Jump to content
 

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


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, caradoc said:

Regarding the axle weight issue Johnster, if the general limit then was 25 tons there should have been no need for the bogies to be replaced ?

 

The maximum axle-load at the time was 25 tons, so there were large parts of the network over which the loco could not travel. Where lines had been upgraded to accommodate traffic flows with this maximum weight, it was not uncommon for only the line that carried the loaded wagons to be upgraded, with the parallel line carrying empty wagons to be left. This was certainly the case on the line from Llanelli west to Milford Haven; the Up line was renewed in 1967/8, but the Down line retained wooden sleepers and 60' jointed track for a decade afterwards at least.

  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

The maximum axle-load at the time was 25 tons, so there were large parts of the network over which the loco could not travel. Where lines had been upgraded to accommodate traffic flows with this maximum weight, it was not uncommon for only the line that carried the loaded wagons to be upgraded, with the parallel line carrying empty wagons to be left. This was certainly the case on the line from Llanelli west to Milford Haven; the Up line was renewed in 1967/8, but the Down line retained wooden sleepers and 60' jointed track for a decade afterwards at least.

 

Interesting. I had no idea about the selective uprating, that would have caused problems if single line working over the unimproved line was required ?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
43 minutes ago, Rob F said:

Maybe it should have been a 1Co-Co1. Said only partly in jest.

But not totally daft, that's how EE type 4s and Peaks cut down the axle loadings

The Peaks (class 44) and and EE 4s (class 40) were a similar weight to Kestrel.

 

EDIT as were the SR diesels 10201-3

Edited by melmerby
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Just done a bit of reading regarding the bogies.

 

Brush redesigned the bogies in late summer of 1968, to a similar design to the class 47 with modifications to the bogies that had a axle loading of 21tons which was nearer to the requirements of BR, 20ton specified by .  

I hope that this information is of use to people.

 

Terry.

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Trainshed Terry said:

Just done a bit of reading regarding the bogies.

 

Brush redesigned the bogies in late summer of 1968, to a similar design to the class 47 with modifications to the bogies that had a axle loading of 21tons which was nearer to the requirements of BR, 20ton specified by .  

I hope that this information is of use to people.

 

Terry.

 

 

As mentioned in the original post...........:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 05/10/2019 at 09:57, The Johnster said:

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.

From the newsflash video Kestrel had a cruising speed of 110 mph,  the speedometer was a 120 mph instrument, not 125mph

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 hours ago, Rob F said:

Maybe it should have been a 1Co-Co1. Said only partly in jest.

 

Yes, the 1Co-Co1 could have spread the weight but I think the BRB were very reluctant to use it again.  The design would have extended the length of the loco which BR were trying to keep to a minimum, but more importantly, it was very hard on the track due to lateral forces, even with the floating axle.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • RMweb Premium
On 06/10/2019 at 15:36, Fat Controller said:

The maximum axle-load at the time was 25 tons, so there were large parts of the network over which the loco could not travel. Where lines had been upgraded to accommodate traffic flows with this maximum weight, it was not uncommon for only the line that carried the loaded wagons to be upgraded, with the parallel line carrying empty wagons to be left. This was certainly the case on the line from Llanelli west to Milford Haven; the Up line was renewed in 1967/8, but the Down line retained wooden sleepers and 60' jointed track for a decade afterwards at least.

Wow, I never knew that.  In the 1980s, the Up line track between Pembrey and Llanelli was quiet and smooth, the Down was jointed and the rails roared, in combination with the rattling luggage racks it was uncomfortably loud in a 1st Gen DMU at 50mph.  I seem to remember a long stretch of jointed bullhead rail West from Llanstephan Crossing as well.  Funny how you don't forget these things.........

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/10/2019 at 21:06, Satan's Goldfish said:

Not that I'd want to encourage anyone, but there's still Sulzer 16LVA24 lumps hiding out there somewhere... it's either that or this oil filter has been on the shelf for a very long time.... https://m.hifi-filter.com//en/search/sulzer-eng-/431728-sulzer-eng--16-lva-24.html;)

I'm sure I read somewhere that there are 16LVA24's at some French power stations for stand by generators or something along them lines.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly when I was last involved in these things, the Paris Metro used large standby diesel generators, distributed at key nodes in the power supply network, as backup in case of grid failure, and I have a dim recollection that some of them were these big Sulzers, although they may have been renewed by now. (London Underground uses quick-start gas turbines grouped at Greenwich generating station to do the same job)

  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...