Went to the NRM's excellent Shildon site with the little'un yesterday.
Was surprised just how much of an impact APT-E has on the eye - with
that long nose and sharp creases it still looks like a radical piece of
design after all these years.

Perhaps part of the effect is parking it next to the 1940s nose design
of DELTIC - something quite accidental I'm sure :) I'd much prefer
Pendo's to look something more like this that the fat nose they have.

A question from my 4 year old - when was the last time the set ran? And
what condition are the engines in? I've seen a few pictures of a road
move from York to Shildon, so I take it the bogies are incapable of
being towed any distance?

Ian

It arrived at the NRM in June 1976 - so quite when it's last run was,
I'm not sure.  However, I dare say that almost 30 years of virtual
non-running will have taken their toll, so I think any  movement by
rail is totally out of the question - as for the condition of the
motors - I'll take a rough guess and say "siezed", unless they've been
fired up at all.

Regards

Matt - Salisbury, Wilts

Ian Bailey wrote:


> A question from my 4 year old - when was the last time the set ran?


I saw it running on the MML in July 1974. Let's see if anyone has a more
recent sighting.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633080.html
(50 034 at Reading, Jul 1985)

Just found it buried in a book - last test run was 2nd April 1976.
Covered a total of 23,559 miles in four years of trial running.

Regards

Matt (again)

"Ian Bailey"  wrote:


>A question from my 4 year old - when was the last time the set ran? And
>what condition are the engines in? I've seen a few pictures of a road
>move from York to Shildon, so I take it the bogies are incapable of
>being towed any distance?


I asked this same question on the APT yahoo group a while back, and
below is the answer from Kit Spackman, one of the engineers on the
original project:

(ab)

-----------------


>Could the power cars ever be restarted and moved under their own
>power, or have the turbines/motors/axles completely seized/rusted up over
>the years?


With an infinite budget anything is possible.........

The largest problem with making E-Train run again would actually be
WHERE could we run it? There is nowhere on Network rail's metals that
would be approved for that, bearing in mind that the E-Train power
cars were the longest locos to ever run on BR and were well out of
gauge at many places. We had to have special gauge clearence for all
the test runs.

After that we'd need turbine expertise and that's either in short
supply or non-existant. The turbines themselves were inhibited prior
to the NRM hand-over so they should be OK, and there are some zero
houred turbines still in NRM's hands. The generators and traction
motors should respond to 'normal treatment' but things like the HK
brake would be almost impossible to sort out these days, there isn't
an H-K brake equivalent of me about.

The bogies are in good running shape. When we split PC1 from TC1 last
week we astonished the NRM and contract guys by pushing the
intermediate E1T bogie by HAND along the siding. It took 2 of us to
start it and I could roll it along on my own with no problems
afterward. Somewhere Paul has video of me doing it. I don't think
bearings seizing will be an issue.......

As to making it tilt again, just give me the time and the money! <g>

The money is the key to it all of course.

In message , at 10:52:00 on 
Sun, 18 Sep 2005, ab  remarked:

>The largest problem with making E-Train run again would actually be
>WHERE could we run it?


What about the Old Dalby test track?
-- 
Roland Perry

"Ian Bailey"  wrote:

>
>Perhaps part of the effect is parking it next to the 1940s nose design
>of DELTIC - something quite accidental I'm sure :)



I think the prototype "Deltic" was completed in 1955, so it was very
much a 1950s design.

"ab"  wrote in message 
news:k0eqi19sol5lau2rrgjj7f4nr021477v5t@4ax.com...

> "Ian Bailey"  wrote:
>
>>Could the power cars ever be restarted and moved under their own
>>power, or have the turbines/motors/axles completely seized/rusted up over
>>the years?
>
> With an infinite budget anything is possible.........
>
> The largest problem with making E-Train run again would actually be
> WHERE could we run it? There is nowhere on Network rail's metals that
> would be approved for that, bearing in mind that the E-Train power
> cars were the longest locos to ever run on BR and were well out of
> gauge at many places. We had to have special gauge clearence for all
> the test runs.
>


How about the Great Central Railway. It was built to Bern (continental) 
loading gauge and has approval to run at 60mph.


> As to making it tilt again, just give me the time and the money! <g>
>
> The money is the key to it all of course.
>


I would certainly pay good money to travel on a preserved APT as would many 
I think. Of course the money is need *first*. If something like this *did* 
come to the GCR or another line local to me with the intention of making it 
run again I would be queueing up to join the volunteers.


-- 
-=# Amos E Wolfe #=-
AIM: Traindriver9334
Get Firefox: http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=user/register&r=122394

The APT-E always makes me think of a baboon when i see it head on.

"Ian Bailey"  wrote in message 
news:1127030383.823160.190040@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Went to the NRM's excellent Shildon site with the little'un yesterday.
> Was surprised just how much of an impact APT-E has on the eye - with
> that long nose and sharp creases it still looks like a radical piece of
> design after all these years.
>
> Perhaps part of the effect is parking it next to the 1940s nose design
> of DELTIC - something quite accidental I'm sure :) I'd much prefer
> Pendo's to look something more like this that the fat nose they have.
>
> A question from my 4 year old - when was the last time the set ran? And
> what condition are the engines in? I've seen a few pictures of a road
> move from York to Shildon, so I take it the bogies are incapable of
> being towed any distance?
>
> Ian
>


When it was running I always wondered what it sounded like (or even 
smelled!)

anyone know?

"M J Forbes"  wrote in message 
news:1127031113.574450.287470@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> It arrived at the NRM in June 1976 - so quite when it's last run was,
> I'm not sure.


<Snip>

From "APT - A Promise Unfulfilled"

"APT-E left the research sidings for the last time at 08.32 on 11 June 
(1976)" on a delivery run to the NRM. It arrived there at 10.48.

Sean

Tony Polson wrote:

> "Ian Bailey"  wrote:
> >
> >Perhaps part of the effect is parking it next to the 1940s nose design
> >of DELTIC - something quite accidental I'm sure :)
>
>
> I think the prototype "Deltic" was completed in 1955, so it was very
> much a 1950s design.


Surely its a 1950s copy of a 1940s American design. They copied the
nose off EMD's F series locos didn't they? Thats why it has the
non-functioning headlight on the top.

Ian

<clip>


>> Ian
>>
>
>When it was running I always wondered what it sounded like (or even 
>smelled!)
>
>anyone know?

B & R Video Productions, Dieselectric Power 2, Volume 10, has short
clips of the APT running both ways, quite quickly.

Anyone have this video over in the UK, you might get a listen!

Tony

"Ian Bailey"  wrote:

>
>Surely its a 1950s copy of a 1940s American design. They copied the
>nose off EMD's F series locos didn't they?



Who cares?  

The whole is a 1950s design; daring, but dated.  That one element of
it might date from the 1940s does not make the whole a 1940s design.

"Deltic" is a particularly elegant design in its own right, and I
really don't care which elements of it were inspired by what.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:40:18 GMT someone who may be "Amos E Wolfe"
 wrote this:-


>I would certainly pay good money to travel on a preserved APT as would many 
>I think.


This does raise the old question of what "preserved" actually means.
Unless people wish to sit or stand on the floor, a "preserved" APT-E
would need to be fitted with many seats, which it never was fitted
with in "real life". I also recollect that the gangways between
coaches were rather minimalist, though this may well be a mistaken
memory.

It would be great to see it running, not the least to remind people
of the UK engineering lead that was thrown away at the behest of the
party politicians and Department of Roads. However, fuel consumption
would be rather high. Did it not have a diesel engine for slow speed
movements that might be more suitable for preservation?


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:09:44 +0100 someone who may be Tony   Polson
 wrote this:-


>The whole is a 1950s design; daring, but dated.  That one element of
>it might date from the 1940s does not make the whole a 1940s design.


The original claim was about the nose design, not the whole thing.
The nose design does indeed date back to some of the earliest main
line locomotives.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:09:06 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>It would be great to see it running, not the least to remind people
>of the UK engineering lead that was thrown away at the behest of the
>party politicians and Department of Roads. However, fuel consumption
>would be rather high. Did it not have a diesel engine for slow speed
>movements that might be more suitable for preservation?


Would getting the electric APT/P back on the mainline (or at least Old
Dalby) not be a more realistic goal?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On 18 Sep 2005 12:06:51 -0700 someone who may be "Ian Bailey"
 wrote this:-


>Surely its a 1950s copy of a 1940s American design. They copied the
>nose off EMD's F series locos didn't they? Thats why it has the
>non-functioning headlight on the top.


The nose design was rather different to the US one. The "headlight"
was installed because the company wished to sell it in the North
American market. However, at the time interest there in high powered
locomotives was in gas turbine powered locomotives, mostly burning
heavy fuel oil. The ultimate of these were the Union Pacific "Big
Blows", worthy successors to the more well known large steam
locomotives. http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/up/up8bn.jpg and
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/up/up27ars.jpg are good photos.

The first unit had traction motors, cab, auxiliary diesel engine
(used for things like moving around yards) and other bits and bobs.
The second unit had the gas turbine, alternator (I think, it may
have been a generator) and traction motors. Fuel was ISTR carried on
both units, in relatively small quantities. However, most of the
fuel was carried in the third unit, a former steam locomotive
tender. The fuel had to be heated, though whether this was by steam
or electricity I don't know. All in all quite a locomotive, though
they had relatively short lives due to various factors including the
changing price of heavy oil and maintenance problems with the
turbines.

In the second photograph an assisting diesel is shown. As trains
became longer even a 8,500HP locomotive was not enough to go over
the hills on its own. The same thing had happened with the "Big Boy"
steam locomotives as well. The railway discovered that in single
bore tunnels a second gas turbine locomotive could not "breathe",
which tended to lead to the train coming to a standstill on heavy
gradients in inconvenient places. Diesels could "breathe" in the
tunnel atmosphere though. I have seen film of ISTR up to four
diesels assisting a "Big Blow". The noise must have been fairly
loud.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In message , at 10:09:06 on 
Mon, 19 Sep 2005, David Hansen  
remarked:

>>I would certainly pay good money to travel on a preserved APT as would many
>>I think.
>
>This does raise the old question of what "preserved" actually means.
>Unless people wish to sit or stand on the floor, a "preserved" APT-E
>would need to be fitted with many seats, which it never was fitted
>with in "real life".


There's a Concorde prototype at Duxford which lacks the normal passenger 
fittings. It's still interesting to look inside. I wonder if the APT has 
any of the test equipment in it, or was that stripped out?
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:qcphp$MFgoLDFAbC@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...

> In message , at 10:09:06 on 
> Mon, 19 Sep 2005, David Hansen  remarked:
>>>I would certainly pay good money to travel on a preserved APT as would 
>>>many
>>>I think.
>>
>>This does raise the old question of what "preserved" actually means.
>>Unless people wish to sit or stand on the floor, a "preserved" APT-E
>>would need to be fitted with many seats, which it never was fitted
>>with in "real life".
>
> There's a Concorde prototype at Duxford which lacks the normal passenger 
> fittings. It's still interesting to look inside. I wonder if the APT has 
> any of the test equipment in it, or was that stripped out?


Some of the interior remains, but a lot has been stripped:

http://www.apt-e.org/workdays/17july2004/17july2004.htm
http://www.apt-e.org/workdays/20march2004/20march2004.htm
http://www.apt-e.org/workdays/15november2003/15november2003.htm

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com