Talk:Advanced Passenger Train

message: I reverted User:Gothicform's recent addition to this article.  The removals were the following:
:This was of course realised by the Thatcher government who committed to road transport rather than rail travel were determined to try and kill the project if at all possible, deliberately setting it to fall on it's launch.
This is highly POV and not, I believe, wholly accurate.  The Thatcher government was rather anti-railway, to be sure - mostly because of their general anti-union, anti-public sector attitude.  But I think even (rational) opponents of Thatcher can't show that the APT was deliberately sabotaged.  The APT's failures were shown as terminal rather than simply teething troubles, and this was definitely a partisan act, but it's stretching the point here.
:although it later turned out this was more due to drunken journalists than anything else - the effect was such though that it became an urban myth that the APT made people vomit
Possibly true, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this, so if you want to re-add it that's fine, but I think we should find a cite or two.
:as replacements for the 125s when they had a broken set
Um, no.  The 125s were diesel-powered ECML trains.  The APT, being electric, could not substitute for a 125 even if it wanted to, and they served on the west coast main line anyway.  —Morven 11:24, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't sabotaged by the government but by reactionary thinking inside the railway hierarchy. Not the first time it has happened. I've reworked the page a bit, but some of the external links are duff, so I've got to come back.Chevin 18:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a book reference. The problems appear to be a combination of those discussed above: the Government was unwilling to invest sufficient money into the project (Telegraph magazine said BR paid half and DoT paid half the development costs); and many of the APT development team had an aerospace background which did not endear them to "railway engineers" - the "not invented here syndrome"! There was an Open University TV programme about the APT in the early 1980s but I've long lost the Betamax copy I made of it.Pyrotec 15:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: Should this article be merged with British_Rail_Class_370 and British_Rail_APT-E to provide a single point of reference for the APT programme? —Achmelvic
:The page started out as an overall description of the Advanced Passenger Train Programme, with separate pages for APT-E and APT-P then they grew by themselves. I think the existing page stands by itself with the others perhaps giving more specific detail. Possibly repeated info could be edited out. I seem to remember there was another page for the POP train - and what about HSFV? If it was all merged together it would be far too large. To my mind it was the most important train built by British Rail, but then I'm biassed (not NPOV).  Chevin 17:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merger

message: The Background paragraph infers that the APT was developed as a result of the HST success on the GWML. This is not the case. The APT-E came first (out of Derby), and the HST-P was a parallel development that enhanced existing technology. I think the first paragraph of background needs to be revised accordingly. Discuss...... --Stewart 06:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and there is considerable documentary evidence to back this up.Pyrotec 09:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry I'm a bit confused here. The paragraph doesn't mention the Great Western Main Line. Perhaps the confusion arises on the ECML because High Speed Train is caps rather than high speed trains. The ECML was the first line where attempts were made to increase the speed. This was in the early sixties using Class 86's (I think). While there was some success, it was clear that it could not be replicated on the other main lines. Research began in Derby in 1963 into wheel profiles and improved suspensions, which led to the High Speed Freight Vehicle (about which an article ought to be written). The idea for an advanced train came about towards the end of the sixties, if I remember rightly, with design work for the APT and HST proceeding pretty well concurrently through the seventies. Chevin 11:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Class 86s on the ECML in the 60s?? I think not, as the line wasn't electrified until the late 80s. Perhaps you mean the Class 55s (Deltics)? -- Arwel (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry. You are probably right. My involvement was within the laboratory and not on the larger network so may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Chevin 08:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: AFAIK a Class 86 was fitted with a nose cone for trials - whether this was for the HST or the APT I am not sure. --Stewart 08:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That loco was E3173, a Class 86 nicknamed 'Zebedee' at the time, and the aerodynamic nose cone was designed and built by the CM&EE Dept. to test the proposed nose for the HST. It also had the new Flexicoil secondary suspension which solved many of the hard riding problems of the Class 86s. 
Regards, Kit Spackman (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure this is relevant. The problem with higher speeds was to do with train/track dynamics. The ECML (having been built somewhat later than the others) is much straighter. When the earlier lines were built the problems were thought to be gradients rather than curves, also placating landowners. By the mid 20th century the land had been built up so, unlike Japan, it was not practible to realign the track.Chevin 08:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline of APT compared with HST 

message: "Neither can the Pendolinos match the window area provided by the demonstrably superior APT, which had 19.0 m² of glass area against the 10.1 m² of the Pendolino".  
This data (which I personally researched) has been removed on the grounds that it is not relevant under the section "further uses of APT technology". So where is it relevant to put it ? I am firmly of the view that this is one area where the APT is overwhelmingly superior to the Pendolino, and it most certainly not a minor point either, every time I travel by Pendolino I`m shocked by how claustrophobic the interior is and how many passengers have restricted (or very restricted) views out of the windows. JustinSmith (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:No original research is an issue here, since you measured it. However, if you wrote to a railway magazine, then they published it, then you can cite it. Crazy world... Wongm (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Statements of trivial fact are not OR. For instance, it's not OR to state that the sun rises in the east, having seen it do so. That said, I'm not sure this passage needs mentioning anyway - unless the APT has more window space than every other high speed train, this statement is then a case of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Window size

message: The background states that BR had experience with "High Speed Trains" on one route. However, HST post-dates APT. I believe this passage is incorrectly implying that train due to capitalization? The article goes on to state that the HST was developed with "conventional technology", but fails to mention what that is - nor does the HST article state this either. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The HST and the APT were developed in parallel by different projects / departments of BR. Thanks for this comment. I will see what can be done.Pyrotec (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

text: This paragraph is consistent, no changes are necessary; other than the addition of suitable citations.Pyrotec (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several oddities 

message: I wonder if people had trouble with the APT because it seems to be painted in the colours of the (at-the-time "West") German flag? Just with a teeeny disruptive white stripe... :D 77.102.101.220 (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A random observation... 

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Uy8o21JBM
Excellent documentary by John Snow about the two engineers that developed the tilting train. Liverpool-8-boy (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brits Who Made The Modern World: Series 1 - Tilting Train 

message: "Experience with High Speed Trains on the East Coast Main Line from London to Edinburgh "
This implies that runs of HST had been carried out on the ECM, and that led to the decision to make APT. However, APT pre-dates HST. This statement is as confusing as ever, and, I suspect, wrong.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not fixed 

message: You should say how many coaches the APT had. 85.210.144.225 (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coach number 

message: There seems to have been an amount of POV in this article. Aircraft engineering is of course equally familiar with condensation and compressed air systems and APT-E had not given trouble, though it had been allowed to run at speed for extended periods. APT-P was also a product of the CM&EE who were "traditional" railway engineers, who had nmade many changes, some concerned with economy. If one is discuss the reasons why the project was a failure in such detail, perhaps internal railway jealousies should be included. 2.31.5.223 (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with this.Successive edits have meant that the article jumps back and forward in time. Though the engineers of the original APT-E were from outside the industry, those who designed the APT-P were of the CM&EE who had railway experience and had, in fact designed the HST, were responsible for the faulty brakes. Something else that might be mentioned was a run after the record breaker on the GWML, which was made on the MML and was arguably a better demonstration f APT-E's capabilities. Chevin (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Advanced Passenger Train. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051120174118/http://www.themanufacturer.com:80/uk/detail.html?contents_id=4167 to http://www.themanufacturer.com/uk/detail.html?contents_id=4167
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have (largely) completed a massive cleanup of this article that I hope makes it much easier to read. There is still much useful information that could be added and lots of required refs, but at least I think we have the shell of an article now. Please go over it and look for any spelling and GR mistakes, there was a lot of copy-and-paste so that likely introduced all sorts of little problems. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive cleanup 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Advanced Passenger Train. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829065627/http://www.old-dalby.com/apt-e.htm to http://www.old-dalby.com/apt-e.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160117170321/http://www.traintesting.com/APT-P.htm to http://www.traintesting.com/apt-p.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I can't seem to find a direct statement of whether or not the driving cars tilted, or just the passenger cars. Does anyone have a good ref one way or the other? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the driving cars tilted. Here's a photo of one on a curve, tilting toward the platform - if anything, the driving car is tilting further than the second car. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Bill Gunston article "The aerospace train". https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202778.html?search=aerospace%20trainPieter1963 (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the engine cars tilt? 

message: At Wolverton railway station#Wolverton bend and Northampton Loop, there are two statements that need a citation or they will have to be deleted. 
* With the advent of fast trains, Wolverton gained notoriety among railwaymen for its famously tight curve.
* The Advanced Passenger Train failed its trials here in the early 1990s but the Pendolino tilting trains passed them in the early 2000s.
Can anyone oblige with a book reference as apparently the only info online is wp:CIRCULAR. Thank you if you can. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolverton bend 

message: The article mentiones Boath GEC & EE gaining contracts. This appears to be post 1968, GEX & EE merged in 1968. Wales Wide Web (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  GEC and English Electric