----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Dominic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:10 PM Subject: Re: [canals-list] Re: Blockage of navigation (was: River Nene)
> [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 > I did notice when they were re-laying the west coast main line that all the mechanised equipment including tracked bulldozers were fitted with lowerable rail wheels. In the case of tyred devices the rail wheels just held the rubber tyres on the track & the rubber tyred wheels powered transport. The bulldozers rail wheels when hydraulically lowered actually lifted the tracks clear of the rail & the rail wheels were powered for movement on the rail track. Dave Croft Warrington http://oldengine.org/members/croft/ http://community.webshots.com/user/crftdv
