Editing Advanced Passenger Train (section)

==Examination==
The failure of the APT project saw extensive reporting in the 1980s, and has remained a topic of some discussion since then. Writers generally agree that the technical aspects of the design were largely solved by the time of their second service introduction, and put most of the blame for the delays on the shifting management structures and infighting within BR between APT and HST. There have also been concerns that carrying out development within BR was a major problem of its own, because this meant their industrial partners had no buy-in and their years of practical experience were being ignored.<ref name=flop/>

The development timeline is also a topic of considerable discussion. In comparison, the Canadian [[LRC (train)|LRC]] train began development at the same time as APT, developed a unique active tilting system of its own, and entered production in the late 1970s. Like APT, LRC also faced teething problems that took some time before they were solved, and was subject to some press chiding over these failures. Unlike APT, LRC had no competition and management was in a hurry to remove the [[UAC TurboTrain|Turbo]] from service. The system was given the time it needed to mature with no serious possibility of cancellation.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Litvak |first1=Isaiah |last2=Maule |first2=Christopher |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=s2W2GAAACAAJ |title=The Light-Rapid Comfortable (LRC) Train and the Intermediate Capacity Transit System (ICTS) |publisher=University of Toronto/York University Joint Program in Transportation |year=1982 }}</ref>

The slow pace of APT development has been blamed on the shoestring budget of £50 million over 15 years, although the press of the era dismissed this as too high.<ref name=flop/> This number has been compared to the roughly £100 million spent by [[British Leyland]] to develop the [[Austin Mini Metro]], a project that was technically trivial in comparison to APT.<ref name=flop/>