NOVEMBER 2022 Ӏ CRANE HISTORY


ANNIVERSARY


In 1975 the Demag HC 500 was the largest tele boom crawler in the world. It has an eight-axle carrier, with the fourth and fi fth axles being hidden behind the front outriggers. It was followed by a six-axle HC510


In rough terrains, Pettibone set the pace with the first 15-tonner in 1961, leaping to the first 35-tonner in 1965 and first 40-tonner in 1969. All of these were cab- down cranes. In the US Sargent introduced the world’s first swing cab rough terrain in 1967 with an 18-ton model. It was followed in 1968 by Grove with a 25-tonner. Even though the lifting capacity


and reach of these early hydraulic cranes was very limited and their reliability unproven, by virtue of their operating speeds and relative ease of use, they met with immediate market demand and


j


especially building construction often still dependent on manual labour operation from scaffolding. Almost all of these machines


were initially designed and manufactured to be tough and reliable to withstand the rigours of arduous excavating work. Machine weight was rarely a consideration. Indeed, it was not until much later, typically the late 1960s, that the first crawler-mounted machines were specifically designed to optimise their crane lifting performance. It was only by then that some companies began to focus on the use of lighter steels to optimise lifting capacity and reach. Since the 1800s crane and excavator controls were long mechanical levers and foot pedals


demanding significant exertion. Indeed, it was the 1960s, and especially 1970s, before power- assisted controls became the norm. In central Europe, in countries


like France, Italy, Germany and Switzerland, small self-erecting tower cranes replaced mobile cranes as the preferred type for residential construction. By the 1970s new manufacturers had emerged in the markets they served. France’s Potain and Germany’s Liebherr had reinforced their market leading positions but were joined in competition by dozens of local manufacturers. By the mid-1970s a thriving tower crane industry had developed in Italy, joined by likes of Conedil, Simma, Trojsi, FM Gru, Fergru, Alfa, and Fergru.


Priestman on


the cover of the August 1978 issue of Cranes Today. Small mechanical crawlers with attachments were Priestman’s bread and butter


sales growth was dramatic. During the late 1960s the


output of the US industry telescopic cranes grew rapidly – from 2,000 in 1967, to 2,400 in 1968, to 3,700 in 1969 – with approximately 55% being rough terrains, 10% Industrial cranes, and 35% truck cranes. By then approximately 20-25% of US production was for export, mainly to Europe.


A ten tonne capacity R-B dragline screengrab. The 10-RB had a production run of 7625 units between the 1930s up until 1969


42 CRANES TODAY


DEVELOPING MARKETS In the early 1960s Japan remained a market dominated by lattice boom cranes – especially crawlers. Under a series of license agreements the Japanese had been afforded access to US technology with


f


Pic credit: By morebyless - Flickr: Ruston-Bucyrus 10-RB, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16388591


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161