craneman

Two from the GWR come to mind, the broad gauge "Lagoon" which was supposed to have been named "Laocoon", and "Caldicot Castle" which was outshopped with plates displaying "Caldicott Castle".

"Recent rain" should not be considered to be a contributory factor. In this country if you cannot drive safely after recent rain, or you are too stupid to realise that there has been recent rain, you should not be allowed to drive. For that matter, if you are too inexperienced (or stupid) to drive a Ferrari on a wet road, you should not be allowed to drive a Ferrari. I am surprised that the age of the driver has not been reported. For once it would be mildly interesting to know.

Although perhaps possible that's not really supported by the AV in the clip, there is nothing to suggest that any of the airlines were affected by the barrier, just a brake application as the trucker dismounts. In the comments it is reported that "Devon", who was there, says nothing was behind the truck. Even if there had been, I submit that reversing into several cars at low speed is preferable in terms of outcomes to being hit by a train. My suspicion is that the trucker simply funked it and was unable to make the right decision in the heat of the moment. It is much easier with hindsight or for a railway-educated audience watching at home (and don't think I am defending him, with a truck licence comes responsibility and his actions were indefensible).

I'm not sure that that actually matters, I have had similar "renew your McAfee" messages come up on my Android phone which certainly does not have McAfee . It's a very popular trick at the moment to get you to click on a link you really don't want to. My primary PC, which does has McAfee installed (as well as very effective ad-blockers), also regularly displays what appear to be fake "registry issue", "need-to-renew", etc messages. It just seems to be a thing at the moment.

The famous crane maker of Carlisle was Cowans Sheldon, not Cowans and Sheldon.

I ordered a copy from Crecy at the time I posted that these are still available (above) and it appears to be first edition, signed and with the list of subscribers as noted, and also part of the 1500 limited run. As a new copy at the original price it is something of a bargain compared to what is being asked for pre-owned copies on the second hand market.

Perhaps Gordon Tullock had the right idea when he suggested what has become known as the "Tullock spike".

The book is still available from Crecy.

Oxford certainly had them, there was one outside my grandparents' house. Sadly I don't remember what colour the light was and in fact don't remember ever seeing the light on.

If I am to be blunt, I don't really care whether you agree with me or not. The three pieces of legislation I quoted are those which have been used when prosecutions have taken place, this is a matter of fact not opinion. There have also been plenty of successful prosecutions, so the legislation is being used and the courts are recognising that the legislation has the effect of prohibiting the placement of devices in line with the windscreen. I am not saying that this is right or fair, nor that it is wrong or unfair, I have in fact been careful not to express an opinion on the subject, I am merely answering your question. You asked for a reference to a law which prohibits such placement, I have provided you with that reference. The legislation is being used, successfully, to enforce the prohibition. You may not think the legislation is being used correctly and you may disagree with the courts, but I suggest that that is a bold and probably unwise view in the face of significant precedent.

Regulation 30 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (SI 1986 No. 1078 as amended), Regulation 100 of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (SI 1986 No. 1078 as amended), and Section 40a of The Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by Section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1991)Part II, Using a Vehicle in a Dangerous Condition. Enforcement tends to be vigorously pursued for LGV and HGV. Since 2017 the penalty assuming no accident is involved is six points and fines around £200 or a court appearance and up to £2500 fine if you’re driving a lorry. If you kill someone expect around 2 years inside, a 6 year ban, and six-figure punitive damages if you are the employer.

It would be really nice to see the GWR bogie tool and mess van available again!

The crane is (almost certainly) RS1074/30 so the HD model, although somewhat crude, is a better likeness than anything available today. Photos here if anyone is interested: http://www.bdca.org.uk/gallery/index.php/Cowans-Sheldon/RS1074-30-at-Ferryhill

They do appear to be centrally mounted.

After studying some of the earlier photos in this thread, especially those on page 17, I'm sure that you are right, thank you. Definitely a pair, and seemingly equidistant from the centerline of the tender. Another detail KRM will hopefully take on board.

Does anyone know what the pointy upstanding thing that appears to be fixed centrally to the plate at the back of the bunker/front of the tank is? It is visible in the shot above directly in line with the right rear corner of the cab, and is also visible in many other shots, but it isn't clear (at least not to me) what it is. I though it might have been a stop for the open tank filler, but I think the tank filler was further back. The current tender shown by KR certainly needs some substantial alterations.

And I wish - how I wish - that I had been there on that day!

I believe that whilst on the Lickey it was run cab-first to make buffering up marginally less hazardous. What is also not clear form the photo of the U1 with Big Emma is that (as I recall) the train engine on that particular day was a Midland Garratt, so the total power on the train was spectacular as well as inadequate.

... and no "crime scene"! However did we cope back then!

I have never yet seen any photos of the Ruscombe incident that have shown the support vehicles for the breakdown train (other than the jib runner), only those used for carrying debris. I think that the Hydra in your photos is the same diagram as the one converted for the tackle wagon, but obviously lacks the conversion.

I have to say looking again at the Ealing photos that it looks more like a PIPE or TUBE (or possibly L10 weight tender) than the HYDRA. Certainly in the old days packing was where possible kept under cover and open vehicles carried tackle, since wet packing is harder to handle and tackle is usually too heavy to mam-handle (so has to be somewhere the crane can pick it up). It would be unusual but not unknown to carry very large timbers since packing was usually man-handled and you seldom need long packing.

The 45-tonner here is Old Oak's ADRR 95211, the former GWR No 16 (and the only one of the four GW 45-tonners not to have survived, provided that West Coast hasn't scrapped 95212 yet). AT that time 95211 was running with a former GW 6-wheel milk tank as an auxiliary water supply, and a modified former GW 15-ton HYDRA D as a tackle wagon. The normal configuration seems to have been to have the tank coupled to the jib runner and the HYDRA coupled to the crane, to enable to crane to pick tackle directly from the HYDRA. I am pretty sure that it is the HYDRA and not an open in the photos. The HYDRA was DW42188, built in 1913 under Lot 745 to Diagram G22. It ended its days at Woodham's yard in Barry and was photographed there in April 1984. There are photos of it at Barry on Paul Bartlett's site at https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/gwrloriotlowmac (if the link works as I intend it will produce an index page, you'll need to scroll down a few rows to find five excellent detailed pictures of it). I do not know its original number offhand. The milk tank appears to be a Diagram O64 end-filler vehicle and in one photo I have the number DW 052 is clearly visible, however I am not sure if this is the number in its entirety (it appears to be). Earlier in its life this crane, which was at OOC from new in 1940 until 1977, ran with what appears to be a Diagram L 10 Weight Tender (generally similar to a "tube" wagon) and very similar if not identical to those built for the 36-tonners in 1908 and 1910. The origins of this wagon (and there was at least one other with one of the other GW 45-tonners) is not clear, it wasn't inherited from a 36-tonner since they all kept theirs until withdrawal, and it is unknown when it was built and when GWR 16 got it (there are photos with it showing the riding vans still lettered GWR so likely pre-1948). It is also not known when the HYDRA replaced it. Most of the photos showing the HYDRA also shown ex-BR Mk1 vehicles for tool and riding vans. ADRR95211 was out of use at Swindon by 1984 and was broken up at Swindon in 1986. It is not know what defect if any led to its withdrawal and it is possible that it was simply due an overhaul which was considered uneconomic. It was replaced at OOC by the near-identical ADRR95212 which inherited the support wagons described above, and was last seen returning to nature at Carnforth, but now seems to have disappeared from view (hence the comment above). Hopefully it has not been scrapped.

The photos I have of 96708 in difficulty were from '66, so clearly not that incident. That must have been an interesting job!

Indeed, and it fell over at least once (mind you so did most of the 75-tonners, they went over rather easily by all accounts). What is a little unusual about '708's mishap is that it went over forwards, backwards was more common with the 75s which were notoriously tail-heavy.

That would have been ADRC96708 then, the Cowans Sheldon 75 tonner. The Ransomes & Rapier 45 tonner were not so speedy.