45 ton Ransomes Crane

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

6 minutes ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

Plus you wouldn't be able to run it in a train if it were motorised. The self propelled speed was walking pace so the gearing would have to reflect that and be able to be disengaged for when run in a train...

Some of us would think that restraining one's hand on the control/knob/button/slider would solve that non-problem in an instant. DCC and any other system that offers easily accessible programmable control would make it even easier to manage.

['CHARD]

3 hours ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

Plus you wouldn't be able to run it in a train if it were motorised. The self propelled speed was walking pace so the gearing would have to reflect that and be able to be disengaged for when run in a train. Plus obviously the additional costs

 

I more read the previous question as relating to the various 'poseability' functions of the crane; rotation, reel in/ out, raise/ lower jib.

[craneman]

5 hours ago, 7013 said:

Is this model going to be motorised? so that the crane actually works? Or is it going to be +/-£250 for a model that admittedly is highly detailed but has to be hand cranked similar to Hornby cranes. If it is not motorised it is a missed opportunity especially as may continental wagons seem to be able to incorporate DCC operated fittings on wagons. 

No, it is not going to be motorised, and the main reason is that on a British-outline steam crane there really isn't anywhere to hide all the motors.

 

If you think of the few overseas-prototype cranes which have been made with DCC in HO scale, you will realise that all are models of prototypes with fully-enclosed cab structures (generally diesel-hydraulic prototypes), which makes it relatively easy to hide the necessary gubbins.

 

A British-outline steam crane has all of is gearing and mechanism exposed, and the only place for motors would be the boiler, which is about as unsuitable as can be. Given a choice of a highly-detailed, manually-posable model, or a motorised model with (probably) a hideously-unrealistic machinery area, Bachmann wisely chose the former.

 

There's no reason, I suppose, why you couldn't carve out the internals and motorise one.

 

Incidentally the only really good DCC HO-scale crane I know of is the Trix/Marklin "Goliath" joint venture. it is an impressive model, and the DCC is cool, but it was IIRC around a grand to buy. Having seen and read the outcry on this thread at the price of the non-powered Bachmann crane (I price I think is entirely reasonable, but then again I know how good the model is), imagine the vilification that would have followed a £1000+ price announcement.

 

The major drawback of any DCC crane of course is that until someone produces DCC operable miniature humans you'd still need the giant "hand of God" to attach anything to the crane. In reality, posable is far more practical than operable. Operable is undoubtedly cool though!

 

I imagine that it is entirely possible that Bachmann could produce a powered version in the future, if there is a demand for one. 

[craneman]

4 hours ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

Plus you wouldn't be able to run it in a train if it were motorised. The self propelled speed was walking pace so the gearing would have to reflect that and be able to be disengaged for when run in a train. Plus obviously the additional costs

Not so. If you take the example of the Trix/Marklin "Goliath", you can, just as on the prototype, disengage the travel motor.

[G-BOAF]

Yes this model is one that would be great motorised. I reckon there could be one motor for the drive of the wheels on the track (in the chassis), and another in the ‘boiler’ for the crane itself (jib, hook and slewing). This said, maybe two mini-motors, one for jib and one for hook, driving the two separate mechanisms Bachmann have installed. However space will be very tight, but maybe with a N-gage tank loco motor(s) this could work.

As for disengaging the motor for travel, it can't be beyond the capability of DCC to have some sort of digitally operated clutch mechanism (using memory metal?), to allow the crane to free-wheel when in a train.

This said, such an arrangement would complicate an already complicated bit of model engineering. If Bachmann were do have done this from scratch, I doubt you'd have much change from £1000!

I don’t doubt someone will have a bash at it, and if they come up with a feasible way of doing it (or even a kit), and ideally in a reversable manner, I might even be tempted to give it a go…! But for now, or whenever the model appears, I will be happy with a posable model. I already have a bargain GWR shunters truck to pose as a load!

[brushman47544]

On 06/02/2019 at 10:52, The Stationmaster said:

In reality you only needed a crane, or cranes, for really serious derailment jobs and they probably spent as much time doing infrastructure jobs as they did anything else and of course they got all over the place on that sort of work.

 

As far as dealing with derailments was concerned cranes could be a downright nuisance - they needed time to set up plus adjacent lines to be blocked if they were still available for traffic.  For most derailments it was quicker to use jacks, particularly the hydraulic MFD gear once it became available and other things and of course there were some situations where cranes couldn't work anyway.  I can't remember how many derailments I dealt with over the years but most were in yards or sidings and I only worked with a crane on two occasions - once with the Old Oak Common 45ton steam crane and once with its diesel replacement which was only used because it was job near the depot and the Breakdown Supervisor wanted to give it a try 'in anger' after spending several weeks trying to make sure that it actually worked (the job could probably have been done with jacks).

 

Apologies for showing at work  below the diesel replacement for a proper job R&R 45 ton crane -

 

 

 

 

 

That HST appears to be on a main running line so presumably it was allowed to pass in service. I’m sure many will disagree but if it was safe then, why not now?

Edited February 7, 2019 by brushman47544

[MarkSG]

55 minutes ago, brushman47544 said:

 

That HST appears to be on a main running line so presumably it was allowed to pass in service. I’m sure many will disagree but if it was safe then, why not now?

 

No, it was at the depot, and the derailed coach had hit the HST.

See this post elsewhere on RMweb, which includes more photos of the incident: 

 

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, 'CHARD said:

 

No, it's not going to be motorised.  The complexity of what to motorise, how many motors would be needed and where they could fit....

 

And then the cost.  £550 anyone?

According to somebody from Bachmann who I spoke to last year if it was motorised (which is any case really an impossibility - see 'Craneman's' post) you would be looking at in excess of £850 minimum depending on the level of functionality.  If it was 100% motorised on all functions there is already a guide price from another brand for that sort of thing - again as previously quoted.

 

4 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

 

That HST appears to be on a main running line so presumably it was allowed to pass in service. I’m sure many will disagree but if it was safe then, why not now?

No, the HST was entering the yard on what was, just there, the Down Carriage Line and the hauled stock was being propelled in the opposite direction and passed a signal at danger by a considerable distance because the Shunter wasn't concentrating on what he was supposed to be doing.  So it was technically a SPAD resulting in a collision

 

[The Johnster]

In the best part of 10 years working as a freight guard at Canton in the 70s I went out with the breakdown vans several times, nearly always 'over the dock' and on a few trips to Tremorfa steelworks, which we had a contract with for rerailing stuff that had come to grief.  These jobs were particularly desirable because there was nothing for the traincrew to do until proceedings had finished and it was time to take the vans back to Canton, and Tremorfa steelworks had a very good, and free, canteen...

 

The crane was another deal altogether, and I am happy to say I never saw it used in anger; this would have meant a serious accident of the sort that results in injuries and deaths.  I went out with it twice on civil engineering jobs, on consecutive weekends renewing the bridge girders over Newport Road just north of Queen Street station, which involved it's use in conjunction with a hydraulic road crane of similar capacity.  

 

Book on 22.00, prep van (breakdown train van always ready to go anyway, so it's just lighting the lamps), take crane to site, change into good clothes, go Saturday night clubbing til 2am with the secondman, back from Top Rank about 02.30, change back into uniform, 'rest your eyes' for about an hour, have full breakfast in mess van 04.00, take crane back to Canton 05.00 book off, double time and a half Sunday rate from midnight and with any luck there's a girl's phone number in your pocket.  Felt guilty about taking the money, but not so guilty that I ever gave any of it back, you understand...

 

As for procedure after accidents, matters have changed since my day.  Then there were clear priorities; ensure that traffic is stopped on adjacent lines, mount rescue operation for the injured, remove those past all human help with as much dignity as possible, and clear the line for traffic as quickly as possible.  Nowadays an accident site where there has been an injury or death is a crime scene, so as well as the above considerations a full investigation must take place by the police and accident investigators before the clearing of  wreckage and reopening of the line can be considered.  

 

I was once witness to a 'one under' on platform 7 at Cardiff Central.  Once it was clear that nothing could be done for the unfortunate victim, whose suffering was over, the train was moved off, Transport Police collected the body parts in blue plastic bags and I for one didn't envy them the job, and the timetable resumed as if nothing much had happened.  Nowadays the whole platform would be out of use for several hours and the disruption would be far more considerable.  

Edited February 9, 2019 by The Johnster

[Mark Hamlin]

Any photos from Ally Pally anybody?

 

I spied the box on the bottom of Mr Parker’s photos of the excellent 94xx

[Phil Parker]

3 hours ago, Mark Hamlin said:

Any photos from Ally Pally anybody?

 

I spied the box on the bottom of Mr Parker’s photos of the excellent 94xx

 

Not from me. I wasn't allowed to take the models out of the cabinet and as they were right at the back, getting shots was difficult. That and I was more interesting in capturing the new EPs and 009 layout in the stand. I don't think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that the crane has changed since the last time we saw it. Still looks b****y brilliant though.

[Simon Bendall]

If I recall correctly, decorated samples are due quite soon.

[Pre Grouping fan]

7 hours ago, Mark Hamlin said:

Any photos from Ally Pally anybody?

 

I spied the box on the bottom of Mr Parker’s photos of the excellent 94xx

What you think is the box I think is just a image showing the liveries available as it had both the br examples on it. Unless I missed something

 

[delticfan]

Is this model powered, seems a lot of cash if it isn’t.

[GreenGiraffe22]

11 minutes ago, delticfan said:

Is this model powered, seems a lot of cash if it isn’t.

 

Nope

[G-BOAF]

20 minutes ago, delticfan said:

Is this model powered, seems a lot of cash if it isn’t.

Given that the gearing is as complex as it it were powered, and the motors themselves ( assume you'd need a couple) would only amount to a few pounds (plus a bit more for wiring and labour of electrics installation), its a lot of cash full stop. Powered or not has little to do with it.

I dont doubt someone will devise a scheme to power one. I reckon you will need four motors - one for the jib, one for the hook, one for slewing, and one for running. The jib and hook motors could maybe be placed in the boiler/cab area if the manual key drives are removed, and the motor linked straight to the worms that are present. I presume a n-gauge tank engine motor could do the job. A Wickham Trolley mechanism might be a good starting point to make it self propelled.

 

And what about a Class 90 Pantograph servo to engage/disengage the drive gear to allow it to be towed. Now we're starting to see another £100 onto the price...

 

Happy modelling.

Edited March 26, 2019 by G-BOAF

[The Stationmaster]

18 minutes ago, delticfan said:

Is this model powered, seems a lot of cash if it isn’t.

If it was powered I reckon you could probably treble the price, as an absolute minimum.  The Trix version sells for about $1,000 in the USA (but it has got a smoke unit built in as well as doing various crane type things ;).

[Michael Delamar]

Does anyone have a shot of the Gorton crane during the 50s/60s period and also of the other vehicles, tool vans, coaches etc it would have been seen with?

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

Motorising wouldn't be impossible. Can motors of 3mm and 4mm diameter are readily obtainable these days.

 

I recall somebody* doing it to the old Hornby Dublo one some years back. All movements but not (IIRC) self propelled. BUT, I think the guy who did it used up two or three months of his modelling time on it.

 

As Mike (Stationmaster) says, it wouldn't come cheap - his suggestion of the announced price x3, sounds like a good starting point. 

 

John

 

EDIT: *Tony James, Railway Modeller, August 2001

Edited March 26, 2019 by Dunsignalling
Reference added

[G-BOAF]

So yes the Bachmann model, as supplied will be a glorified piece of track-based scenery, that can be displayed in a variety of positions. In real life, what percentage of a crane's time was actually spent in motion? Even at a works site, I'm guessing there was significant periods of inactivity. And of course most of its life was spent sitting in a siding anyway. I'd rather a £250 static model that looks good than a £700 model that works. I just couldnt justify such an expensive model, although know that for £250 I will have a model that given future time, skill and prioritisation, could possibly be modified to be motorised.

 

Mine certainly will spend much of its life in a siding, probably with a strategically placed tarpaulin covering its delicate bits!

That said, I look forward to the odd posable cameo, and have a spare shunters truck for just this purpose, assuming the model (especially the rigging) won't be damaged with a few grams on the end of its jib.

 

[Michael Delamar]

https://picclick.co.uk/35mm-COLOUR-SLIDE-RAILWAY-CHEADLE-HULME-ACCIDENT-MAY-362554276230.html

 

Photo of the Gorton crane in use at Cheadle Hulme in 1964

 

Sorry if it’s been linked to already, I’ve decided to order one after seeing the decorated pics, the shed I’m modelling was a sub shed of Gorton.  And so I’ve become interested in knowing more about the prototype.

[kandc_au]

At the end of the day, in all honesty, How many modellers will actually want to stand there and operate the crane?
Admittedly there will be the odd one but very few I should imagine.
More often than not they are used as a diorama display on a layout and not much more.

Khris

[Mark Hamlin]

20 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Not from me. I wasn't allowed to take the models out of the cabinet and as they were right at the back, getting shots was difficult. That and I was more interesting in capturing the new EPs and 009 layout in the stand. I don't think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that the crane has changed since the last time we saw it. Still looks b****y brilliant though.

Sorry  Phil of course it wasn’t the box. Just getting excited about seeing two of my most anticipated items in one photo!

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

I can't see why all the angst is being generated by this model, it's a niche model that won't be the best seller that Bachmann have ever had, so the price won't ever be cheap, just  good value for money.

Also, why is it percieved as a static model?, I saw plenty on the move, even took pictures at the time, so it ticks all the boxes. Maybe some people are scared of actually having to do some modelling and build/modify the support stock!

 

Mike.

[truffy]

57 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

Also, why is it percieved as a static model?, I saw plenty on the move, even took pictures at the time, so it ticks all the boxes. Maybe some people are scared of actually having to do some modelling and build/modify the support stock!

 

Static ≠ Movement ≠ Function

 

Looks like the prototype. Moves like the prototype. Works like the prototype.

 

Point is, it depends on whether you apply the adjective 'static' to the movement around the railway or the job of being a crane.