HS4000 Kestrel - BR lost opportunity or HS/Brush export success story.

[TravisM]

After yet another long discussion with friends, the topic of HS Kestrel came up and wondered if it was BR’s unwanted baby or Hawker Siddeley/Brush home and export success story.  It’s well documented that BR put out specifications for a Type 5 loco which could be used for both freight and high speed passenger services but after the 1967 Hither Green accident, a axle loading limit of 20 tons.

 

The original bogies put it way over that limit at 22.5 tons, so modified Class 47 bogies were used instead but it still was overweight at handing over at 21 tons.  I don’t think the loco was warmly welcomed by the BRB as they really didn’t have any work for it as they were looking at APT/HST’s for high speed passenger service, so it left Brush basically with a expensive “toy”.  As it was then sold to the Soviet Union complete with original bogies, it was extensively evaluated by the Russian railways and they were able to use the technology to build their own version of the loco which I believe was highly successful.  Also some of the electrical technology on the loco was used in the Class 56 and 58’s.

 

So, was the loco a UK domestic failure or a HS/Brush export success?

[Titan]

I don't think the Russians ordered any more so an export total of 1 was not much of a success. 

[russ p]

I kind of evolved into th 56 albeit with different engine 

[Trainshed Terry]

This link might be of interest to this thread. Kestrel HS4000 was very much a one of a kind locomotive but was not very successful here as the axle weights where over the limit that was set by the track engineers. They did try to use class 47 bogies in May/June 69, which did help with the axle loadings.

 

During July 1971 an international exhibition 'Railroad Rolling Stock-71' was held in Scherbinka (Shcherbinka) located 17 miles south of Moscow, after which the locomotive was re-gauged to the Russian track standard and was extensively tested between April & September 1972.

 

I hope that is of help. But see link to read further information on HS 4000 “Kestrel”.  https://www.derbysulzers.com/HS4000.html

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by Trainshed Terry

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Titan said:

I don't think the Russians ordered any more so an export total of 1 was not much of a success. 

Especially as the Ruskies got a big discount!

Edited October 4, 2019 by melmerby

[caradoc]

Regardless of its technical aspects, I have to say that IMHO Kestrel was the best looking diesel to have ever operated in the UK.

[Trainshed Terry]

17 minutes ago, caradoc said:

Regardless of its technical aspects, I have to say that IMHO Kestrel was the best looking diesel to have ever operated in the UK.

 

I agree with you on that as these modern day locos leave me feeling cold. There was more style in those days.

 

T'man

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, Trainshed Terry said:

This link might be of interest to this thread. Kestrel HS4000 was very much a one of a kind locomotive but was not very successful here as the axle weights where over the limit that was set by the track engineers. They did try to use class 47 bogies in May/June 69, which did help with the axle loadings.

 

During July 1971 an international exhibition 'Railroad Rolling Stock-71' was held in Scherbinka (Shcherbinka) located 17 miles south of Moscow, after which the locomotive was re-gauged to the Russian track standard and was extensively tested between April & September 1972.

 

I hope that is of help. But see link to read further information on HS 4000 “Kestrel”.  https://www.derbysulzers.com/HS4000.html

 

 

I understand that the Russians effectively 'reverse engineered' HS4000, in order to understand the technology incorporated into it.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[APOLLO]

In my opinion Kestrel was the most beautiful diesel locomotive ever to grace any railway worldwide. I saw her twice. The first time during a geography lesson in Wigan Grammar School in 1968 taking a test train north. A couple of us shouted "KESTREL" - and duly got a detention !!

Second and last time was from a passing train at Crewe diesel depot in 1971 - wearing boards proclaiming her sale to Russia.

 

I bought a resin Q kits model back in the 70's - a poor rendition. Salvation came via Heljan, and she is pride of my diesel fleet.

 

Just why are today's locomotives so plug ugly ? Kestrel certainly was a "looker".

 

Brit15

 

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by APOLLO

[TravisM]

The whole idea of selling Kestrel to the Russians was that they could reverse engineer the loco.  It was never used “in anger” in the Soviet Union as the cab was too low for signal sighting, internal walkways too narrow and a host of other issues which were not practical on Russian railways.  The engine was removed, the loco ballasted and used for high speed testing.

 

 I don’t think at £127.000 at 1971 prices the Russians got a big discount as I expect Brush just about covered their costs.  What Brush did learn was the next generation of solid state electronics for railway traction and that would be priceless.

[Ken.W]

Export wise, sounds more of a failure - just one loco sold to Russia, which they then copied and just built there own

[ElectroSoldier]

Didnt the Russians use a loco based on the Kestral to power that weird laster tank "objekt"?

They put road wheels on it and used it as a power generator because it was the only one they could find that was powerful enough to do it.

[adb968008]

Nice loco, but since the days of steam, the UK has never been good with exporting locomotives, except part worn ones.

[melmerby]

9 hours ago, jools1959 said:

 

 

 I don’t think at £127.000 at 1971 prices the Russians got a big discount as I expect Brush just about covered their costs.  What Brush did learn was the next generation of solid state electronics for railway traction and that would be priceless.

About 40% off the asking price.

[jonny777]

I tend to take the reverse (or... if only) view of Kestrel.  My view is not without critics.

 

My belief is that Kestrel could have been what we ended up with as standard, had the original modernisation plan not have been accelerated a couple of years after its well thought out implementation. 

 

We may have avoided the hundreds of diesel failures, and by the time came for building the next generation of high powered locomotives, Kestrel would have been an obvious choice. 

 

 

[keefer]

Perhaps if there had been more than one, they could've been used on the north end of the WCML instead of 2x50s (the longest trains needed at least 4000hp).

Then as an consequential might-have-been, there would have been enough class 50s available for the upgraded Edinburgh-Glasgow push-pulls (cl.50 + driving trailer instead of having manage with 2x27s).

After that they would be available for the ECML to supplement the Deltics or for the GWML, until the HSTs came on stream.

Failing any of those, I suppose heavy freight work to make use of the power, but would they have the gearing etc performance required for heavy freight?

 

[Rugd1022]

One of our now retired drivers at Rugby saw it at Nuneaton in '68 on a test run, he had a quick look in the cab and was very impressed with it overall.

[The Johnster]

IIRC Kestrel could be geared for 125mph passenger or 60mph heavy freight work.  AFAIK it was never used at 125mph and high speed trains were always fixed sets with a loco each end or a DVT in push-pull mode.  It was clear by the early 70s that a more powerful freight loco than a type 4 was going to be needed for block oil, iron ore, and MGR work to increase loadings, which made the trains more profitable and released paths, but I think Kestrel was never going to be that loco, which turned out to be the 56 eventually.  Kestrel was a proof of concept demonstrator and should be viewed as such; I'm sure Brush were hoping for sales and some what they learned from the loco went into the Class 60.  BR certainly had work for a 4,000hp loco, but Kestrel was apparently too complex; perhaps a reaction to this 'informed' the 58 concept for MGR work. 

 

Appearance is a matter of taste and the least important part of a loco except to enthusiasts, but I must say Kestrel was not to my personal taste.  I liked the 56s, though. a 47 on steroids with a good deal of bulk and 'presence'.  British manufacturers never really seem to have got the hang of traction control on high powered freight locos and the 56 and 58 were both considered failures; the laurels went to GM.  The 60s can't have been that bad, though, and are still giving good service.

[Nimbus]

14 hours ago, Trainshed Terry said:

I agree with you on that as these modern day locos leave me feeling cold. There was more style in those days.

 

Less styling -> more style. Invariably!

 

The Nim.

[jonny777]

15 minutes ago, Nimbus said:

 

Less styling -> more style. Invariably!

 

The Nim.

 

I loved the loco. Through much of 1968 I used to see it from our school bus on the A17 (4pm departure from Sleaford), assuming the train was running to time. It would either be on the avoiding line, which passed over the road; or somewhere just beyond Sleaford South June heading towards Whitemoor on the GN&GE with around 75 loaded 16t coal wagons (which was the extreme capacity of a few sidings at Whitemoor). 

 

 

[russ p]

I have a good friend who used to secondman on it at shirebrook,  he has retired to there and one night when coming back from the pub he remarked as we walked over a disused railway bridge,  can't believe we failed with kestrel down there

[adb968008]

Kestrel was a failure, just like APT and the class 89.

 

The UK failed to cultivate the technology but at least ultimately they sold it overseas... Though reading the various articles it would see, the soviets bought it for the Sulzer engine, not the Brush locomotive itself, it would appear.

[APOLLO]

Interesting vids here

 

 

Falcon - interesting Vid

 

 

Brit15

[caradoc]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Kestrel was a failure, just like APT and the class 89.

 

The UK failed to cultivate the technology but at least ultimately they sold it overseas... Though reading the various articles it would see, the soviets bought it for the Sulzer engine, not the Brush locomotive itself, it would appear.

 

But was it a failure in terms of reliability (which could be said of several other diesel types in their early years, including one entire fleet of 263 locos which had to be re-engined !), or simply the wrong solution for BR at the time, given that it was too heavy (then) and the trains it could haul could not be accomodated by the infrastructure at many places ?

 

[The Johnster]

In terms of train length, most routes were capable of handling trains of 60 standard 10’ wheelbase wagons with 2 locos and a brake van in loops and layby sidings.  This was referred to as 60 BWU, Basic Wagon Units, or, later, SLU, Standard Length Units.  

 

To take 100ton bogie oil tanks as an example, that equates to 20 vehicles, a trailing load of 2,000 tons.  There was no other loco at Kestrel’s time that could handle such a load, and the nearest equivalent was the 16 vehicle 1,600 ton 48SLU Waterston-Albion, hauled by double headed 37s, 210 tons and 3,500hp.  I believe this service started in 1969.  

 

There was plenty of work in the late 60s and early 70s for a 4,000hp heavy hauler, and more on the way!  Kestrel was a nod in the right direction, but too complex and heavy.  Worth mentioning that the general axle load was 25tons by then.