it started to get light, around Abington
curve, the horizion was invisble. When it did become apparent just how fast
we were taking the curves, with the horizon going up and down like a yo-yo,
the media guys started to feel a trifle unwell................ (See below)

I think that first day's run was with a 2 + 8 consist, with only two
leading cars, with no passengers, and 6 cars in the rear half which held
all the passengers, fare paying, guests and media. This helped the
acceleration no doubt with 8000 hp spread across a smaller load case than
the design.

>At the time Sc Region management briefed the press that the tilt failure

had been root caused to a >circuit breaker having tripped and that this had
been rectified.<

AFAIK there was no tilt failure at all on the southbound run that morning.
I know about one on the northbound run later on, but our trip was 100%
trouble free.

>He then went on to say (to a journalist) that the press boys had obviously

been overdoing it the >night before and were not used to early starts.<

I'd agree with that! I think the departure time was 0630, and I stayed in
the same hotel as a lot of the media guys (the one that's part of Glasgow
Central Stn. I can't remember it's name I'm afraid) and they were in the
bar till waaaaaay late the previous night! Some of them were decidedly grey
about the gills boarding the train in the morning.

>With hindsight we know that some of the journalists may well have felt

sick without proportional tilt. >Public relations students probably still
use that week as an classic example how to pour petrol on a >fire.<

At that time the train had fully compensated tilt on all vehicles, but with
leading vehicle accelerometers fitted as I recall. When we got to the Lune
Valley, Ron Puntis came back and said to me 'If anyone deserves this Kit,
you do!' and he opened the door to the rear cab and invited me in for the
ride down the slope!!!

In that position I probably had the best tilt environment of the entire
train, and looking back up the curves as we twisted and turned down the
valley was awe inspring, even to me!! I think we were up around 130 mph at
the time, even though the quoted max. was 125, and the performance was just
superb from my, somewhat biased, point of view.

The overall timing of the event was it's biggest failure to my mind, but
political pressure being what it is, BR Scottish Region presumably felt
they had to show something for their investment. As we know with hindsight
(the world's only exact science.....) weather and component development
were not on the same side as the politicians, but when are they????

Regards
Kit

Wonderful stuff, Kit.

Even from my limited experience of actually riding in the APT, I know what a fantastically effective train it was. I once took my family from Sheffield to London via Preston in order to catch a south-bound service run. Unfortunately, there was an overhead line (ohl) fault and all trains from the north were arriving late behind diesels so the APT run was curtailed. However, in my BR Research capacity of making measurements on the ohl, during APT test runs between Gretna and Beattock, I was invited for a ride on one return run. I didn't refuse!!!

I was left to my own devices and spent most of the 'up' (downhill) trip in the only APT passenger vehicle to have its own separate bogies. The whole process was completely without fuss and, as many have said, the only indication of tilt taking place was the antics of the horizon!

On the return trip I sneaked into the rear cab. Two faces turned to look at me but they didn't throw me out - so I stayed! Only from the cab could you appreciate the curviness of the track and the speedometer was reading 155mph as we climbed towards Beattock.

What a pity that all this couldn't be set down and revealed to the world. But who would want to know? The media - and the public with them - have their own, jaundiced view of the APT and not even the truth will be allowed to shake that prejudice.

Cheers

Gerry

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 24/01/2005 at 07:43 Kit Spackman wrote:

>Gordon,
>
>>Were you on the train on the first Monday Kit?<
>
>I certainly was!
>
>Even having left BR a few years before, I kept in touch with the project,
>as well I could, and managed to buy a ticket for the first southbound trip
>after lots of prevarication by BR itself. Apparently there were only 13
>real fare paying passengers on that run, the rest being 'media' and guests.
>Obviously Ron Puntis had a hand in seat allocation as I ended up in the
>very rearmost seat row on the train, along with 3 more ex-APT-E colleagues!
>
>
>>If so did the tilt perform OK on your coach.<
>
>Superbly! It was pitch black as we left Glasgow and as far as the passenger
>view was concerned the track was totally straight. There was no sensation
>of curving whatsoever, and until it started to get light, around Abington
>curve, the horizion was invisble. When it did become apparent just how fast
>we were taking the curves, with the horizon going up and down like a yo-yo,
>the media guys started to feel a trifle unwell................ (See below)
>
>I think that first day's run was with a 2 + 8 consist, with only two
>leading cars, with no passengers, and 6 cars in the rear half which held
>all the passengers, fare paying, guests and media. This helped the
>acceleration no doubt with 8000 hp spread across a smaller load case than
>the design.
>
>>At the time Sc Region management briefed the press that the tilt failure
>had been root caused to a >circuit breaker having tripped and that this had
>been rectified.<
>
>AFAIK there was no tilt failure at all on the southbound run that morning.
>I know about one on the northbound run later on, but our trip was 100%
>trouble free.
>
>>He then went on to say (to a journalist) that the press boys had obviously
>been overdoing it the >night before and were not used to early starts.<
>
>I'd agree with that! I think the departure time was 0630, and I stayed in
>the same hotel as a lot of the media guys (the one that's part of Glasgow
>Central Stn. I can't remember it's name I'm afraid) and they were in the
>bar till waaaaaay late the previous night! Some of them were decidedly grey
>about the gills boarding the train in the morning.
>
>>With hindsight we know that some of the journalists may well have felt
>sick without proportional tilt. >Public relations students probably still
>use that week as an classic example how to pour petrol on a >fire.<
>
>At that time the train had fully compensated tilt on all vehicles, but with
>leading vehicle accelerometers fitted as I recall. When we got to the Lune
>Valley, Ron Puntis came back and said to me 'If anyone deserves this Kit,
>you do!' and he opened the door to the rear cab and invited me in for the
>ride down the slope!!!
>
>In that position I probably had the best tilt environment of the entire
>train, and looking back up the curves as we twisted and turned down the
>valley was awe inspring, even to me!! I think we were up around 130 mph at
>the time, even though the quoted max. was 125, and the performance was just
>superb from my, somewhat biased, point of view.
>
>The overall timing of the event was it's biggest failure to my mind, but
>political pressure being what it is, BR Scottish Region presumably felt
>they had to show something for their investment. As we know with hindsight
>(the world's only exact science.....) weather and component development
>were not on the same side as the politicians, but when are they????
>
>Regards
>Kit
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>This email has been verified as Virus free
>Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

I take then that if there had of been a poliltical will for APT, there would now be a fleet of APT's running in the country, and there would now be talk of 'son of APT?


---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have no doubt whatsoever!

Cheers

Gerry Bates


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 24/01/2005 at 18:11 Brian Torrens wrote:

>I take then that if there had of been a poliltical will for APT, there
>would now be a fleet of APT's running in the country, and there would now
>be talk of 'son of APT?
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gerry,

>On the return trip I sneaked into the rear cab. Two faces turned to look

at me but they didn't throw >me out - so I stayed! Only from the cab could
you appreciate the curviness of the track and the >speedometer was reading
155mph as we climbed towards Beattock.<

Cor, green with envy! I rode on POP Train both up and down Beattock,
standing outside in the open air (!) at 110 mph and that's quite something
but 155 must have been awesome! I imagine some of the curves must have
needed full 9 deg tilt at that speed. Did you have any sensition of the
vehicles going into the tilt bump stops?

>What a pity that all this couldn't be set down and revealed to the world.

But who would want to know?<

Well, we would for a start, but then we already do now! <g>

>The media - and the public with them - have their own, jaundiced view of

the APT and not even the truth >will be allowed to shake that prejudice.<

That's a sad reflection of the state of our media, let's not let the truth
get in the way of our own pre-formed prejudices <sigh>

Not sure if anyone is in range, but I'll probably be giving my 'APT-E Tilt
Story' slide show and talk at Gloucester Model Railway Club sometime in the
March-April time frame, on a Monday evening. The slides are the ones that
form the 'Kit Spackman Collection' on Paul's E-Train site, but the tales of
madness will be direct from Mr Tilt's mouth. <g>

Regards
Kit

Kit

Not that I can recall!

I've got a few pictures taken from trackside during tests up in Scotland if someone could tell me of the procedure for posting them on the APT Group pages.

Regards

Gerry

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 25/01/2005 at 07:47 Kit Spackman wrote:

>Gerry,
>
Did you have any sensation of the
>vehicles going into the tilt bump stops?
>
>
>Regards
>Kit

Gerry,

>On the return trip I sneaked into the rear cab. Two faces turned to look

at me but they didn't throw >me out - so I stayed! Only from the cab could
you appreciate the curviness of the track and the >speedometer was reading
155mph as we climbed towards Beattock.<

Cor, green with envy! I rode on POP-Train both up and down Beattock,
standing outside in the open air (!) at 110 mph and that's quite something
but 155 must have been awesome! I imagine some of the curves must have
needed full 9 deg tilt at that speed. Did you have any sensition of the
vehicles going into the tilt bump stops?

>What a pity that all this couldn't be set down and revealed to the world.

But who would want to know?<

Well, we would for a start, but then we already do now! <g>

>The media - and the public with them - have their own, jaundiced view of

the APT and not even the truth >will be allowed to shake that prejudice.<

That's a sad reflection of the state of our media, 'let's not let the truth
get in the way of our own pre-formed prejudices' <sigh>

Not sure if anyone is in geographical range, but I'll probably be giving my
'APT-E Tilt Story' slide show and talk at Gloucester Model Railway Club
sometime in the late March-early April time frame, on a Monday evening. The
slides are the ones that form the 'Kit Spackman Collection' on Paul's
E-Train site, but the tales of madness will be direct from Mr Tilt's mouth.
<g>

After more discussion on this I may include some later photos as well, with
Paul's approval.

Regards
Kit

Simply attach your photos to an email and send them to the group and/or you
can post them to the 'photos section' of the group.

I can't wait to see the photos!
Andy

----- Original Message -----

I've got a few pictures taken from trackside during tests up in Scotland if
someone could tell me of the procedure for posting them on the APT Group
pages.

I agree. It looks to me like the P train in its final form was 20 years early rather than 5 years late. There can't have been many technologies in which we led the world in back then.

The what-if is interesting though, perhaps we could have sold it to the Americans and others in the 90s rather than giving it away.

Gordon,

--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry Bates" <gerry@w...> wrote:
> I have no doubt whatsoever!
>
> Cheers
>
> Gerry Bates
>
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 24/01/2005 at 18:11 Brian Torrens wrote:
>
> >I take then that if there had of been a poliltical will for APT, there
> >would now be a fleet of APT's running in the country, and there would now
> >be talk of 'son of APT?
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Definitely jealous of you guys getting a shot at the pointy end! Although the POP at 110mph sounds a bit hairy. Those 2+8 formations certainly went like a rocket. It wasn't just the 8000hp it was the weight. From rough calculations the power/weight was 2.5x an HST and still 50% more than a 390 Pendolino.

Interesting what you say about speed too I don't think that was accidental. The '81 schedule was pretty tight. Some of the average speeds are >125 - it may have been necesarry to hold 130 at times just to keep on schedule.

Gordon,

--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, Kit Spackman <101453.3657@c...> wrote:
> Gordon,
>
> >Were you on the train on the first Monday Kit?<
>
> I certainly was!
>
> Even having left BR a few years before, I kept in touch with the project,
> as well I could, and managed to buy a ticket for the first southbound trip
> after lots of prevarication by BR itself. Apparently there were only 13
> real fare paying passengers on that run, the rest being 'media' and guests.
> Obviously Ron Puntis had a hand in seat allocation as I ended up in the
> very rearmost seat row on the train, along with 3 more ex-APT-E colleagues!
>
>
> >If so did the tilt perform OK on your coach.<
>
> Superbly! It was pitch black as we left Glasgow and as far as the passenger
> view was concerned the track was totally straight. There was no sensation
> of curving whatsoever, and until it started to get light, around Abington
> curve, the horizion was invisble. When it did become apparent just how fast
> we were taking the curves, with the horizon going up and down like a yo-yo,
> the media guys started to feel a trifle unwell................ (See below)
>
> I think that first day's run was with a 2 + 8 consist, with only two
> leading cars, with no passengers, and 6 cars in the rear half which held
> all the passengers, fare paying, guests and media. This helped the
> acceleration no doubt with 8000 hp spread across a smaller load case than
> the design.
>
> >At the time Sc Region management briefed the press that the tilt failure
> had been root caused to a >circuit breaker having tripped and that this had
> been rectified.<
>
> AFAIK there was no tilt failure at all on the southbound run that morning.
> I know about one on the northbound run later on, but our trip was 100%
> trouble free.
>
> >He then went on to say (to a journalist) that the press boys had obviously
> been overdoing it the >night before and were not used to early starts.<
>
> I'd agree with that! I think the departure time was 0630, and I stayed in
> the same hotel as a lot of the media guys (the one that's part of Glasgow
> Central Stn. I can't remember it's name I'm afraid) and they were in the
> bar till waaaaaay late the previous night! Some of them were decidedly grey
> about the gills boarding the train in the morning.
>
> >With hindsight we know that some of the journalists may well have felt
> sick without proportional tilt. >Public relations students probably still
> use that week as an classic example how to pour petrol on a >fire.<
>
> At that time the train had fully compensated tilt on all vehicles, but with
> leading vehicle accelerometers fitted as I recall. When we got to the Lune
> Valley, Ron Puntis came back and said to me 'If anyone deserves this Kit,
> you do!' and he opened the door to the rear cab and invited me in for the
> ride down the slope!!!
>
> In that position I probably had the best tilt environment of the entire
> train, and looking back up the curves as we twisted and turned down the
> valley was awe inspring, even to me!! I think we were up around 130 mph at
> the time, even though the quoted max. was 125, and the performance was just
> superb from my, somewhat biased, point of view.
>
> The overall timing of the event was it's biggest failure to my mind, but
> political pressure being what it is, BR Scottish Region presumably felt
> they had to show something for their investment. As we know with hindsight
> (the world's only exact science.....) weather and component development
> were not on the same side as the politicians, but when are they????
>
> Regards
> Kit

Hi Gerry,

Do you remember anything about the 162mph run? It didn't seem to get much publicity at the time. It's seems a pity that they didn't round off the 2+6 test phase with a high profile record attempt over the christmas break in 79.

The 2+6 would certainly have the power to go much faster. I guess that there would be caution about taking things too far outwith the normal spec.

Looking forward to those pics.

Gordon,

--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry Bates" <gerry@w...> wrote:
> Kit
>
> Not that I can recall!
>
> I've got a few pictures taken from trackside during tests up in Scotland if someone could tell me of the procedure for posting them on the APT Group pages.
>
> Regards
>
> Gerry
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 25/01/2005 at 07:47 Kit Spackman wrote:
>
> >Gerry,
> >
> Did you have any sensation of the
> >vehicles going into the tilt bump stops?
> >
> >
> >Regards
> >Kit

Attachments :

Is there a limit on the size of message which the Group can accept? I'll try sending each picture separately.

So, when you've got them all, the observant amongst you will notice that two of the pictures aren't of APT, in fact one isn't even of a train!

I thought you might be interested in what was going on at the time. One shows my colleague on the embankment with a Vinten high speed camera which could take several hundred frames per second. This was focused on a registration arm. When the film was returned to Derby a special analyzer was used to examine the film frame by frame and determine the dynamic displacement of the ohl at that point. The other shows how speed was measured - a standard police-style radar gun mounted on a camera tripod.

Cheers

Gerry

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 25/01/2005 at 17:34 Andy Appleton wrote:

>Simply attach your photos to an email and send them to the group and/or
>you
>can post them to the 'photos section' of the group.
>
>I can't wait to see the photos!
>Andy
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>I've got a few pictures taken from trackside during tests up in Scotland if
>someone could tell me of the procedure for posting them on the APT Group
>pages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>This email has been verified as Virus free
>Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

Attachments :

Here's number 2.

Cheers

Gerry

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 25/01/2005 at 17:34 Andy Appleton wrote:

>Simply attach your photos to an email and send them to the group and/or
>you
>can post them to the 'photos section' of the group.
>
>I can't wait to see the photos!
>Andy
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>I've got a few pictures taken from trackside during tests up in Scotland if
>someone could tell me of the procedure for posting them on the APT Group
>pages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>This email has been verified as Virus free
>Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

Attachments :

Here's number 3.

Cheers

Gerry

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 25/01/2005 at 17:34 Andy Appleton wrote:

>Simply attach your photos to an email and send them to the group and/or
>you
>can post them to the 'photos section' of the group.
>
>I can't wait to see the photos!
>Andy
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>I've got a few pictures taken from trackside during tests up in Scotland if
>someone could tell me of the procedure for posting them on the APT Group
>pages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>This email has been verified as Virus free
>Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

Attachments :

Here's the final one.

Cheers

Gerry

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 25/01/2005 at 17:34 Andy Appleton wrote:

>Simply attach your photos to an email and send them to the group and/or
>you
>can post them to the 'photos section' of the group.
>
>I can't wait to see the photos!
>Andy
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>I've got a few pictures taken from trackside during tests up in Scotland if
>someone could tell me of the procedure for posting them on the APT Group
>pages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>This email has been verified as Virus free
>Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

Attachments :

Number 4 was apparently too big but I'll try again with a smaller version.

Cheers

Gerry

Sorry but I can't see or download any of the photos (there is no
link).

Why not upload them to the Photos section anyway? Just go to the
Photos section, click on 'Add Photo', specify the locations of the
photos on your computer using the 'Browse' buttons and specify the
descriptions in the 'Name' fields, and then click on the 'Upload'
button. Total upload cannot exceed 5MB.

Great photos Gerry!!! I really like No.5 - anymoe tilt & I think the train
would have fallen off the rails! How did passengers remain seated without
being strapped in!?!

Ian

Check out
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northyorkshire/travel/story/tilting_train/index.s
html
Article about tilting trains.

Brian

Well spotted, but we've seen this before. You will note my name in the credits because the original contained some factual divergences!

Regards

Gerry

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 28/01/2005 at 07:48 Brian wrote:

>Check out
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/northyorkshire/travel/story/tilting_train/index.shtml
>Article about tilting trains.
>

Brian,

>http://www.bbc.co.uk/northyorkshire/travel/story/tilting_train/index.s<

Nice one, well spotted!

One of the best, most balanced media items I've seen on APT.

I tried to comment on their 'Contact Us' page, but it won't let me write
enough to make sense. I note Gerry gets an 'Honourable Mention' on there,
so how did you contact them please Gerry?

Regards
Kit

Hey, that's not fair. How can you see the photos? Can anyone else see
them?

Tut, tut, Ian!

A sacrilegious statement. The whole idea was that the passengers didn't notice the tilt.

Cheers

Gerry

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 27/01/2005 at 18:46 Ian Ellis wrote:

How did passengers remain seated without
>being strapped in!?!
>
>Ian

Alan wrote:

> Hey, that's not fair. How can you see the photos? Can anyone else see
> them?

They were attached to the emails. My mail client (Mozilla) just
displayed them for me. In other clients they may appear as attached
files you have to save out and view separately.

I can't see into the files area, so if they had have been uploaded
there, I couldn't have seen them. Nice photos Gerry, and I appreciate
being able to see them - thanks :)

James Moody
--
(¯\ _ | aka: Major Denis Bloodnok
\ \ / ) | ICQ: 7000473
\ \___/ / |
|/ _)| ) | No more can they keep us in
( (|_| ) | Listen, damn it, we will win
\ / | They see it right, they see it well
|====| | But they think this saves us from our hell

Only those members who receive individual emails would have seen the
photos as Yahoo! no longer archive attachments. I'll upload a couple
of Gerry's photos to the 'Photos' section of the group.

Take Care,
Andy
(Group Owner)

<---Original Message--->

How can you see the photos? Can anyone else see them?

Aha! Stunning photos. Many thanks Gerry, and thanks to Andy for
explaining why I couldn't see the photos in the messages.

Gerry,

>Rob hasn't got the pictures posted yet so I've posted them on my own APT

page, with a bit of >information, so see
www.springhill.f9.co.uk/apt.htm#uplift<

Ah, excellent piccies!

I note the caption about the anomolous tilting on the 2nd vehicle. Even
more odd is the fact that it seems to have failed to give too MUCH tilt. I
was under the impression that the P-Train tilt systems reverted to 'track
parallel' under failure conditions rather than go hard over.

I suppose it's possible that your pic could have caught the moment of
failure itself though. I have one of E-Train like that on Upper Broughton
curve on the test track, but of course with E-Train almost every tilt
failure resulted in too much tilt! <g>

Regards
Kit

Gordon,

>Although the POP at 110mph sounds a bit hairy.<

Er, yes, you could say so , but actually it was almost a non-event.

We stood outside the control cabins, on the downwind side of course, with
our headsets plugged into the sockets I'd conveniently located by the door
pillars <g> As the vehicle profile was even smaller than APT-E (there was
no skin, so no curved formers) there was zero chance of being thumped by
any of the railway structures. I have some outstanding photos of the Lune
Valley, Durham, York Station even, all taken through the POP-Train
structure.

There was also the tale of the guy in the Porsche 928................

Standing in the loop at the top of Beattock one day, there was this guy in
the 928 parked in the layby watching us get ready for a run down the bank.
As we got the green he got into his car and took off down the hill at a
fair rate of knots. Some time later, at the bottom of the hill toward
Lockerbie, the A74 ran right alongside the track and we caught the 928 up
and passed him, doing an even fairer rate of knots! Trevor and I were
standing in our usual position outside and gave him a wave as we passed <g>

Regards
Kit

Great times Kit. While we are on the subject I have some POP questions:

1) Was the POP used to test the P train bogies?
2) When did it do it's stint on Beatock?
3) What was used to pull it?
4) Did it end up with the Mk 1 Tilt system?
5) Recently saw an old photo of the POP being hauled by a Clayton. Did the RTC choose Clayton's specially or was it just what they could get.
6) What happened to it?

Thanks,

Gordon,

--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, Kit Spackman <101453.3657@c...> wrote:
> Gordon,
>
> >Although the POP at 110mph sounds a bit hairy.<
>
> Er, yes, you could say so , but actually it was almost a non-event.
>
> We stood outside the control cabins, on the downwind side of course, with
> our headsets plugged into the sockets I'd conveniently located by the door
> pillars <g> As the vehicle profile was even smaller than APT-E (there was
> no skin, so no curved formers) there was zero chance of being thumped by
> any of the railway structures. I have some outstanding photos of the Lune
> Valley, Durham, York Station even, all taken through the POP-Train
> structure.
>
> There was also the tale of the guy in the Porsche 928................
>
> Standing in the loop at the top of Beattock one day, there was this guy in
> the 928 parked in the layby watching us get ready for a run down the bank.
> As we got the green he got into his car and took off down the hill at a
> fair rate of knots. Some time later, at the bottom of the hill toward
> Lockerbie, the A74 ran right alongside the track and we caught the 928 up
> and passed him, doing an even fairer rate of knots! Trevor and I were
> standing in our usual position outside and gave him a wave as we passed <g>
>
> Regards
> Kit

Gordon,

Cor, that's going to tax even my memory! <g>

>1) Was the POP used to test the P train bogies?<

Yes, in later life. The prototype P-Train passenger car, named 'Lab 8
Pilot' (RDB975636), was put in between PC3 and PC4 with the first two BT11
bogies in the joints and Hastings Coach type H4X bogies holding up the
ends. PC3 and 4 had skins added and the whole shebang was painted in the
R&D blue/red scheme. There's some pics of that in my collection on Paul's
site and also in Colin Marsden's '25 years of railway research' book.

>2) When did it do it's stint on Beatock?<

Sadly I don't have the POP Train log books, and it's test programme was
interleaved with E-Train and Hastings etc. so I was whizzing from one train
to another all through the early 70s. I'm afraid I can't remember exactly
but we had two test sessions up there, working between Carstairs and
Lockerbie. The test runs were all soutbound and it was during the period
that the WCML was fully electrified as far as Crewe and the LM Region were
using twin Class 50s north of there on service trains. Our first session
was just after the wires went live as far as Glasgow and we had the
prototype Class 87 with the thyristor drive in the consist, 87 101 I think.
That might help fix it in the time scale.

3) What was used to pull it?<

You name it, we used it! <g>

At various times POP was hauled by a Unimog, Class 08, Class 25, Class 17,
Class 45, Class 46, Class 47, Class 86, Class 86-1, Class 86-2, Class 87. I
don't think we ever used a Deltic but it would have been fun! Normally we
had a Derby Shed 46 or 47 when we were around the RTC, but on the WCML we
used the 86-1 prototypes. They built 3 of them, with Flexicoil suspension
and high gears so we could manage 125 with the light loading of POP Train.

4) Did it end up with the Mk 1 Tilt system?<

I suspect you mean an APT-P Mk 1 system, don't you? If so the answers yes,
twice <g>

The POP-Train was the only vehicle to actually move using the original
Hawker-Siddley Dynamics built E-Train tilt system, which we called the Mk.
1. It was woefully inadequate for it's purpose and one of my first jobs was
to develop the Mk 2 hydraulics packs which were installed before our first
runs at Old Dalby.

In it's later life, with Lab 8 in the conisist, POP-Train had the original
P-Train 'Mk. 1' tilt system installed in Lab 8 and in PC3 (I think....).
PC3 actually had two tilt systems at the same time, it's original E-Train
Mk 2 system and the P-Train Mk 1 system hung underneath it. I never had the
chance of riding on it in that form as I was doing all the fatigue tests on
the P-Train tilt pack in the lab, but it would have been interesting to
compare systems just by stepping from one vehicle to the next.

5) Recently saw an old photo of the POP being hauled by a Clayton. Did the
RTC choose Clayton's specially or was it just what they could get.<

Did we ever use the Clayton! What a bag of bolts THAT was! I'm not sure how
the darn thing ended up on the R&D fleet but there were two of them at one
time. One was converted to an unpowered generator and we used the other for
all sorts of slow speed test trains. POP used the 17 during our early runs
at Old Dalby in 1971.

A Tale of a Clayton follows..... <g>

The cab of a Class 17 was GINORMOUS, big enough to have a good party in,
primarily because it was designed to have a vertical train heating boiler
in the middle, with the exhaust going out through the roof. These were
never actually fitted, leaving this huge space in the middle, and as a
result the 17 could carry large numbers of 'extra' crew members. We used
this facility to minimise the number of people crammed into our Lab coaches
so that some R&D people were in the 17's cab at Old Dalby for test runs. On
one occasion I was doing this duty, calling the mileposts over the intercom
and warning the Lab coach staff of track events. On the way back to the
depot on a very hot afternoon I was looking alongside the hood of the 17
and saw smoke coming out from under the doors so I thought I better mention
it to the loco crew. The 2nd man said 'Oh ar, that'll be on fire again
then!'

On FIRE?????

Without batting an eyelid he picked up an extinguisher, bailed out of the
cab door onto the footplates and jammed the extinguisher under the access
door. The smoke promptly stopped and we carried on without missing a beat!
When we got back to Old Dalby they had a look inside and found some oil
pipe had come loose, but it seemed this was Standard Operational Procedure
for Claytons. It was certainly the last time I rode in there I can tell
you!

6) What happened to it?<

POP Train was sadly scrapped in an act of corporate vandalism I'm afraid.
Another Group member posted the date of this a little while ago I recall,
but I can't remember, sorry. As Europe's first ever tilting train I feel it
deserved as much preservation as HSF-1 does. I keep trying to persuade Paul
that we should build a replica POP-Train, it's only angle iron and RSJs
after all <g>

Ah nostalgia, not what it was..............

Regards
Kit

Gordon & Kit

>Did we ever use the Clayton! What a bag of bolts THAT was! I'm not sure how
>the darn thing ended up on the R&D fleet but there were two of them at one
>time. One was converted to an unpowered generator . . .

I can throw some light on R&D's acquisition of at least one Clayton.

Before I joined the Instrumentation Section and made my acquaintance with test equipment for things APT PoP and E - and with Kit, of course - I worked on something called the plasma torch. This was a device which shot very hot ionised gas at the rail head with the idea of curing the autumn leaf problem. It was a great device for precise cutting of thick sheets of metal in manufacturing processes but never made it as an adhesion improving device and the reason I joined Instrumentation was that the project was cancelled.

The characteristic of a plasma torch was that, in order to heat the stream of gas to a very high temperature, you had to pass a very high current through it. You needed a quite high voltage to start the process - like a spark plug breaking down the gap between electrodes - but then it settled down to the odd volt or two. (This is the principal of arc welding, of course, but you break down the gap by touching the electrode on the work-piece.)

The first museum piece we acquired was a Metrovick Co-Bo. This was not only used to haul our test train but also to measure adhesion by motoring a single axle until it slipped. Thus we could tell whether we had made any improvement.

Power for the plasma torches was obtained from a motley collection of ancient generator vans so we obviously made a strange sight!

Then we got ambitious. We would have a brand new test vehicle which was to be a modern 4-wheel van with suspension which came from the fruits of R&D studies. The axles would be independently braked so that, with the plasma torches mounted between them, we could determine the improvement in adhesion by braking each axle until it started to slip and measuring the force in the brakes. This was a rare example of a 4-wheeled van, being fitted with gangway connections.

We then needed a power source and redundant Claytons were coming available. The one we were to use as a mobile generator was recognisable by the bunch of thick cables laid along one bonnet. But that was as far as it got!

The other orphan/stray taken in by R&D I remember, was a Baby Deltic.

Regards

Gerry

lets finish e-train first kit then ill be up for getting the weilder out and
starting on a pop train for you, just dont know were your get the bogies
from or tilt paks or even a place to put it but ime always up for a
challenge. unless you fancy a scaled down version?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kit Spackman" <101453.3657@...>
To: <Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 11:05 AM
Subject: <APT Group> POP Train questions


>
> Gordon,
>
> Cor, that's going to tax even my memory! <g>
>
> >1) Was the POP used to test the P train bogies?<
>
> Yes, in later life. The prototype P-Train passenger car, named 'Lab 8
> Pilot' (RDB975636), was put in between PC3 and PC4 with the first two
BT11
> bogies in the joints and Hastings Coach type H4X bogies holding up the
> ends. PC3 and 4 had skins added and the whole shebang was painted in the
> R&D blue/red scheme. There's some pics of that in my collection on Paul's
> site and also in Colin Marsden's '25 years of railway research' book.
>
> >2) When did it do it's stint on Beatock?<
>
> Sadly I don't have the POP Train log books, and it's test programme was
> interleaved with E-Train and Hastings etc. so I was whizzing from one
train
> to another all through the early 70s. I'm afraid I can't remember exactly
> but we had two test sessions up there, working between Carstairs and
> Lockerbie. The test runs were all soutbound and it was during the period
> that the WCML was fully electrified as far as Crewe and the LM Region were
> using twin Class 50s north of there on service trains. Our first session
> was just after the wires went live as far as Glasgow and we had the
> prototype Class 87 with the thyristor drive in the consist, 87 101 I
think.
> That might help fix it in the time scale.
>
> 3) What was used to pull it?<
>
> You name it, we used it! <g>
>
> At various times POP was hauled by a Unimog, Class 08, Class 25, Class 17,
> Class 45, Class 46, Class 47, Class 86, Class 86-1, Class 86-2, Class 87.
I
> don't think we ever used a Deltic but it would have been fun! Normally we
> had a Derby Shed 46 or 47 when we were around the RTC, but on the WCML we
> used the 86-1 prototypes. They built 3 of them, with Flexicoil suspension
> and high gears so we could manage 125 with the light loading of POP Train.
>
> 4) Did it end up with the Mk 1 Tilt system?<
>
> I suspect you mean an APT-P Mk 1 system, don't you? If so the answers yes,
> twice <g>
>
> The POP-Train was the only vehicle to actually move using the original
> Hawker-Siddley Dynamics built E-Train tilt system, which we called the Mk.
> 1. It was woefully inadequate for it's purpose and one of my first jobs
was
> to develop the Mk 2 hydraulics packs which were installed before our first
> runs at Old Dalby.
>
> In it's later life, with Lab 8 in the conisist, POP-Train had the original
> P-Train 'Mk. 1' tilt system installed in Lab 8 and in PC3 (I think....).
> PC3 actually had two tilt systems at the same time, it's original E-Train
> Mk 2 system and the P-Train Mk 1 system hung underneath it. I never had
the
> chance of riding on it in that form as I was doing all the fatigue tests
on
> the P-Train tilt pack in the lab, but it would have been interesting to
> compare systems just by stepping from one vehicle to the next.
>
> 5) Recently saw an old photo of the POP being hauled by a Clayton. Did the
> RTC choose Clayton's specially or was it just what they could get.<
>
> Did we ever use the Clayton! What a bag of bolts THAT was! I'm not sure
how
> the darn thing ended up on the R&D fleet but there were two of them at one
> time. One was converted to an unpowered generator and we used the other
for
> all sorts of slow speed test trains. POP used the 17 during our early runs
> at Old Dalby in 1971.
>
> A Tale of a Clayton follows..... <g>
>
> The cab of a Class 17 was GINORMOUS, big enough to have a good party in,
> primarily because it was designed to have a vertical train heating boiler
> in the middle, with the exhaust going out through the roof. These were
> never actually fitted, leaving this huge space in the middle, and as a
> result the 17 could carry large numbers of 'extra' crew members. We used
> this facility to minimise the number of people crammed into our Lab
coaches
> so that some R&D people were in the 17's cab at Old Dalby for test runs.
On
> one occasion I was doing this duty, calling the mileposts over the
intercom
> and warning the Lab coach staff of track events. On the way back to the
> depot on a very hot afternoon I was looking alongside the hood of the 17
> and saw smoke coming out from under the doors so I thought I better
mention
> it to the loco crew. The 2nd man said 'Oh ar, that'll be on fire again
> then!'
>
> On FIRE?????
>
> Without batting an eyelid he picked up an extinguisher, bailed out of the
> cab door onto the footplates and jammed the extinguisher under the access
> door. The smoke promptly stopped and we carried on without missing a beat!
> When we got back to Old Dalby they had a look inside and found some oil
> pipe had come loose, but it seemed this was Standard Operational Procedure
> for Claytons. It was certainly the last time I rode in there I can tell
> you!
>
> 6) What happened to it?<
>
> POP Train was sadly scrapped in an act of corporate vandalism I'm afraid.
> Another Group member posted the date of this a little while ago I recall,
> but I can't remember, sorry. As Europe's first ever tilting train I feel
it
> deserved as much preservation as HSF-1 does. I keep trying to persuade
Paul
> that we should build a replica POP-Train, it's only angle iron and RSJs
> after all <g>
>
> Ah nostalgia, not what it was..............
>
> Regards
> Kit
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

A superb collection of APT items is on eBay see

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7131770838

A brochure for the APT-E
2 brochures for the APT-P
A supplement from the Railway Gazette `Railway Gazette puts APT in
perspective' from May 1980.
Supplement from the Railnews which opens out to a long poster showing
drawings of the Intercity APT (Class 370).
Cartoon from the Daily Mail on 5th May 1982
A specimen Boarding Pass for the APT.

A great start to any APT collection !


Rob
www.apt-p.com


PS If YOU win can I have a scan of the Daily Mail cartoon ??

Kit & Gerry, Thanks for bringing the old RTC days back to life. I hope you'll bear with me for a few more questions. I didn't appreciate just how much work was done with these vehicles.

> Yes, in later life. The prototype P-Train passenger car, named 'Lab 8
> Pilot' (RDB975636), was put in between PC3 and PC4 with the first two

BT11

First 3 dumb but hopefully easy questions:
1) What did POP mean?
2) Why PC4, didn't PC mean power car in APTE days? POP car?
3) Pilot, Mentor etc. &co: how were the names chosen at the RTC?

>
> Sadly I don't have the POP Train log books, and it's test programme was
> interleaved with E-Train and Hastings etc. so I was whizzing from one

What do you think happened to the contents of the RTC? There must have been a tremendous amount of data and lab books etc.. I believe that the NRM has very little relating to the APT. I also heard that a lot was handed to GEC/Metro Cammel at IC225 project start. Hopefully it didn't all get skipped.

> the P-Train tilt pack in the lab, but it would have been interesting to
> compare systems just by stepping from one vehicle to the next.
>

Was there much evolution of the motion sensor design the POP and E to the Mk 1 P?

> The cab of a Class 17 was GINORMOUS, big enough to have a good party in,

I wondered if was chosen because of the built in observatory, but I guess it was more a case of what was available. Hellfire as they say!

> Power for the plasma torches was obtained from a motley collection of ancient generator vans so we obviously made a strange sight!

The plasma toch solution sounds a bit extreme Gerry, probably tricky to get a safety case for that one these days. Although, I did notice a train blasting the railhead with some kind of high pressure jets the other morning.

> The first museum piece we acquired was a Metrovick Co-Bo.

Was the CO-BO chosen with adhesion tests in mind or was it just what was available? RTC must have been the original strategic reserve, pitty more of it wasn't preserved - it must have been pretty tricky keeping them going though.

> lets finish e-train first kit then ill be up for getting the weilder out and
> starting on a pop train for you, just dont know were your get the bogies
> from or tilt paks or even a place to put it but ime always up for a
> challenge. unless you fancy a scaled down version?

Yeh you must have a big garage Kit. Can you remember enough of the detail to rebuild them? Ultimatley some POP models alongside the E Train would be a great way to tell the story. Great job on the E-train guys.

Gordon,

Gordon

>1) What did POP mean?

I'll leave Kit to answer that one. I know, of course, but I feel it's his province (What do you mean, it never stopped me before!)

>3) Pilot, Mentor etc. &co: how were the names chosen at the RTC?

Many of the names, with a suitable connotation, were chosen from Greek or Roman mythology. So we had Mercury, the messenger of the gods, used for a S&T research vehicle. Prometheus, who "lighted his torch at the chariot of the sun and brought down fire to man", was used for an overhead line research vehicle. (Bit tenuous, that one!)

>
>
>What do you think happened to the contents of the RTC? There must have
>been a tremendous amount of data and lab books etc.. I believe that the
>NRM has very little relating to the APT. I also heard that a lot was
>handed to GEC/Metro Cammel at IC225 project start. Hopefully it didn't all
>get skipped.

Much of the material must have passed to BR Research's successor, and one time nuclear research organisation, AEA Technology. However, remember that APT-P was the responsibility of the DM&EE's design department which simply disappeared even before privatisation.

>
>I wondered if was chosen because of the built in observatory, but I guess
>it was more a case of what was available. Hellfire as they say!
>Was the CO-BO chosen with adhesion tests in mind or was it just what was
>available?

More a case of what was available, as you say. I think the Co-Bo was enthusiastically embraced at the time because the centre axle of the 'Co' was thought to be ideal as the adhesion measuring device (tribometer). Incidentally, the gangway-fitted van I described, which was to be the next stage of plasma torch development, became part of the Tribometer Train - ie it went on to measure adhesion but without the plasma torches.

>
>The plasma toch solution sounds a bit extreme Gerry, probably tricky to
>get a safety case for that one these days.

We even had troubled at the time convincing people (and ourselves!) that it didn't interfere with track-circuits!

>

Regards

Gerry

---

ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

Gordon,

>First 3 dumb but hopefully easy questions:
>1) What did POP mean?<

Because POP Train was made from two Power Car structures it was a
Power-0-Power consist, thus POP.

Paul and I reproduced this formation with the two real Power Cars at York
when we moved E-Train (half of it...) across to the Thrall Yard. Then we
connected PC1 to PC2 for the first time ever and I rode across to Thrall
standing on the joint to observe the behaviour of the centre bogie steering
beam. More than once I reflected that I'd had the same view umpteen times
on POP Train but without the cladding! <g>

2) Why PC4, didn't PC mean power car in APTE days? POP car?

Precisely <g> PC1 and 2 were the real Power Cars, PC3 and 4 were 'dynamic
test vehicles'.

3) Pilot, Mentor etc. &co: how were the names chosen at the RTC?

Gerry answered that pretty eloquently. When it came down to APD-only test
vehicles we were pretty prosaic in our namings. I mean, we called the
ex-Hastings line buffet car 'Hastings' and the APT-P power car test vehicle
'Trestrol' because it was one! <g>.

I think the naming of Hastings coach is down to me actually, as I recall a
pretty heated meeting about the naming, with all sorts of wierd and
wonderful suggestions being bandied about. I had to be somewhere else
afterward and said testily 'Why don't we just call it Hastings?' Alistair
Gilchrist looked up and replied 'Well, that's about the first sensible
suggestion we've had, Hastings it will be!' and that was that!

>What do you think happened to the contents of the RTC? There must have

been a >tremendous amount of data and lab books etc.. I believe that the
NRM has very little relating >to the APT.<

Actually they have, they just don't know that they have and they won't let
anyone look......

Paul and I have been trying for years to gain access to this part of the
records and have been side-tracked every time. My wife, Mary, used to work
in the Registary at the RTC and around the time we took E-Train to York she
spent ages bundling APD stuff up together, those files which weren't needed
for P-Train anyway, and these were all transfered to the NRM. Some stuff
was scrapped though, and the E-Train tilt log books were on that list, but
I decided that was NOT going to happen. This is why they are about 4 ft
behind me as I write.....

>I also heard that a lot was handed to GEC/Metro Cammel at IC225 project

start. Hopefully it >didn't all get skipped.<

It probably was. 'Big business' worldwide has no time or use for history,
all they think about is money these days, and keeping old records cost
money. That's why organisations like Paul and Rob's Groups exist, because
no-one in the commercial world has any time nor feels the need to do the
same job, sad to say. [Cynic hat very firmly in place here....]

>Was there much evolution of the motion sensor design the POP and E to the

Mk 1 P? <

Very much so. The orginal POP and E train tilt sensors (they remained the
same, POP usually leading E by 2-3 months) were very high accuracy, and
very expensive, servo-electronic accelerometers with a psuedo-spirit level
device as a monitor accelerometer. There were four of the former and one of
the latter per vehicle. While crude, we found the spirit level thingie gave
just as good a proportional signal as the expensive ones, was loads more
reliable, and cost about 1/50th the price. You can guess what happened
next.....

Hastings coach, with it's H4X bogies and Mk 3 (E-Train numbering) Tilt
system, had spirit level type sensors and it worked just fine. Later in
life we fitted lateral position sensors to the bolster (LVDTs for the
knowledgeable) and I believe this is the system that went onto P-Train to
start with. Later they added 'leading vehicle sensors' and various other
devices but by then I'd moved on to other things.

>I wondered if was chosen because of the built in observatory, but I guess

it was more a case >of what was available. Hellfire as they say!<

I think it was just lying around at the time <g> I can't remember if the
other 17 had been converted to a generator by then or not. Gerry may have a
better handle on that time scale.

>The plasma toch solution sounds a bit extreme Gerry, probably tricky to

get a safety case for >that one these days. Although, I did notice a train
blasting the railhead with some kind of high >pressure jets the other
morning.<

E-train was built with the plasma torch brackets in place, but I don't
think we ever ran with one installed. I thought I read a piece the other
day about this idea coming back to life for some reason though! Those track
cleaners use super high pressure water jets to get the leaves off the
track. I believe it works at about 6000 psi too, just as dangerous as
plasma torches!

>RTC must have been the original strategic reserve, pitty more of it wasn't

preserved - it must >have been pretty tricky keeping them going though.<

It was a bit like a diesel version of Barry Yard there at times. I have one
picture of E-Train taken from the roof of Brunel House that shows APT-E,
the Co-Bo, the Baby Deltic and the Warship all in the same shot. The
Warship, 832 'Onslaught', was originally obtained to act as an APT
transmission test loco. The idea was to take out one of the diesels and
gearboxes and replace it with an APT engine-gearbox but that never
happened.

When the crew brought 832 to the RTC it was late one night, about 9.30 pm,
and we were struggling to get POP Train ready for a test the next day. 832
came down the slope from the main line and stopped outside the RTC yard
gates, much to our amazement as a) no-one had seen a working Warship for
years and b) we wondered what one was doing so far from the WR. The
Inspector came over to the gate and asked us to let them in, but no-one had
a key to the padlock! I hoofed over to the garage, where the keys were
kept, and brought every one back and we spent 15 mins or so before we found
the right one. The loco crew were getting pretty tee'd-off by now, as they
were WR guys and were a LONG way from home. They came through the gates
like a diesel F1 car, gave me the keys, shoved an official form in front of
me, said 'Sign 'ere mate!' and headed off to the station......

I was sorely tempted to try and shunt 832 along a bit, but was persuaded
otherwise <g>

>Yeh you must have a big garage Kit. Can you remember enough of the detail

to rebuild >them?<

Actualy no, it's full of a Vauxhall prototype at the moment anyway.

We don't need detail, we have a 3D drawing of POP Train at Shildon, it's
called E-Train! <g> As the structures we pretty well identical we could
copy the E-Train Power car frames. There are enough photos about to copy
the ballast weights etc and I could do the interior of the cabins from
memory, I spent enough time in there for sure!

>Ultimatley some POP models alongside the E Train would be a great way to

tell the story.<

Actually that's a darn good idea! Doing an 00 model of POP Train would be a
good move, and it wouldn't be all that difficult either, apart from the
bogies. I'm not sure I'd want to do an N gauge one, that WOULD be fiddly,
but you never know.......... hmmmmmmmm.

Regards
Kit