Re: 50 years since last V3 withdrawn
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 8:33 pm
One regular turn for the V3s was the boat trains to Tyne Commission Quay
Discussion and reference site for the London North Eastern Railway
https://www.lner.info/forums/
It feels as if this sub-thread to the original is being somewhat fogged, accidentally or otherwise.v3man wrote:The conjugated valve gear doesn't seem to be a problem with The Great Marquess or Morayshire, both of which give us that inimitable six beats to the wheel revolution!
You have to bear in mind that this an LNER forum and so suggestions for new builds are likely to come from classes of locomotives built by the LNER or its constituents. The LNER is woefully under-represented in heritage railway stock and so I think it quite understandable that people here would want to see a few new builds of classes that became extinct before the preservation movement took off. What about the K3s and J39s for example? All gone at a stroke by the end of 1962!MidlandExcursion wrote:It feels as if this sub-thread to the original is being somewhat fogged, accidentally or otherwise.v3man wrote:The conjugated valve gear doesn't seem to be a problem with The Great Marquess or Morayshire, both of which give us that inimitable six beats to the wheel revolution!
To be clear: as an enthusiast, I would be very happy to see a V1/V3 preserved or re-created. In fact, thinking about it - a P2 apart - a V3 would probably be near the top or my personal 'wish-list' of locos I'd like to see re-created. Not only that, despite my emotional links to the LMS, I'd say I'd rather see a V3 on the rails than an unrebuilt Patriot, a project that I can't get very wound up about. (I'm happy to be proved wrong if I ever see the loco running.)
What I was contesting was Manna's assertion/suggestion that a V3 would be an "ideal" tank locomotive for many of today's preserved lines.
Now, I am not well connected with the UK preserved scene - but from what I read, there is a lot of concern about the future viability of what is - let's face it (and rejoice in it) - probably more preserved-railway route-miles per capita - and train-miles run per capita of any country on earth.
Great that it is so! But many are seemingly worried that these lines are currently in a 'boom' situation - with enough retired, responsible and relatively healthy 60-75 year olds helping to keep them running.
For now.
The fear is that in 10-20 years time, these chaps and chappeses won't be around, and they won't e replaced in sufficient numbers.
Let's face it, a V1/V3 was designed to haul (I'm guessing) suburban trains of 8-9 ? carriages weighing around 250-300 tons with good acceleration and a decent top speed of around 70 mph - if the road allowed it. Or, perhaps, lighter loads on more difficult graded routes, a la Whitby lines.
From what I read about the heritage railway scene, with the exception of the likes of the West Somerset and NYMR (especially with the Whitby trains) - they do not always need such powerful locomotives. Or if they do, from the point of view of a commercial manager, a nice 2-cylinder 80xxx 2-6-4T would (and does) fit that job best.
Clearly, the preserved world can and does maintain 3- and 4-cylinder locomotives, with both conjugated valve gear and sets of independent motion. It can be done. But whether the people that maintain these locos are paid or not, a multi-cylinder loco will take more time and resources to maintain, and have higher running costs - even if it saves a bit on track wear and tear.
In view of these considerations, I made my original point to Manna's post. If anyone with the appropriate experience in the heritage rail scene disagrees - I'm open to persuasion and would like to hear their views.