50 years since last V3 withdrawn

[markindurham]

One regular turn for the V3s was the boat trains to Tyne Commission Quay

[52H]

Hi all
Yes I worked these turns when a fireman at Heaton. They were well suited to these jobs, you had to make sure your sands were working on the climb away from TCQ, as an insurance it was usual to sand the rails on the way down.

52H

[Pyewipe Junction]

If size and efficiency, both in terms of the capital cost of a new locomotive and running costs are priorities, i'd have thought a straight copy of an 82xxx Class 3* or (if you need a bit more oomph on your particular railway) an 800xx Cl 4 tank would be the best answer. Even an 840xx would probably do in most cases.
(* Indeed, this is the rational behind one of the plans to build an example, AIUI)

Of course a three-cylinder loco is going to be a more complicated proposition to build and run than a two-cylinder one. My understanding of one of the aims of the British heritage rail movement, however, is to rescue, rebuild and where necessary recreate locos of significant historical value or popular appeal. Whether a V1/V3 will be built will depend on whether enough funds can be raised.

Heritage locos are probably better maintained than they were in BR/LNER days, are subject to more stringent safety provisions and generally have a much more comfortable life. So the fact that the V1/V3 has three cylinders and conjugated valve gear is probably not really much of an issue. In fact there are a two B17s and a Patriot under construction right now!

[v3man]

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!

[MidlandExcursion]

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!

It feels as if this sub-thread to the original is being somewhat fogged, accidentally or otherwise.

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.

[Pyewipe Junction]

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!

It feels as if this sub-thread to the original is being somewhat fogged, accidentally or otherwise.

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.

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!

I have no argument with your logic that LMS/BR standard types will be easier to maintain in the future, but I think you might be surprised to see the baton being taken up enthusiastically by future generations. Only time will tell I suppose.

[rockinjohn]

Hi folks bit late on this one,but didn't Stratford have V3 tanks before the Shenfield sparks occurred,seems they may not have got to Sarf- End with the limited water storage of those short tanks, problem overcome with the "concrete mixers"(L1 tanks), They were sent North again, along with most London Area(E.R.) loco problems incl early "modernisation plan" diesels.

[rockinjohn]

Hi all have been reading through the past posts again it must have come down to straightforward water capacity due to the length of the side tanks, lucky to get to Hatfield let alone Baldock &didn't the Midland lines(London area)cast the Standard tanks off,due to the same issue, not being able to reach Bedford, eventually replaced by 750xx 3MT tender engines&blk5's.Even the 33A group of sheds on the L.T.S.R the enginemen there preferred the Stanier 2or 3cylinder tank types than the Standard tanks that performed aswell&as good on acceleration, but lacked that reserve of water on the tight turnarounds.