There would still be the very loud thud but also perhaps a very loud "HISS" as well.
Bill
Last edited:
I don't think that insurance covers this . . .
- Thread starter jordon412
- Start date
Bill
jeffmorris
Active member
Why isn't there another way of getting locomotives on and off ships? Like cars going on the ferries?
jjanmarine3
Active member
The movement of the water would be a problem I guess.
mezzoprezzo
Content appreciator
There is a way.
Trenitalia, the Italian state railway system, have been doing it for years crossing the Straights of Messina from mainland Italy to Sicily.
Check out this short YouTube video.
Cheers.
cascaderailroad
New member
It's kind of difficult to sail a special equipment ferry thousands of miles, across a violent stormy sea, to another foreign Country ... besides this was a once in a lifetime shipment, to a once in a lifetime port ... there's just is not such mass stockpile of sailing ships available locally at the drop of a hat
There was a crane needed in Pennsylvania, and the nearest one was several States distant, being 4 days away from delivery
It would be kinda nifty to be able to clean up a derailment with skyhook helcopters ... but that option is just not logistically feasible
Last edited:
It amazes me that anyone could be so incompetent as to let this happen. In my former life I would hang heavy sound systems over the heads of crowded audiences at rock concerts. If we had dropped one, hundreds of people would be killed and/or injured. I did it hundreds of times with no incident.
Mick
Mick
cascaderailroad
New member
You mean that you were reincarnated and in your previous life ... ?
You can see the cable snap, and whiplash upwards ... things do break you know ... the DelMarVa bridge was emergency shut down recently when the cable was inspected, and there were flaws, as were found on the Golden Gate bridge ... there was a famous bridge collapse when substandard cable was substituted, made out of inferior wire ... maybe it was just 50 y/o and a simple visual inspection saw no defects in the cable
Last edited:
Glad you weren't on my team.......end of discussion.
EDIT: Maybe I'm being too hard on you, I just read the "things do break you know" bit and reacted to that.
Last edited:
Hi everybody.
Although I would agree with Cascade where he states in his posting at #27 that “things do break” that only happens in an industrial context through neglect and incompetence. If we look at the lifting of the locomotive, ether the gross weight of the locomotive was not known, or the equipment used in the lift was poorly maintained and inspected which led to the failure of that equipment.
With all heavy comerial road vehicles here in Britain legislation demands that a plate is placed in the cab of the vehicle which states all the necessary dimensions and weights of the vehicle. I would think that with vehicles both road and rail being manufactured in one country for export to another that the above would apply in the road and rail industries around the world.
In what is known as the plated weight the cab information gives such details as the maximum carrying capacity of each axle, the gross weight of the vehicle unladen, the maximum carrying capacity overall of the vehicle and most importantly for rail locomotives I would have thought the maximum train weight of the vehicle (towing capacity).With the above information any capable person should be able to calculate what would be required for the safe lifting of the locomotive.
By example to the above, a one hundred ton vehicle being lifted by way of four attachment points would equal twenty five ton per attachment point. Allow for a margin of unequal loading in the initial part of the lift then Hauser's to the value of thirty ton minimum should be employed. Of coarse all the above would be calculated on basis that the equipment that is to be used is one hundred percent efficient to prescribed tolerance, mantained and regularly inspected.
However, with what would be considered a high hazard operation such as the lifting of the locomotive a numeric risk assement should always be carried out laying down the equipment that is to be used and the working practices that are to be employed prior to and during the liftng operation (inspection etc)
Of course, all above very often does not happen through incompetence and neglect, and as Cascade describes it “things break”. That said trying to prevent “things breaking” and sorting matters out after they do has kept me in continuous employment for the last thirty five years. So, as long as people do not get hurt, long may it continue (LOL)
Well stated on this occasion I feel cascade.
Bill
Although I would agree with Cascade where he states in his posting at #27 that “things do break” that only happens in an industrial context through neglect and incompetence. If we look at the lifting of the locomotive, ether the gross weight of the locomotive was not known, or the equipment used in the lift was poorly maintained and inspected which led to the failure of that equipment.
With all heavy comerial road vehicles here in Britain legislation demands that a plate is placed in the cab of the vehicle which states all the necessary dimensions and weights of the vehicle. I would think that with vehicles both road and rail being manufactured in one country for export to another that the above would apply in the road and rail industries around the world.
In what is known as the plated weight the cab information gives such details as the maximum carrying capacity of each axle, the gross weight of the vehicle unladen, the maximum carrying capacity overall of the vehicle and most importantly for rail locomotives I would have thought the maximum train weight of the vehicle (towing capacity).With the above information any capable person should be able to calculate what would be required for the safe lifting of the locomotive.
By example to the above, a one hundred ton vehicle being lifted by way of four attachment points would equal twenty five ton per attachment point. Allow for a margin of unequal loading in the initial part of the lift then Hauser's to the value of thirty ton minimum should be employed. Of coarse all the above would be calculated on basis that the equipment that is to be used is one hundred percent efficient to prescribed tolerance, mantained and regularly inspected.
However, with what would be considered a high hazard operation such as the lifting of the locomotive a numeric risk assement should always be carried out laying down the equipment that is to be used and the working practices that are to be employed prior to and during the liftng operation (inspection etc)
Of course, all above very often does not happen through incompetence and neglect, and as Cascade describes it “things break”. That said trying to prevent “things breaking” and sorting matters out after they do has kept me in continuous employment for the last thirty five years. So, as long as people do not get hurt, long may it continue (LOL)
Well stated on this occasion I feel cascade.
Bill
Last edited:
cascaderailroad
New member
What road name is the locomotive ?
What language are they speaking ?
Perhaps it was a 3rd world Country, with little safety standards (hope it wasn't Australia) :hehe:
Without this mishap, we would have no amusement in this "Drop Shipment" ... it would have been just another lackluster successful loco delivery ... it would a very boring video
What language are they speaking ?
Perhaps it was a 3rd world Country, with little safety standards (hope it wasn't Australia) :hehe:
Without this mishap, we would have no amusement in this "Drop Shipment" ... it would have been just another lackluster successful loco delivery ... it would a very boring video
Last edited:
It almost feels that way, my present quiet, semi-retired lifestyle is very different from my crazy rock'n'roll days! But no, in reality I just got older......................
Mick
At the very beginning (0:00 seconds) this Youtube video, , the cross section of a wire rope is illustrated, such as might have failed in the case of either accident. If some of the internal cables are not up to specification, it may not be possible to determine this from an external visual inspection of the cable, so the available evidence does not point me to the incompetence of any particular person or group of persons. It is also possible that the wire rope from which the lifting sling which failed was constructed was not manufactured to the proper specification, too, which again, may not have be obvious to a visual inspection.
ns
Last edited:
I saw that too.
I was thinking that perhaps the wire cables fatigued and eventually gave way due to poor maintenance. The wire cables (ropes) were shipped with the lubrication but due to the environment they are being used in, the lubrication dried out so the cables bound up and snapped as the wire was stretched beyond its tensile strength.
Hi Everybody.
Mjolnir, with every respect to your above posting, the initial video in this thread does show the hauser failing allowing the locomotive to fall. Therefore either hauser was not equal to the stresses of the lift, or it was worn and damaged making it unable to maintain the tolerance it was designed to withstand. In either of the foregoing human error would have been involved in its failure born out of mismanagement or incompetence.
Anyone undertaking their first industrial safety training here in the UK are always informed of one basic rule at the start of any coarse. That rule is ,” THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ACCIDENT, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE IS ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE”.
In regards to the hausers failure it may have been that the cable was not of the weight specification required, in which case inspection and maintenance of records received on delivery of the equipment would have given the maximum working limits of the hauser.
It may have been that the cable was damaged or wear and tear had brought it to the end of its safe working life. Again, in any of the foregoing a person trained and competent in lifting equipment inspection both physical and by way of records, would have undoubtedly revealed any of the foregoing problems prior to the lift.
The above trained person should also have drawn up a numeric risk assessment outlining any remaining risks that could be encountered during the actual physical lift. That assessment would have given all involved their role in the operation and the safety procedures they should be trained out in and follow. However, the video does seem to demonstrate that the foregoing did not take place.
It can be seen that a group of persons are standing close to the operation as it is being carried out, while another walks towards the landing area even while the locomotive is still in the air. We cannot see from the video what the height of the lift was at its maximum. However had the failure occurred when the load was a few meters higher the locomotive may have “swung” before the second hauser failed possibly projecting it in a forward direction and “wiping out” those persons standing close by.
A competent risk assessment would have allowed for anything that could not have been revealed through inspection, such as flaws in the cables manufacturing. Therefore it should have ensured that no person should be standing anywhere near to the vicinity of the operation for the above reasons.
Unfortunately the basic rule i have quoted in paragraph two of this posting is very much used by lawyers in the compensation culture that has “engulfed" the developed world in the last twenty five years. Therefore, does any forum member realy think that those solicitors would accept that “things just break” in the event of injury or death occurring during this lift. No, in the foregoing they would have won the case hands down on the grounds of mismanagement and negligence even before it got to the court steps and rightly so on this occasion.
Bill
Mjolnir, with every respect to your above posting, the initial video in this thread does show the hauser failing allowing the locomotive to fall. Therefore either hauser was not equal to the stresses of the lift, or it was worn and damaged making it unable to maintain the tolerance it was designed to withstand. In either of the foregoing human error would have been involved in its failure born out of mismanagement or incompetence.
Anyone undertaking their first industrial safety training here in the UK are always informed of one basic rule at the start of any coarse. That rule is ,” THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ACCIDENT, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE IS ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE”.
In regards to the hausers failure it may have been that the cable was not of the weight specification required, in which case inspection and maintenance of records received on delivery of the equipment would have given the maximum working limits of the hauser.
It may have been that the cable was damaged or wear and tear had brought it to the end of its safe working life. Again, in any of the foregoing a person trained and competent in lifting equipment inspection both physical and by way of records, would have undoubtedly revealed any of the foregoing problems prior to the lift.
The above trained person should also have drawn up a numeric risk assessment outlining any remaining risks that could be encountered during the actual physical lift. That assessment would have given all involved their role in the operation and the safety procedures they should be trained out in and follow. However, the video does seem to demonstrate that the foregoing did not take place.
It can be seen that a group of persons are standing close to the operation as it is being carried out, while another walks towards the landing area even while the locomotive is still in the air. We cannot see from the video what the height of the lift was at its maximum. However had the failure occurred when the load was a few meters higher the locomotive may have “swung” before the second hauser failed possibly projecting it in a forward direction and “wiping out” those persons standing close by.
A competent risk assessment would have allowed for anything that could not have been revealed through inspection, such as flaws in the cables manufacturing. Therefore it should have ensured that no person should be standing anywhere near to the vicinity of the operation for the above reasons.
Unfortunately the basic rule i have quoted in paragraph two of this posting is very much used by lawyers in the compensation culture that has “engulfed" the developed world in the last twenty five years. Therefore, does any forum member realy think that those solicitors would accept that “things just break” in the event of injury or death occurring during this lift. No, in the foregoing they would have won the case hands down on the grounds of mismanagement and negligence even before it got to the court steps and rightly so on this occasion.
Bill
amigacooke
Well-known member
Well they would say that wouldn't they.
Let's take a hypothetical example. I plant a rose bush not knowing that a neighbour reacts so badly to bee stings that it can kill them. A bee comes along, decides to visit the lovely roses on my rose bush, and then regrettably stings my neighbour who then dies.
who is responsible?
the bee for administering the fatal sting,
me for attracting the bee with the rose bush,
my neighbour for not letting everyone know about their medical condition, and or not wearing protective clothing at all times
Amigacooke, if you read my posting at #35 of this thread carefully, you will see that I made reference to industrial safety in the adege. A bee in a garden is not an industrial safety matter so I will not be drawn on that as I have never dealt in general public safety matters.
There are many cases of workplace infestation on record if you care to research that on the web, but I do not think that they are revelent to the case under discussion here. However as far as I am aware the courts have always found someone responsible for infestation ether workers, employers or outside bodies.
Bill
There are many cases of workplace infestation on record if you care to research that on the web, but I do not think that they are revelent to the case under discussion here. However as far as I am aware the courts have always found someone responsible for infestation ether workers, employers or outside bodies.
Bill
Last edited:
cascaderailroad
New member
Very unlikely that this case ever went as a far as going in front of a court of law ... and very doubtful that anyone was ever tried in a court of law for negligence ... more likely a crew was simply fired, and later on re-hired with a simple slap on the wrist ... even more likely one person was slightly reprimanded, and the next day got his job reinstated ... or even more likely, neither the crane operator and foreman never even got reprimanded what so ever at all ... and the entire cargo was just written of as "Lost At Sea" ... no big deal !
No one in the entire world even cares outside of the Trainz community ... aside for an an occasional novice unbarred armchair lawyer train enthusiast ... that has no actual attorney experience prosecuting an actual legal court case ... as not even one person was injured in the mishap, the case is really not that big of a deal !
Just because it's a railroad train ... everyone on a train forum gets infuriated enough to go hug up to the poor little ol' broken train ?
If it was a container or crate ... nobody would even care !
Over 10,000 shipping containers are swept overboard and lost at sea per year
Other crane drop accidents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKwOtDVfJlY
No one in the entire world even cares outside of the Trainz community ... aside for an an occasional novice unbarred armchair lawyer train enthusiast ... that has no actual attorney experience prosecuting an actual legal court case ... as not even one person was injured in the mishap, the case is really not that big of a deal !
Just because it's a railroad train ... everyone on a train forum gets infuriated enough to go hug up to the poor little ol' broken train ?
If it was a container or crate ... nobody would even care !
Over 10,000 shipping containers are swept overboard and lost at sea per year
Other crane drop accidents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKwOtDVfJlY
Last edited:
cyberdongreen
AKA: cyberdonblue
wholbr said:
I don't know about modern locos but in Britain's BR blue era this information was displayed on the side of each loco. It wasn't a metal plate, more of a large sticker, but it contained information including weight, Route Availability, Mininmum Curve Radius (in chains), Train Heat/Air Con information and Maximum Speed. There may have been a couple of other things too but my memory isn't great these days.
![28229715183_ce2dabbc89_b.jpg](http://[URL="https://flic.kr/p/K1yEPi"][IMG]https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8622/28229715183_ce2dabbc89_b.jpg)
Dave
cascaderailroad
New member
This has happened many times before
You would think that the rigging was well over rated for lifting a locomotive ... Think again ... Ship Happens !
The Locals Now Refer To Locomotive No. 70012 As The "Freightliner Banana" -- As The Power Unit Bends Up At Both Ends
While unloading Locomotive No .70012, the final locomotive, a cable on the ship's crane snapped, dropping the locomotive about 13 feet into the cargo hold of the BELUGA ENDURANCE. Reportedly damage to the unit includes cracked axles, crushed bogies, and a bent frame.
Things do break, Ship Happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOYLirV3nzc
You would think that the rigging was well over rated for lifting a locomotive ... Think again ... Ship Happens !
The Locals Now Refer To Locomotive No. 70012 As The "Freightliner Banana" -- As The Power Unit Bends Up At Both Ends
While unloading Locomotive No .70012, the final locomotive, a cable on the ship's crane snapped, dropping the locomotive about 13 feet into the cargo hold of the BELUGA ENDURANCE. Reportedly damage to the unit includes cracked axles, crushed bogies, and a bent frame.
Things do break, Ship Happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOYLirV3nzc
Last edited:
simulatortrain
jointed freaking rails
The aesthetics of those Freightliner locomotives makes me wish they were all lost at sea instead.