HS4000 - Stored in Russia

[mozzer models]

Given such changes, it wouldn't be Kestrel, but another design.

 

 

 

 

 

yes a class 66 or class 70

[Trainshed Terry]

yes a class 66 or class 70

 

Are yes that would be true, if was not for a fact that the class 70 only develops 3,690 bhp imperial, where's Kestrel had a imperial figure of 3,946 bhp, I know that it as a small amount but has there ever been a singled engined locomotive that can currently develop of a equivalent rating.

 

( I think that Iam going to be proved wrong. )

 

Terry

[vac_basher]

It's all about emmissions now, Terry. The world has changed since Kestrel was developed....

[Baby Deltic]

The good thing about Kestrel in modelling terms, is the fact that it worked the Hull to Stratford freightliner for a little while, so it would have been routed via the North London Line via Cannonbury and Western Junction.

[Trainshed Terry]

It's all about emmissions now, Terry. The world has changed since Kestrel was developed....

 

I take your point vac_basher, all I was saying or trying to was that if you took a engine that was designed in the late 60s early 70s and fitted it with more effective computerised control systems and more efficient turbo s, how much more bhp would said engines be capable of developing.

 

Would the engine efficient in fuel usage would there be, 10% or greater, that is an other unsolved mystery that will not be answered. :wacko:

 

Careful we are begin to deviate of topic.

 

Terry.

[Leicester Thumper]

The drivetrain technology, particularly the 4000hp engine* and the alternator (innovative at the time). It's generally thought that Kestrel's acquisition was influential in the production of 4000hp diesels for use behind the Iron Curtain

 

* As another aside, Brian Webb observes that Kestrel's 4000hp rating was in metric hp, which converts to 3,946 in Imperial, and that on test, its true rating was somewhere around 3,775.

 

that is interesting, both in a mechanical and a historical sense too, thanks Pennine

[cunningduck]

I take your point vac_basher, all I was saying or trying to was that if you took a engine that was designed in the late 60s early 70s and fitted it with more effective computerised control systems and more efficient turbo s, how much more bhp would said engines be capable of developing.

 

Would the engine efficient in fuel usage would there be, 10% or greater, that is an other unsolved mystery that will not be answered. :wacko:

 

Careful we are begin to deviate of topic.

 

Terry.

 

I daresay the control systems would be utilised mostly in conforming to emissions regs, increased efficiency, and by providing a more advanced control system, e.g. super-creep on 59s, AC traction motors on 70s.

[APOLLO]

Well, we have a new kettle - Tornado, and what a beaut she is.

 

Why not a "new" Kestrel ?? (Lookalike)

 

Take a rusty Brush 4, or perhaps a class 56, (plenty around) and refurb the oily / electric bits, as standard. Rebuild the body / cabs to as near Kestrel's design as possible.

 

Should be fairly straightforward, we don't need 4000 HP !! Sholud be "easy" to register for main line running also as we are only talking "cosmetic" redesign of cab fronts/ sides. A few compromises will be needed, grille locations, etc, but shouldnt be impossible or exorbitantly expensive either.

 

After all, I built an old Fibreglass Kestrel on a Lima Brush 4 chassis many years ago. !!!!! Similar thing in 1:1 scale !!

 

Daft idea or brainwave ????

 

Brit15

[Mr Brunel]

I notice that most people here are considering a replica. Instead, how about a HS4001 sucessor - Hawk anyone?

[Dagworth]

I notice that most people here are considering a replica. Instead, how about a HS4001?

The original design could be modified to be emissions-friendly, and have a bird name -

Hawk anyone?

Hawk has already been used by Brush Traction

 

Andi

[Leicester Thumper]

erm Penegrine? Ospray?

 

Ospray is a good one....

[ste234]

Wasn't Osprey an A4?

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Wasn't Osprey an A4?

 

Using BR numbers to keep things simple, A4s 60003 Osprey, 60018 Sparrow Hawk, 60025 Falcon, 60026 Kestrel.

 

Later on Peppercorn A1s 60130 Kestrel, 60131 Osprey.

 

I always liked the sound of Capercaillie........

 

Think we're going rather off track though. Let's face it, the diesel Kestrel has doubtless bitten the dust somewhere in the Urals.

[Flying Pig]

I notice that most people here are considering a replica. Instead, how about a HS4001 sucessor - Hawk anyone?

The successor to Kestrel would obviously be a Harrier (and about as cheap to develop). A replica would only be a Lesser Kestrel, but pretty nonetheless.

[Trainshed Terry]

Using BR numbers to keep things simple, A4s 60003 Osprey, 60018 Sparrow Hawk, 60025 Falcon, 60026 Kestrel.

 

Later on Peppercorn A1s 60130 Kestrel, 60131 Osprey.

 

I always liked the sound of Capercaillie........

 

Think we're going rather off track though. Let's face it, the diesel Kestrel has doubtless bitten the dust somewhere in the Urals.

 

As far as I can work out only on paper.

 

Terry

[Leicester Thumper]

The successor to Kestrel would obviously be a Harrier (and about as cheap to develop). A replica would only be a Lesser Kestrel, but pretty nonetheless.

 

So you propose a 4000hp diesel which can manoever itself vertically while hovering?

 

anyway back on track, cos we could go off the rails here (much like the actual HS 4000)

[Steve K]

It'd probably be best to name any replica Falco Subbuteo. After all, this is only a Hobby...

[Peter Kazmierczak]

So you propose a 4000hp diesel which can manoever itself vertically while hovering?

 

anyway back on track, cos we could go off the rails here (much like the actual HS 4000)

 

Well there was D1008, albeit at only 2,700hp

[vac_basher]

I take your point vac_basher, all I was saying or trying to was that if you took a engine that was designed in the late 60s early 70s and fitted it with more effective computerised control systems and more efficient turbo s, how much more bhp would said engines be capable of developing.

 

Would the engine efficient in fuel usage would there be, 10% or greater, that is an other unsolved mystery that will not be answered. :wacko:

 

I get your point too Terry

Were it not for the emissions, given the new technology and the better materials that are now available I rekon, if they were to build such a machine today, they could have made a monster out of her. And let's not forget they could also make it much lighter, what with materials such as carbon fiber, titanium, and kelver and aluminum. Lighter = higher power to weight ratio

 

Getting back on topic....

 

A cosmetic replica would be nice, but only if in the worst case scenario concrete evidence does turn up that the original Kestrel was actually scrapped.

Of course it would be much better if we could find the location of HS4000, assuming she still exists, and bring her home B)

[Trainshed Terry]

In this months "The Railway Magazine,July 2010" in the headline news on page 11, there is a appeal for information about "Kestrel" in Russia.

 

The image that has been published is the one that is showing it languishing in the undergrowth.

 

Now is the time to be very patient to see if there is any other information come to light.

 

Terry.

 

[159]

Hi all,

Newbie here - but not a newbie to the railway. Been on since 1987 and now a driver at Salisbury the best depot in the country

 

I have often thought about the possibility of 'rebuilding' a KESTREL and it was whilst looking for any info on Kestrel that I came across this topic.

 

I too thought about the possibility of using a redundant 47 as a donor loco especially as Kestrel was later fitted with 47 bogies.

 

That would give you 'Grandfather' rights and get round various NR compliance issues. It would probably also have a data recorder and radio already fitted.

 

As for the engine

 

'Only five 16LVA24 engines were built. One was fitted in 'Kestrel', later scrapped in Russia. A second was the type test O.R.E. engine which was later scrapped at Oberwinterthur. The three remaining engines ended up at power stations, two at Schaffhausen, Switzerland, and one at Dunkirk, France - all as standby generators, and all still believed to be in service.'

http://www.derbysulz...m/engineer.html

 

I'm sure that they would be willing to 'donate' one of their 'generators' if they were given something as a replacement. Not up on my engines but is there anything more modern available out of a 56, 57 or anything later that is being scrapped?

 

Not sure about traction equipment. Stuff from a 57 maybe - could everything be geared differently?

 

I imagine that whoever took over Hawker Siddley (B.A.E.?), or the National Railway Museum would have the original blueprints.

 

Biggest problem I can see is that beautiful curved glass. We had curved windscreens on the Pigs when I was at Bomo so it's not insurmountable. Not cheap - they're about £2,000 per screen.

 

It's got to be at least a quarter of the cost of building Tornado though

[James]

I imagine that whoever took over Hawker Siddley (B.A.E.?), or the National Railway Museum would have the original blueprints.

 

Brush may well still have details - would you like me to ask?

[Leicester Thumper]

Brush may well still have details - would you like me to ask?

 

It's worth a try.

 

If someone has a way in to get the drawings and Kestrel has been scrapped, then we have a starting point for building a replica, if we have the drawings we just need to find a group interested in the project

[Trainshed Terry]

Brush may well still have details - would you like me to ask?

 

Go for it as I would like to see the blueprints for myself.

 

Terry.

[159]

Brush may well still have details - would you like me to ask?

 

 

That would be ideal if you can James and would be a great starting point. Blueprints would enable some form of costings for the project.

 

As to where to build - the ideal place would probably be in the old Eastleigh works. Bruce Knight who owns Knight's Rail Services is a very friendly bloke and would possibly know who to contact for various specialist items.

 

And of course they have the space & heavy lifting facilities. If they were being paid to construct it or help out as far as possible it may be more cost effective and quicker.

 

http://www.rail-serv...About%20us.html

 

Chris Milner - Deputy Editor of The Railway Magazine is another friendly bloke too, he let me have a charity stall at the Eastleigh Works centenary. The involvement of Bruce Knight & Chris Milner would be priceless.