craneman

Cowans Sheldon 36/50 ton crane ADRC95202 (formerly LMS MP2 and BR RS1001/50 then ADM1001), one of three identical cranes built as a 36-tonners in 1931 and uprated to 50 tons capacity in 1938. At the time of the photo this crane was allocated to Wigan. This crane and its two sisters were the first cranes built by Cowans Sheldon to use relieving bogies, and all three have survived. This particular crane is with the Midland Railway Trust at Butterly, the others are at Didcot and the K&WVR. More photos can be found here: http://www.bdca.org.uk/gallery/index.php/Cowans-Sheldon/ADRC95202

Now you're talking! lol

For clarification, 45-tons capacity was the largest R&R built for the UK, but for overseas use they built up to 120 tons capacity. Remarkable amongst these was a pair of 120 tonners supplied to Singapore for use in connection with the ill-fated defensive batteries, one of which was standard gauge and the other metre gauge. It is likely that the latter was the largest capacity steam crane ever built for metre gauge. Sadly both disappeared in the chaos leading up to the Japanese invasion and the surrender of Singapore (extensive research has determined they did not fall into Japanese hands) and it is most likely that they were both destroyed then dumped in the sea by the British to avoid capture. If so they are probably now under landfill and forming the foundations of Changi Airport.

I have no idea, but the hole in the middle is remarkably close to the right size. The rifling would probably not be to scale though. A better bet for most scenarios would be to fit a tampion, which would probably have been fitted all the time except when the gun was firing.

Chop the barrel of a .177 air rifle and you'll have a rifled barrel of very close dimensions for the two guns, use a .22 rifle for the howitzer.

You won't find a Ransomes & Rapier 75-ton crane kit since R&R never built a 75-ton crane for the UK. Although R&R did tender for the 75-ton 'modernisation plan' crane contract and produced GA and other drawings for a proposed crane, it lost the contract to Cowans Sheldon and the design was never built. The only 75-ton rail mounted cranes to operate in the UK were those built by Cowans Sheldon in steam (later diesel-hydraulic) and diesel-mechanical form. The later telescopic jib cranes, also from Cowans Sheldon, had a slightly lesser rated capacity at 75-tonnes.

Very nice! You now of course need a model of the GWR No 3 36-ton Ransomes & Rapier crane, with a Turner boiler fitted, to complete the scene.

Can I ask what video these are from, please? It would be interesting to see the video.

The Glasgow & South Western Railway.

I'm really not sure what you mean by being "in equilibrium', the load is simply being held on the hoist brake! The crane, numbered CME 1, was one of two supplied in 1893. The photo is pre-1907, since by that year the burden chain had been replaced with wire rope. CME 1 was requisitioned during WW1 and never returned. Its twin, imaginatively numbered CME 2, survived until 1955.

Outstanding work, and I look forward very much to seeing future progress! Thank you for posting!

The slewing motor could be fitted in the carriage, along with a travel motor if so desired. It would really need slip rings to connect to the crab in order to allow full 360 slewing. It is a neat start, however, and shows it can be done. I guess ideally there'd be a further motor driving the crane's engines separately so that the crankshaft can run with any or all of the crane's other motions (it could also run with none of the crane's other motions, as you do when warming the engines before use). The derricking gear needs to be slowed down a lot from the video though, that is much to fast to raise the jib.

Outstanding picture, so life-like. Thanks for posting.

Also, as far as I know, they haven't actually confirmed that there will be both curved and swan-necked jibs, and haven't said anything about long and short jib options, nor whether the model will have early or late intermediate shaft bearings.

My personal view of the railgun is that it is an excellent value-for-money model built to a particular price. Due to being built to a price it has many shortcomings and unsatisfactory features, but that doesn't make it bad. To my eye it is comparable to state-of-the-art from twenty years ago. (The most unsatisfactory and bizarre" feature" time is the fixed side platforms which render it out of gauge and unsuitable for running in train formation). Based on Oxford Rail's track record I expect that the crane will also be excellent value, pretty good, but with some significant compromises to meet the price. Many will love it, and many will criticise it, that's how it goes. People have been buying the awful Triang (now Hornby) crane for years, it's rubbish in almost every respect and expensive, but it has sold well. This one is bound to be vastly better. Personally I admire Oxford Rail for what it has achieved so far (including some courageous choices of prototype) and I think the firm has been a force for good in the market.

"...operation of the loading of the relieving bogies became pneumatic latterly. " "Pneumatic"?

DE330102/ADRR95214 was at Tinsley from 1965 to 1986 (now at the NYMR, I believe currently OOS). I can't tell you when it was first painted red, but it was red and the paint looked fresh in 1976. See http://www.bdca.org.uk/gallery/index.php/Ransomes-and-Rapier/ADRR95214

Do you have any pictures, or links/references to this incident please? They'd be much appreciated.

The "hooks" are a rudimentary representation of the chimney lifting gear which this crane retained far longer than most. The shape of the moulded parts only makes sense when the chimney is in the lowered position, so in some ways it's not a bad thing if they've fallen off if you ever want to raise the chimney. It's not a widely-reported problem however. I suspect that the reason that this particular crane retained its lifting gear for so long is that it was actually never used. This crane, whilst at Gorton, received some unique modifications, one of which appears to have been an alteration to the exhaust to produce forced draughting through the boiler, which would have made it impossible to raise the extension chimney. There is actually photographic evidence that the lifting gear stayed on the crane after the chimney it was designed to raise had been discarded. I have noted earlier in this thread that on the whole the extension chimneys on the 45-ton R&R cranes were seldom used since they made (and make) very little difference to the excellent steaming qualities of the Cochran Hopwood cross-tube boiler. I can only speculate on the consequences of introducing forced draughting, but I imagine that it would tend to rip holes in the fire. Sadly no records exist concerning the modification, so we don't know why it was done, whose idea it was, nor whether it was considered a success. All traces had been removed by the time the crane was sold into preservation.

I believe that the ladder is provided for the benefit of those who want to represent ADRR 95208 (RS 1097) in its final condition. This crane has a steel ladder affixed to the rear of the tail weight to facilitate access to the cab roof, probably originally provided to allow a chimney extension to be safely fitted. I haven't been able to determine when this ladder was installed but I believe it was before the crane was sold into preservation. When I get the time I will research this interesting question further. I suspect that the ladder was fitted at the time the hinged chimney was removed, possibly as a result of concerns about safety running under OLE.

The ladder on the water tank in the second photo would be an exciting climb! I was reading the Model Rail review earlier. According to its reviewer you can see the cylinders move when you twiddle the knob! Do these clowns never actually read what they're writing?! Apart from that the magazine rates the model rather highly, suggesting that it's possibly the best RTR OO model yet produced.

1560 and 1561 were essentially identical throughout their lives. The only differences that spring to mind are that '61 received Ferodo linings on the slewing clutches whilst '60 did not (not significant in 4mm) and '61 was fitted with a through pipe for air brakes (both were through piped for vac from new). The air pipe was conspicuous during the crane's red era. 1580 differed significantly from the two earlier cranes. The most significant differences as far as a model is concerned are: 1. The cylinders have outside valve chests with the valves operated by rocking levers from inside the crab (the first six cranes, 4 GW and 2 SR, had inside valve chests). Bachmann has tooled for both but only the LNE cranes have the later arrangement. 2. The RBs are completely different since 1580 has the hydraulic loading gear introduced with the MoS cranes that followed the LNE pair. However 1580's RBs had SR axleboxes whilst the MoS cranes, like their predecessors, had GW axleboxes, and as a result the RB solebars on 1580 are unique and very distinctive. 3. As mentioned above, all the cranes except 1580 had GWR axleboxes, buffing gear, and draft gear. 1580 used SR components. 4. 1580 has BFB (Bulleid-Firth-Brown) wheelsets on the carriage and RBs. 5. All the cranes prior to 1580 used a Cochran Hopwood cross-tube boiler designed to take GWR standard fittings. 1580 uses a similar Cochran Hopwood cross-tube boiler, but modified to accept standard industrial fittings. The consequence of this is that the safety valves are in a completely different location which has resulted in the tail weight castings and cab roof being significantly different. There may also be differences in the jib runner, but I cannot off-hand recall. To create an accurate model of 1580 from the Bachmann model would take considerable work.

Correct. 1560S and 1561S were significantly dissimilar to any other SR cranes. DS1580 is the least dissimilar, but even that has significant differences (cylinders, relieving bogies, and tail weight being the most obvious).

This is actually a periodic adjustment required on the prototype too, where it is rather more difficult to carry out. There is actually a very large nut at the top of the centrepost, deep down under the gears, completely obscured by the bevel gear at the top of the travel spear shaft and about as inaccessible as it is possible to be, which must be tightened to take up any slop in the roller path. The nut is circular and about a foot in diameter, with two barring holes drilled in it. The only way to tighten it is to fit a bar into a barring hole, then slew the superstructure till it contacts the bar, then slew inch by inch to turn the nut the required amount. It requires enormous finesse on the controls not to end up with a bent bar and overtight nut. The crane must also be perfectly balanced on the roller path at the time. Some tasks are really much easier in 4mm/ft. !

My comments were aimed not so much at the presence of grime - inevitable however house-proud the gang - as at the location of the grime, which suggests something of a failure to appreciate the engineering involved. I imagine that TMC's weathering artists, who I think do an excellent job, have probably never seen a well-used steam crane. Few people have.