Neither of those machines are cheaper to rent/operate, they’d have to fully close that road just to get the outriggers all the way out on an LTM160 or equivalent and in this part of the world, a crane operator is a red seal trade and costs twice as much as a trainee on that machine. If that was a more effective or cost effective way, you’d probably be seeing it done that way everywhere. Shot Crete shoring foundation/deep urban excavation is pretty much done this exact way all over Canada and the Northern United States.
@@ShredForth I respectfully disagree agree. A 418 or 518 Link belt or a88 B Bucyrus Erie with a Clam Bucket wouldn't take much more of anymore space than that Hoe rigged like that. I would certainly prefer a crane/clamshell combination. Maybe Operators might be tougher to find, but we're out here if you look.
@@scottmcquarrie7295 It doesn’t matter if you disagree, you’re wrong. There is absolutely no situation on this type of site where doing this with a crane is cheaper. The operating cost of that one crane w/operator would be as much as the 349 on bottom and the 336 combined and you’d still need the excavator in the bottom of the hole to excavate the material because those cranes don’t possess the breakout force to rip the sub-grade material. I doubt you’d make up any cycle time on the load out to justify it either. The a-88 is a face shovel and the other two crawlers you mentioned are antiques compared to a 336 and would never be seen in any major metropolitan city doing this work. Any mobile crane (“truck crane”) would need a full road closure to get its stabilizers out, which you’d never get for the duration needed to complete that job. All of that is before you even consider things like height regulations, overhead lines, road use permits, crane setup time, inspection and maintenance over continued use….. cranes are heavily regulated and expensive in this region….. excavators by comparison, are not……that 336 comes off the lowbed and is loading within a couple hours, if not right away, it probably moves as a single unit or with the stick off on 1 or 2 lowbeds . There’s a reason this is the way this is done pretty much everywhere in North America. Have you run high rise, mass excavation shoring sites or are you strictly an operator? There are about 5 company’s that do this work competitively in this region (maybe more like 3 when you’re this deep) and they basically all do it this way. I lived on the east coast in Toronto, they did it this way there too…… when I stayed in New York, I saw at least one company using the same methodology.
@@ShredForth , say whatever you want, I still believe a crawler crane would be cheaper and just as efficient. You don't like it, fine. You do it that way and I'll do it mine. Hopefully we both make money.
Awesome! Thanks 😊
What kind of shoring is this?
Wouldn't mind operating this one
DUDE amazing work keep it up man!!!!!
How about the drillers who did that hole
As impressive as this is, it does look painfully slow. I wonder if there's more than one excavator.
👍
Makes no sense. A crawler or truck crane with a 2-3 yard clamshell bucket could do the same job, probably a lot cheaper too.
Neither of those machines are cheaper to rent/operate, they’d have to fully close that road just to get the outriggers all the way out on an LTM160 or equivalent and in this part of the world, a crane operator is a red seal trade and costs twice as much as a trainee on that machine. If that was a more effective or cost effective way, you’d probably be seeing it done that way everywhere. Shot Crete shoring foundation/deep urban excavation is pretty much done this exact way all over Canada and the Northern United States.
@@ShredForth I respectfully disagree agree. A 418 or 518 Link belt or a88 B Bucyrus Erie with a Clam Bucket wouldn't take much more of anymore space than that Hoe rigged like that. I would certainly prefer a crane/clamshell combination. Maybe Operators might be tougher to find, but we're out here if you look.
@@scottmcquarrie7295 It doesn’t matter if you disagree, you’re wrong. There is absolutely no situation on this type of site where doing this with a crane is cheaper. The operating cost of that one crane w/operator would be as much as the 349 on bottom and the 336 combined and you’d still need the excavator in the bottom of the hole to excavate the material because those cranes don’t possess the breakout force to rip the sub-grade material. I doubt you’d make up any cycle time on the load out to justify it either. The a-88 is a face shovel and the other two crawlers you mentioned are antiques compared to a 336 and would never be seen in any major metropolitan city doing this work. Any mobile crane (“truck crane”) would need a full road closure to get its stabilizers out, which you’d never get for the duration needed to complete that job. All of that is before you even consider things like height regulations, overhead lines, road use permits, crane setup time, inspection and maintenance over continued use….. cranes are heavily regulated and expensive in this region….. excavators by comparison, are not……that 336 comes off the lowbed and is loading within a couple hours, if not right away, it probably moves as a single unit or with the stick off on 1 or 2 lowbeds . There’s a reason this is the way this is done pretty much everywhere in North America. Have you run high rise, mass excavation shoring sites or are you strictly an operator? There are about 5 company’s that do this work competitively in this region (maybe more like 3 when you’re this deep) and they basically all do it this way. I lived on the east coast in Toronto, they did it this way there too…… when I stayed in New York, I saw at least one company using the same methodology.
@@ShredForth , say whatever you want, I still believe a crawler crane would be cheaper and just as efficient. You don't like it, fine. You do it that way and I'll do it mine. Hopefully we both make money.