Jitmen Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Any ideas what the apt-s would have looked like? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony_S Posted May 3, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) I did manage to run my APT-e for a few inches along my test and programing track but yesterday I took it down to the layout in the garage. I transported as a 4 car unit in the carrier I made from furniture edging foam (blue u shaped), put it on the track. PC2 had light but no movement but separating and rejoining sorted that. Looks very good going round. No scenery was destroyed either. Who are these people who think it is too loud? B) Edited May 3, 2016 by Tony_S 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) Any ideas what the apt-s would have looked like?There is an impression here. http://www.apt-p.com/APTConfigurations.htm One of the decisions that arose from the prototype testing was that having central power cars was a pain in the neck. The squadron fleet would probably have had the power cars (or power car and DVT) placed at the driving ends. The power cars would also likely have been non-tilting. In its final years the test results from the APT-P fleet fed into the design process for the class 91+Mk4 development. Whilst I would not go so far as to describe the IC225 as efectively the APT-S (although some sites do), there is a technological lineage between the 2. This is most evident on the tapered profile of the Mk4 coaches, the gearboxes mounted in the body and connected to the axles via carden shafts to reduce unsprung weight and the high speed Brecknell Willis pantograph. A true APT-S (if it had ever been built) would probably look something like a cross between the APT-P and the class 91. Edited May 3, 2016 by Karhedron 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Tilt Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 . This is most evident on the tapered profile of the Mk4 coaches, the gearboxes mounted in the body and connected to the axles via carden shafts to reduce unsprung weight and the high speed Brecknell Willis pantograph. A true APT-S (if it had ever been built) would probably look something like a cross between the APT-P and the class 91. The tapered profile of the Mk 4s is because they were designed to tilt, around 6 deg IIRC, with the aid of a 'sandwich' that fitted between the body and the bogie with the tilt system mechanicals incorporated. Although at least some of these 'sandwiches' were manufactured they were sadly never fitted to a vehicle. I wonder if they still exist, or even what they looked like? The 91s don't have their traction motors mounted to the body exactly as the APT-P Power cars did, on the 91s they are mounted lower in the body and partially inside the bogie frame but not mounted to it. I suspect that was to shorten the carden shafts and perhaps to lower the centre of gravity, but we'd have to ask Mike Newman as he was Chief Engineer on both projects. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf27 Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 I think you are pretty much correct re class 91 tm's and gearboxes. Part of the reason as well would have been if the the original APT-P traction layout had been adopted, the traction motor would have been in the cab! Cheers Shane Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted May 3, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 3, 2016 ......if the the original APT-P traction layout had been adopted, the traction motor would have been in the cab! Cheers Shane Prototype for everything including motors in the cab. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted May 3, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 3, 2016 Not sure if they still have them ,but when new 91s had a tilt fault light on the desk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceV Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Have a look at this YouTube video: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ_LWvQeDBE at 01.46 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Tilt Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) Have a look at this YouTube video: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ_LWvQeDBE at 01.46 How about that, eh? Darned if I can figure out where it was but it looks like while we were doing the Luton-Bedford tests, which would make it some time in 1974 I reckon. Not sure if they still have them ,but when new 91s had a tilt fault light on the desk They'd have been if the Mk 4s with the tilt systems, as a tilt failure would mean they'd have to slow down to conventional speeds on the curves. Edited May 3, 2016 by Mr_Tilt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted May 3, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 3, 2016 Would the coaching stock have been able to tilt without the loco tilting? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceV Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 The video is showing the APT-E on the down fast approaching Luton Station. The trailing connection lead to the remains of the Dunstable branch which sadly has been concreted into a bus-way. I can remember seeing the APT-E running up and down south of Bedford on many occasions when travelling to work in London. If my memory serves me right I think the APT-E was refuelled in the sidings north of Bedford by a road tanker as the train was too long to be able to use the refuelling point in the south sidings. Also on the down main approaching Harlington were a couple of temporary signs one which said APT 1000 yds to home signal. These signs were still there even after electrification but have now gone. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Would the coaching stock have been able to tilt without the loco tilting?I can't see any reason why not. Driver comfort was probably less important than that of the passengers but t'was ever thus! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceV Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Snapshot from Video 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 I was quite interested in this model, since day one of it's announcement, but as it was out of era, and even scale as I now move ever more into 7mm, I was pleased that I managed to resist temptation. Until they started to arrive, and pictures started appearing, and I realised just how good this thing is. Fast forward to today, and after looking at the daft prices on flea bay, I thought for a laugh I would call Locomotion to see if anything was available. I spoke to Sandra, who let me have the last remaining sound fitted one, I presume from a cancelled/returned order. Think I might put the lottery on tonight 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgvfan Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 I was quite interested in this model, since day one of it's announcement, but as it was out of era, and even scale as I now move ever more into 7mm, I was pleased that I managed to resist temptation. Until they started to arrive, and pictures started appearing, and I realised just how good this thing is. Fast forward to today, and after looking at the daft prices on flea bay, I thought for a laugh I would call Locomotion to see if anything was available. I spoke to Sandra, who let me have the last remaining sound fitted one, I presume from a cancelled/returned order. Think I might put the lottery on tonight Hopefully it wasn`t mine as i`m still awaiting it`s arrival Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) Hopefully it wasn`t mine as i`m still awaiting it`s arrival A cancelled/returned order is not covered under the same umbrella as 'fully paid for by customer and awaiting delivery'. I'm sure you're suggestion wouldn't be allowed to happen. Thanks for sucking any fun out of a happy announcement! Edited May 3, 2016 by blueeighties Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgvfan Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) A cancelled/returned order is not covered under the same umbrella as 'fully paid for by customer and awaiting delivery'. I'm sure you're suggestion wouldn't be allowed to happen. Thanks for sucking any fun out of a happy announcement! Indeed it shouldn`t happen However mine was "Deposit paid awaiting Balance payment" which has now been paid (Bank holidays and monthly pay don`t always work) And my appologies if I've rained on your parade Edited May 3, 2016 by tgvfan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Lol, no worries fella, I'm sure it will land soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Tilt Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Would the coaching stock have been able to tilt without the loco tilting? The 91s were never intended to tilt, even if the Mk 4s had had their tilt systems fitted. I've had a good look at a lot of pics and I can't decide if a 91 has vertical or sloped sides, whereas a Mk 4 definitely does slope. The DVTs in the consists appear to be sloped but as they use Mk 4 shells that's hardly surprising. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hilux5972 Posted May 3, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 3, 2016 The Mk3 DVT just has vertical sides I believe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted May 3, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 3, 2016 It would have been a bit odd for the driver, tilting in one direction but not the other! This has just made me realise why mk4s have non standard gangways. I was at Doncaster a while back and saw a MK 4 on its own,they have locating lugs on the gangways. I suppose this is if the tilt failed on a particular coach it wouldn't open up a hand trapping gap if the adjacent vehicle was still tilting? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidBird Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) The 91s were never intended to tilt, even if the Mk 4s had had their tilt systems fitted. I've had a good look at a lot of pics and I can't decide if a 91 has vertical or sloped sides, whereas a Mk 4 definitely does slope. The DVTs in the consists appear to be sloped but as they use Mk 4 shells that's hardly surprising. Does this picture help (3rd one down) - from DaveF's excellent thread here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/85326-dave-fs-photos-ongoing-more-added-3rd-may/?p=2294164 Some photos taken between Darlington and Durham for today's second batch. They take us from 1976 to the early days of privatisation. Edited to post the right photos in the right order. Aycliffe Class 101 down 5th Aug 76 2946.jpg Aycliffe Class 101 down 5th Aug 76 2946 AycliffeClass 47 up ex pass 5th Aug 76 C2951.jpg AycliffeClass 47 up ex pass 5th Aug 76 C2951 b Sunderland Bridge Class 142 Saltburn to Newcastle 30th May 95_C20210.jpg Sunderland Bridge Class 142 Saltburn to Newcastle 30th May 95_C20210 b Sunderland Bridge GNER Class 91 down XP 3rd May 97_C21834.jpg Sunderland Bridge GNER Class 91 down XP 3rd May 97_C21834 b Sunderland Bridge 56010 up coal 18th Oct 97_C23140.jpg Sunderland Bridge 56010 up coal 18th Oct 97_C23140 David This seems to show the 91 with a greater slope to the sides than the following Mk4... Edited to add link to the thread Edited May 3, 2016 by DavidBird 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf27 Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 The rear cab of the 91 tapers in which will account for the illusion that it appears to have more angled body sides than the stock behind it. Cheers Shane 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) The Mk3 DVT just has vertical sides I believe. Indeed, but they were never designed to run with Mk4 coaches. The Mk4 DVT has a different profile. Incidentally, does anyone remember that the first Hornby 'Mk3 DVT' in Virgin livery was really a Mk4? Edited May 3, 2016 by Pete the Elaner Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha230 Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 I do remember the Hornby mk3 dvt was just a repainted mk4 dvt in virgin livery, it was supposed to be a newly designed mk3 version, when it was released, I think it was dropped as rail express announced a mk3 dvt in oo scale was being tooled up for them by Dapol, that never happened, so Hornby did the mk3 new tool dvt with dcc and light's, the intercity version uses the virgin front grille, and the intercity light grey was too dark, they seem hard to get hold of in this livery. Hurst model's did a fairly accurate mk3 dvt in resin, Bratchell models did one too, with transfers. 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