Malcolm Nixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:18:56 +0100, Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >> >>Have they considered taking cranes in by barge to secure the unsafe >>stuff? > >restricted headroom under bridges ?? - depth of water to support a big >enough barge. > >Have you seen how big these cranes are - like at > >http://www.railwaymags.com/nav?page=railwaymags.contentspagenoarch&view_resource=6612850
Er, they take to pieces, you know. Depth of water? I doubt that a crane would need to weigh more than, say, 40 T, (in fact, I'm sure it will weigh much less than that) which can be carried on a barge of less than 1 m draft. Headroom? Catch 22. If the railway folk knew they would have to get under waterway bridges, they would arrange to use equipment that will fit. Actually, I suspect even the crane pictured would fit if loaded properly. >The rail nearby has been torn up, I assume you mean "at the incident location". It should be possible to get the crane by rail to the start of the track damage, and then repair the track (temporarily if necessarily) to move it further forward as required, removing the derailed rolling stock as you go. >and how do you unload the crane from the wagons without another big crane ? With a smaller crane mounted on the following wagon. How do you think this was done before large road-delivered cranes (or the roads to carry them) existed? I still feel that the approach being taken by the rail authorities assumes that reopening of the waterway can be delayed as long as they like. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
