craneman

I had three of the CS cranes on order, and have received the same email followed by three irritatingly self-congratulatory "successful cancellation" notifications, as though failing to deliver something that Hornby has widely advertised is a great achievement. I rather assume that this means that the Cowans Sheldon crane is no longer likely to appear. On the bright side, my unmade D&S kits have probably just leapt in value. It remains a shockingly dismal way to run a business, and it does make me wonder if Hornby is on the rocks.

Remember this one, Barrow Upon Soar, 01/02/2008? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c901b40f0b6024100018f/R182008_080925_Barrow_Upon_Soar.pdf Anywhere where unintelligent and unimaginative "sheeple" mix with railways there is likely to be trouble. The more steps that are taken to safeguard these people from themselves, the less risk-aware they become. It is a downward spiral, and complete separation of the general public and railways (except at stations, where that approach is fundamentally problematic) is probably the only real answer. It's either that or just accept that natural selection should eventually remove - or at least greatly diminish - stupidity from the gene pool if allowed happen, but that is not an acceptable view these days. Edit: I hadn't noticed until checking the date of the incident above and finding the link to the report the extraordinary number of reportable incidents which have taken place at Barrow-upon-Soar over the years, with at least six railway accidents of various types (two of which involved bridges collapse) occurring thereabouts. Incidents occurred in 1855, 1936, 2008, 2013, 2016 and 2017, so it looks as though it is becoming an increasingly dangerous place!

This, I'm afraid, is spectacularly wrong and misleading. The 4.1/2 litre supercharged Bentleys were extremely unreliable and never achieved a single significant racing victory, certainly not in the period to 1931 when the original Bentley Motors ceased to exist. The blowers failed to finish more races than they completed, a shocking record for a competition car. The blowers were abhorred by 'WO" who wanted nothing to do with them, favouring the addition of two cylinders normally aspirated (hence the 6.1/2 litre and "Speed Six" models) and were a private venture conceived by Birkin and funded by Paget. The first cars were built in Birkin's workshop and it was not until Birkin interested Barnato, who by then effectively owned Bentley Motors, in the project and persuaded him to build enough cars to bring the total to the fifty needed for homologation that Bentley Motors had any reluctant involvement in the project. Sadly the blower cars have acquired in recent times a reputation and mystique (and value) which is wholly undeserved and detracts from the huge significance and achievements of the real and very successful racing Bentleys, specifically the 3-litre, 4.1/2-litre, and 6.1/2-litre "speed" models. A blower Bentley is undoubtedly a spectacular car, but as a racing car, the purpose for which it was conceived, it was a spectacular and very expensive failure.

No, you are joining a major road and the law requires that you check before pulling out that it is safe to do so. There is no excuse for failing to check in both directions especially if it is a single carriageway and had you pulled out you could reasonably expect to be charged with driving without due care. The amount of precedent for this situation is overwhelming.

Usually known as a "tail lock", especially on larger cranes.

I must be missing your point! That seems to be the image of 46242 correctly identified as 46242.

The first still image was, as you say, 46242 standing in the station goods yard during the week following the accident, prior to being dismantled and removed. It is a well-known BR photo and totally irrelevant to the programme. The second still image was correctly 46202, prior to rerailing but after 45637 had been removed. The latter was lifted during the night of 8th October (the day of the accident) and 46202 was lifted the following morning. The photo must therefore have been taken very early on 9th October.

Yes, as do various other US outline brass locos from various importers built by Samhongsa. Mind you they're premium models so it would be disappointing if they didn't. A far cry from the days of Akane and the likes from 50 years ago, but they were state of the art then. I think today's modellers tend to forget (or not realise) how lucky we are now in terms of variety, quality, and value for money.

Although I wouldn't expect the Marklin/Trix Scotsman to approach the Samhongsa version, there are RTR mass-produced models which approach it in terms of detail. Fulgurex used to do it, and I'd argue that in terms of detail and finish some recent Hornby and Bachmann haven't been far behind, it's just such a shame that the latter are not scale models. My comments about TT120 were not Scotsman related but more because there is a huge global base of HO scale modellers, I believe it to be by far the world's most popular model railway scale. I am intrigued that Hornby thinks an entirely new scale with no established customer base at all is a better bet. I'm not saying they're wrong, and I wish them well, I just find it surprising.

Probably the finest ready-to-run British outline model in either 3.5mm/ft or 4mm/ft yet produced, and it is unlikely that the Marklin/Trix version could approach it in terms of quality. The brochure photos make the new model look disappointingly crude, and the wheels are shocking! What a shame. I can't remember what I paid for my PSM model, and I am not sure I want to. It would be rather pleasing if Marklin/Trix went on to produce a wider range of HO British outline, and much more sensible endeavour than Hornby's inexplicable TT programme in my opinion.

Not the answer to your question but interesting to note that the last lift undertaken by a steam breakdown crane working on the national network took place on Sunday 13th August 1989, in South Devon.

No, it's a trap not a catch.

Sure looks like a trap to me. The fact that there appear to be five slide chairs is something of a give-away.

The cylinders appear to be crooked (as well as the buffer beam and handrails). After all the hype it looks very disappointing.

On a theme vaguely related to the swimming pool story above, here is ample proof that Darwin was wrong:

That is without doubt a fascinating model, but I'd be surprised if it is kit-built, I think it's more likely to be scratchbuilt. If it is from a kit, it is from such a rare and low-volume kit that in 60 years I haven't seen another one. It is evidently intended to be a model of a Ransomes & Rapier crane (the bridle gear is uniquely R&R) but the layout of the shafts is not entirely consistent. It also clearly should have a pair of relieving bogies. If you visit the Breakdown Crane Association website at www.bdca.org.uk and go to the gallery you will find many inspirational photos of R&R and other cranes.

This - The leading vehicle is a mess and tool van, followed by the Swindon Crane No.2, built by Ransomes and Rapier of Ipswich in 1908. It has a special match truck to carry the weight of the jib when it is in transit or not in use. The next vehicle is a tool van carrying equipment that was needed for the work. This is followed by a loco coal wagon and the train is completed by one of the brake vans allocated to the Permanent Way Department. All the vehicles before the coal wagon are fitted with the vacuum brake but this wagon only has the usual hand brake so a goods type brake van is needed. - needs work (as a teacher might say)! The leading vehicle is a combined mess, tool, and supervisor's van and includes a Guard's compartment. It completely negates the need for the mess and tool vans further down the train since it performs all the functions of them and more. I have never, ever, seen a photo of a train with both a bogie tool van and conventional 4- or 6-wheel vans, it simply makes no sense at all that they would have been marshalled together (except perhaps en-route for scrapping). Similarly the bogie van, the crane, the jib runner (the lockers of which principally carried timber packing), and the weight tender (propping girders, kentledge, and lifting tackle) together carried everything required for breakdown work, no other transport vehicles were required. For Civil Engineering work, the bogie van would be left behind since the tools carried on it were breakdown tools, all the lifting equipment was on the jib runner and weight tender. If the crane was (as usual) coupled immediately behind the loco with the bogie van behind, there would be no need for an additional brake van since the bogie tool van was a brake van. I have never seen any evidence that in steam days (either in GW or BR eras) any additional water or coal was carried (bagged coal would be on the weight tender or jib runner if needed) since there was always a steam loco on hand to donate supplies. In the diesel era, this changed, of course. The usual formation for an accident deployment in the GW era would be loco, weight tender, crane, jib runner, bogie van. I have evidence that No 2 has been over at least twice in its working life. The first time was on 22nd April 1934 at St Budeaux, Plymouth. The crane, along with No 3 (the second R&R 36-tonner) were working on a job to renew the bowstring girders of the bridge carrying the GWR over the LSWR near St Budeaux station. As part of this operation, the two cranes were operating FOR (free on rails) and were either loading one of the old girders onto pair of "Pollens" for removal, or possibly unloading it from the "Pollens" for scrapping, it is not clear which. Whatever the reason for the lift, either the cant on the track, or a cross-wind, or most likely a combination of both, overcame the slewing brake on No 2 and blew the girder until the crane exceeded its stability envelope in the FOR condition. The crane overturned to the left and ended up on its side on the south side of the line, which at this point is on an embankment. It is reported that there were no injuries, the driver of No 2 bailing out in the nick of time (the only feasible exit from the driving position in on the left-hand side of the crane, the side it landed on, so he was lucky). The incident was reported in the Western Morning News the following morning and the article makes the extraordinary claim that the crane and the girder were recovered within four hours, which I find unbelievable (it is however feasibly that the line was reopened to traffic within four hours). Although there was a fully-serviceable 36-ton crane on site, the task of recovering the 100 tons dead-weight of No 2, which was on its side on the embankment, together with a 50-ton to 80-ton bowstring girder also on its side down an embankment, would not have been possible with a single crane. Unless there was a third heavy crane on site which has never been reported there is simply no way that No 2 could have been recovered that quickly. The nearest suitable crane in 1934 would have had to come from South Wales and couldn't even get to site in 4 hours, so my suspicion is that No 2 stayed where it was until the following weekend at the earliest. There are two photos of this incident in Janet Russell's book "GWR Company Servants" which for obvious reasons I cannot reproduce here. The photos are Figs 142 and 143, and the caption sadly is almost entirely speculative twaddle (all the captions are seriously disappointing in this particular book) and clearly the author had no idea of the location of the incident (the caption also attributes Fig 141 to the same incident, but it is clearly not the girder in the accident photos). One of the photos also clearly shows significant track damage, so four hours? I don't think so! The second time I know No 2 to have gone over was in the Con Yard at Swindon in 1962 (the BR(W) CM&EE Drawing Office photo which I have in my collection is dated 14 Sep 1962 but I don't know if that it is the date of the incident or the date the photo was printed). At this time the Con Yard was in use for the scrapping of redundant steam locos, and the crane has most of the chassis of what appears to have been a Prairie tank on the hook, and has again been clearly operating FOR and has again gone over to the left. On this occasion the jib has come to rest on the cab of another Prairie, inflicting a significant amount of damage to the loco cab but possibly saving the crane from more significant damage. The photos suggests that the jib may have sustained a twist, but if so there is no evidence of this today (which raises the interesting possibility that No 2 may have received the jib from No 3, which was scrapped at around this time, although I have found nothing on No 2 today to suggest that it has a donated jib). The BR(W) photo from my collection is reproduced on the BDCA website at: http://www.bdca.org.uk/gallery/index.php/Ransomes-and-Rapier/GWR-No-2/GWR-No-2-Swindon-Con-Sept-1962-BR-W-photo-Roger-Cooke-collection There is a "ding" in the carriage of the crane, on the left-hand side, which is almost certainly the result of one or other of these incidents. The "dinged" steel plate is of a thickness which means that it took considerable energy to inflict the damage, so it is unlikely to have been the result of anything minor. As an aside, in case it of of interest or relevance, I am a co-founder of the BDCA, which is the brain-child of myself and a friend who is also a steam-crane operator. We had become frustrated at the amount of utter twaddle being published on the Internet and in traditional publications on the subject of steam breakdown cranes, we were aware that at that time only one serious book had been published on the subject, namely John Brownlie's seminal but flawed "Railway Steam Cranes" (it is a bizarre fact that at that time more books had been written about railway telegraph pole insulators than railway breakdown cranes), and we wanted to create a focal point for those like us who own and operate heavy steam cranes from a bygone era in the modern H&S environment, and to try to get in touch with and hear from the dwindling number of giants-among-men who operated these fine machines day and night in some of the most awful and sometimes traumatic conditions when the railways relied upon them. Although the BDCA is a very "niche" association, it has succeeded in most of these intentions and also, it seems, has proved to be a useful resource for modellers. This pleases us! I also happen to be the present owner of GWR No 2, currently trying to figure out a way to restore it to working order on a normal person's budget, as task which currently doesn't appear possible but I shall keep trying! It really is a very expensive hobby! The history of No 2 is really worthy of a book, which one-day I may write. It revolutionised the design of railway breakdown cranes and set a standard which didn't change until the telescopic jib cranes of the 1980s. Prior to the arrival of the 45-tonners (same design, just a little larger) it was the principal crane on the GWR and attended virtually every major Civils job (including every major bridge renewal) and every significant accident or derailment. It was one of the cranes used in the early days of WW2 in support of of the ultra-heavy guns "Winnie" and "Pooh" installed in Kent (three steam breakdown cranes were required to lift the barrel of one of these guns). It had the longest working life of any British steam breakdown crane, operating from 1908 until 1975 for the GWR and BR(W) and from 1975 until 1989 for the DVLR, a total working life of nearly 82 years. Its last lift to date, at Goodrington on Sunday August 13th 1989, was also the last lift on BR metals by a steam breakdown crane (even though at the time the crane was privately owned it was working on BR metals). Finally, it is one of three 1908 cranes to have survived in the UK, the others being the ex-LNWR Cowans Sheldon 30-ton crane MP21, which so narrowly was saved from scrap in April 2011 and is now at the Lancashire Mining Museum at Astley Green, the ex-NER Craven Bros 25-ton crane in the National Collection. The three together represent the 1908 state-of-the-art from what at the time were the leading crane makers in the Empire, possibly the world, and collectively have enormous cultural and engineering value. One of the three must also be the oldest steam breakdown crane to have survived in Britain, but in all honesty it is not clear which it is (and it will depend on whether the order date, build date, or delivery date is used).

I notice that there are two clips on YouTube of the Pendon breakdown train, it is possible that one or other of these is the same clip as that on the "friends" area of Pendon website (the "thumbnail" certainly suggests that the first clip is the one:- At risk of sounding like a nit-picker (a nit-picker on rmweb, surely not!), the consist in both clips is not prototypical, the long open wagon (Diag L.10 match wagon or weight tender) would always be coupled to the boiler-end of the crane, since this was the only place from which the crane could pick up its kentledge. As supplied the crane had eight propping girders and these were not permitted to be carried in the girder boxes due to axle-load limitations, so they too were carried in the weight tender, as was the lifting tackle. For a heavy lift which required the crane to operate propped and clipped, the first task after setting the spring relieving blocks and lifting the jib would be to pick the propping girders (about 1.1/4 tons each) from the weight tender and fitting them in the girder boxes, eight girders in total. The the crane would pick the six-ton kentledge and set it down on the back end of its own carriage above the bogie (using special chains attached about 4' up the jib to pull the hook block back towards the jib foot as it lowered). The superstructure would then be slewed back so that the boiler was above the kentledge, and the latter raised by means of four jackscrews (for which some of the world's largest ratchet spanners were provided) until it could be secured by means of four bolts to the underside of the superstructure. The crane would then be ready for use. remarkably I am told that provided steam was raised this whole operation could be completed in around half-an-hour. After some time in service the GWR allowed the crane to run with four girders permanently installed in the girder boxes, and after this became normal the extra four, which were not really needed, were discarded and at some stage scrapped. The crane was never allowed, whether in GWR or the BR(W) eras, to run with the kentledge fitted however, due to the axle load issue. There is a fine photo of the Swindon Factory breakdown train in Fig 321 of Jim Russell's Great Western Wagons Appendix (OPC, 1974) showing the crane with its weight tender and jib runner together with bogie tool and mess van 132, the Swindon Factory allocated van. Aside from the position of the weight tender, the first clip is particularly attractive and representative. Perhaps someone from Pendon will read this and re-arrange the stock to make it near perfect!

Sadly that link too is unavailable non-friends! The correspondence is indeed signed by Stanier. It is very evident from your quoted passage that Pendon has "borrowed" heavily from the BDCA website, which is something that we don't as a rule object to provided that proper credit is given (and your other quotes suggest that it has been). At least this means that the material being presented has been carefully researched, something whcih seem to be all too rare where cranes are concerned. One of the intriguing questions which the "Stanier papers" raise is why did the GWR want to lift 50-tons with No 2, and what was it that it wanted to lift? It is likely that we will never know with certainty the answer to this, but the most likely explanation is that the crane was required to stand-in for the remarkable former Taff Vale Railway crane which had become GWR No 10. This was a crane built by Cowans Sheldon in 1911 with a notional capacity of 35-tons 22' radius working propped and clipped but which was also designed to work as a quayside crane, for which purpose special outrigger beams loaded with an astonishing 42-tons of ballast would be fitted together with an additional 5.1/2 tons of kentledge. This enabled it to lift 35-tons at 32' radius, or 50-tons at 20' radius. It is not clear after this much time why the Taff Vale felt that this was a preferable approach to operating two separate cranes, each optimised for one application, nor why the GWR continued to use it thus, however it is apparent that the compromises needed to accommodate the static duties reduced its usefulness as a railway crane, and vice versa. At the time of the Stanier letter crane 10 was allocated to Cathays, and it is likely that there was a 50-ton job for it at a time when it was unserviceable. Under these circumstances No 2 would be requested from the Factory. Perhaps one day more information will come to light. It would seem that No 10 crane had lost its quayside accoutrements by the time Nationalisation took place, probably long before, and by 1948 had been allocated to Banbury (hardly famous for its quaysides!) where it remained until moving to Worcester circa 1961. It stayed at Worcester until broken up in 1969. Whilst a fairly remarkable crane it does not appear to have been a popular crane, being generally overly massive for its duty and having a six-axle carriage with excessive portee.

Sadly I can't view the video since it is in a "members' area" but for an organisation that prizes accuracy I am surprised at the error in the caption and consist! I've no idea where they dreamt up the figure of 48.5 tons, no's 1, 2 and 3 cranes were all 36-tonners, although I do have in my collection correspondence between R&R and Churchward in which R&R approve the crane for lifting 50 tons on "an occasional basis". It's hard to be sure without seeing the video but in the thumbnail the wagon on the left appears to be the crane's "weight tender", which was provided for carrying the 8 propping girders and the removable 6-ton kentledge. This would always be coupled to the bogie end of the crane since this was the only place from which the crane could lift it to self-install. It would never run coupled to the jib runner. Also in the thumbnail the kentledge can be seen under the main hook block (which should be stowed between the tool boxes, as it is the main hoist rope would be destroyed) in a position where it would never be carried and from where the crane couldn't lift it. I understand that the Pendon crane was built from one of the first Gordon Ashton kits and as a result features the inaccuracies that were corrected in the later artwork revision (such as LSWR-style twin portholes) but it makes an attractive model. As No2, in the era portrayed it would usually have run with the Swindon Factory 62'6" bogie tool van, and I'm surprised Pendon didn't add this to the train. In steam days the would never have been a coal wagon nor additional water tank since both were unnecessary due to the presence of a loco with tender. In the diesel era additional water supplies were nearly always provided. No2 crane was not only vac TP but perhaps surprisingly was also through-piped for steam heat, this was a feature unique to No2 and was to allow the bogie van to be heated.

A small number of museum standard models were scratchbuilt on commission by the late maestro Stefan Lewis in 4mm. They were expensive but are outstanding. I have never seen one offered for resale. Note also that the Ipswich crane maker was Ransomes & Rapier, no ransom was involved.

The CS crane saved from scrap at the last minute is no longer at Crewe. Sadly the person who bought it thereby assuring its survival passed away and the crane was resold. It is now at the Lancashire Mining Museum at Astley Green.

Leaving aside the various shameful damage and mis-assembly issues with these models, the photography on this thread makes me reflect just how far Hornby (still Triang-Hornby in my mind) and other R-T-R manufacturers have come since my childhood in the 1960s. The difference between the standard of an out-of-the box model now compared to then is almost incomprehensible. I suspect that if prices are compared, with 60s prices adjusted to today's in real terms, the value-for-money today is pretty good too. The photos in rbmcg's post above really do justice to this magnificent model.

Yes, it is much harder to see either way at the junction when the give way line is ten feet back from the carriageway. No provision has been made for this, and at many junctions you have to pull past the GW lines and block the pavement/cycleway area before you can see. It isn't a very helpful arrangement, and no doubt the wicked motorist will be held to blame for any problems. Re. the "reprehensible cyclists" comment, I have some sympathy (and I ride a bicycle extensively myself) but where there is a designated cycleway then I use that, not the main carriageway. I accept and agree that there are situations in which it is preferable from the cyclists' perspective to stay in the carriageway, but these are rare, and I am happy to criticise those who choose to remain on the road in the absence of a sound reason to do so. It is particularly daft since round here many of our cycleways were provided because the roads are considered dangerous for cyclists and after lobbying by cyclists. Why, then, do so many choose to remain in the carriageway and put themselves at risk? There are those who appear to have the attitude that it is their "right" to cause a nuisance to motorists (they don't have this right, of course - they have a right to be on the road but no road user has the right to cause a nuisance to another). I suppose, bearing in mind that the recurring theme of this thread is the incompetent, inept, or stupid vehicle driver, that statistically there must be a similar proportion of incompetent, inept, or stupid cyclists. Perhaps this is the reason. I mean no offence with these thoughts to cyclists (or drivers, for that matter) who are not incompetent, inept, or stupid.

Do not forget either the fact that cars with autonomous collision avoidance systems are capable of braking extremely effectively without any prior warning. The follow-too-close brigade will have to wake up to the new reality, especially if they drive older cars. It is also now well established that some of these systems are not as reliable as might be desired. For example, there are now many reports of the new Landrover Defender, when operating in its adaptive cruise control mode with automatic speed limit recognition operative, misinterpreting side-road speed limit signs as being applicable to the road it is on and spontaneously braking hard to reduce speed. There will, I think, be many who will have decades of complacency to redress, and who will have trouble adapting to the fact that the car in front may now do something utterly unpredictable and very sudden. Perhaps, eventually, people will return to the approach of driving at a speed which allows them to stop in the distance they can see to be clear (which incidentally, is how, many years ago, I was taught to drive). Meanwhile insurance premiums will continue to rise and punish us all for the misdeeds of idiots.