[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Sorry, but that's Catch-22 again. >> (a) We can't use rail-mounted cranes because they won't go under the >> bridges. >> (b) We don't build cranes which can go under the bridges because >> rail-mounted cranes are never used these days. > >I suspect that the problems is that rail-mounted cranes would be so >specialised and so rarely used that the rail companies don't reckon it's worth >investing in new ones compared to the cost of hiring in non-rail machinery on >the odd occasion that you need it - even when that means building an access >road. > >As it happens, a rail-mounted crane would have been very useful twice within >the last few months, but before that it could have been sitting idle in a >siding for a couple of years.
I think you have probably described the companies' logic, but I believe their conclusion comes under the heading of "false economy". The cost of keeping just one pair of significant rail-mounted cranes in the whole country would not cost very much when split among all the operators. And just that one set would probably do the job, given the frequency of times they are needed. It could be trundled to the site overnight, and thus be at work within 24 hours of the incident occurring. By which time the road lot would still be working out the alignment for the new access route. I bet that the rent on the kit planned for use at the Ouse incident would more than cover a year's worth of storage, depreciation, etc. of the standby set. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
