NotAgain

I'm familiar with both sites, in fact it's where a lot of this line of questioning comes from! One particular press release, archived on the site talks about keeping the capability for 155mph running, despite the intent to initially run APT-S sets at 125mph, so I'm assuming BR would have wanted more than 3,000kW for a single set if that was the design intent, but I don't really know enough to be sure. Also, the steep grades around Beattock and Shap would be a formidable obstacle, considering that even at 110mph (Class 87 & 90 hauled trains) they used a 3,730kW loco. The full length Class 370 (6+2+6) set weighed 434 tonnes according to Wikipedia, which is some ~65+ tons lighter than and Intercity 225 rake with Class 91, but seeing as the 225 uses 4,830kW for a design speed of 140mph, I can't help but think an APT-S would need at least an equivalent amount of oomph to a Class 90. I may well be missing something, though.

Evening all, I've seen it said in a few places now that the Class 91 is not only the spiritual successor of the APT, but essentially an APT-S power car without the tilt mechanism. I was wondering is anyone knew how close to reality that statement is? Particularly, if the APT-S had come to fruition, would an individual Driving Motor have had a similar drivetrain, or at least power output, to a Class 91 (4,830 kW)? The original APT-P's Non Driving Motor vehicles achieved 3,000 kW each, for a total of 6,000 for a full set, and a lot of what I've run across suggests that the APT-S would have run with a single power car with a DVT at the other end for a lot of formations, and I can't help but think 3,000kW might leave it somewhat anaemic for hauling 9 cars plus a DVT, or more. Does anyone know more about those plans? Were those ideas even developed? I don't know enough about the 91 to know how well its internals would translate into a tilting vehicle, but I'd guess not all that well, but almost all of this is pure speculation anyway. Any input would be wonderful.

Thank you everyone for the information! I suppose the only question left is would it be worthwhile modifying one of Hornby's new 370s to have a single Driving Motor at one end and and a DVT at the other, like this image from https://www.apt-p.com/APTConfigurations.htm Or even to do something like the APT-Q arrangement from the same source: Or whether I ought to just stick with what comes out of the box. I've never modified a model like that, and I'm quite fearful of messing it up on something that expensive.

The APT-P's centrally located power cars had no gangways throughout them or passenger access to them, that much I already know. A shortened APT rake is going to be a centrepiece of the layout I'm working on, and it would be convenient to run it with only one buffet car, so I'd like to know the following: Firstly, why did BR decide to build and run the Class 370s as, effectively, two separate trains, operating back-to-back? And secondly, would it have been feasible to install a passenger gangway through the NDM to allow access from one side of the train to the other, not unlike the Stadler Class 755s that Greater Anglia operate? Many thanks in advance.

Thanks the tip, but I don't think I was clear with my original question, I meant how feasible would it have been to convert a full-size version. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for the help.

I'm coming to the end of the planning stages of a layout and am looking at rolling stock for a short section of Tramway. I have a deep love for the Feltham trams of London and Leeds, and would like to use them for (at least some) of the rolling stock, but I would like to know about the feasiblity of converting an ordinary Feltham to the centre-entrance configuration of no. 331, one of the prototypes. Is it a matter of rebuilding the bodywork, or is it trickier than that? For reference, the time period for this rebuild to have occurred would be 1960-64, after this tramway purchased part of Leeds' retired tram fleet. Thanks in advance!