Talk:British Rail Class 370

Untitled

Should this article be merged with British_Rail_APT-E and Advanced_Passenger_Train to provide a single point of reference to the APT programme? —Achmelvic — Preceding undated comment added 10:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible change to the title of this article

This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avicennasis (talk • contribs) 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need the MS paint diagram?

Here it is in all its glory:

great for commons.

I commend WestRail642fan for having the patience and dedication to produce this computer artwork, but I cannot fathom how it possibly illustrates anything, particularly as we have some photographs that achieve this purpose without looking weird, out of place and unprofessional. I think it is entirely appropriate for Wikimedia Commons, however, and suggest that it be left there. Tony May (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Which photograph is an equivalent? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

well thanks Andy. We don't really yet as most photos concentrate on the driving vehicle (taking photos of entire trains is difficult), but there are photos out there, unlicensed, e.g. [1]. The best thing IMHO is to wait for a photo, it's a quick-and-dirty Wiki, not a publication. One of my concerns btw is that the diagram is wrong, showing a 14 car train when I can only see 10 car in the photos. My other concern is that letting one in we end up with these things plastered all across various articles where they offer no information whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony May (talk • contribs) 03:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, APT did run with 14 coaches, even the page itself points to this if you look at numbering, also, there is this photo [2] from a BBC article that clearly shows 14 coaches Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, one of the websites listed under external link, APT-P.com also lists 14 coaches on its page about the formation of it and the planned builds [3] Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Another thing i'd like to point out, my images are uploaded via crosssite uploading to commond anyway Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The APT was intended to run as 14 cars (two six-car trailer units flanking two non-driving motors) but IIRC none ever did so in service. For the press run and the few revenue-earning trips that did take place, a shorter 9-car train (one 6-car unit and one 2-car unit flanking a single non-driving motor) was used. The doors of the 2-car unit were locked to passengers. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

While they did run in 9 car sets in the early days, they later went up to the 14 coach set thry're more commonly known for Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

When was "later"? See

• Haresnape, Brian (June 1983). British Rail Fleet Survey 5: High Speed Trains. Shepperton: Ian Allan. pp. 12–13, 78. ISBN 0-7110-1297-0. GE/0683.
• Slater, John, ed. (January 1982). "APT in service". Newslines. Railway Magazine. Vol. 128, no. 969. Sutton: IPC Transport Press. p. 39. ISSN 0033-8923.
• Slater, John (February 1982). "Hope Deferred". Editorial. Railway Magazine. Vol. 128, no. 970. p. 53.
• Semmens, P.W.B. (February 1982). Slater, John (ed.). "Electric Multiple-Unit Contrasts". Locomotive Practice and Performance. Railway Magazine. Vol. 128, no. 970. pp. 69–70.

The initial schedule for fare-paying passengers, for two weeks beginning 7 December 1981, was for runs on Monday, Wednesday and Friday (dep. Glasgow Central 07:00, arr. London Euston 11:15; dep. Euston 16:30, arr. Glasgow 20:45) using the 6+1+2 formation. Both trips were run on 7 and 9 December, but on 11 December, the southbound trip was terminated after reaching Preston. There were no more public runs after that: the northbound run of 12 December; the trips of 14-18 December; and a planned daily schedule intended to start on 11 January 1982, were all cancelled. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If you look on the main page, the information box clearly states 14 cars per set. Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Well photographs show 10 cars. You know WP:CIR even when you're using a computer to draw trains. This is the most obvious error, but given this lack of competence, I'm sure that there are others. I'm sure this is a fantastic hobby of yours, but we don't need it in a serious encyclopedia because not only is it wrong, it's extremely unhelpful. Tony May (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Then what about videos like this [4] that clearly show 14? Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The design length was 14 cars (6+2+6), and that full formation was used for a number of the test runs - your video probably depicts one of these, of which there were many from 1978 to at least Autumn 1982. These test runs did not carry fare-paying passengers although they did carry members of the press on one or two occasions. For the five trips where fare-paying passengers were carried, the short formation was used, this being the one where four passenger cars were omitted from one half. Sources disagree as to whether this short formation was 6+1+2 or 6+2+2; Semmens certainly indicates that there were ten cars: The train consisted of a special formation, with one articulated six-car passenger-carrying set behind two power cars. At the front end there was a driving trailer and another articulated trailer brake for the test staff. It might be that two power cars were used at the start of the week, reducing to one later on. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

My question was "Which photograph is an equivalent?", not "where can I find a random photograph that incudes an APT?" and much less a request for a slippery-slope logical fallacy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

If i may ask, why are people picking on this diagram and not all the other 'MS Paint' diagrams ive posted? Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, user:WestRail642fan, it will be great if we could adopt a general policy towards diagrams, and I hope that all of the others are migrated to the Commons too, where they are most appropriate. Tony May (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You know what, just remove all the diagrams i've uploaded here, i honestly dont care anymore, you guys dont seem to acknowledge all the information i posted so why bother Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

APT inheritance

The article claims that APT "influenced" the Class 91 and its "technology" reappeared in the Class 390, some authors mention elswhere that even the HST "borrowed heavily" from APT but it remains obscure what exactly went into the other trains. Class 91 does not tilt and was designed as a multi purpose loco. WCML Pendolinos use a different electromechanical tilt instead of the APT hydraulics which are more akin to the SuperVoyagers. Thyristors were state of the art at the time and used by other manufacturers alike. Don't get me wrong, BR Research did a lot of science, but the tales that APT is the mother of all modern trains or that the Italians snatched the technology only to sell it to the stupid Brits are a bit dubious. 92.192.218.210 (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)