Kit Spackman wrote:

>>before taking the Advanced Passenger Train - the first in Britain to tilt
>
> - from London to Preston. <
>
> Close anyway............

I believe they are referring to the driver driving the train between
London and Preston, rather than the train tilting between London and
Preston. At least, that's how I read it in the original context...

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

I just caught up with this after hols etc.

>1) APT articulated bogies rode 'badly' but, non-artic BT12 rode well
>2) Articulation and the HK brake dropped for APT-U
>3) Adaptation of BT12 for disk braking started...
>4) ...but the result was a completely new bogie presumably the T4?
>5) By this time APTU had morphed into IC225 and somehow the T4 was dropped

in >favour of the SIG

Sounds pretty close. The BT11s were so darn heavy they hadn't too much
chance of riding well, what with the un-pinned trailer car bodies being
dynamically free above them. You'd have thought someone would have learned
from the E-Train SA bogie experience, they were tons overweight too.

>Could it be that the SIG gained favour because the T4 was totally new and

unproven >- too different from the proven BT12? <

There were talks going on with SIG before P-Train ran. At one stage I was
scheduled to go there for some joint testing talks but it never happened,
so that must have been pre-1969.

>This would also suggest that the T4 was designed to tilt as this was an

option for the Mk 4.<

It was. The T4 had an optional 'tilting sandwich' that was intended to fit
between the bogie and the Mk 4 body. I don't know of they ever actually
built any like that, but I recall seeing some drgs. in Modern Railways at
the time. It occured to me then that they'd be darn lucky to get all that
stuff in such a small sandwich.

Regards
Kit

Thanks for the clarifications Kit, excellent stuff. I'm interested by your comments on the BT11, and also found out a little more on the bogie choice.

> The BT11s were so darn heavy they hadn't too much
> chance of riding well, what with the un-pinned trailer car bodies being
> dynamically free above them. You'd have thought someone would have learned
> from the E-Train SA bogie experience, they were tons overweight too.
>

Does unpinned mean no centre pivot? They certainly look long which I guess means heavy. Tons overweight? That must have caused a stooshie, with all the efforts to keep weight + unsprung mass down!

The BT11 is interesting because its shortcomings indirectly led to the Mk 4. The other thing I'm picking up is that the APT-P trailers were seen to resonate at <10Hz which contributed to the poor ride - probably in conjunction with the BT11s. Any thought's? My own limited experience was that the APT ride was pretty good, and that the Mk 4 never fully met expectations.

I did find a little more on the SIG choice, Metro-Cammell published a paper on the Mk 4 and diplomatically explained the choice thus:

"In the event, the Swiss [SIG] design was selected, BREL not being able to meet the commercial requirements to provide guarantees relating to severe lateral ride criteria"

>"In the event, the Swiss [SIG] design was selected, BREL not being able to
>meet the commercial requirements to provide guarantees relating to severe
>lateral ride criteria"
>

So BREL were honest and didn't get the contract, SIG were dishonest, offered worthless guarantees *and* got the contract!

Cheers

Gerry

--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry Bates"
<gerry@w...> wrote:

>
>
> >"In the event, the Swiss [SIG] design was selected, BREL not being

able to

> >meet the commercial requirements to provide guarantees relating to

severe

> >lateral ride criteria"
> >
> So BREL were honest and didn't get the contract, SIG were

dishonest, offered worthless guarantees *and* got the contract!

>

Can anybody expand on the SIG family tree?

Is there any relation between this design and that supply by SIG for
the Swiss UIC coaches and the CNL sleeper cars? I understand the UIC
tended to ride badly at speed but never experienced this myself. This
is why they many were retired to Swiss domestic services quite early
on in their careers.

As for the CNL sleepers, passengers used to complain a lot about the
vibrations when these were new. These reports were initially played
down but this could be concealed no further when the entire fleet had
its highest speed slashed from 200kph to 140kph over night. As these
came due to for overhaul, the condition of the bogies was found to be
poorer than assumed. I am not sure how thsi was remedied. Some of the
CNL cars have since been transferred to German and Austrian ralways
(follwing the breakup of DACH). I have yet to take a closer look at
any of the Austrias but the German cars now have bogies of a
different design.

Does any of this have anything remotely to do with the Mk4's ride
problems? Thanks for yny knowledgeable information.

Did claims over these issues contribute to the collapse of SIG's (ex
SIG Alstom's) bogie business?

Andrew

Gordon,

> Does unpinned mean no centre pivot? <

Not quite. The coaches were unpinned, in that they were not connected to
each other at floor height, unlike the E-Train with it's pin-joints (Short
pause while Paul and Kit run screaming from the room......<g>)

The E-Train vehicles were all thus connected so any motion in any plane was
in some sense restricted by the motion of the adjacent vehicle. In the
P-Train case there was no such connection so each vehicle acted almost
independently, except that they were connected via the secondary suspension
and the tilting bolsters and, ultimately, the BT-11 bogie frame. See the
diagram on page 79 of Hugh's book.

>They certainly look long which I guess means heavy. Tons overweight? That

must have caused a stooshie, with all the >efforts to keep weight +
unsprung mass down! <

I'm not sure what would be considered the optimum weight, but the wieght of
the BT-11 came into almost every conversation concerning ride or responses
etc around that time. The main beams were quite deep of necessity or they
would not have been stiff enough statically or dynamically, but just
looking at BT-11 you can't help but think 'Hm, that's not light...'

>The BT11 is interesting because its shortcomings indirectly led to the Mk

4.<

I'm not so sure about that. It's the whole concept of articulation that was
ditched for the Mk 4 to be born. The BT-11 was just part of that, not the
be-all and end-all of it.

>The other thing I'm picking up is that the APT-P trailers were seen to

resonate at <10Hz which contributed to the poor ride - >probably in
conjunction with the BT11s.<

I've not heard that. What plane of vibration are we talking about here and
what mode? 10Hz is too high to be a whole body vibration mode and seems too
low to be a structural mode. I'm a trifle confused.

>My own limited experience was that the APT ride was pretty good, and that

the Mk 4 never fully met expectations.<

I'd agree with that. On 'Run One' the ride was exceptional, even to me. My
experience as we left Glasgow that morning bears repeating.

It was totaly dark on departure, 6.30 am on a December morning, and the
first part of the track out of Glasgow Central is paved track, pretty
smooth at normal ride frequencies but prone to excite higher vibration
modes. It didn't, the train ran as if it was on a carpet, and with the tilt
system running in full compensation mode at that time, there was no
sensation of curving whatsoever. You could have sworn the track had been
straightened and smoothed especially for the occasion. It was like this
pretty much until we reached Abington, many miles south, when the rising
sun showed the horizon going up and down like a yo-yo as we curved. Of
course that was normal for me, but that was when some of the 'passengers'
(remember there were only 13 real fare-paying passengers on the train, and
at least 4 of them were ex-APT staff, the rest being guests or press)
started to get travel sick, aided no doubt by their consumption of BR
supplied beverages the previous night......

I can't recall any vibration in any plane on that run, but of course many
many parameters were changed after that. It would be interesting to hear
what other riders, experiencing P-Train later in it's life, think about
this. Paul??? <g>

>I did find a little more on the SIG choice, Metro-Cammell published a

paper on the Mk 4 and diplomatically explained the >choice thus:

>"In the event, the Swiss [SIG] design was selected, BREL not being able to

meet the commercial requirements to provide >guarantees relating to severe
lateral ride criteria"<

My comments would mirror Gerry's exactly. So many things go this way these
days when the sole criteria for the placement of contract is money. I see
this time after time in my own work and it reaches rediculous levels on
Defence contracts, viz the Nimrod MRA 4.

Regards
Kit

<

Thanks Kit, I enjoyed your vivid picture of the first run. Let me clarify my point on 'resonance' - it's probably just my sloppy terminology that has confused you.

>The other thing I'm picking up is that the APT-P trailers were seen to
>resonate at <10Hz which contributed to the poor ride - >probably in
> conjunction with the BT11s.<
>I've not heard that. What plane of vibration are we talking about here and
>what mode? 10Hz is too high to be a whole body vibration mode and seems too
>low to be a structural mode. I'm a trifle confused.

I think the correct term is the minimum natural frequency. This was seen as key to vehicle dynamics and ride back in 1984. The Mk 3 was found to have a minimum natural frequency of >10Hz and rode very well. Computer analysis of aluminium designs with and without a keel (like APT P) were found to be around 8Hz. Unfortunately, a lot of material had to be added to the (simulated) aluminium structures to achieve >10Hz - loosing the weight advantage. It seems that this analysis that led to the Mk 4 being based on the steel 156 body rather than the aluminium APT. Reading between the lines issues were solved before the same works started turning out all those aluminium 158s on T4 bogies. Son of APT-P? sad but at least partly true :)

I agree that it's an oversimplification to pin it all on the BT11. My guess would be that there were valid concerns on ride, but that the root causes were pretty complex: interaction of BT11, no-pinning between vehicles, and <10Hz natural frequency. By 1984 there probably wasn't the will to fix these. Coupled with the difficulties of a single point fail knocking out a whole articulated trailer rake - I guess I understand now why APT-U turned away from articulation. Unfortunately though it seems to have let the genie out of the bottle...

I wonder how the ride was in the dearticulated intermediate trailer?

Hi Gordon,

>I think the correct term is the minimum natural frequency. This was seen

as key to vehicle dynamics and ride back in 1984. The Mk 3 >was found to
have a minimum natural frequency of >10Hz and rode very well.<

There are lots of different natural frequences of a rail vehicle body
though. Firstly there are 'flexible body modes' where the structure itself
bends, in all three planes. It can bend like a banana on it's side, ie the
ends go up and the middle goes down, and then the whole shebang reverses.
That's Primary Beam Bending. There's the same thing in a lateral plane,
where the ends go to the left, say and the centre goes to the right, and
vice versa. Needless to say that's Primay Lateral Bending. Then there's
torsional bending where the body twists, one end twisting clockwise and the
other anti-clockwise at the same time, and once again vice versa. That just
tends to be called Primary Torsional Mode, as it isn't really bending as
such.

There are secondary and tertiary super-sets of these modes where, say, in
Beam Bending one end goes up, and the other end goes down, but there are
two 'waves' through the structure before you get to the other end. In
tertiary modes there are three 'waves' and so on. These super-sets are all
higher frequencies than the Primary modes of course.

Sadly I can't remember the bending frequencies of E-Train, but the trailer
cars were miles stiffer, and therefore had a higher primary frequency, than
the power cars. POP-Train had some primary bending modes down around 6-7
hz, which can be very dangerous as that's the natural frequency of human
organs banging about inside the chest cavity. They can't have been all that
dangerous though, just because I'm tying this for a start! <g>

I'd have thought that 10Hz was actually quite low for Primary Bending of a
P-Train trailer car, if only because the welded and extruded bodyshell
would have been immensely stiff, but maybe there were other factors
involved. For sure the torsional modes were up in the 20-30 Hz range. They
were important from the tilt sensing point of view of course, you couldn't
have a tilt sensor vibrating away out of phase with most of the vehicle on
which it was mounted.

Having got 'flexible body modes' out of the way, the other vibration modes
are 'fixed body modes' where the whole bodyshell vibrates on it's various
suspensions, and these are quite low frequencies, quite often < 1Hz. There
are even more modes here, firstly whole body translation modes where it
goes up and down, or left and right, or even fore and aft, all in one
piece. Secondly there are rotational modes, where the body rotates about an
axis either in roll, picth or yaw. If you add this lot up you'll see there
are six modes, which is why such motion is commonly called 6DOF motion.
(DOF = Degree Of Freedom) Thinking about these you can see why the E-Train
pin joints had such an effect on, say, the lateral primary bending and the
yaw axis motion. One vehicle being tied to the next would in most cases
tend to damp such motions out, but that's not always the case. The P-Train
vehicles, being more independant, needed more 'real' damping to stop them
vibrating.

>Computer analysis of aluminium designs with and without a keel (like APT

P) were found to be around 8Hz. Unfortunately, a lot of >material had to be
added to the (simulated) aluminium structures to achieve >10Hz - loosing
the weight advantage. It seems that this >analysis that led to the Mk 4
being based on the steel 156 body rather than the aluminium APT. Reading
between the lines issues >were solved before the same works started turning
out all those aluminium 158s on T4 bogies. Son of APT-P? sad but at least
partly >true :)<

It sounds to me as if we're talking Primary Bending here. I still think 8Hz
is darn low for such a structure, but I'm only a 'nut and bolt' engineer
<g> If this is the case there would be a condsiderable difference in the
ride quality depending where you sat in the vehicle. The points where the
bending reversed, called the 'nodes' would be the place to go for, and it's
no surprise to learn than these tend to occur where the bolsters are, and
in non-articulated vehicles, immediately above the bogie pivot. Where was I
sitting on Run One? The very last row of seats on the whole train, right in
front of the trailing cab. Where was the trailing BT-12 bogie? Right
underneath me......................

It's possible I'd not have noticed if there were very bad structural
resonances taking place, but frankly I doubt it. I've been in this business
too long not to see such things, even if they were taking place some
distance along the vehicle.

Are there references to any real tests done on the P-Train or Mk 4 body
stuctures anwhere?

Here endith Kit's lesson on Rail Vehicle Vibration Modes. Who was it
suggested I write a book? I think I just did..... <g>

>Coupled with the difficulties of a single point fail knocking out a whole

articulated trailer rake - I guess I understand now why APT-U <turned away
from articulation. Unfortunately though it seems to have let the genie out
of the bottle...<

That always was an issue. Taking one car out of a P-Train was a major
undertaking, and one reason why the tilt system was designed to run
'locked passive' if it failed, a condition that was (almost....) impossible
on E-Train. It would be nice to know how other railway administrations get
round this problem running articulated trains. Maybe they just throw money
at it by having spare trains stashed away, but I can't see that ever being
the case in the UK.

>I wonder how the ride was in the dearticulated intermediate trailer?<

Yes indeed, that would make a very interesting comparison. Unfortunately
any such data will have been swallowed up in the privatisation and in all
probability no longer exists.

Regards
Kit

Hi All,
After Kit saying what did other P train riders think in its later
life, I sat down, dug through a few boxes and got my trusty old Ian
Allen spottin and note books out. It was July 16th (I think it says
16th) 1983 when I did a round trip from Euston.

So I spent most of the day riding P train, walking up and down the
train and fully enjoyed the ride.

The ride quality was in my view at the time, outstanding, smooth
with very little vibration, the most noticable feature while onboard
was the acceleration and braking effects.

I remember being in the Buffet bar talking to one of the train
staff, and watching his coffee slide off down the bar (at some
speed) and fly off the end, shame there was a guy stood at the end,
OH DEAR.

Im not sure if P train was still running in full tilt mode, but I
didnt notice any feelings of sickness. I counted only 10 people in
my half of the train, and they all seemed fine too.

I also noted, 125 mph eh!, after a 10 min stop in lakes, so for the
rest of the up trip, the driver put the clog down. Two guys I was
sat with record 146.9, I dont know if that was correct , but we were
well over 130 easy, so we arrived 4 mins early.

Return trip was pretty much to timetable.

I wish I could do it all again, what a fantastic and very much
wasted piece of british technology.

I wonder how many none BR staff/family/friends can say they have had
a ride in E and P APT's, even though my E train trip was only 5 - 10
mph, but again something I will not forget. E train started my
interest in the APT so Im glad Ive had the chance to ride both,
well, in a fashion.

Regards

Paul
APT-E Conservation & Support Group

Kit, thanks for your patience on this one. I have included a few published quotes below which may help clarify...

There is something strange here though. I am trying to understand how the 24-ton APT trailer morphed into a 39-ton Mark 4. Given that that the P train had been pretty well debugged by the time the decisions were made for the Mk 4...

- a non-articulated disk braked bogie had been developed
- the tilt was working well

...solving all of the trailer car issues meticulously identified by the Ford/Dain review of the APT. The descision to ditch a proven, lighter (higher performance) solution, in favour of a new Mk 4, seems bizarre from a technical standpoint.

I thought I had found the explanation in the study that I described. It is mentioned in Roger Ford's column in Modern Railways in 1984 - I attach it in full below for reference.

But it doesn't make sense. You have issues with the detail, which rings alarm bells. The anecdotal evidence from APT runs here and elsewhere also contradicts. Furthermore, there is no mention in the study of real data from the APT. They simulated a Mk 3, and compared to real data, but the aluminium designs were only simulated. I also found that a Railway Gazette article from 1980 on APT stated that:

"Structural stiffness is such that the lowest natural frequency of vibration of the vehicle bodies is high enough to avoid coupling with the suspension frequencies. Intermediate trailer cars have minumum vertical and lateral bending frequencies of 13.2Hz and 15.3Hz when full equiped."

This all seems above reproach, and it's strange indeed that the aluminium bodies in the study came out at 8.2Hz. Is it possible that dearticulating could have made such a big difference? Or could it have been the desire reprofile the body to exploit the, by then reduced tilt angle, to give more space inside? Or could it be the 2m length difference? Or had BR already started to loose the skills required to tweak the APT structure?

> Are there references to any real tests done on the P-Train or Mk 4 body
> stuctures anwhere?

Alsthom published a paper on a proposal for semi-active yaw damping for the Mark 4 in 1992 to address known lateral ride issues. They proposed increased damping high speed only - which sounds very similar to what was added to the prototype HST 20 years before. They used finite element analysis of the Mk 4 structure in response to real track stimulus, modelling 63 degrees of freedom. However, the conclusion was though that there was still a sensitivity to some track defects.

> One vehicle being tied to the next would in most cases tend to damp such motions out, but that's not always the case. The P-Train vehicles, being more independant, needed more 'real' damping to stop them vibrating.

The APT paper which Boocock and King presented to the IME in 1982 may shed some light here:

"One aspect of ride which has proved difficult to satisfy by improved suspension design is related to long (above 40m) track defects. These are beyond detection and correction by present track maintenance methods. As APT-P suspension frequencies correspond to wavelengths of 45-80m at 200km/h, low frequency oscilations can be pronounced on certain stretches of track.

Vertical ride development has been concentrated mainly on the articulated bogie. To compensate for the outboard positioning of the secondary suspension systems, the airsprings were designed to be very soft, with auxiliary surge resorvoirs to provide damping. Nevertheless, the vertical ride was found to be unsatisfactory, even after tuning the air suspensions and increasing their volume. Body pitch oscilations were excessive, particularly at low speeds, when large gangway sheer movements were induced by resonance with bogie pitch oscillations. These problems were solved by fitting vertical hydraulic dampers between the ends of adjacent vehicles. These inter-vehicle dampers also slightly improved the ride about the roll axis."

Here is the Ford article:

"Mk 4 Coach Likely to Be Steel...
Steel construction is probable for British Rail's next generation Inter-City passenger coach. As part of the evaluation of the new Mk 4 vehicle, computer studies have been carried out using the Mechanical & Electrical Engineering Department's NEWPAC suite of programs. The aim of the evaluation was to compare various structural designs within a common specification with the aim of providing the lightest vehicle structure. The critical feature turned out to be the minimum natural frequency of the structure which plays an important part in vehicle dynamics. This was set at 8 cycles per second (Hz.).
Three structures were examined, a Mk3 type steel structure, an aluminium structure, and aluminium body with a stiffening keel below the passenger compartment as on the prototype Advanced Passenger Train (APT-P). While the deep keel is useful structuraly, the physical barrier complicates the instalation and maintenance of the underfloor equipment.
To valiadate the analysis, the parameters of the existing Mk3 coach were first fed into the computer and produced a reasonable correlation with real life, the frequency turning out to be slightly higher than 10Hz. This allowed a correlation factor to be added to the analysis. The results of the study gave a steel bodyshell weighing 8.4 tons. While significantly lighter at just over 6.5 tons, both aluminium shells were very close to the minimum frequency , the best being the keeled version at 8.2Hz.

Rerunning the analysis with minimum frequency set at the more desirable 10Hz resulted in aluminium construction being almost as heavy as steel, more significantly, such a bodyshell would required aluminium sections too large for manufacture as continuous extrusions (see last months technology update). These studies were based on a 23m vehicle (the same length as the existing Mk3) with a cross section to fit within the loading gauge at 6 degrees tilt..."

Regards,


Gordon,

Paul,

>After Kit saying what did other P train riders think in its later

life....<

I knew you'd come up with something! <g>

>I remember being in the Buffet bar talking to one of the train
>staff, and watching his coffee slide off down the bar (at some
>speed) and fly off the end, shame there was a guy stood at the end,
>OH DEAR.<

Hehe, I'd liked to have seen that! What was the consist? 2 + 8? The First
Run consist was 2 + 8 as I recall, the front half only being a Driving
Trailer and a Van Trailer, all the passengers being in the rear half. 8000
bhp and half a train, pretty good!

>Im not sure if P train was still running in full tilt mode, but I
>didnt notice any feelings of sickness. I counted only 10 people in
>my half of the train, and they all seemed fine too.<

In mid '83 they were running with leading accelerometers for sure, but not
so sure of they had the 'partial tilt' software worked out by then.

>Two guys I was sat with record 146.9, I dont know if that was correct ,

but we were

>well over 130 easy, so we arrived 4 mins early. <

Nice one! This capability of clogging it to pick up on a relatively
generous schedule was part of the whole APT 'experience', with so much SEP
(Specific Excess Power) it was almost easy-peasy if the driver knew his
stuff. Yours seems to have done! <g>

>I wonder how many none BR staff/family/friends can say they have had
>a ride in E and P APT's, even though my E train trip was only 5 - 10
>mph, but again something I will not forget. E train started my
>interest in the APT so Im glad Ive had the chance to ride both,
>well, in a fashion.<

Maybe even in single figures. The 'star' must be Ron Puntis, his total E
and P-Train time on board must exceed everyone elses by a factor of 5 I
should think! Some of the Management guys are on the list of course, but I
bet their total time on board is quite low, unlike the 'nut and bolt' guys
<g>

One day I'll go though the E-Train log book and add up my hours..........

I'll bet even fewer of them can say their only E-Train run was in a Power
Car though, I bet you're a short list of ONE!

Regards
Kit

Kit,
Yes, it was a 2 + 8 so yes, plenty of go..go..... nearly as much as
your rally car!!!!

I did take loads of photos, but my camera failed, what a bugger.

Going through the lakes was just like flying, someone else said that
at the time, and I know just what they mean, brilliant, and motoring
too, tilt working perfectly.

I would go as far to say, its one of the best rush's Ive ever had,
very much like riding my Honda Blackbird at speed.

Do you ever send your powerpoint stuff Kit, Id still like to see it
with whatever sound you have.

Shildon is still waiting for a workshop, so nothing the restoration
group can do yet.

Regards

Paul

--- Kit Spackman <101453.3657@...> wrote:

>
> I'll bet even fewer of them can say their only
> E-Train run was in a Power
> Car though, I bet you're a short list of ONE!
>

O.S.Nock maybe?

Andrew



___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

I think he only travelled on it twice. Good point though, he did write about the ride...

"...in the coach I rode in, there can be no suspition of any such discomfort up to this point, and the way we took the Berkhampsted curve at 109mph should have been enough to dispell any aprehensions."

"In the train, the riding was at all times beautifully smooth and comfortable" [Northbound Euston to Glasgow in June 1984]

A leaflet has also been scanned onto the excellent APT-P site. It describes some passenger surveys carried out in 1984. The general consensus was, smoother than a Mk3. There's also mention of the dearticulated trailer:

"these tests have been most successful and have confirmed that it will be practical to provide a Mark 4 coach based on the APT concept as modified by the use of disc brakes and individual bogies"

http://www.apt-p.com/LeafletBRPAPTPITD.htm

--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Moglestue <amogles@y...> wrote:
>
> --- Kit Spackman <101453.3657@c...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'll bet even fewer of them can say their only
> > E-Train run was in a Power
> > Car though, I bet you're a short list of ONE!
> >
>
> O.S.Nock maybe?
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

Paul,,

>Yes, it was a 2 + 8 so yes, plenty of go..go..... nearly as much as your

rally car!!!!<

Hehe, is that what it is? I use it like a truck......

>Going through the lakes was just like flying, someone else said that
>at the time, and I know just what they mean, brilliant, and motoring
>too, tilt working perfectly.<

I had that feeling riding in the rear cab going down the Lune Valley. The
train was no sooner out of one curve than she was
leaning into the next one, and of course the tilt environment back there
was virtually perfect!

>Do you ever send your powerpoint stuff Kit, Id still like to see it
>with whatever sound you have.<

Oops, still on my PC, but in textless form. I've got to add captions so it
makes sense without the talk through. Sadly I think the sound
track is a failure, I'll have to re-do it after a proper write-up.

>Shildon is still waiting for a workshop, so nothing the restoration group

can do yet.<

I was wondering what was happening, or not, as the case may be.

Regards
Kit

Gordon,

>Kit, thanks for your patience on this one. I have included a few published

quotes below which may help clarify... <

No problem, and thanks for looking them up.

>...solving all of the trailer car issues meticulously identified by the

Ford/Dain review of the APT. The descision to ditch a proven, >lighter
(higher performance) solution, in favour of a new Mk 4, seems bizarre from
a technical standpoint. <

Who said technicalities had anything to do with it? <g>

I suspect it was a political decision, driven by marketing men, the object
of the exercise being TOTAL rebuttal of anything even vaguely connected
with APT.

>Furthermore, there is no mention in the study of real data from the APT.

They simulated a Mk 3, and compared to real data, but the >aluminium
designs were only simulated. <

You can make anything work, or not work, in a simulation. It depends who's
asking for the work to be done and what they REALLY want to know. With a
sim. you can easily produce data that proves any point you want to make,
it's like market research.

>I also found that a Railway Gazette article from 1980 on APT stated that:

>"Structural stiffness is such that the lowest natural frequency of

vibration of the vehicle bodies is high enough to avoid coupling with >the
suspension frequencies. Intermediate trailer cars have minumum vertical and
lateral bending frequencies of 13.2Hz and 15.3Hz >when full equiped."<

Makes some sort of sense, yes. (see Lesson 1 <g>)

>This all seems above reproach, and it's strange indeed that the aluminium

bodies in the study came out at 8.2Hz. Is it possible that >dearticulating
could have made such a big difference? <

No, it's not relevent to the Primary modes. Articulated bodies ought to
show lower primary frequencies than a non-articulated ones, as the distance
between the support points is possibly greater, and thus the nodes are
further apart too, but not THAT much lower!. That's assuming a similar
structure of course.

>Or could it have been the desire reprofile the body to exploit the, by

then reduced tilt angle, to give more space inside? Or could it be >the 2m
length difference? Or had BR already started to loose the skills required
to tweak the APT structure?<

Mk 4s were taller than, P-Train weren't they? That ought to give greater
beam strength and thus higher Primary Bending frequencies, but it depends a
lot on how the rest of the structure was tied together. I could tell you
about the Prototype High Density Stock and it's sliding doors...... or
non-sliding, as the case maye be!

And which one was longer? 2m would make a difference if it was echoed in
the node pionts, but I doubt they'd be that different as the nodes would be
different distances from the vehicle ends in each case, less distance on
the P-Train coach.

The last point may be relevant, people were leaving in droves at that time.

>They used finite element analysis of the Mk 4 structure in response to

real track stimulus, modelling 63 degrees of freedom. <

SIXTY THREE? Ye gods, that's gilding the lily a trifle, or maybe clutching
at straws?

>The APT paper which Boocock and King presented to the IME in 1982 may shed

some light here:

>"One aspect of ride which has proved difficult to satisfy by improved

suspension design is related to long (above 40m) track defects. >These are
beyond detection and correction by present track maintenance methods. As
APT-P suspension frequencies correspond >to wavelengths of 45-80m at
200km/h, low frequency oscilations can be pronounced on certain stretches
of track. <

That says the first fixed body bounce mode was about 1.0 Hz or so. 45 m at
that speed equivalent to 0.8 Hz and 80 m to 1.44 Hz. Pretty uncomfortable
I'd have thought.

>Vertical ride development has been concentrated mainly on the articulated

bogie. To compensate for the outboard positioning of the >secondary
suspension systems, the airsprings were designed to be very soft, with
auxiliary surge resorvoirs to provide damping. >Nevertheless, the vertical
ride was found to be unsatisfactory, even after tuning the air suspensions
and increasing their volume. <

I'm not that good on pnuematics but if that was a hydraulic system we'd
have put damping orifices in the line between the springs and the
reservoir. I did some tests on exactly that for E-Train in the Lab some
years before. I wonder if they had the dampers fitted before Run One?

>These problems were solved by fitting vertical hydraulic dampers between

the ends of adjacent vehicles. These inter-vehicle >dampers also slightly
improved the ride about the roll axis."<

Makes sense but it's only curing the symptom, not the illness. Of course
the dampers couldn't be fitted on the centre-line as the gangways were
there, so being offset they would have quite marked effects in the roll
axis.

>Three structures were examined, a Mk3 type steel structure, an aluminium

structure, and aluminium body with a stiffening keel below >the passenger
compartment as on the prototype Advanced Passenger Train (APT-P). While the
deep keel is useful structuraly, the >physical barrier complicates the
instalation and maintenance of the underfloor equipment. <

Cobblers...............

It may make the design of the equipment difficult as it is limited in width
to less than 50% of the body, but it gives a good bulkhead to attach all
the fixed bits too, plus it helps keep the dirt out, always a problem on
railway vehicles. Brake dust gets EVERYwhere! Of course, the fact that
P-Train had a keel and the Mk4 wasn't going to has much bearing on this.
See my comment about total rebuttal of anything to do with APT.

Our Mk 4 tilt packs, as fitted to POP Mk 2 and Pilot, and later production
versions to P-Train, fitted nicely in that half underbody. The control
cables and hoses were bulkheaded to the keel and the pack hung from the
floor. Worked a treat and was relatively easy to remove and replace, as it
was designed to. I suspect the above comment is concerned with doing the
maintennace on the vehicle, and P-Train was designed to do exactly the
opposite, everything was meant to be hauled out and replaced with
pre-checked modules. Of course that meant the whole idea was flawed to
their thinking and would not be considered for Mk4s or anything else.

>While significantly lighter at just over 6.5 tons, both aluminium shells

were very close to the minimum frequency , the best being the >keeled
version at 8.2Hz.<

Yeah, right. Where's the real test data on real structures to prove it? I
know it exists, we did the tests in the APD Lab on Test Coach
Pilot........

I just don't believe that a P-Train bodyshell was that low in Primary
Bending. That also purports to say that a non-keeled version was even
LOWER, for goodness sake! What was it made of, toffee?

It all sounds to me as if they were running 'tests' to prove a point they'd
already decided on for other reasons. Me, a conspiracy theorist? How did
you guess? <BG>

Very interesting stuff nonetheless. I wonder what did happen to those
vibration test results on Pilot though?

Regards
Kit

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

> http://www.apt-p.com/LeafletBRPAPTPITD.htm
>

From that leaflet:
"Economics dictate that unit trains like APT or HST are no longer
viable - the traction unit must be able to work, on average, over 20
hours every day hauling fast trains by day and freight or parcels by
night. Thus the InterCity train of the future becomes a locomotive and
an independent rake of coaches."


How times change!

Andrew,

>O.S.Nock maybe?<

No chance..... <g>

I don't think OS ever travelled on E-Train at all, and for sure not in the
Power car when it was moving.

The list of those who travelled in an E-Train Power car when it was moving,
and not in the cab of course, might only be in single figures.

Ray Coleman (Mr. 'I'm a human gas turbine control system' himself)
Alan Goodley
Brian Porter
Martin Collins
Trevor Easton
Ray Sivitar (on the first run)
Paul Leadley
Tim (I never did know his surname...)
Me

I can't think of anyone else, no-one was daft enough to even want to
anyway!

Gordon,

That's an interesting read about the P-Train survey in 1984, I hadn't read
it all through before but now I have.

Interestingly it reads as if there were only two trains in service, one
Glasgow based and one Crewe based. The latter, referred to as 'APT-D',
seems to have been used specifically to research non-articulated, post
APT-P, performance. That would indicate that it ran with the converted 4
axle coach, SC48204, in the consist. Paul and I were talking about that
some while ago, after seeing a photo of P-Train that looked as if it had
the 4 axle coach in the set.

I do wish they'd documented this a bit better, but who would have predicted
they'd have a bunch of pedantic nuts like us second guessing them after all
these years? <BG>

Regards
Kit

>"Economics dictate that unit trains like APT or HST are no longer
>viable - the traction unit must be able to work, on average, over 20
>hours every day hauling fast trains by day and freight or parcels by

night.<

Interesting that. I guess the only loco that was ever built with that idea
in mind was a Class 91 and I doubt if any of them ever did work in such a
way. Does anyone ever recall seeing a 91 hauling freight?

I suppose if privatisation hadn't happened that concept might well have had
some relevance, but when the passenger operators were divorced from the
freight people that died a death.

What do have now? UMPTEEN unit passenger trains!

Regards
Kit

Thanks Kit, I'm not sure whether it's a conspiracy or just that the fragmentation of the industry had already led to a loss of strategic thinking. Possibile explanation below, what do you think?

> It all sounds to me as if they were running 'tests' to prove a point they'd
> already decided on for other reasons. Me, a conspiracy theorist? How did
> you guess? <BG>

Very interesting stuff nonetheless. I wonder what did happen to those
vibration test results on Pilot though?


What about this scenario:

1) APT ride was generally as good or better than the Mk 3
2) The primary mode numbers from RGI, were published in 1980 and must have come from Pilot (what else would you quote?).
2) The experimental dearticualated APT trailer was fine - the only objection was that it was 21m long
3) ... but Inter-City was now a separate business unit and they insisted on a 23m (as per the Mk 3)
4) For BREL this was a pain
- it took many hours of detailed design hours and static testing to the APT vehicle right in the first place
- experienced design engineers were already in short supply
- the extrusions ran the length of the vehichle and at that point, the standard length was 21m
5) It may also have suited BREL to keep the Mk 3 production line going - so it might have seemed easier to evolve the 23m steel Mk 3
6) Unfortunately this was a tactical disaster: History showed that the future for Litchurch Lane was the experience it gained with aluminium extrusions on the APT - and the the competition on steel bodied vehicles was fierce
7) The Mk3 design was 15 years old and Metro Cammel, had a much more recent 23m steel design on the shelf (the 156) - which could be "simulalted to 63 degrees of freedom"
8) Somehow the weight of this structure (20% heavier than a Mk 3) didn't matter
9) Metro-Cammell may have bid low, to keep the 156 production line open
10) The whole thing would have played into the hands of the government who believed that all the techincal and execution issues were just a symptom of a lack of competition in the industry.

So BRELs short sightedness and Inter-City's desire to make its mark probably hurt both. The Mk 4 was solid, but made little or no techncal advance on the Mk 3. As a result none were sold for export and since then all of our high speed passenger vehicles have been imported designs.

Hello everyone,

What's happened to the APT-P website? It used to have loads of pages of
information & photos but now it only has one page?

Hope it's just a short term thing as I much preferred the original.


Regards,
Ian

P.S Thanks to all the people who take the time (& money!) to run all of the
great APT websites out there.

_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters

I emailed the site owner last week and he replied thus:

"After much criticism that the APT-P.COM website had become a
cobwebsite (ie no changes for a long time) I decided to pull the plug
on it."

I replied and pleaded that he reconsider.

On 15 Jun 2005, at 11:36 am, Alan wrote:

> I emailed the site owner last week and he replied thus:
>
> "After much criticism that the APT-P.COM website had become a
> cobwebsite (ie no changes for a long time) I decided to pull the plug
> on it."

Blimey, goodness knows what people must think of my Co-Bo website!

The only update in 5 years is a banner about D5705 appearing at Crewe
Works Open Day!

You can hardly update if no progress has been made!

Nick - www.D5705.org.uk

100 MB of web space for £1.59† per month

Free WebMail.
1500 MB data transfer (bandwidth) per month

Webalizer graphical web statistics

CGI/Perl Script enabled

Add FrontPage Extensions for £25 per year.
On-line file manager and full FTP access

Unlimited e-mail forwarding addresses.
15 mail boxes (POP3).        

All this for just £1.59 per month

You could transfer the existing domain to 123-reg but I think this would involve a fee. An alternative is to get a new domain from 123-reg which costs £2.59 a year for a .uk domain (www.apt-p.org.uk and www.apt-p.co.uk are both available)

 

Regards

 

Gerry

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

On 15/06/2005 at 10:36 Alan wrote:

>I emailed the site owner last week and he replied thus:
>
>"After much criticism that the APT-P.COM website had become a
>cobwebsite (ie no changes for a long time) I decided to pull the plug
>on it."
>
>I replied and pleaded that he reconsider.
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
>Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
>Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/Rcy2bD/UOnJAA/cosFAA/8ZCslB/TM
>--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
><*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Advanced-Passenger-Train/
>
><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Advanced-Passenger-Train-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>--
>This email has been verified as Virus free
>Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

Hello All,
I had the same reply from Rob of APT-P.com.

Lets hope that he changes his mind and puts the site back on line.

Like Nick says, you can only update your site when something has
happened, my E train site hasnt been updated for a while, I still
havent put the link in to the E train move videos yet.

But I have just moved house so no workstation setup yet.

Long like the P train site.

Regards

Paul
APT-E Conservation & Support Group

Rob,

Please bring back the P-Train site, it is a valuable and excellent site, no
matter how long it may be without updates, we all miss it.

Please reconsider???

Tim.

http://tims-pics.fotopic.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Leadley
Sent: 15 June 2005 13:20
To: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com
Subject: <APT Group> Bring back the P train site.

Hello All,
I had the same reply from Rob of APT-P.com.

Lets hope that he changes his mind and puts the site back on line.

Like Nick says, you can only update your site when something has
happened, my E train site hasnt been updated for a while, I still
havent put the link in to the E train move videos yet.

But I have just moved house so no workstation setup yet.

Long like the P train site.

Regards

Paul
APT-E Conservation & Support Group








Yahoo! Groups Links






The Information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence
is private and is intended solely for the intended recipient(s).
For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution,
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information
is prohibited and may be unlawful.

Emails and other electronic communication with QinetiQ may be monitored.
Calls to QinetiQ may be recorded for quality control,
regulatory and monitoring purposes.

Gerry,

A think I may have confused you.

I am not the owner/creator/publisher/administrator etc of the apt-p web
site; that is Mr Rob Latham.

I sent an email to the address specified at the bottom of the now
single page of the apt-p web site, and received the aforementioned
reply.

I replied suggesting that the criticism should be ignored because the
site is the world's best for APT-P material.

Alan.

Quoting Pape Timothy <tjpape@...>:

> Rob,
>
> Please bring back the P-Train site, it is a valuable and excellent site, no
> matter how long it may be without updates, we all miss it.
>
> Please reconsider???
>

I second that........

SJP

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

I third it..............................


--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, Steven James Parkes
<gen@e...> wrote:

> Quoting Pape Timothy <tjpape@Q...>:
>
> > Rob,
> >
> > Please bring back the P-Train site, it is a valuable and

excellent site, no

> > matter how long it may be without updates, we all miss it.
> >
> > Please reconsider???
> >
>
>
> I second that........
>
> SJP
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Just to be clear, I concur - Please Mr Latham, bring back the APT-P
site. We love it. We need it.

http://www.davidreviews.com/MMovies/Jun05/2005061203_medium.wmv

/\The link is above/\

It's sad, at the end it says something like, " The train is coming
back". It would have been back and never gone if the apt-p had went
ahead.

SURELY SOMEONE ON THIS GROUP COULD DO A LOT BETTER THAN THE PREVIOUS
APT-P WEB SITE MR LATHAMS SHOULD BE MADE TO HAND OVER THE APT-P.COM
DOMAIN TO A NEW WEBMASTER

Bathmatus

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

From: bathmatus

SURELY SOMEONE ON THIS GROUP COULD DO A LOT BETTER THAN THE PREVIOUS
APT-P WEB SITE MR LATHAMS SHOULD BE MADE TO HAND OVER THE APT-P.COM
DOMAIN TO A NEW WEBMASTER

Bathmatus

What was wrong with the old one, Nothing!. We really done need
comments like this.

Robs site is technical and my site is photopictorial, so we cover most
views on the APT.

Bring back the P train site please Rob, most people on this site and
the emails I have had all say the same thing, we miss it.

Regards

Paul

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

> SURELY SOMEONE ON THIS GROUP COULD DO A LOT BETTER THAN THE PREVIOUS
> APT-P WEB SITE MR LATHAMS SHOULD BE MADE TO HAND OVER THE APT-P.COM
> DOMAIN TO A NEW WEBMASTER
>
> Bathmatus

Bathmatus,

>SURELY SOMEONE ON THIS GROUP COULD DO A LOT BETTER THAN THE PREVIOUS
> APT-P WEB SITE MR LATHAMS SHOULD BE MADE TO HAND OVER THE APT-P.COM
> DOMAIN TO A NEW WEBMASTER<

a) As Andy says, don't SHOUT!

b) It's Rob's site, he can do with it as he likes. He can't be 'made' to do
anything with it.

c) Actually I doubt anyone could do better, the P-Train site did what it
set out to do, raise the profile of the train and report what was happening
with the only one we have left.

d) If it's be that easy why don't you do it??????

I'd add my request to the others on here to put the site back as it was
please Rob, it's a historical document in it's own right.

Regards
Kit

Hello All

http://www.apt-p.info

I have started to develop a new site for the APT-P. Its in its early
stages but please have a look. Any suggestions or information about
the APT I can add to this page then please do contact me. This site
uses macromedia and a broadband connection - It will be a bit slow to
load on a 56k Modem but one its loaded it should be ok. This is one of
the benifit with macromedia.

Thanks All

Looks good so far.

Yes, looks really good, I like the effects.

If I can be of any help, please let me know.

We should still be sad about the passing of Robs P train site, I miss
it, Rob, you did a great job.

Regards

Paul

On 30 Jun 2005, at 10:11 am, Paul Leadley wrote:

> Yes, looks really good, I like the effects.
>
> If I can be of any help, please let me know.

All I get are few subject picture links but when I click on them I
get smaller icons in the top left corner but no actual content.

Is this the case?

> We should still be sad about the passing of Robs P train site, I miss
> it, Rob, you did a great job.

Touché - shame the baton couldn't have been simply handed on. Would
have saved having other webmasters from changing their links!

Nick

I still don't understand what is happening. Rob's site is still there, if somewhat curtailed.

As far as I can see, if the site was to continue as it was before - a "cobweb site", as Rob said - then he had to do absolutely nothing!

But he did take action, so what is the deeper reason? Was the web space required for another project?

If Rob has just lost interest could he not have passed the username and password to someone willing to take over maintenance of the site?

Do all the files and images still exist? Would Rob be willing to pass them to someone who is willing to reconstruct the site on their own webspace?

Since Rob appears to be willing to retain a vestigial site, would he add a link to a new site, or better still, redirect www.apt-p.com (which domain, I presume, belongs to Rob) to another URL so that other webmasters would not have to change their links?

It's all quite mysterious and, personally, I feel that Rob could quite usefully enter into this discussion himself. How about it, Rob?

Regards

Gerry

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

On 30/06/2005 at 09:11 Paul Leadley wrote:

>Yes, looks really good, I like the effects.
>
>If I can be of any help, please let me know.
>
>We should still be sad about the passing of Robs P train site, I miss
>it, Rob, you did a great job.
>
>Regards
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>This email has been verified as Virus free
>Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

> Yes, looks really good, I like the effects.

Each to his own :-)

I'm afraid I find the effects hugely distracting. In web design (as in
most design) - keep it simple. If you're going to have animation, just
have one example on a page, and allow the reader to escape from it when
they feel the need.

Just my view...

Howard.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

May I suggest adding a section for the Hornby model.

I am more than happy to help you with this section. I can supply
information, pictures, video, and when I have finished super-detailing
one I can provide detailed instructions and pictures of what I did.

Have a look at

http://web.archive.org/web/20040925193631/http://apt-p.com/


--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, "Alan" <yahoo@h...>
wrote:

> Gerry,
>
> A think I may have confused you.
>
> I am not the owner/creator/publisher/administrator etc of the apt-p

web

> site; that is Mr Rob Latham.
>
> I sent an email to the address specified at the bottom of the now
> single page of the apt-p web site, and received the aforementioned
> reply.
>
> I replied suggesting that the criticism should be ignored because the
> site is the world's best for APT-P material.
>
> Alan.

Hi All

perhaps I was over sensitive to the criticism fired at me, in
deleting the APT-P.COM website.

I have been in touch with Paul at Softflare (who kindly donated the
domain name and unlimited webspace) and he is willing to load the
website back onto their servers if I send a CD-ROM of it.

I may take this chance to do some improvements to the site.

Many thanks for the support of the members of this group, and to
those who sent the original criticism (you know who you are !) what
can I say !!!

As regards the webarchive copy of the site I find this most
interesting - not only the latest copy but various ones going back to
the first version of the website ??!! - do them archive EVERY site
like this ?

Best wishes


Rob
www.apt-p.com

Hi Justin et al

Forgot to add my support for the new APT-P.INFO website.

Just a friendly reminder that the images and video on APT-P.COM were
mainly copyright and released ONLY for use on that website, use on
another will require written permission from the original source.

Look forward to seeing the site develope.


Rob
www.apt-p.com

PS I preferred the layout on http://jcoleman.info

Hello Paul

Any Help would be great - Please do contact me.

Justin

--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Leadley"
<PAUL@A...> wrote:

> Yes, looks really good, I like the effects.
>
> If I can be of any help, please let me know.
>
> We should still be sad about the passing of Robs P train site, I

miss

> it, Rob, you did a great job.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul

Hi

Still in the early days - Not content at the moment.

Justin

--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, Nick Wheat <wheaty@d
...> wrote:

>
> On 30 Jun 2005, at 10:11 am, Paul Leadley wrote:
>
> > Yes, looks really good, I like the effects.
> >
> > If I can be of any help, please let me know.
>
> All I get are few subject picture links but when I click on them I
> get smaller icons in the top left corner but no actual content.
>
> Is this the case?
>
> > We should still be sad about the passing of Robs P train site, I

miss

> > it, Rob, you did a great job.
>
> Touché - shame the baton couldn't have been simply handed on. Would
> have saved having other webmasters from changing their links!
>
> Nick

Hello all

Thanks for all your comments - Please keep sending any help you can
give then please contact me. One again thanks

Justin_Coleman@...

Justin

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

> Hello All
>
> http://www.apt-p.info
>
> I have started to develop a new site for the APT-P. Its in its early
> stages but please have a look. Any suggestions or information about
> the APT I can add to this page then please do contact me. This site
> uses macromedia and a broadband connection - It will be a bit slow

to

> load on a 56k Modem but one its loaded it should be ok. This is one

of

> the benifit with macromedia.
>
> Thanks All

Hi Justin,
Sorry for not getting back to you, busy with a new house.

Contact me directly and I will if there is anything I can do for you.

Regards

Paul