craneman

As far as I can tell, the most significant effect of this "Hierarchy of Road Users" will be to assure that the most vulnerable remain statistically the most vulnerable. Several junctions round here (Dorset) have recently been reworked so that the "give way" lines for traffic leaving the side road and joining the main road are now set back behind the pavement/cycleway boundary of the major road. Fair enough, this encourages drivers to give way not just to vehicular traffic but also foot and pedal traffic on the main road (which may in turn encourage those reprehensible cyclists who persist in riding on the road despite a cycleway being provided for them to use said cycleway) but it now also presumably means that traffic turning either left or right off the main road has to give way to foot and pedal traffic from either direction on the pavement/cycleway it is to cross. This I can anticipate will be a problematic concept to many drivers and I can foresee the casualties piling up.

This may come as a surprise, but pedestrians do not always move, they are allowed to stand still. They remain pedestrians, at least up until the time they become casualties and cadavers. In the brave new world you no longer need to worry about braking for falling trees, the car will take care of that for you: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/autonomous-vehicles-news/tesla-model-xs-automatic-brakes-just-saved-two-families-from-a-falling-tree/

Not so. It is legal to drive on sidelights during the evening and morning twighlight periods (between sunset and "lighting up time" - half-an-hour after sunset - and similarly between half-an-hour before sunrise and sunrise), and during these times it is generally possible for a driver to see far more when not confronted by approaching headlights. It is also, as you note, legal to drive anywhere where there is both a 30mph or lower speed limit and regular streetlighting provided there is also not fog nor falling snow, or anything (other than darkness) causing reduced visibility.

I think that you are making a mistake in assuming that there is any logic. Most of the irritations which one experiences on the roads today suggest that many drivers do not apply any thought to the task they are undertaking and rely on programmed behaviours, luck, and technology to survive, and that is at the root of my earlier comment. The more we make it possible for people to drive with out thinking, and the more that we as society accept that driving without thought is acceptable, the more it will happen and the worse it will get. On other themes which have cropped up in this thread lately:- Auto wipers - one vehicle I drive regularly (fortunately only one) has auto wipers, i.e., instead of having a tradition "intermittent" setting and the ability for the driver to adjust to an extent the frequency of wipe, it has an auto setting then the usual normal and fast continuous wipes settings. It is totally useless and infuriating, and very often on auto it will wipe too infrequently or too frequently. I think this has to do with the way the sensor works (and it can certainly be fooled by bugs and flies). This is extremely distracting, and generally means that you can't use the mode at all, instead you have to turn the wipers on and off manually at an interval appropriate to the drizzle/rain, which is distracting as well as annoying. The vehicle (a Mitsubishi L200) does not have any alternative to this setting, you cannot opt for a traditional intermittent setting. Side lights - there are many times when it is entirely legal, appropriate, and helpful to other road users to drive with sidelights rather than headlights. Why therefore do many manufacturers (for example SKODA and presumably the rest of the VAG) insist on turning off the instrument panel lights when the sidelights on their own are on, rendering them impossible to use when driving? Auto-dipping headlights - as someone who tries to be a considerate driver, I dip my headlights whenever I feel that they are likely to inconvenience or distress other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists (and even horse riders who are of course allowed to use the roads at night, although wisely few do). I am afar from convinced that auto-dipping headlights can detect the full range of other road users that I can detect. I think that this problem will become much, much worse as "matrix" or "adaptive beam" headlights become commonplace, since these never actually dip, they (supposedly) intelligently adjust just that part of the beam that is dazzling the other road user. To my mind that means that they must be able to distinguish between a pedestrian and a tree, and I seriously doubt they can do that.

As far as I know in this country it is still an offence to have your headlamps on when stationary unless you are stationary in traffic. I accept that it is possible that ECE harmonisation may have changed this, but if it is still the case it is interesting that virtually all cars with automatic headlights are set up to break the law. On the subject of the abhorrent DRLs, it is my experience as the owner several vehicles none of which have DRLs that I have become almost invisible even in full daylight under clear conditions. Having DRLs on the majority of cars now has made the roads many times more dangerous for legitimate road users who do not have DRLs, or indeed those road users who do not have lights at all. It is, in effect, the continuation of the dangerous dumbing down of the task of driving which has allowed people with no skill, awareness, or sense of responsibility at all to drive. No longer at a junction do they have to have a good look around and assess the situation, they mere glance for lights and if there are none then it must be OK to pull out. My personal (and politically incorrect) view is that if someone is too stupid to know when and how to turn their lights on, then they shouldn't be driving, and that mandating lights all the time is not the answer. I am also personally very sceptical of rear fog lights, an absurd concept which treats the symptoms not the root cause of a problem (problem - people drive far in excess of the speed which allows them to stop in the distance they can see to be clear, especially in poor weather; the solution should not just be to stick a bright red light on the back thereby making it far less likely that the car behind will notice brake lights coming on (in turn leading to high level brake lights) and making the judgement of distance much harder). It is also very evident that most modern drivers are incapable of reasoning when it might be useful to turn the RF lights on and when they are nothing but a nuisance - how many times have you followed someone with their RFL on in traffic, when it should be blindingly obvious to them it isn't remotely useful? As long as technology and legislation makes it easier for inept people to drive, driving standards will fall, as certainly as night following day. If you really wanted to improve driving standards you'd fit every car with a sharp spike in the centre of the steering wheel so that even minor accidents became unsurvivable for the driver, and driving standards would improve almost overnight (for that avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating this as a course of action, merely as a line of thought).

Not illegal, and on the rare occasions when it is foggy enough to justify front fogs the last thing you want is to have headlights on. The purpose of a front fog light is to provide a light source which avoids the back-glare of a dipped headlight.

The excellent retailer from whom model number 3 came did tell me that "exactly half the stock delivered from Hornby to me was damaged but I had a surprisingly quick replacement turn around from them (just 4 days) which is super rare with Hornby. Also the replacements have 2 foam pads added to the front of the plastic cradle". This tells me that Hornby is (a) well aware that there is an issues, (b) has at least some replacement bodies or unsold models to hand to supply as replacements, and (c) is adding the foam itself. It is of course possible that the dealer added the foam to my model's packaging after seeing what Hornby is now doing, but I have no reason to suppose that this is the case.

My third attempt to obtain one has been successful! A beautifully packaged specimen arrived today from retailer number three, with the Hornby box swathed in bubble-wrap and cushioned in a bubble nest in a a much larger carton, all of which which has done the job perfectly. It is also interesting that this example is in the latest Hornby packaging - which is exactly the same as the original but with the addition of two medium-firm open-cell-foam blocks placed one on each side of the lower smokebox above the cylinders. Clearly the intent is that these will prevent the model moving from side-to-side in the packaging and thereby damaging the smoke deflectors. I cannot say that the foam blocks actually work since the model was so well and so sensibly packed by the retailer, but I can understand the reasoning behind them. I now will wait with interest to see what retailer number 2 proposes as a solution to the broken model.

Is anyone aware of any comment from Hornby on this unacceptable situation? Hornby must at present be getting a lot of these back from retailers and from direct sales, and (or so I am reliably informed by the third retailer I have approached in my attempts to buy an undamaged model) have altered the packaging. Presently anyone receiving a broken one from a retailer can only take the matter up with the retailer, and it is evident that some retailers are better than others. it is also hardly satisfactory if the retailer cannot supply a replacement due to the general shortage of models. Not a good situation for a manufacturer to have created, and I feel Hornby should take some decisive action promptly if it is to emerge without reputational damage.

Maybe so, but only helpful if you hang out regularly in forums like this, which I'm afraid as a rule I don't. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to be told by a supplier in the event that a pre-order has been cancelled, and it is evident that many on here were told. I however was not, and I rather take exception with the supplier's assertion that I was told but the email must have gone to my spam folder or wastebasket and been missed; it did not. I am extremely careful with email (it is my business) , and no other email from Hattons has ever gone astray. I am sorry to say it is this insistence that it is somehow my fault which has annoyed me most. I fully accept that it is not Hattons fault that their allocation was insufficient. I am disappointed with Hornsby's lame packaging, for this there is really no excuse . I wonder what proportion of the model's production run has been destroyed by this monumental blunder.

Today I joined the ranks of frustrated purchasers of this model! On 29th December Hattons told me (in reply to my enquiry) that they had cancelled my order some 8 months previously, and although they assure me that I "should" have received an email at the time (dead right, I should have been told!) I most definitely did not. As a result I will not be buying from them again. Ever. As a result I had to hunt round to find someone else who still had a grey W1 in stock, and did indeed find somewhere. I ordered it on the 29th despite the now-premium price, and today it arrived - in nothing but the Hornby box with a sealed plastic posting bag round the outside. As a result of this (and Hornby's inadequate packaging design), both smoke deflectors are very comprehensively smashed. I have just emailed the supplier in the vague hope that they still have an undamaged replacement, but I don't really have high expectations. Needless to say I am really not very happy! Does anyone know of any suppliers who (a) still have a grey W1 (either unnamed or British Enterprise) in stock, and (b) understand the need for supplementary packing? If so I would be grateful for a heads-up.

It was 96702 at March. Subsequently it went to Toton and later OOC. In 2006 the jib runner derailed on Greenford Curve due to a combination of suspension problems and track twist and this incident led to the withdrawal both of it and its sole remaining sister strut-jib crane. After nearly two years stored OOU at OOC it was scrapped by Ron Hull of Rotherham in May 2008.

This talk of Goodrington and the images of GWR No 3 steam crane working on the Tanners Road bridge reminds me that on Sunday 13th August 1989 the near-twin No 2 steam crane was used at Goodrington to lift out what had become the last BR operational gantry semaphore signal in Devon. This lift took place in the very early hours of that Sunday morning so may not have been photographed, but is an incident of significance since it as far as it can be established it was the last time that any steam breakdown crane made an operational lift anywhere on BR metals, even though by that time the crane had sold by BR into the ownership of the Dart Valley Light Railway, and in fact by then had been resold to a private owner. Since in those days the DVLR then owned and operated both the Paignton to Kingswear and the Buckfastleigh to Totnes lines the crane was maintained in a condition which allowed it to travel on BR metals between the two, a journey which took place on several occasions. It was therefore not a problem for the crane to be allowed onto the BR infrastructure for this historic lift. I am not aware that this incident was captured on film, but hope that it might have been. I would be very interested to know if anyone has any photos of the operation, or even just of the gantry signal in question.

Some, probably not enough. I know of others however. As you say, there may be an article somewhere in this lot, it would certainly tick the "niche" box!

Hi Andy, My comment regarding the red livery was not intended to suggest you had said the cranes were red, merely to reinforce the message that they were not! I'm sorry if it suggested otherwise. I think we can conclude that the GWR view that black (even a light black, which most normal people would call dark grey) was the only colour for steam cranes persisted long after the formation of BR, and no-one in "head Office" was going to change that view! The issue of the crane boilers is a fascinating one (albeit probably only to a minute proportion of people). The Swindon VFT boiler that has survived with No 2 is clearly designed to be capable of being fitted in either the Stothert & Pitt 36-tonner No 1, or the two Ransomes & Rapier 36-tonners, Nos 2 and 3. This is evident from the provision of alternative pads on the boiler for the main steam valve, a provision which only makes sense in this context. It would be easy to assume from this that when this boiler was built in 1917, it was the only one and was intended to be used as a standby for any of the three largest cranes when their boilers became due for overhaul. However we know without doubt from photographic evidence that the two R&R cranes spent most of their working lives fitted with VFT boilers, ergo there must have been at least two such boilers. It is harder to tell what happened with the S&P crane since there are no visual clues as to which boiler is fitted. The two R&R cranes were supplied with strange boilers supplied by E R & F Turner of Ipswich which were a hybrid design with features both of vertical and horizontal types (the easiest way to describe them would be as a locomotive-type boiler compressed so that apparently there is only a firebox and smokebox with nothing in-between). They were by all accounts not particularly good, but it is important to remember the first R&R crane, No 2, is a very early crane indeed and in 1907 there were plenty of boilers being made which became archaic not long afterwards. It remains a mystery however why the GWR specified (or possibly accepted) such a boiler, since by then the GWR already had at least one Spencer Hopwood boiler in service, and these were already recognised as excellent boilers, in their squat form ideal for cranes. We shall probably never know the reason for this. We also know that the first VFT boiler was built at Swindon in 1917, and again the question arises why did the GWR built their own boiler to a design which was already an anachronism when better boiler designs were already established (by 1917 the Hopwood boiler was well established as the optimal design for a crane boiler, and all three of the premier builders of cranes were fitting them). Again we shall never know for certain the answer, but it is likely that the date is the significant factor, since by 1917 the First World War had been underway for three years and conditions in England were probably almost unimaginable to people today. It is likely that there was simply no spare capacity to "buy in" a new boiler or two from a supplier committed to war work, especially when you are the GWR and have the resource to build one. It is equally easy to imagine that the GWR did not seek, or was not allowed, to licence the Hopwood design. So we know that at least two VFT boilers were built, and I strongly suspect that as the years passed the usage pattern flipped from the VFTs being spares for when overhaul of the Turners was needed, to be the default boiler, and one (or possibly both) Turner boilers were held as spares for use when the VFTs needed overhaul. The last occasion on which we know that a Turner boiler was used is the period captured in the photo in your article, it is likely that this boiler was scrapped in the early 1960s. As far as I know, there are no surviving Turner boilers left anywhere, although it is possible that in a far-flung corner of the former British Empire one languishes in a scrapyard. The four R&R 45-tonners with which the GWR was reluctantly supplied in 1939 were of course fitted from the start with Hopwood boilers, by now being built under licence from RSH (who had absorber the Spencer Hopwood company) by Cochran of Annan. All of the first six of these cranes (which are the ones that the excellent Bachmann model represents) were so fitted, and these six boilers all used GWR boiler fittings. They were, in effect, the boiler that Swindon should have built in 1917. Records of the crane boilers (in fact records in general for breakdown cranes) are sadly lacking, and it seems the even the Swindon Boiler Register makes no mention of the VFT crane boiler(s). As a result there will undoubtedly be many things we can never determine absolutely, we can only draw conclusions based on the evidence we have. It is in many ways pleasing that one of these six Cochran Hopwood boilers (originally from the SR crane S1560, which was scrapped in April 2010) has been secured for use in GWR No 2 in due course, since the VFT boiler is in need of significant (expensive) repairs. When fitted, externally the crane will be indistinguishable from the VFT configuration, but should be quicker to steam and more economical in service. The only fly in the ointment at present is the lack of funding for the restoration of the crane.

I enjoyed the article on the NA Breakdown Train, which was made more interesting by the inclusion of several photos I hadn't previously seen. One interesting point, not specifically mentioned in the article, is that the photo of No 3 at Tanners Road, Goodrington, in 1956 clearly shows the crane operating with an original E. R. & F. Turner of Ipswich boiler, whilst those two years later at Torre show that it was by then fitted (once again) with a 1917 Swindon-built VFT boiler. Whilst it is known that both of the Ransomes & Rapier 36-ton cranes Nos 2 and 3 were periodically refitted with an original Turner boiler when the VFT boiler was due an overhaul, it is not known whether one or two Turner boilers were maintained, nor for that matter how many VFT boilers were built. The sole extant VFT boiler is designed to be capable of installation in either of the R&R cranes or in the 36-ton Stothert & Pitt crane of 1908, but there seem to be no records of boiler numbers nor boiler changes between the cranes. Photos which add to the established knowledge of boiler use are always welcome. It is also not clear when a Turner boiler was used for the last time, but it is likely that the period circa 1956 when the NA crane R&R No 3 was so fitted is the last time that one of these bizarre boilers was used in this country. There is a photo of No 3 working on the erection of the A38 bridge at Heathfield, date unknown, with a Turner boiler, but this is likely to have been at about the same time as the Tanners Road photo reproduced in your article. I am intrigued by your assertion that the lettering on match trucks (and therefore by inference jib runners) was pale straw. I would be interested to know eh source of your information on this point since there is no evidence of pale straw anywhere on No 2 today and I had always assumed that in both GW and BR(W) days white paint was used. You also mention that the Laira was the first depot in the West to respond to the red paint directive. It is worth noting that despite this Laira never had a red-painted breakdown crane, all were black until circa 1984 when Laira repainted ADRR95213, the former GWR No 19 45-ton crane (now preserved at the Flour Mill), yellow, making it the only R&R crane to be so disfigured. All subsequent Laira cranes have been yellow. There are photos of this spectacle in the gallery on the Breakdown Crane Association website at http://www.bdca.org.uk/gallery/index.php/Ransomes-and-Rapier/ADRR95213-Album All of the original GWR steam breakdown cranes which remained on the Western, with the exception of No 19, remained black throughout BR(W) days, probably due to the very strong residual feeling that there were two ways to do a thing, the Swindon way and the wrong way. The Swindon way was black for breakdown cranes! Anyway, a great new publication, well done, and I look forward in particular to many more articles about GWR/BR(W) breakdown cranes and their operation.

Nice picture, but not a Climax!

The Lagos crane is one of three 40-ton, 3'6" gauge cranes supplied by Ransomes & Rapier to Order Nos GH7232 (1953), GJ4291 (1956), and GJ6888 (1959). It isn't possible to tell from the photos I have seen of it at Lagos which of the three it is, but the last of the three was supposedly earmarked for preservation so it may be that. It is quite a well-known landmark to the crane fraternity. It is interesting to observe that fifteen years after R&R built their last crane for use on the railways of Britain, they were still building cranes for the rest of the world, cranes which were essentially still the same seminal design as the pioneering GWR crane of 1908. Incidentally anyone interested in seeing cranes such as these working might want to check out the YouTube channel of KTMR De Silva, who has posted quite a lot of footage of R&R cranes still working in Sri Lanka. Some of the PPE used by the workers will make those accustomed to UK law squirm, safety flip-flops, for example. Well worth a look.

I think all the R&R 45-tonners carried the spreader beam on the jib runner, but not always in the same place. It depended on the toolbox configuration and what else was carried.

In the same way as any long-ish beam would be transported, on a flat or bolster wagon of suitable length. Generally a lifting spreader wouldn't be excessively long, since if a long beam or girder was to be lifted a crane would be at either end. The spreaders most commonly associated with breakdown cranes are those to allow a pair of chains to hang on either side of a rail vehicle, like the one supplied with the Bachmann crane. P-way work would often involve the use of a longer bar to allow a track panel to be lifted without excessive deflection, but if you're moving track panels on wagons it is easy enough to include a lifting beam. I suppose the objective answer is that any beam would be moved in the same way as any other object of similar length in the "common carrier" era.

I should have noted in my comment above that even in the "good old days" a steam breakdown crane would generally carry on its jib runner enough tackle to operate without its tool vans. If you look at photos of these cranes on planned work (civils, etc) they seldom have the tool vans with them. The essentials for the crane to operate in the steam era (when there was water and coal in abundance carried on the accompanying loco) were packing for the crane, and chain sling, shackles and perhaps a spreader for lifting. Generally the slings, shackles and spreader were carried on the runner anyway, since this was the easiest place to pick them up (with my crane I have a pair of genuine single leg engine lifting chains, each is about ten feet long, with a ring (what would now be called a masterlink) at one end and a frame hook (to fit under the buffer beam or frame of a loco) at the other. Each chain weighs around a ton, and they simply cannot be man-handled - you can pick up a link or two but that is it. They therefore would always have to be carried somewhere where the crane hook can be brought to them, and you can't do that if they are in a van. On the GW, from the time the first 36-tonners arrived, a complete train for dealing with an accident would consist of either a mess van and a tool van, or one of the 62'6" bogie combined vans (which included a guards compartment), and the crane with its jib runner and its weight tender. The former would carry crane tools as well as timber packing for the crane in its lockers (to keep the packing dry), whilst the weight tender would carry the large and heavy stuff, specifically the kentledge for the crane (about 6 tons), the spreader bar (about 1 ton), plus chains, shackles, Warwicking screws, and other loose tackle, as well as any large packing that was carried (remembering that in some places an extreme amount of cribbing might be needed to support the crane). The tool van would carry the tools specifically related to dealing with the accident damage, such as jacks, cutting gear, spanners, saws, drills, rerailing ramps and frogs, lighting, PPE (well, rain gear at least) for the men, that sort of thing, and the mess van or mess compartment would provide catering and resting/sleeping accommodation. The bogie vans also had a supervisor's office compartment. If the crane was off on a Civils job, the vans would be left behind as the crane was self sufficient. If there was a callout where the crane wasn't needed, the van(s) would have everything that was needed. It is easy to forget how busy the cranes and breakdown vans were in the days of loose-coupled freight and busy railways, far cry from today. At peak, around 1944, there were 125 operational breakdown cranes of 25 tons or greater capacity on the railways of Britain, while by contrast now there is not a single one (there are cranes which can be used for breakdown work, but that is not their primary purpose). In 1970 there were just under half a million freight wagon on the railways, and there were over ten thousand derailments (yes, really, an average of 28 every day of the year)! By 1987 the number of revenue-earning wagons was fewer than 50,000, and there were around 3000 derailments. By the turn of the century the number of derailments had dropped to around 100 per annum. The nature of operations on a heritage railway make it very unlikely that any kind of major accident or derailment would occur, and if it did it is unlikely that the railway itself would use its own crane to sort out the mess. I suspect that the unfortunate derailment of the GCR's Ivatt not long ago is about as serious as a railway would tackle natively, although theoretically there are some, very few, which could tackle a tandem lift with rail cranes. Anything more major would be contracted out, I suspect. So most of the use for heritage cranes on heritage railways now if engineering and civils work, which never had the same need for the breakdown train as a whole. Probably now the photocharter is the only activity for which a complete train is needed. For the modeller concerned with accuracy there is no reason why you cannot have the trusty 45-tonner in a train on its own (with a brakevan, of course), it simply suggests that it is off for a civils or engineering job.

I think you will find that few if any heritage railways have enough breakdown equipment to necessitate a traditional tool van, nor (fortunately) do they tend to have incidents that require the crew to be out for days on end necessitating full mess facilities. More typically an ordinary box van, or something like a Fruit D/PASFRUIT will do the tool van job, and a standard brakevan with a stove will do for a mess van. There are some preserved tool van still in use, but not a huge number, and some are on lines without cranes. Nowadays the van is as likely to be filled with the tools and parts to support maintain, operate, and service the crane itself, rather than with breakdown tools. Heritage cranes also, generally, are not far from water supplies, so may not need auxiliary water tanks even if a diesel is being used for mobility rather than a steam loco. On the subject of brakes, it is the case that none of the steam-era cranes have anything more than a handbrake, and this must be considered when running in train formation on heritage lines. The majority of preserved cranes fall into the 100- to 120-ton weight range and will be vac TP, and as such the usual rules for running unbraked stock apply. For practical purposes (largely stemming from the fact that few heritage railways have experience running completely unfitted trains and no longer need to do so), cranes will generally be run with either a fitted head or (if TP) a fitted tail. Short movement on the level can safely be done with just a brakevan, of course. The general adequacy or otherwise of British crane brakes has long been a topic of lively debate, but on the whole accidents were few. One of the most celebrated was the runaway of Kingmoor's 50-ton Cowans Sheldon crane RS1001/50 in November '48, when it ran away from Griseburn on the S&C and travelled unattended for 23 miles to Lazonby, where a rising gradient caused it to reverse direction. As far as I am aware this is quite possibly the greatest distance ever travelled by an unattended runaway on Britain's railways. You can read about the incident on the BDCA website, http://bdca.org.uk/stories.html.

I have to say that there is some breath-taking modelling and stunning photography on this thread, do keep it coming. The skills on show, whether artistic, photographic, or modelling, are simply awe-inspiring!

With the up-swell of interest in the good old HD crane, you could contact John Isherwood at Cambridge Custom Transfers to see if he feels there is enough interest in a bespoke set of transfers for this crane.

Sadly none of those transfers are suitable for the Hornby Dublo crane (modelled on a Cowans Sheldon 45-ton steam crane).