In all the years I have been associated with the APT project, it still
suprises me that people who worked on both E and P train still come
out of the woodwork.

Yes, David, I do hope they did make use of Alans knowledge about the P
train, I suppose, time isnt really on our side now.

Regards

Paul
APT-E Conservation & Support Group

Hi all,

Can anyone tell me what angle the windscreen slopes back on the PCs?

Thanks,

Yours,

Alan Coombe

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Alan,

>Can anyone tell me what angle the windscreen slopes back on the PCs?<

The drawings make it 28 deg from the vertical as near as damn it.

Regards
Kit

I've had a Grouply invitation from a member of this group.

Grouply is a social networking product that organises all one's groups onto
a single web page, and has been widely welcomed by people wanting extensive
contacts.

I've replied that I'm very happy to have direct contact with him, but not
through Grouply.

It is possible that Grouply itself is kosher, but the real or imagined
opportunities it offers to spammers are such that it gives a lot of people
the willies. It gives the superficial appearance of merging the actual
data, which is not what it does but scares people all the same.

More seriously, members relinquish control of their Yahoo ID to Grouply.
That's why many Yahoo groups (including all of mine) routinely disable
Grouply. Some groups simply expel all Grouply members, though naturally
they are always welcome to reapply under a separate non-Grouply Yahoo ID.

Owners and Moderators can disable Grouply access, and elect to have all
their messages deleted from Grouply at:
http://www.grouply.com/owner_controls.php

Users wishing to organise their groups better could consider Window Live
Mail on XP or Windows Mail on Vista, which integrate ALL your email
addresses (including even the free versions of webmail services like
Hotmail, Yahoo Mail and Googlemail/Gmail) into a single fully searchable
window.

David 1/2d

Please note that this is not a criticism of either Grouply itself or of
anyone who joins.

> More seriously, members relinquish control of their Yahoo ID to

Grouply.

The APT Yahoo! Group does not recommend the use of Grouply & members of
this group are advised not to use Grouply.

Kindest regards,
Andy
Group Owner

P.S This 'Off Topic' subject is now CLOSED

David,

>I've had a Grouply invitation from a member of this group.<

Ditto me, and my thoughts about Grrouply are just the same as yours.

I won't be using it.

Regards
Kit

If this has been asked before please accept my apologies.

Can anyone explain how the front coupling bar on APT-E works and how
was it coupled to another vehicle. I ve seen a picture of it coupled to
a Unimog and also it was towed by a Class 08 from the Technical centre
to Derby works but I've never really understood how the actual coupling
was performed.

thanks

Paul Rowlinson

Paul,

>Can anyone explain how the front coupling bar on APT-E works and how
>was it coupled to another vehicle. I ve seen a picture of it coupled to
>a Unimog and also it was towed by a Class 08 from the Technical centre
>to Derby works but I've never really understood how the actual coupling
>was performed.<

The bar was a long, maybe 6-7 ft, rectangular bar hinged horizontally just
where it emerged from the PC nose cone. Inside the cone it was vertically
pin jointed to a forked socket attached to the crash beam under the floor.
The outboard end just had a fork with a curved bar welded across it so it
wad able to be dropped over the standard hook on a loco, or on the Unimog
as well. The method of coupling was a strong guy or two lifting the darn
thing up and dropping it on the hook <g>

Somewhere I have a photo of the nose of E-Train showing the bar emerging
from the nose, but I don't think that one is on the E-Train web site. I'll
try and rectify that.

Regards
Kit

Hi Paul,
If you take a look about half way down this page, you will see the
fitting inside the nose of PC2.

http://www.apt-e.org/onthemove/rest/rest.htm

There are a few other photos on the site of the drawbar fitted to PC2,
most are in the workday reports.

Regards

Paul

Paul/Kit



Thank you for the info - the pictures make things very clear. This leads
me to another question. What is the purpose of the hole located
centrally between the headlights? I have seen photos with some form of
round bar protruding. Was this some form of probe? If so what was it
for?



Hope you can help



regards



Paul Rowlinson

Head of Operations, London

Sanctuary Management Services

Dinwiddy House, 189-205 Pentonville Road,

London, N1 9NF



Tel: 0207 812 0022

Mob: 07787 834807



Sanctuary Management Services is part of Sanctuary Group



paul.rowlinson@...
<mailto:paul.rowlinson@...>

________________________________

From: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Leadley
Sent: 08 September 2008 17:58
To: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com
Subject: <APT Group> Re: Front bar coupler



Hi Paul,
If you take a look about half way down this page, you will see the
fitting inside the nose of PC2.

http://www.apt-e.org/onthemove/rest/rest.htm
<http://www.apt-e.org/onthemove/rest/rest.htm>

There are a few other photos on the site of the drawbar fitted to PC2,
most are in the workday reports.

Regards

Paul



Click here
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==
Rykhq6omNZbWnyHZQvPKZ9o!E8hQhMF7MNRTTjvRhZzcVQ==> to report this email
as spam to Sanctuary's managed spam filter, Websense Hosted Security.
(Do NOT click on 'remove me' or other links from spam as that may
confirm your email to the spam sender or lead to malicious websites)




View our disclaimer at:
http://www.sanctuary-housing.co.uk/disclaimer.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul,

>What is the purpose of the hole located centrally between the headlights?
>I have seen photos with some form of round bar protruding. Was this some
>form of probe? If so what was it for?<

You have it in one.

It was indeed designed as a mounting point for the probe that was mounted
there for aerodynamic tests. The probe extended the aero sensors forward
out of the disturbed air passing around the nose cone. As far as I recall
we only ran with the probe fitted at the Old Dalby track, but as that
wasn't my area of concern at the time I could well be wrong on that point.

And no, I don't think we still have the probe stashed away somewhere in the
NRM Stores. <g>

Regards
Kit

Thanks Kit, mystery solved!



Paul Rowlinson

Head of Operations, London

Sanctuary Management Services

Dinwiddy House, 189-205 Pentonville Road,

London, N1 9NF



Tel: 0207 812 0022

Mob: 07787 834807



Sanctuary Management Services is part of Sanctuary Group



paul.rowlinson@...
<mailto:paul.rowlinson@...>

________________________________

From: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kit
Spackman
Sent: 10 September 2008 08:52
To: APT Group
Subject: <APT Group> Re: Front bar coupler



Paul,

>What is the purpose of the hole located centrally between the

headlights?

>I have seen photos with some form of round bar protruding. Was this

some

>form of probe? If so what was it for?<

You have it in one.

It was indeed designed as a mounting point for the probe that was
mounted
there for aerodynamic tests. The probe extended the aero sensors forward
out of the disturbed air passing around the nose cone. As far as I
recall
we only ran with the probe fitted at the Old Dalby track, but as that
wasn't my area of concern at the time I could well be wrong on that
point.

And no, I don't think we still have the probe stashed away somewhere in
the
NRM Stores. <g>

Regards
Kit



Click here
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==
G9UnW4NuhH90ENCLdMWm6wXZN7!xT27yWgRd8GUOJKJHvw==> to report this email
as spam to Sanctuary's managed spam filter, Websense Hosted Security.
(Do NOT click on 'remove me' or other links from spam as that may
confirm your email to the spam sender or lead to malicious websites)




View our disclaimer at:
http://www.sanctuary-housing.co.uk/disclaimer.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Please see :

http://www.apt-e.org/kit/42.htm

During the Midland runs.

http://www.apt-e.org/index/APT-E_KETTERING2.htm

http://www.apt-e.org/index/APT-E_KETTERING1.htm

http://www.apt-e.org/index/apt160.htm

Just as an after thourght!

Regards

Paul
APT-E Conservation & Support Group.

Paul,

I'd forgotten some of those piccies!

Interesting to note that the ones taken at St Pancras show just the
mounting tube and not the whole probe. The full length version is shown on
the Kettering piccies.

And doesn't the tail lamp bracket look wholly incongruous on such an
aerodynamic nose? I wonder if the Aero Dept did tests with and without the
bracket? <g>

Regards
Kit

APT 'A Promise Unfulfilled':
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk:80/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190252142986

The APT bible!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Inter-City-APT-Brochure-Boarding-Pass-Timetable_W0QQitemZ190262803765QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item190262803765

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/HORNBY-R543-APT-TRAIN-SET-EXCELLENT-CONDITION_W0QQitemZ260304284686QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item260304284686

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/HORNBY-NMIB-NEW-R794-BR-CITY-OF-DERBY-APT-TILTING-TRAIN_W0QQitemZ360100776052QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item360100776052

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/B-R-ADVANCED-PASSENGER-TRAIN-RARE-LIMITED-BOOK-MARK_W0QQitemZ270285949274QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item270285949274

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1981-BR-APT-ADVANCED-PASSENGER-TRAIN-Stamp-Keyring-NEW_W0QQitemZ140272795499QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item140272795499

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi All

just been in the newsagents and seen a magazine called '50 Great
British Locomotives' from the publishers of Railway Magazine...

It has a one page feature on the APT-P !


Best wishes


Rob
www.apt-p.com

Has anyone got any up-to-date information with regards to the current condition & future of APT-E & APT-P?

TIA,
Bill
_________________________________________________________________
Imagine a life without walls.  See the possibilities.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/122465943/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bill,

>Has anyone got any up-to-date information with regards to the current

condition & future of APT-E & APT-P?<

Things don't move that fast in the APT preservation world I'm afraid. So if
you've read something in the last 2 years it's probably the same now.

For APT-E we are hoping to get some restoration re-started this year, but
there are some in the NRM who seem to think we have to have an asbestos
survey carried out on it. This despite the fact that we already DID that
about 5 years ago! I suppose that someone could have sneaked on board and
installed some asbstos just to foil us, but I think it's unlikely.

Actually perhaps it isn't, i'm sure there are some in the NRM who'd be only
too happy to find some more and stop us in our tracks!

Our efforts on E-Train will be limited by what the NRM allow us to do,
either directly or via their Health and Safety minions. The first major
problem is that the steering beam joints are not properly seated, which
means it is only precariously stable at the moment. Putting the joints
together properly is a SERIOUSLY big task, and will probably need the train
cordoning off while we do it. Then it ceases to be an exhibit of course,
and the Museum may not like that.

As for P-Train, your guess is as good as mine. Since the Railway Age
management change we have no direct connection there, as the new brooms
decided that Rob and his dedicated team were personna non grata, and
installed a NEW team, none of whom had a clue what they were doing. They
even asked us to help them............

Your APT-P question would therefore perhaps be better pointed directly at
the Railway Age Museum.

Regards
Cynical Kit

Hi Kit

Thanks for the update on the position with APT-E. It is good to hear what is happening, or not as the case may be! It has always amazed me the way APT-E has been left languishing by the NRM given the contribution which it made to railway science and engineering. Is it because the powers at NRM do not understand its contribution or do not want to?
�
I noticed that for most of this year the NRM website has advertised a Chinese tea exhibition as number one on its list of events for the year. Given the dearth of science in state schools these days, perhaps they were thinking Chinese tea might be of more interest to teachers and bring a few more schools in!! Perhaps the NRM are not really interested in trains and engineering!

I went up to Shildon last month to take some photographs and make some measurements of APT-E for a model I am planning. Despite the fact that the museum is advertised as being open until 4pm, I was asked to leave at 3.30pm on the grounds that staff needed the remaining 30minutes to lock up! This suggests to me that the NRM are not interested in anyone who may be interested in trains or engineering.

You have obviously had closer dealings with the NRM than me: is my impression of the NRM unreasonably jaundiced? I detect from the tone of your response to the original enquiry from Bill that my impressions may not be far from the reality.

Best wishes

David Round
(One time BR Research employee)

Thankfully the APT-E Preservation Team exists so the E-Train is in safe
hands, well apart from the NRM that is! (I'll keep my thoughts of the NRM to
myself otherwise I may have to ban myself!!!!!)

As for the APT-P, a link on Rob Latham's excellent site
(http://www.apt-p.com/aptindex.htm) provided the following info:
http://www.apt-p.info/RestoreNews.html

Take care,
Andy
(Group Owner)

P.S If the APT-E was powered by steam it may have held centre stage in the
Great Hall at York.

David,

Andy says it all in his PS. I would all be different if E-Train was steam
powered.

Now there's an idea, perhaps I should convert the tilt packs to steam? It'd
look good with steam clouds coming out from under the bogies every time we
tilted <g>

I think you have the right impression about the NRM. It's very much setup
as an educational establishment for people who don't know all that much
about the history of railways. People like ourselves seem to be seen as
problems, probably because we know more than the museum staff about our own
specialist subject, and in the case of E-Train that's quite deifinitely the
case.

You'll possibly have heard ot the time at York when Paul and I were working
our tails off trying to get the train split to make the tight deadlines
before the move to Shildon. We had one power car set up ready to be split,
many suspension links disconnected, cables cut, hoses looped back etc. The
two rear-most tilt jacks were all that held it up, and we'd loosened the
bolts connecting them to the bogies, but left them in place. We put HUGE
notices, printed in red, on the tilt jacks saying 'DO NOT REMOVE THESE
BOLTS'.

When we arrived the next morning the power car was leaning hard over to one
side, up against the fence, and two NRM fitters were complaining loud and
long that '.....yon bloody train fell over on us when we took bolts out'.

Well what did they suspect if they ignored the notices? That's indicative
of the NRM's attitude to the E-Train, they're real railway people so they
must know more than us. When the truth is they know nothing at all about
the way E-Train was built or how it works, and without that nothing can be
done. Luckily I have a pretty good memory and can remember the way we did
things back in the RTC but even I didn't work on all areas of the train and
sometimes you have to work things out logically. And APT logic isn't the
same as steam logic!

Sorry, my last message didn't diplay the URL's properly for some stange reason? Here's the message again & fingers crossed it will work this time..


Inter-city and the Advanced Passenger Train:
http://tinyurl.com/7xlthm
Aspects of Spin Off: Study of the Impact of Concorde and the Advanced Passenger Train on Their Supplier-firms (Paperback):
http://tinyurl.com/73omau
Assessment of advanced passenger trains (Technical report - Mitre):
http://tinyurl.com/9ujnwf



_________________________________________________________________
Are you a PC?  Upload your PC story and show the world
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/122465942/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi All,
After a bit of good luck , looking around the net and then Kit doing
some dam fine letter writing. We have located HSFV1 at Derby, and its
owned by Serco.

They have offered active support in getting this important item into
presevation. Hopefully in the national collection at Shildon.

Myself and Kit will keep you posted.

The battle to get the NRM to talk to us is now on....

Regards

Paul
APT-E Conservation & Support Group.

Wow, the flatbed that launched a thousand Pacers! I'd always thought
that long departed. What next, the POP train found as a garden shed in
deepest Derbyshire? :-)

Well done, chaps - if there's anything I can do via my own humble
enterprise to raise the profile of the vehicle, let me know!

--
Best Regards,
/*Adam Warr */
Electra Railway Graphics
Peterborough, UK
Website: http://www.electrarailwaygraphics.co.uk
----------


----------


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.6/1888 - Release Date: 12/01/2009 07:04


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Adam,

>Wow, the flatbed that launched a thousand Pacers! I'd always thought
>that long departed. What next, the POP train found as a garden shed in
>deepest Derbyshire? :-)<

HSFV1 is MUCH more important than that.

This is the vehicle that Dr. Alan Wickens did all his fundamental research
on the wheel/rail interface with back in the 60s and 70s. Over the years
HSFV1 proved many theories and was the fundamental building block upon
which all high speed rail travel WORLDWIDE, was based. That's the reason
why Paul and I started to search for it. The Pacers used a much detuned
version of HSFV1's suspension, sadly. They didn't fit the dual vertical
dampers and that might just have madfe the Pacer's ride acceptable.

Hopefully we can persuade the NRM to accept it, and display it near to
E-Train.

As for POP Train being found, we should be so lucky! We keep on thinking of
building a reproduction one............

A further thought comes to mind - how many e-train bogies still exist?
There are 5 under the train - 2 power and 3 E1T but the NRM had one of
the Swinging Arm bogies when they had one of the trailers on display in
the main hall. Does this still exist, are there any others or indeed
some off the POP train?



regards



Paul Rowlinson

Head of Operations, London

Sanctuary Management Services

Dinwiddy House, 189-205 Pentonville Road,

London, N1 9NF



Tel: 0207 812 0022

Mob: 07787 834807



Sanctuary Management Services is part of Sanctuary Group



paul.rowlinson@...
<mailto:paul.rowlinson@...>

________________________________

From: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kit
Spackman
Sent: 13 January 2009 14:03
To: APT Group
Subject: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the
national collection.



Adam,

>Wow, the flatbed that launched a thousand Pacers! I'd always thought
>that long departed. What next, the POP train found as a garden shed in
>deepest Derbyshire? :-)<

HSFV1 is MUCH more important than that.

This is the vehicle that Dr. Alan Wickens did all his fundamental
research
on the wheel/rail interface with back in the 60s and 70s. Over the years
HSFV1 proved many theories and was the fundamental building block upon
which all high speed rail travel WORLDWIDE, was based. That's the reason
why Paul and I started to search for it. The Pacers used a much detuned
version of HSFV1's suspension, sadly. They didn't fit the dual vertical
dampers and that might just have madfe the Pacer's ride acceptable.

Hopefully we can persuade the NRM to accept it, and display it near to
E-Train.

As for POP Train being found, we should be so lucky! We keep on thinking
of
building a reproduction one............



Click here
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==
BJihSd5TW3nA20CGg+4mHUJuNwBvcmSAKbBPZmPPpGmKJg==> to report this email
as spam to Sanctuary's managed spam filter, Websense Hosted Security.
(Do NOT click on 'remove me' or other links from spam as that may
confirm your email to the spam sender or lead to malicious websites)





View our disclaimer at:
http://www.sanctuary-housing.co.uk/disclaimer.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi ,

> A further thought comes to mind - how many e-train bogies still exist?
> There are 5 under the train - 2 power and 3 E1T but the NRM had one of
> the Swinging Arm bogies when they had one of the trailers on display

in

> the main hall. Does this still exist, are there any others or indeed
> some off the POP train?

Thats correct, but we used an SA bogie (one from POP train) up at
Shildon to support the outer end of TC1. This was required as the
train is broken into two halfs, normally an E1T would support the joint
between TC1 and TC2.

So what we have is

E1 - E1T - E1T (firebreak) SA - E1T - E1

I hope that makes sense.

The SA could be our way to getting TC1 or TC2 tilting again as its
fitted with a large bracket on one end, so it can be attatched to the
floor!

Sadly, still no response from the NRM, the fight continues.

Regards

Paul
APT-E Conservation & Support Group

I'll expand a bit on Paul's comment about the bracket on the end of the
last SA bogie.

When we put TC2 in the Great Hall at York, the plan was to make it tilt
under manual control, and this was done by installing a small hydraulic
power unit in the inspection pit under TC2. (Paul has subsequently found
this HPU in the stores at York!!!), disconnect the tilt jacks from the main
tilt pack and connect them via quick disconnect fittings to the HPU in the
pit. There was a manual control valve installed on a stand near the coach,
and one of the NRM Staff was meant to come along and twiddle the valve
every now and then to make the vehicle tilt.

Because TC2 was taken from the middle of the train, the articulated E1T
bogie it used was placed under one end, and the centre POP Train SA bogie
was placed under the other end. (As POP was now in POP II form it used
APT-P spec bogies so there were three SAs surplus) As TC2's weight would
have tipped the two steering beams down at their inboard ends, both the TC2
'show bogies' had a large bracket welded to the outer ends of their
steering beams, and two socking great concrete blocks were cast into the
floor of the Great Hall, each with a yoke bolted to the top. We then fitted
two substantial turn-buckles between the yokes and the steering beam
brackets and adjusted them till TC2 was level and parallel with the
steering beams.

At Shildon the two bogies that face onto the firebreak are the same two
that were under TC2 and you can see the brackets plainly. If the NRM allow
us to place a similar concrete block in the floor at Shildon we can do the
same as we did at York, as the inner ends of the trailer cars are supported
by a power car each.

Fingers crossed......

Regards
Kit

Another question - If the SA at Shildon is off the POP train, what
happened to the three others that were off the E train when it was
rebuilt after the first run and were these different in design in any
way? I seem to recall seeing published photos of the POP train running
at the same time as the E-train so is it the case that 6 SA bogies were
made or was the articulated bogie between POP1 and POP2 different to the
POP end bogies which always looked to me in photos as having a shorter
wheelbase.



I remember photographing both the E1T and SA bogies at York - still have
the photos as it happens and also some photos taken from a train at
derby of POP2 at the RTC.



Still hopeful of making an O Gauge model at some point. The vehicle
bodies are relatively straightforward but the bogies (E1T version) are
going to be a challenge as I want to include tilt. I think this may have
to be a passive system rather than active! I had thoughts about mounting
the bodies to the bogies using pin point mounts under the roof with a
lot of weight in the bottom so they would swing. However if the joint
modules are going to be connected to the coaches in some way then the
stiffness between vehicles is going to render this impractical. Did
these joint modules fix to the bogies in any way or are they joined
simply at the coach ends.



Sorry to ramble on!



Paul Rowlinson

Head of Operations, London

Sanctuary Management Services

Dinwiddy House, 189-205 Pentonville Road,

London, N1 9NF



Tel: 0207 812 0022

Mob: 07787 834807



Sanctuary Management Services is part of Sanctuary Group



paul.rowlinson@...
<mailto:paul.rowlinson@...>

________________________________

From: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kit
Spackman
Sent: 14 January 2009 17:04
To: APT Group
Subject: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the
national collection.



I'll expand a bit on Paul's comment about the bracket on the end of the
last SA bogie.

When we put TC2 in the Great Hall at York, the plan was to make it tilt
under manual control, and this was done by installing a small hydraulic
power unit in the inspection pit under TC2. (Paul has subsequently found
this HPU in the stores at York!!!), disconnect the tilt jacks from the
main
tilt pack and connect them via quick disconnect fittings to the HPU in
the
pit. There was a manual control valve installed on a stand near the
coach,
and one of the NRM Staff was meant to come along and twiddle the valve
every now and then to make the vehicle tilt.

Because TC2 was taken from the middle of the train, the articulated E1T
bogie it used was placed under one end, and the centre POP Train SA
bogie
was placed under the other end. (As POP was now in POP II form it used
APT-P spec bogies so there were three SAs surplus) As TC2's weight would
have tipped the two steering beams down at their inboard ends, both the
TC2
'show bogies' had a large bracket welded to the outer ends of their
steering beams, and two socking great concrete blocks were cast into the
floor of the Great Hall, each with a yoke bolted to the top. We then
fitted
two substantial turn-buckles between the yokes and the steering beam
brackets and adjusted them till TC2 was level and parallel with the
steering beams.

At Shildon the two bogies that face onto the firebreak are the same two
that were under TC2 and you can see the brackets plainly. If the NRM
allow
us to place a similar concrete block in the floor at Shildon we can do
the
same as we did at York, as the inner ends of the trailer cars are
supported
by a power car each.

Fingers crossed......

Regards
Kit



Click here
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==
hLWKVgp3aAfKDItbBLjXYqeM1slOaqyO5jcjp+mmMV7JIw==> to report this email
as spam to Sanctuary's managed spam filter, Websense Hosted Security.
(Do NOT click on 'remove me' or other links from spam as that may
confirm your email to the spam sender or lead to malicious websites)





View our disclaimer at:
http://www.sanctuary-housing.co.uk/disclaimer.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul Rowlinson" <paul.rowlinson@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:54 AM
To: <Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the
national collection.

> Still hopeful of making an O Gauge model at some point.

Good for you.

A friend is planning a Gauge 1 tilting model.

> I want to include tilt. I think this may have
> to be a passive system rather than active! I had thoughts about mounting
> the bodies to the bogies using pin point mounts under the roof with a
> lot of weight in the bottom so they would swing.

Joint module articulation isn't as bad for you as it looks because the
train didn't tilt (on purpose anyway) on tight curves - it didn't run fast
enough to. And if you tilt the whole train at once, instead of one plodding
car at a time, the angles between cars and joint modules don't get that
bad.

The problem with passive pendulum tilt is that you have to run your train
at the right cant deficiency, which means juggling your speed and track
radius. I'd be surprised if you had much control over either unless you are
planning a new green-field line.

If you pivot at the roof you have further problems. Not only will the floor
move a lot sideways, but it will go well out of gauge too which will limit
your route availability (aka scope for showing it off proudly). The
effective pivot should be as close to car waist level as you can get. That
will be best both for joint module shear and loading gauge.

If you are looking at powered tilt, then keep the centre of gravity close
to the pivot (easy).

If it were me, I'd fit a cheap 2.4Mb car radio set, use the trigger to
control the speed and the steering wheel to tilt the whole train using
servos.

If you want to run on track power, you can still use radio to do manual
tilt. Or you can use radio type components without the radio. R/C servos
come very small these days. A Servo Tester is a little circuit that drives
one or more servos without an intervening radio when you twiddle its knob:
just add a 4 cell battery. All you need then is some linkage that twiddles
that knob by a plausible amount as you run. A linkage to bogie angle or
angle between cars? Something off a DCC chip? I'd be wary of a pendulum -
it wasn't easy first time round, and besides you're aiming for visual
effect unless you really can run at scale cant deficiency!

How have other people tackled this on their models?

David 1/2d
APT Mechanical Design

Paul,

>Another question - If the SA at Shildon is off the POP train, what
>happened to the three others that were off the E train when it was
>rebuilt after the first run and were these different in design in any way?

<

Good question, we already had the three we needed for POP at that time.
There were some development programmes on the secondary suspension of the
SA bogies, but I think we did them on the POP bogies themselves. My guess
is the E-Train ones were scrapped.

As for design differences, all three SA bogies on E-Train were articulated,
whereas only one was on POP. The two outer SA bogies on POP train had a
truncated steering beam if I remember correctly, but everything below that
was identical on all the SA bogies on both trains.

>I seem to recall seeing published photos of the POP train running
>at the same time as the E-train so is it the case that 6 SA bogies were
>made or was the articulated bogie between POP1 and POP2 different to the
>POP end bogies which always looked to me in photos as having a shorter

wheelbase.<

Both trains ran at the same time, with six SA bogies, but that situation
only existed for a very short while. Once E-Train made its first run on
25th July '72 all six SAs were 'running' at once, but of course E-Train
only made two moves on the main line in that condition because of ASLEF's
blacking of the train. Once Rebuild 1 began in November that year the
situation did not obtain again.

I think we had POP Train running on E1Ts before E-Train did, but the POP
Train logbook vanished many years ago, sad to say.

>I remember photographing both the E1T and SA bogies at York - still have
>the photos as it happens and also some photos taken from a train at
>derby of POP2 at the RTC.<

SA bogie in the singular at York I think. The one we have at Shildon now
was the only one to get there, and is the one with the end restraining
bracket. I wasn't that closely connected with POP II, apart from doing some
Mk IV tilt pack development work, but every photo I have found shows it
with two H4X bogies and a BT11bogie in the middle, later with two BT11s
when 'Pilot' was added to the consist. I can't recall any occasion when an
'old' APT bogie was used on the same vehicle as a 'new' one. I have my
doubts if it would have been possible because of the changes in suspension
and tilt geometry. That makes PC3 and 4 the only vehicles to ever use both
old and new type bogies.

>Still hopeful of making an O Gauge model at some point. The vehicle
>bodies are relatively straightforward but the bogies (E1T version) are
>going to be a challenge as I want to include tilt. I think this may have
>to be a passive system rather than active! <

The mind boggles at a 1/43 scale acceleromter......... <g>

>I had thoughts about mounting the bodies to the bogies using pin point

mounts under the roof with a

>lot of weight in the bottom so they would swing.<

That's Turboliner and Talgo technology. It would work but the response
would be very slow. As David said the body would be out of gauge in
moments. On all APT vehicles the line about which the body tilts, called
the 'Bing Line' after Dr. Alan Bing, is essentially at hip height when
you're sitting down in the coach, thus the vehicle's maximum width is at
this point. As this runs directly down the centre of the vehicle in mid-air
you'd need linkages to move the physical pivot up (or down....) to ensure
its effect was on the Bing Line. That's exactly what we did on the real
thing of course.

>However if the joint modules are going to be connected to the coaches in

some way then the

>stiffness between vehicles is going to render this impractical. Did these

joint modules fix to the

>bogies in any way or are they joined simply at the coach ends.<

The joint modules are supported at their bases on curved tracks on the end
of each vehicle, and are centered between the vehicles by a sprung bar at
roof height. Their only connection to the bogie is a lateral traction bar
that ensures they move sideways at the same time as the steering beam. As
the beam automatically takes up the median line between its vehicles this
ensures the joint module follows the median line too.

You can see how the joint module attaches to the ends of the vehicles in
one of the video clips on Pauls' APT-E. Look for the bit where we're
splitting PC1 from TC1 at York, and when the joint module falls down (!)
you can see the curved track on the end of TC1. We had the very devil of a
job putting them back in again at Shildon, and one of them isn't properly
centered even now as the ball joint didn't seat down in the beam's tapered
socket probably.

Regards
Kit

Hi Kit

Thanks for your insight into the NRM. I apologise for the delay in
responding but things have been pretty hectic over the Christmas
period.

Returning to the NRM, what a pity the politics and personal
preferences means that APT-E seems to require volunteers to get
anything done. The `centre-piece' at Shildon seems to be a 1988
Chinese steam locomotive! Quite what it adds to the story of railway
development either historically or technically I am not sure. It has
little too offer aesthetically either! I guess it ticks the `ethnic'
box for the political management and its steam for the steam
enthusiast types! And I say all this as a steam fan!!

Best wishes

David Round

--- In Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com, Kit Spackman
<101453.3657@...> wrote:

>
> David,
>
> Andy says it all in his PS. I would all be different if E-Train was

steam

> powered.
>
> Now there's an idea, perhaps I should convert the tilt packs to

steam? It'd

> look good with steam clouds coming out from under the bogies every

time we

> tilted <g>
>
> I think you have the right impression about the NRM. It's very much

setup

> as an educational establishment for people who don't know all that

much

> about the history of railways. People like ourselves seem to be

seen as

> problems, probably because we know more than the museum staff about

our own

> specialist subject, and in the case of E-Train that's quite

deifinitely the

> case.
>
> You'll possibly have heard ot the time at York when Paul and I were

working

> our tails off trying to get the train split to make the tight

deadlines

> before the move to Shildon. We had one power car set up ready to be

split,

> many suspension links disconnected, cables cut, hoses looped back

etc. The

> two rear-most tilt jacks were all that held it up, and we'd

loosened the

> bolts connecting them to the bogies, but left them in place. We put

HUGE

> notices, printed in red, on the tilt jacks saying 'DO NOT REMOVE

THESE

> BOLTS'.
>
> When we arrived the next morning the power car was leaning hard

over to one

> side, up against the fence, and two NRM fitters were complaining

loud and

> long that '.....yon bloody train fell over on us when we took bolts

out'.

>
> Well what did they suspect if they ignored the notices? That's

indicative

> of the NRM's attitude to the E-Train, they're real railway people

so they

> must know more than us. When the truth is they know nothing at all

about

> the way E-Train was built or how it works, and without that nothing

can be

> done. Luckily I have a pretty good memory and can remember the way

we did

> things back in the RTC but even I didn't work on all areas of the

train and

> sometimes you have to work things out logically. And APT logic

isn't the

> same as steam logic!
>

David



I had heard rumours of a Gauge 1 model - very impressive. What drawings
is your friend working on and is he prepared to share!!!! I have a 4mm
GA drawing done by my brother several years ago, various plans from the
magazines and copies of GA drawings of bodies, bogies and other
miscellaneous bits which the NRM did for me many years ago. I also have
a copy of the power car GA that I am sure was used by Met Cam in the
construction of the bodies that I aquired at a model railway exhibition
some time back, I am assuming that this was one of those that MetCam (or
a MetCam employee) did not return to BR after construction. I am happy
to copy these if any would be useful to your friend.



The whole question of tilt on a model is a bit of a conundrum since
there are not many places that a set could be run at speeds that would
make tilt appropriate so you would be more or less in the same boat that
Hornby are with the APT-P and Pendolino that use some form of rubbing
plate that has a gradient that becomes steeper with bogie rotation. This
means it will tilt round train set tight curves relatively convincingly
but rather annoyingly will do it at speeds from 2mph to 200mph. The
moral is don't have a platform on a curve where the train stops - it
looks ridiculous!



It might be better to ignore the tilt altogether and try to get the
joint modules to work convincingly! The current model I am building is
based on the Braintree branch and as far as I am aware the closest the
e-train got to this location was St Pancras! Also there are only very
gentle curves as the layout is end to end. I still harbor thoughts of
the model being tested on one of the club test tracks though.



Thanks for your thoughts



regards



Paul Rowlinson

Head of Operations, London

Sanctuary Management Services

Dinwiddy House, 189-205 Pentonville Road,

London, N1 9NF



Tel: 0207 812 0022

Mob: 07787 834807



Sanctuary Management Services is part of Sanctuary Group



paul.rowlinson@...
<mailto:paul.rowlinson@...>

________________________________

From: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David
Halfpenny gmail
Sent: 15 January 2009 10:55
To: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the
national collection.





--------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul Rowlinson" <paul.rowlinson@...
<mailto:paul.rowlinson%40sanctuary-housing.co.uk> >
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:54 AM
To: <Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Advanced-Passenger-Train%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the
national collection.

> Still hopeful of making an O Gauge model at some point.

Good for you.

A friend is planning a Gauge 1 tilting model.

> I want to include tilt. I think this may have
> to be a passive system rather than active! I had thoughts about

mounting

> the bodies to the bogies using pin point mounts under the roof with a
> lot of weight in the bottom so they would swing.

Joint module articulation isn't as bad for you as it looks because the
train didn't tilt (on purpose anyway) on tight curves - it didn't run
fast
enough to. And if you tilt the whole train at once, instead of one
plodding
car at a time, the angles between cars and joint modules don't get that
bad.

The problem with passive pendulum tilt is that you have to run your
train
at the right cant deficiency, which means juggling your speed and track
radius. I'd be surprised if you had much control over either unless you
are
planning a new green-field line.

If you pivot at the roof you have further problems. Not only will the
floor
move a lot sideways, but it will go well out of gauge too which will
limit
your route availability (aka scope for showing it off proudly). The
effective pivot should be as close to car waist level as you can get.
That
will be best both for joint module shear and loading gauge.

If you are looking at powered tilt, then keep the centre of gravity
close
to the pivot (easy).

If it were me, I'd fit a cheap 2.4Mb car radio set, use the trigger to
control the speed and the steering wheel to tilt the whole train using
servos.

If you want to run on track power, you can still use radio to do manual
tilt. Or you can use radio type components without the radio. R/C servos

come very small these days. A Servo Tester is a little circuit that
drives
one or more servos without an intervening radio when you twiddle its
knob:
just add a 4 cell battery. All you need then is some linkage that
twiddles
that knob by a plausible amount as you run. A linkage to bogie angle or
angle between cars? Something off a DCC chip? I'd be wary of a pendulum
-
it wasn't easy first time round, and besides you're aiming for visual
effect unless you really can run at scale cant deficiency!

How have other people tackled this on their models?

David 1/2d
APT Mechanical Design





Click here
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==
UMwRwR+6HDzoe59MNHh4JoetG+CHg+eM4kf02A3zwbO5JA==> to report this email
as spam to Sanctuary's managed spam filter, Websense Hosted Security.
(Do NOT click on 'remove me' or other links from spam as that may
confirm your email to the spam sender or lead to malicious websites)





View our disclaimer at:
http://www.sanctuary-housing.co.uk/disclaimer.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kit



Many thanks for your thoughts and the clarification on the joint module. I never cease to be amazed at the way the engineering challenges were overcome for this project and one can sense the excitement that must have been evident in the E-train development team at the time.



I guess if we had £6m from a lottery win and a willing NRM (Ha Ha!) we could see the train run again.



regards



Paul Rowlinson

Head of Operations, London

Sanctuary Management Services

Dinwiddy House, 189-205 Pentonville Road,

London, N1 9NF



Tel: 0207 812 0022

Mob: 07787 834807



Sanctuary Management Services is part of Sanctuary Group



paul.rowlinson@... <mailto:paul.rowlinson@...>

________________________________

From: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kit Spackman
Sent: 15 January 2009 15:27
To: APT Group
Subject: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the national collection.



Paul,

>Another question - If the SA at Shildon is off the POP train, what
>happened to the three others that were off the E train when it was
>rebuilt after the first run and were these different in design in any way?

<

Good question, we already had the three we needed for POP at that time.
There were some development programmes on the secondary suspension of the
SA bogies, but I think we did them on the POP bogies themselves. My guess
is the E-Train ones were scrapped.

As for design differences, all three SA bogies on E-Train were articulated,
whereas only one was on POP. The two outer SA bogies on POP train had a
truncated steering beam if I remember correctly, but everything below that
was identical on all the SA bogies on both trains.

>I seem to recall seeing published photos of the POP train running
>at the same time as the E-train so is it the case that 6 SA bogies were
>made or was the articulated bogie between POP1 and POP2 different to the
>POP end bogies which always looked to me in photos as having a shorter

wheelbase.<

Both trains ran at the same time, with six SA bogies, but that situation
only existed for a very short while. Once E-Train made its first run on
25th July '72 all six SAs were 'running' at once, but of course E-Train
only made two moves on the main line in that condition because of ASLEF's
blacking of the train. Once Rebuild 1 began in November that year the
situation did not obtain again.

I think we had POP Train running on E1Ts before E-Train did, but the POP
Train logbook vanished many years ago, sad to say.

>I remember photographing both the E1T and SA bogies at York - still have
>the photos as it happens and also some photos taken from a train at
>derby of POP2 at the RTC.<

SA bogie in the singular at York I think. The one we have at Shildon now
was the only one to get there, and is the one with the end restraining
bracket. I wasn't that closely connected with POP II, apart from doing some
Mk IV tilt pack development work, but every photo I have found shows it
with two H4X bogies and a BT11bogie in the middle, later with two BT11s
when 'Pilot' was added to the consist. I can't recall any occasion when an
'old' APT bogie was used on the same vehicle as a 'new' one. I have my
doubts if it would have been possible because of the changes in suspension
and tilt geometry. That makes PC3 and 4 the only vehicles to ever use both
old and new type bogies.

>Still hopeful of making an O Gauge model at some point. The vehicle
>bodies are relatively straightforward but the bogies (E1T version) are
>going to be a challenge as I want to include tilt. I think this may have
>to be a passive system rather than active! <

The mind boggles at a 1/43 scale acceleromter......... <g>

>I had thoughts about mounting the bodies to the bogies using pin point

mounts under the roof with a

>lot of weight in the bottom so they would swing.<

That's Turboliner and Talgo technology. It would work but the response
would be very slow. As David said the body would be out of gauge in
moments. On all APT vehicles the line about which the body tilts, called
the 'Bing Line' after Dr. Alan Bing, is essentially at hip height when
you're sitting down in the coach, thus the vehicle's maximum width is at
this point. As this runs directly down the centre of the vehicle in mid-air
you'd need linkages to move the physical pivot up (or down....) to ensure
its effect was on the Bing Line. That's exactly what we did on the real
thing of course.

>However if the joint modules are going to be connected to the coaches in

some way then the

>stiffness between vehicles is going to render this impractical. Did these

joint modules fix to the

>bogies in any way or are they joined simply at the coach ends.<

The joint modules are supported at their bases on curved tracks on the end
of each vehicle, and are centered between the vehicles by a sprung bar at
roof height. Their only connection to the bogie is a lateral traction bar
that ensures they move sideways at the same time as the steering beam. As
the beam automatically takes up the median line between its vehicles this
ensures the joint module follows the median line too.

You can see how the joint module attaches to the ends of the vehicles in
one of the video clips on Pauls' APT-E. Look for the bit where we're
splitting PC1 from TC1 at York, and when the joint module falls down (!)
you can see the curved track on the end of TC1. We had the very devil of a
job putting them back in again at Shildon, and one of them isn't properly
centered even now as the ball joint didn't seat down in the beam's tapered
socket probably.

Regards
Kit



Click here <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==> to report this email as spam to Sanctuary's managed spam filter, Websense Hosted Security. (Do NOT click on 'remove me' or other links from spam as that may confirm your email to the spam sender or lead to malicious websites)





View our disclaimer at:
http://www.sanctuary-housing.co.uk/disclaimer.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi All

The parallel discussion on the HSFV1 raised the issue of the APT-E
tilt system. Thanks to David and Kit for clarifying a concern I had.
I had assumed that the centre of tilt must be at the coach body waist
level: Why else would it be shaped like that! At the back of my mind
though was a presentation write-up which showed the tilt centre at
almost roof height. I presume that I can safely assume that was just
diagrammatic licence! The actual rotational freedom is, as I
understand it, below floor level but I assume that the lateral
movement on the bogie swing-links moves the effective centre of
rotation upwards. Is this correct?

While on the subject, I wonder if someone could offer some advice on
tilt systems! As I mentioned before, I am attempting to build a G1
(1/32) scale model of APT-E. I have designed a tilt system based
round an accelerometer. The accelerometer output signal is filtered
with a 5-pole filter at 1Hz corner point. The filtered signal is then
used to generate signals to control a servo (the type usually used in
radio controlled planes). The system will use a single accelerometer
at the front of the train and the tilt servos will have a speed based
time delay down the train.

My problem is that ideally I would like to mount the accelerometer on
the (front) power car body and use a feedback mechanism so that the
servo tries to nullify the accelerations. However, it seems to me
that the phase shift created by signal filtering will result in a
reverse tilt as the train comes off a curve as the tilt mechanism
tries to correct what it thinks is the current state of lateral
acceleration: That is unless the servo is made very slow acting. I
worry however that with too many `delays', in the short curves of a
typical G1 system, the curve will be over before the tilt operates!

The alternative is to mount the accelerometer on the bogie and tilt
the body according to the `absolute' value of filtered lateral
acceleration. That way there is just the delay due to the filter
phase shift which should look realistic even if slightly late on
short model curves.

I wonder how the APT-E filtered out general high frequency
accelerations and delayed the tilt actuators so as not to get ahead
of themselves: Was it electronic, or mechanical in the design of the
sensor?

Does any of this make any sense or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Any advice would be most welcome.

Best wishes

David Round

Hi All

Regarding Paul's comment:

>I guess if we had £6m <

Has anyone ever done an assessment on what it would cost to get APT-E to run again. Perhaps not at 150mph!

David Round




________________________________
From: Paul Rowlinson <paul.rowlinson@...>
To: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 15 January, 2009 18:29:37
Subject: RE: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the national collection.


Kit

Many thanks for your thoughts and the clarification on the joint module. I never cease to be amazed at the way the engineering challenges were overcome for this project and one can sense the excitement that must have been evident in the E-train development team at the time.

I guess if we had £6m from a lottery win and a willing NRM (Ha Ha!) we could see the train run again.

regards

Paul Rowlinson

Head of Operations, London

Sanctuary Management Services

Dinwiddy House, 189-205 Pentonville Road,

London, N1 9NF

Tel: 0207 812 0022

Mob: 07787 834807

Sanctuary Management Services is part of Sanctuary Group

paul.rowlinson@ sanctuary- housing.co. uk <mailto:paul.rowlinson@ sanctuary- housing.co. uk>

____________ _________ _________ __

From: Advanced-Passenger- Train@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:Advanced-Passenger- Train@yahoogroup s.com] On Behalf Of Kit Spackman
Sent: 15 January 2009 15:27
To: APT Group
Subject: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the national collection.

Paul,

>Another question - If the SA at Shildon is off the POP train, what
>happened to the three others that were off the E train when it was
>rebuilt after the first run and were these different in design in any way?

<

Good question, we already had the three we needed for POP at that time.
There were some development programmes on the secondary suspension of the
SA bogies, but I think we did them on the POP bogies themselves. My guess
is the E-Train ones were scrapped.

As for design differences, all three SA bogies on E-Train were articulated,
whereas only one was on POP. The two outer SA bogies on POP train had a
truncated steering beam if I remember correctly, but everything below that
was identical on all the SA bogies on both trains.

>I seem to recall seeing published photos of the POP train running
>at the same time as the E-train so is it the case that 6 SA bogies were
>made or was the articulated bogie between POP1 and POP2 different to the
>POP end bogies which always looked to me in photos as having a shorter

wheelbase.<

Both trains ran at the same time, with six SA bogies, but that situation
only existed for a very short while. Once E-Train made its first run on
25th July '72 all six SAs were 'running' at once, but of course E-Train
only made two moves on the main line in that condition because of ASLEF's
blacking of the train. Once Rebuild 1 began in November that year the
situation did not obtain again.

I think we had POP Train running on E1Ts before E-Train did, but the POP
Train logbook vanished many years ago, sad to say.

>I remember photographing both the E1T and SA bogies at York - still have
>the photos as it happens and also some photos taken from a train at
>derby of POP2 at the RTC.<

SA bogie in the singular at York I think. The one we have at Shildon now
was the only one to get there, and is the one with the end restraining
bracket. I wasn't that closely connected with POP II, apart from doing some
Mk IV tilt pack development work, but every photo I have found shows it
with two H4X bogies and a BT11bogie in the middle, later with two BT11s
when 'Pilot' was added to the consist. I can't recall any occasion when an
'old' APT bogie was used on the same vehicle as a 'new' one. I have my
doubts if it would have been possible because of the changes in suspension
and tilt geometry. That makes PC3 and 4 the only vehicles to ever use both
old and new type bogies.

>Still hopeful of making an O Gauge model at some point. The vehicle
>bodies are relatively straightforward but the bogies (E1T version) are
>going to be a challenge as I want to include tilt. I think this may have
>to be a passive system rather than active! <

The mind boggles at a 1/43 scale acceleromter. ........ <g>

>I had thoughts about mounting the bodies to the bogies using pin point

mounts under the roof with a

>lot of weight in the bottom so they would swing.<

That's Turboliner and Talgo technology. It would work but the response
would be very slow. As David said the body would be out of gauge in
moments. On all APT vehicles the line about which the body tilts, called
the 'Bing Line' after Dr. Alan Bing, is essentially at hip height when
you're sitting down in the coach, thus the vehicle's maximum width is at
this point. As this runs directly down the centre of the vehicle in mid-air
you'd need linkages to move the physical pivot up (or down....) to ensure
its effect was on the Bing Line. That's exactly what we did on the real
thing of course.

>However if the joint modules are going to be connected to the coaches in

some way then the

>stiffness between vehicles is going to render this impractical. Did these

joint modules fix to the

>bogies in any way or are they joined simply at the coach ends.<

The joint modules are supported at their bases on curved tracks on the end
of each vehicle, and are centered between the vehicles by a sprung bar at
roof height. Their only connection to the bogie is a lateral traction bar
that ensures they move sideways at the same time as the steering beam. As
the beam automatically takes up the median line between its vehicles this
ensures the joint module follows the median line too.

You can see how the joint module attaches to the ends of the vehicles in
one of the video clips on Pauls' APT-E. Look for the bit where we're
splitting PC1 from TC1 at York, and when the joint module falls down (!)
you can see the curved track on the end of TC1. We had the very devil of a
job putting them back in again at Shildon, and one of them isn't properly
centered even now as the ball joint didn't seat down in the beam's tapered
socket probably.

Regards
Kit

Click here <https://www. mailcontrol. com/sr/wQw0zmjPo HdJTZGyOCrrhg= => to report this email as spam to Sanctuary's managed spam filter, Websense Hosted Security. (Do NOT click on 'remove me' or other links from spam as that may confirm your email to the spam sender or lead to malicious websites)

View our disclaimer at:
http://www.sanctuar y-housing. co.uk/disclaimer .html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi all,

Paul, there are potentially going to be two G1 models of APT-E. One by David R and one by myself. Our concepts are somewhat different, mine very much KISS whereas David will be pushing the envelope with his. We are even using different scales, he 1/32 and me 10 mm:ft which is 5% larger. On mine I intend to make the degree of tilt proportional to both speed and curvature. The curvature function will be by mechanical coupling to the shared bogies 2 and 4. The speed function will be derived from the motor speed control signal which will drive four servos connected to the coach pivot points. The pivot points will be moved to change the degree of tilt. Four ladder frames made from 10mm steel box section will be supported on the bogies. Light weight bodies will be able to swing on bearings attached to the frames.

As for drawings, I am waiting on Kit to finish cleaning up the drawing he has - reckoned to be very accurate. David R and myself have been exchanging ideas and I would be happy to do the same with you Paul.

Some questions:

a) Do the TCs look the same from each side?

b) Are the sides of the PCs mirror images?

c) Are the bogies the same from each side or mirror images?

Yours,

Alan Coombe



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

its not so much the cost to get her running again, its if anyone would let us run her and were would you run her???
ive had this same dream as have many others but kIT keeps bursting my bubble with common sence. kit knows more than anyone the extent of work needed for a full restoration, the body would be minimal cost, the engines are possable with als help, and kit could get the tilt working again.
COST? we aint talking millions tens of thousands prob but then you have to get all those costly inspections etc...
then again with all the cash thats gone on the flying scotsman and green arrow who knows??? money talks

----- Original Message -----
From: David Round
To: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the national collection.


Hi All

Regarding Paul's comment:

>I guess if we had £6m <

Has anyone ever done an assessment on what it would cost to get APT-E to run again. Perhaps not at 150mph!

David Round

________________________________
From: Paul Rowlinson <paul.rowlinson@...>
To: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 15 January, 2009 18:29:37
Subject: RE: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the national collection.

Kit

Many thanks for your thoughts and the clarification on the joint module. I never cease to be amazed at the way the engineering challenges were overcome for this project and one can sense the excitement that must have been evident in the E-train development team at the time.

I guess if we had £6m from a lottery win and a willing NRM (Ha Ha!) we could see the train run again.

regards

Paul Rowlinson

Head of Operations, London

Sanctuary Management Services

Dinwiddy House, 189-205 Pentonville Road,

London, N1 9NF

Tel: 0207 812 0022

Mob: 07787 834807

Sanctuary Management Services is part of Sanctuary Group

paul.rowlinson@ sanctuary- housing.co. uk <mailto:paul.rowlinson@ sanctuary- housing.co. uk>

____________ _________ _________ __

From: Advanced-Passenger- Train@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:Advanced-Passenger- Train@yahoogroup s.com] On Behalf Of Kit Spackman
Sent: 15 January 2009 15:27
To: APT Group
Subject: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the national collection.

Paul,

>Another question - If the SA at Shildon is off the POP train, what
>happened to the three others that were off the E train when it was
>rebuilt after the first run and were these different in design in any way?
<

Good question, we already had the three we needed for POP at that time.
There were some development programmes on the secondary suspension of the
SA bogies, but I think we did them on the POP bogies themselves. My guess
is the E-Train ones were scrapped.

As for design differences, all three SA bogies on E-Train were articulated,
whereas only one was on POP. The two outer SA bogies on POP train had a
truncated steering beam if I remember correctly, but everything below that
was identical on all the SA bogies on both trains.

>I seem to recall seeing published photos of the POP train running
>at the same time as the E-train so is it the case that 6 SA bogies were
>made or was the articulated bogie between POP1 and POP2 different to the
>POP end bogies which always looked to me in photos as having a shorter
wheelbase.<

Both trains ran at the same time, with six SA bogies, but that situation
only existed for a very short while. Once E-Train made its first run on
25th July '72 all six SAs were 'running' at once, but of course E-Train
only made two moves on the main line in that condition because of ASLEF's
blacking of the train. Once Rebuild 1 began in November that year the
situation did not obtain again.

I think we had POP Train running on E1Ts before E-Train did, but the POP
Train logbook vanished many years ago, sad to say.

>I remember photographing both the E1T and SA bogies at York - still have
>the photos as it happens and also some photos taken from a train at
>derby of POP2 at the RTC.<

SA bogie in the singular at York I think. The one we have at Shildon now
was the only one to get there, and is the one with the end restraining
bracket. I wasn't that closely connected with POP II, apart from doing some
Mk IV tilt pack development work, but every photo I have found shows it
with two H4X bogies and a BT11bogie in the middle, later with two BT11s
when 'Pilot' was added to the consist. I can't recall any occasion when an
'old' APT bogie was used on the same vehicle as a 'new' one. I have my
doubts if it would have been possible because of the changes in suspension
and tilt geometry. That makes PC3 and 4 the only vehicles to ever use both
old and new type bogies.

>Still hopeful of making an O Gauge model at some point. The vehicle
>bodies are relatively straightforward but the bogies (E1T version) are
>going to be a challenge as I want to include tilt. I think this may have
>to be a passive system rather than active! <

The mind boggles at a 1/43 scale acceleromter. ........ <g>

>I had thoughts about mounting the bodies to the bogies using pin point
mounts under the roof with a
>lot of weight in the bottom so they would swing.<

That's Turboliner and Talgo technology. It would work but the response
would be very slow. As David said the body would be out of gauge in
moments. On all APT vehicles the line about which the body tilts, called
the 'Bing Line' after Dr. Alan Bing, is essentially at hip height when
you're sitting down in the coach, thus the vehicle's maximum width is at
this point. As this runs directly down the centre of the vehicle in mid-air
you'd need linkages to move the physical pivot up (or down....) to ensure
its effect was on the Bing Line. That's exactly what we did on the real
thing of course.

>However if the joint modules are going to be connected to the coaches in
some way then the
>stiffness between vehicles is going to render this impractical. Did these
joint modules fix to the
>bogies in any way or are they joined simply at the coach ends.<

The joint modules are supported at their bases on curved tracks on the end
of each vehicle, and are centered between the vehicles by a sprung bar at
roof height. Their only connection to the bogie is a lateral traction bar
that ensures they move sideways at the same time as the steering beam. As
the beam automatically takes up the median line between its vehicles this
ensures the joint module follows the median line too.

You can see how the joint module attaches to the ends of the vehicles in
one of the video clips on Pauls' APT-E. Look for the bit where we're
splitting PC1 from TC1 at York, and when the joint module falls down (!)
you can see the curved track on the end of TC1. We had the very devil of a
job putting them back in again at Shildon, and one of them isn't properly
centered even now as the ball joint didn't seat down in the beam's tapered
socket probably.

Regards
Kit

Click here <https://www. mailcontrol. com/sr/wQw0zmjPo HdJTZGyOCrrhg= => to report this email as spam to Sanctuary's managed spam filter, Websense Hosted Security. (Do NOT click on 'remove me' or other links from spam as that may confirm your email to the spam sender or lead to malicious websites)

View our disclaimer at:
http://www.sanctuar y-housing. co.uk/disclaimer .html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Guys



It might be worth speculating if having got it restored and fitted with TPWS, OTMR, GSM-R etc etc, would the e-train enjoy grandfather rights on the network and would this apply to tilt.



I would like to see the face of the guy or girl at Network Rail when you rocked up and said we want to run a charter from Paddington to Bristol and we might be going a bit faster through Uffington!



We could always paint it red, stick a dummy pantograph on the roof and call it a Pendolino. Perhaps then Mr Branson might be persuaded to part with the loot. After all without the E-train, he would not have his Pendolino. On second thoughts perhaps not!



I suspect given the attitudes of NRM it might be easier to start from scratch and build a replica. After all if the steam boys can do it with Tornado................



Regards and sorry for the flippancy - it is 6.00am in the morning as I type this.



Paul Rowlinson

Head of Operations, London

Sanctuary Management Services

Dinwiddy House, 189-205 Pentonville Road,

London, N1 9NF



Tel: 0207 812 0022

Mob: 07787 834807



Sanctuary Management Services is part of Sanctuary Group



paul.rowlinson@... <mailto:paul.rowlinson@...>

________________________________

From: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Round
Sent: 15 January 2009 20:27
To: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the national collection.



Hi All

Regarding Paul's comment:

>I guess if we had £6m <

Has anyone ever done an assessment on what it would cost to get APT-E to run again. Perhaps not at 150mph!

David Round

________________________________
From: Paul Rowlinson <paul.rowlinson@... <mailto:paul.rowlinson%40sanctuary-housing.co.uk> >
To: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Advanced-Passenger-Train%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 15 January, 2009 18:29:37
Subject: RE: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the national collection.

Kit

Many thanks for your thoughts and the clarification on the joint module. I never cease to be amazed at the way the engineering challenges were overcome for this project and one can sense the excitement that must have been evident in the E-train development team at the time.

I guess if we had £6m from a lottery win and a willing NRM (Ha Ha!) we could see the train run again.

regards

Paul Rowlinson

Head of Operations, London

Sanctuary Management Services

Dinwiddy House, 189-205 Pentonville Road,

London, N1 9NF

Tel: 0207 812 0022

Mob: 07787 834807

Sanctuary Management Services is part of Sanctuary Group

paul.rowlinson@ sanctuary- housing.co. uk <mailto:paul.rowlinson@ sanctuary- housing.co. uk>

____________ _________ _________ __

From: Advanced-Passenger- Train@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:Advanced-Passenger- Train@yahoogroup s.com] On Behalf Of Kit Spackman
Sent: 15 January 2009 15:27
To: APT Group
Subject: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the national collection.

Paul,

>Another question - If the SA at Shildon is off the POP train, what
>happened to the three others that were off the E train when it was
>rebuilt after the first run and were these different in design in any way?

<

Good question, we already had the three we needed for POP at that time.
There were some development programmes on the secondary suspension of the
SA bogies, but I think we did them on the POP bogies themselves. My guess
is the E-Train ones were scrapped.

As for design differences, all three SA bogies on E-Train were articulated,
whereas only one was on POP. The two outer SA bogies on POP train had a
truncated steering beam if I remember correctly, but everything below that
was identical on all the SA bogies on both trains.

>I seem to recall seeing published photos of the POP train running
>at the same time as the E-train so is it the case that 6 SA bogies were
>made or was the articulated bogie between POP1 and POP2 different to the
>POP end bogies which always looked to me in photos as having a shorter

wheelbase.<

Both trains ran at the same time, with six SA bogies, but that situation
only existed for a very short while. Once E-Train made its first run on
25th July '72 all six SAs were 'running' at once, but of course E-Train
only made two moves on the main line in that condition because of ASLEF's
blacking of the train. Once Rebuild 1 began in November that year the
situation did not obtain again.

I think we had POP Train running on E1Ts before E-Train did, but the POP
Train logbook vanished many years ago, sad to say.

>I remember photographing both the E1T and SA bogies at York - still have
>the photos as it happens and also some photos taken from a train at
>derby of POP2 at the RTC.<

SA bogie in the singular at York I think. The one we have at Shildon now
was the only one to get there, and is the one with the end restraining
bracket. I wasn't that closely connected with POP II, apart from doing some
Mk IV tilt pack development work, but every photo I have found shows it
with two H4X bogies and a BT11bogie in the middle, later with two BT11s
when 'Pilot' was added to the consist. I can't recall any occasion when an
'old' APT bogie was used on the same vehicle as a 'new' one. I have my
doubts if it would have been possible because of the changes in suspension
and tilt geometry. That makes PC3 and 4 the only vehicles to ever use both
old and new type bogies.

>Still hopeful of making an O Gauge model at some point. The vehicle
>bodies are relatively straightforward but the bogies (E1T version) are
>going to be a challenge as I want to include tilt. I think this may have
>to be a passive system rather than active! <

The mind boggles at a 1/43 scale acceleromter. ........ <g>

>I had thoughts about mounting the bodies to the bogies using pin point

mounts under the roof with a

>lot of weight in the bottom so they would swing.<

That's Turboliner and Talgo technology. It would work but the response
would be very slow. As David said the body would be out of gauge in
moments. On all APT vehicles the line about which the body tilts, called
the 'Bing Line' after Dr. Alan Bing, is essentially at hip height when
you're sitting down in the coach, thus the vehicle's maximum width is at
this point. As this runs directly down the centre of the vehicle in mid-air
you'd need linkages to move the physical pivot up (or down....) to ensure
its effect was on the Bing Line. That's exactly what we did on the real
thing of course.

>However if the joint modules are going to be connected to the coaches in

some way then the

>stiffness between vehicles is going to render this impractical. Did these

joint modules fix to the

>bogies in any way or are they joined simply at the coach ends.<

The joint modules are supported at their bases on curved tracks on the end
of each vehicle, and are centered between the vehicles by a sprung bar at
roof height. Their only connection to the bogie is a lateral traction bar
that ensures they move sideways at the same time as the steering beam. As
the beam automatically takes up the median line between its vehicles this
ensures the joint module follows the median line too.

You can see how the joint module attaches to the ends of the vehicles in
one of the video clips on Pauls' APT-E. Look for the bit where we're
splitting PC1 from TC1 at York, and when the joint module falls down (!)
you can see the curved track on the end of TC1. We had the very devil of a
job putting them back in again at Shildon, and one of them isn't properly
centered even now as the ball joint didn't seat down in the beam's tapered
socket probably.

Regards
Kit

Click here <https://www. mailcontrol. com/sr/wQw0zmjPo HdJTZGyOCrrhg= => to report this email as spam to Sanctuary's managed spam filter, Websense Hosted Security. (Do NOT click on 'remove me' or other links from spam as that may confirm your email to the spam sender or lead to malicious websites)

View our disclaimer at:
http://www.sanctuar y-housing. co.uk/disclaimer .html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

hi kit, regarding pop? as we have half finished reskining pc2,
when it comes down to starting on pc1 which is in a bit worse state we could always leave the pannels on one side off to show pops construction?

----- Original Message -----
From: Kit Spackman
To: APT Group
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 5:03 PM
Subject: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the national collection.


I'll expand a bit on Paul's comment about the bracket on the end of the
last SA bogie.

When we put TC2 in the Great Hall at York, the plan was to make it tilt
under manual control, and this was done by installing a small hydraulic
power unit in the inspection pit under TC2. (Paul has subsequently found
this HPU in the stores at York!!!), disconnect the tilt jacks from the main
tilt pack and connect them via quick disconnect fittings to the HPU in the
pit. There was a manual control valve installed on a stand near the coach,
and one of the NRM Staff was meant to come along and twiddle the valve
every now and then to make the vehicle tilt.

Because TC2 was taken from the middle of the train, the articulated E1T
bogie it used was placed under one end, and the centre POP Train SA bogie
was placed under the other end. (As POP was now in POP II form it used
APT-P spec bogies so there were three SAs surplus) As TC2's weight would
have tipped the two steering beams down at their inboard ends, both the TC2
'show bogies' had a large bracket welded to the outer ends of their
steering beams, and two socking great concrete blocks were cast into the
floor of the Great Hall, each with a yoke bolted to the top. We then fitted
two substantial turn-buckles between the yokes and the steering beam
brackets and adjusted them till TC2 was level and parallel with the
steering beams.

At Shildon the two bogies that face onto the firebreak are the same two
that were under TC2 and you can see the brackets plainly. If the NRM allow
us to place a similar concrete block in the floor at Shildon we can do the
same as we did at York, as the inner ends of the trailer cars are supported
by a power car each.

Fingers crossed......

Regards
Kit




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul Rowlinson" <paul.rowlinson@...>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 9:36 AM

> Perhaps then Mr Branson might be persuaded to part with the loot. After
> all without the E-train, he would not have his Pendolino. On second
> thoughts perhaps not!
>

E-train is not a direct ancestor of Pendolino in the way that HSFV1 was,
but the help we gave Fiat might well have saved their bacon as I've retold
before. David 1/2d

LOL,
We know for a fact that fiat used a lot of the technical detail from
the APT project, because the head tilt engineer of the project turned
up at York one workday while Kit was attending. I remember him saying
to Kit, ar! you are Kit Spackman, you are the tilt god. And he them
explained about how he used Kits work on there train.

Its was funny to to see, to say the least!

Regards

Paul
APT-E Conservation & Support Group

PS. I went to find Jim Rees today and was refused entry into the
office section of the NRM, Im not impressed.

Hi David, Paul and anyone interested
 
I accept that Fiat’s development of the Pendolino, based on a pendulum tilt system, took place in parallel with APT-E. However, it is my recollection that at least two and possibly three foreign companies came, with much fanfare, to BR Research in the late 1970s, early 1980s, to sign Technology Transfer Agreements. I was too young to be directly involved in these but my vague recollection is that one of these was Fiat. With or without an official agreement, given the free exchange of information at that time through the European railways’ UIC working parties, I would be surprised if most of the lesson learned from APT-E did not find their way to Fiat  and provide a significant contribution to its development.
 
Whilst on the subject of the Pendolino, I was trying to find some information on the web some time ago as to how the Virgin trains’ tilt system worked. Without success! Do you know if it still uses the pendulum system? Is this purely passive or there an active element? And is this active element controlled from internal sensors or initiated from sensors on the track?
 
Best wishes
 
David Round




________________________________
From: David Halfpenny gmail <davidhalfpenny@...>
To: Advanced-Passenger-Train@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 16 January, 2009 12:59:11
Subject: Re: <APT Group> Re: HSFV1 found! and is being offered to the national collection.




------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --
From: "Paul Rowlinson" <paul.rowlinson@ sanctuary- housing.co. uk>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 9:36 AM

> Perhaps then Mr Branson might be persuaded to part with the loot. After
> all without the E-train, he would not have his Pendolino. On second
> thoughts perhaps not!
>

E-train is not a direct ancestor of Pendolino in the way that HSFV1 was,
but the help we gave Fiat might well have saved their bacon as I've retold
before. David 1/2d






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi All,
Since me and Kit have had no response from the NRM engineering staff, I
decided to write directly to Andrew Scott with the hope of getting
something, anything from the NRM.

Its crazy that the NRM just are not taking any notice of this important
find. Kits done all the hard work for them, just what is there
problem, apart from its not steam so lets not bother!

Its time to wait and see again.

Regards

Paul L
APT-E Conservation & Support Group.

Dear All.



I have been liaising off line with Alan about drawings and options for
models and Alan has raised a question about the train that requires some
clarification. He has asked of the sides of the train are identical but
mirror images. As far as I can tell from the drawings I have this is the
case apart from trailer car 1 where the plans seem to show different
locations for the windows on each side for one half of the coach. Can
anyone confirm this? I guess the answer would be to go and have a look
but as I am in Sussex this needs some planning and is not likely to be
popular at home!!!



I also cam across a booklet called Advanced Passenger train - The
Official Illustrated Account of British Rail's revolutionary new 155mph
train. This was published by Avon Anglia and principally concerns the P
train. There are some good photos of he E train as a prelude and an
interesting photo of the bogies (H4X) under lab 4. These seem to have a
remarkable resemblance to the E1T bogies although suspension and tilt
arrangements are different. Does anyone know anything about these? I
think the photo has been published before as it is described as a
publicity shot showing the effect of the tilt. I seem to recall Lab 4
was acquired by Hastings diesels as it was the only surviving Hastings
Buffet Unit and taken to St Leonard's where I presume it still is
complete with bogies. I don't know what they intended to do with this
coach - presumably convert it back to original condition - sacrilege!





regards



Paul Rowlinson

Head of Operations, London

Sanctuary Management Services

Dinwiddy House, 189-205 Pentonville Road,

London, N1 9NF



Tel: 0207 812 0022

Mob: 07787 834807



Sanctuary Management Services is part of Sanctuary Group



paul.rowlinson@...
<mailto:paul.rowlinson@...>





View our disclaimer at:
http://www.sanctuary-housing.co.uk/disclaimer.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul Rowlinson" <paul.rowlinson@...>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 8:01 AM

> an
> interesting photo of the bogies (H4X) under lab 4. These seem to have a
> remarkable resemblance to the E1T bogies although suspension and tilt
> arrangements are different. Does anyone know anything about these?

Things are a bit hazy now, but I'm pretty sure the E1T was based on the
H4X.

David 1/2d

Lab 4 has been at the Walthamstow Pump House Steam and Transport Museum
for the past few years.
It has very badly corroded and is undergoing a slow restoration.
NPE.

On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 08:01 +0000, Paul Rowlinson wrote:
> Dear All.
>
> I have been liaising off line with Alan about drawings and options for
> models and Alan has raised a question about the train that requires
> some
> clarification. He has asked of the sides of the train are identical
> but
> mirror images. As far as I can tell from the drawings I have this is
> the
> case apart from trailer car 1 where the plans seem to show different
> locations for the windows on each side for one half of the coach. Can
> anyone confirm this? I guess the answer would be to go and have a look
> but as I am in Sussex this needs some planning and is not likely to be
> popular at home!!!
>
> I also cam across a booklet called Advanced Passenger train - The
> Official Illustrated Account of British Rail's revolutionary new
> 155mph
> train. This was published by Avon Anglia and principally concerns the
> P
> train. There are some good photos of he E train as a prelude and an
> interesting photo of the bogies (H4X) under lab 4. These seem to have
> a
> remarkable resemblance to the E1T bogies although suspension and tilt
> arrangements are different. Does anyone know anything about these? I
> think the photo has been published before as it is described as a
> publicity shot showing the effect of the tilt. I seem to recall Lab 4
> was acquired by Hastings diesels as it was the only surviving Hastings
> Buffet Unit and taken to St Leonard's where I presume it still is
> complete with bogies. I don't know what they intended to do with this
> coach - presumably convert it back to original condition - sacrilege!
>
> regards
>
> Paul Rowlinson
>
> Head of Operations, London
>
> Sanctuary Management Services
>
> Dinwiddy House, 189-205 Pentonville Road,
>
> London, N1 9NF
>
> Tel: 0207 812 0022
>
> Mob: 07787 834807
>
> Sanctuary Management Services is part of Sanctuary Group
>
> paul.rowlinson@...
> <mailto:paul.rowlinson@...>
>
> View our disclaimer at:
> http://www.sanctuary-housing.co.uk/disclaimer.html
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>

Paul,

>He has asked of the sides of the train are identical but
>mirror images. As far as I can tell from the drawings I have this is the
>case apart from trailer car 1 where the plans seem to show different
>locations for the windows on each side for one half of the coach. Can
>anyone confirm this?<

As far as I can recall, and as far as my photos show, TC1 and TC2 are
mirror images left to right, but they are NOT mirrors end to end. This is
because of the aircon grilles that are only at one end of each vehicle.
They were marshalled the same way round, with the aircon grilles at the
same end, toward PC2. This also obtained when the train was in 3-car form
in the early days with only TC2 in the consist, ie it was marshalled aircon
grille at the PC2 end.

In fact it was impossible to marshall them any other way, as we know to our
cost now the train is at Shildon. Because the pin joints at each end are
gender sensitive it would not be possible to turn each coach the other way
round as we'd have two male pin-joints together and two female joints on
the other pair. That's exactly the situation we have at Shildon now, due to
a screw-up when the vehicles were unloaded and placed on the track. We're
still thinking how to solve that.

Re TC1, it does tend to look asymmetrical as half the windows are different
to the others. Only the VIP end windows are mirrored, as all of them on
TC2, and the PC1 end windows are clear glass on both sides. That's why you
can see the tilt pack cover of TC1 but not that of TC2. The centre pair of
windows of TC1 don't line up exactly with the interior trim and you can see
the trim framework through the window at the PC1 end. These were the worst
leaking windows when we started the re-build in 2000, and they've been
changed at least twice now, maybe three times. Paul Leadley will remember
for sure, as he did most of it! <g>

>This was published by Avon Anglia and principally concerns the P
>train. There are some good photos of he E train as a prelude and an
>interesting photo of the bogies (H4X) under lab 4. These seem to have a
>remarkable resemblance to the E1T bogies although suspension and tilt
>arrangements are different. Does anyone know anything about these? I
>think the photo has been published before as it is described as a
>publicity shot showing the effect of the tilt. I seem to recall Lab 4
>was acquired by Hastings diesels as it was the only surviving Hastings
>Buffet Unit and taken to St Leonard's where I presume it still is
>complete with bogies. I don't know what they intended to do with this
>coach - presumably convert it back to original condition - sacrilege! <

Firstlt, have no fear, Hastings still exists complete with both its H4X
bogies, see later on in this posting.

The H4X bogies used a modified design of the EIT bogie frame and similar,
but not identical axle boxes etc, but that's as far as it went. E1Ts had
their secondary airsprings mounted directly to the bogie frame, with a
lateral bolster connecting the spring caps to the steering beam. The tilt
jacks were between the crossbeams at the end of the steering beams and the
vehicle bodies.

On the H4X bogies the bolster itself tilted as the tilt jacks were mounted
laterally between the bolster frame and the bogie. The air springs were
mounted on top of the bolster, between it and the body, and thus tilted
with the rest of the vehicle.

It's true that Hastings Diesels did own Hastings Coach (hereafter called
Lab 4 'cos it's shorter....) for some time, and it was indeed an
ex-Hastings line Buffet Car, but they have another one as well, or they
did have anyway. Lab 4 was a survivor from the Hither Green accident and
was surplus to requirements afterwards as there was only enough vehicles
left to make up one set.

As to its current situation, Hastings Diesels were going to scrap Lab 4,
but she was reprieved at the very last minute and was moved by road to the
Walthamstow Pumphouse Museum where she still is. I'm pleased to say I'm a
small shareholder in her, although they don't take much notice of anything
I suggest there, sad to say. The H4Xs are as built, apart from solid struts
having been fitted in place of the tilt jacks. After the APT project :Lab 4
was modified to test an active secondary ride system and some of that is
still fitted. Sadly one of the instrumentation racks was moved into the
central VIP compartment, ruining it for its original purpose, although some
of the plush seats are still there. I suggested that they repaint Lab 4 in
R&D Red/Blue on one side and their preferred Southern Green on the other,
but they took no noticed and painted her green all over. There was an
intention to use Lab 4 as a buffet for the Museum, but I'm not sure if
they've managed that yet.

The Museum is currently closed but should re-open Easter time I think, web
page at :- http://www.leavalleyexperience.co.uk/

Regards
Kit

Sorry that was meant to say that one side of the body is badly corroded.
I am guessing that it due to that fact that, that side was facing the
sea when it was stored down in Hastings.

On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 18:33 +0000, Nick Evans wrote:
> Lab 4 has been at the Walthamstow Pump House Steam and Transport
> Museum
> for the past few years.
> It has very badly corroded and is undergoing a slow restoration.
> NPE.
>
> On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 08:01 +0000, Paul Rowlinson wrote:
> > Dear All.
> >
> > I have been liaising off line with Alan about drawings and options
> for
> > models and Alan has raised a question about the train that requires
> > some
> > clarification. He has asked of the sides of the train are identical
> > but
> > mirror images. As far as I can tell from the drawings I have this is
> > the
> > case apart from trailer car 1 where the plans seem to show different
> > locations for the windows on each side for one half of the coach.
> Can
> > anyone confirm this? I guess the answer would be to go and have a
> look
> > but as I am in Sussex this needs some planning and is not likely to
> be
> > popular at home!!!
> >
> > I also cam across a booklet called Advanced Passenger train - The
> > Official Illustrated Account of British Rail's revolutionary new
> > 155mph
> > train. This was published by Avon Anglia and principally concerns
> the
> > P
> > train. There are some good photos of he E train as a prelude and an
> > interesting photo of the bogies (H4X) under lab 4. These seem to
> have
> > a
> > remarkable resemblance to the E1T bogies although suspension and
> tilt
> > arrangements are different. Does anyone know anything about these? I
> > think the photo has been published before as it is described as a
> > publicity shot showing the effect of the tilt. I seem to recall Lab
> 4
> > was acquired by Hastings diesels as it was the only surviving
> Hastings
> > Buffet Unit and taken to St Leonard's where I presume it still is
> > complete with bogies. I don't know what they intended to do with
> this
> > coach - presumably convert it back to original condition -
> sacrilege!
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Paul Rowlinson
> >
> > Head of Operations, London
> >
> > Sanctuary Management Services
> >
> > Dinwiddy House, 189-205 Pentonville Road,
> >
> > London, N1 9NF
> >
> > Tel: 0207 812 0022
> >
> > Mob: 07787 834807
> >
> > Sanctuary Management Services is part of Sanctuary Group
> >
> > paul.rowlinson@...
> > <mailto:paul.rowlinson@...>
> >
> > View our disclaimer at:
> > http://www.sanctuary-housing.co.uk/disclaimer.html
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>