muddy water Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Just been tidying up the modelling room after cutting and shutting APT intermediate coaches. I was left with a pile of spare bits. So I made up the APT equivalent of a DVT after seeing this site. (Model is not complete yet!) http://www.apt-p.com/APTConfigurations.htm It can then be used with a APT set as an 8 car train. APT-Q or with more work the APT-S. I know these were designs that were never used, but have anyone made some what if models? 6 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixie Dean Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) I think it's a very valid thing to do, and would be a great talking point when running at an exhibition. Be nice to see it all finished and running! I would encourage you to go for an APT S with a driving power car and the DVT. I've remotored my APT following the method used by legomanbiffo (Heljan 26/27/33 chassis with extended drive shafts) and it goes great with 2 extra articulated coaches which Shane on here has made in the past. Almost a shame that Hornby are going to retool it! But I had signed up for a DJM one and I shall probably get a new Hornby one as well. I have also been cutting and shutting Eurostar motor coaches and made up 4 articulated coaches which are to be repainted into GNER navy blue and red to make a 10 car train. I was short of the connectors for the articulated bogies and decided to contact Hornby customer services for a couple, as they are making them again at the moment. Quite surprisingly, I received a couple free of charge in the post this morning. I had also mentioned that I could do with a BWHS pantograph (didn't say why though) and one of them of the Class 87 was included. This I intended to fit on a raft on top of my APT! Edited January 10, 2020 by Dixie Dean additions 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted January 10, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) I also made a start at the beginning of 2018 🙂 Edited July 12, 2022 by RedgateModels 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Just now, RedgateModels said: I also made a start at the beginning of 2018 Does that infer you started then got sidetracked with other things & have not yet got around to finishing it off? I know that feeling very well 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted January 10, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Pete the Elaner said: Does that infer you started then got sidetracked with other things & have not yet got around to finishing it off? I know that feeling very well of course! the buffet car did get finished though, well ok, no interior yet LOL 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddy water Posted January 10, 2020 Author Share Posted January 10, 2020 2 hours ago, RedgateModels said: I also made a start at the beginning of 2018 Nice! What vehicles were/are you going to create? Looks like a newer version of the APT POP train! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted January 10, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2020 1 hour ago, muddy water said: Nice! What vehicles were/are you going to create? Looks like a newer version of the APT POP train! Buffet Second and DAV4 - See https://www.apt-p.com/APTConfigurations.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddy water Posted January 10, 2020 Author Share Posted January 10, 2020 Good! At least an under-frame is not cut to make a S3, as it us just a window swap from the BFO. When you compare a MK4 set to the APT-S, you can really see where it has come from. The S3 is like a MK4 TSOE, allowing a loco to couple up to the set. Might have to photograph a mk4 DVT next to APT DAV4 to see the similarities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddy water Posted January 11, 2020 Author Share Posted January 11, 2020 Here is a comparison of the APT, MK3 and Mk4 DVT. The APT one is longer. Should it be shortened? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddy water Posted January 11, 2020 Author Share Posted January 11, 2020 Here is a comparison of the APT, MK3 and Mk4 DVT. The APT one is longer. Should it be shortened? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 11, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 hour ago, muddy water said: Here is a comparison of the APT, MK3 and Mk4 DVT. The APT one is longer. Should it be shortened? Possibly as the DVT is non passenger carrying to get round the regulations that dictated loco hauled push pull trains couldn't carry passengers in the leading vehicle over 100mph So mk3 and 4 trains had shorter DVTs than coaches to avoid taking too much space 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Why did the Apt-p have passengers in the the driving car but the Apt-s wouldn't? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 APT-P had luggage accommodation in the TBF in each half-set. With APT-S, the initial configuration didn't have a TBF, so luggage accommodation was required elsewhere; a Driving Trailer at the end of the rake being as good a place as any I suppose. Changes in legislation re-passengers in High Speed push-pull trains not being allowed in end vehicles (as outlined above), also had a bearing on things. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardTPM Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 hour ago, woodenhead said: Why did the Apt-p have passengers in the the driving car but the Apt-s wouldn't? Because of the accident at Polmadie in 1984 (ScotRail Mk.2/3 push-pull rake), which post-dated the construction of APT-P. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 I think you mean Polmont. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardTPM Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Yes. Apologies. But it is why APT-S would have had to have been different to APT-P. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now