[Default] On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:14:16 +0100, Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> finished tucking into their plate of fish, chips and mushy peas. Wiping their mouth, they swiggged the last of their cup of tea, paid the bill and wrote::
>Malcolm Nixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:09:27 +0100, Brian Dominic >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>> >>>The bean counters decided years ago that maintaining a fleet of >>>breakdown cranes "just in case" was money down the drain - similarly >>>with snowploughs! >> >>I think you are right about the cranes. They were old and obsolete, >>modern cranes available by specialised contractors were seen as the >>way forward. They can be huge as I showed in links to video >>clips about the Cumbria crash, and the chassis is too big to move by >>rail - so Adrian's idea of dismantling would be a non starter. > >Sorry, but that's Catch-22 again. > >(a) We can't use rail-mounted cranes because they won't go under the >bridges. > We CAN use rail-mounted cranes because being rail mounted, they're designed to fit the railway loading gauge, so can go anywhere. Brian L Dominic Web Sites: Canals: http://www.brianscanalpages.co.uk Friends of the Cromford Canal: http://www.cromfordcanal.org.uk (Waterways World Site of the Month, November 2005)
