Talk:Dragline excavator

Pre-2006 Comments

Scottfisher, can you add the geographical location of Manitowok in the photo caption? Thanks! Badagnani 00:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Badagnani

Sure, Not a problem, I know the history of "Manny"; It came from the Nevada Test Site, then went to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, now at to Oakridge, Tennessee, ORNL. All are Department of Energy sites, in the USA. I think Manny is up for sale now. Regards, Scotty

Shovel vs Dragline

I believe Big Brutus is technically a "shovel", not a dragline (one lifts, the other drags). In the article, Big Brutus is referred to as a "dragline shovel". Is there such a thing?

The external link at the bottom of the article is a website that calls Big Brutus a "electric mining shovel", not a dragline.

There is no such thing as a "dragline shovel". Big Brutus is a rope shovel which is completely different from a dragline.

Mark

Caterpillar tracks versus feet

Regarding the statement:

In all but the smallest of draglines, movement is accomplished by "walking" using feet or pontoons, as caterpillar tracks place too much pressure on the ground

What kind of feet are these that they put less pressure on the ground than caterpillar tracks? Is it even true? That GEM thing linked near the bottom of the page is pictured on caterpillar tracks. --ToobMug 12:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The dragline does not sit on its feet. Instead it sits on a circular tub (of 12m radius, on average). This tub remains stationary whilst the dragline swings. It only uses the feet to walk. --David Drew

Jargon in 'Limitations' Section

I am no expert on draglines, mining, or similar, so the following text is (a) under the wrong heading (should be 'Usage' or similar), and
(b) almost completely incomprehensible. I have identified (wikified) most of the terms I think need defining. (Note that NONE of these links has been checked for relevance!)

Draglines have different cutting sequences. The first is the side cast method using offset benches; this involves throwing the overburden sideways onto blasted material to make a bench. The second is a key pass. This pass cuts a key at the toe of the new highwall and also shifts the bench further towards the low-wall. This may also require a chop pass if the wall is blocky. A chop pass involves the bucket being dropped down onto an angled highwall to scale the surface. The next sequence is the slowest operation, the blocks pass. However, this pass moves most of the material. It involves using the key to access to bottom of the material to lift it up to spoil or to an elevated bench level. The final cut if required is a pull back, pulling material back further to the low-wall side.

It looks fascinating, and definitely belongs in the article. However, it would benefit from a series of diagrams to explain what was being described. This would avoid the need for 'every other word' to be a wikilinked! A section on 'definition of terms' would be a useful bonus.

EdJogg 10:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This section is technically correct, but jams about six different concepts into the one paragraph. It definitely needs many diagrams explain properly. This is one area that I have trouble with on wikipedia. How much information is 'too much'? Where should we draw the line on what information to include? Any advice here would be appreciated. --David Drew

One of the beauties of WP is that we are not limited by space. Explaining the principles of operation and how they were used in practice is an excellent way to fill out this article. In this case there are a lot of terms that require further explanation, and it may be that each of these requires its own article! (or, at the very least, a link to a subsection in another article.)

How detailed is too detailed? Provided it is written in a way that is interesting to the average reader then you can put in pretty much whatever is helpful. If the article gets too big then we can easily filter stuff out. As a further example, a list of machines that are preserved would probably be in order (as there won't be many of them) whereas a list of every machine made by every company is clearly taking things too far (although might be helpful on a more specific site such as the Tractor Wiki mentioned.)

EdJogg (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

GEM

The GEM (Giant Excavating Machine)is a shovel, not a drag line. While the size and application are similar the machines opeation is not. A shovel works best while digging from its tracks up. A dragline does better while working below the level of its base.

I don't know the engineering involved, but nearly all shovels operate on tracks, while drag lines tend to have feet and are usually refered to as "walking draglines". This may have something to do with the method of operation. I have seen a couple of photos of draglines that have slid into the pit that they were digging.

The shovels also have an operational hazard in that the high wall can collapse on them. The GEM was damaged at one point in its career by such a fall. Steve

Removal of GEM

GEM is a 'Rope Shovel', not a dragline excavator. Compare the pictures of GEM [1] with the pictures in Steam Shovel

Well-spotted. Details have been moved to steam shovel, replacing the information about Big Muskie which is a dragline!

EdJogg 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of efficiency compared to bucket-wheel excavators

As a dragline excavator only moves overburden half of its working time (the other half being used to re-position the empty shovel) and for each working cycle, its enormous mass has to be accelerated and decelerated twice, I think it would be interesting to compare the efficiency of those machines to bucket-wheel excavators which work more steadily. Since draglines are in widespread use in strip mines around the world and really large bucket-wheel excavators only seem to be in use in Germany, is there any real advantage of the draglines? --217.225.66.7 (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There may be other factors to consider, too: geology of material to be moved, staffing needs, complexity, overall cost, etc. It would be good to find a good reference that discusses these matters, to explain why one should be chosen over the other. EdJogg (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now found an answer using Google's book search, but am unsure whether copyright law would allow to use the text here. In an anthology (Howard L. Hartman, Seeley W. Mudd: "SME Mining Engineering Handbook: Vol.2". Memorial Fund of AIME., Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. p. 1403 ff.), M.K. McCarter writes that basically, draglines are more flexible and can cope better with, say, small landslides, while bucket-wheel excavators work better in homogenuous materials. Draglines also seem to be cheaper when bought initially. He points out that BWEs consume power more evenly, but makes no statements whether or not they use more or less power per ton of moved material than draglines. --217.225.59.67 (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can use it! But you'll need to rewrite it in your own words. Remember to cite the book (and webpage!) where you found this. EdJogg (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

BWE's and draglines are very different machines. BWE's only dig from their base and up. Draglines dig from their base and down. Further, DL's are an 'all in one' machine. They perform all three primary mining tasks (load, haul, dump) by themselves. A BWE only performs 'load'. A BWE then needs to be mated with a conveyor system, and a stacker-system to perform the 'haul' and 'dump' phases.

As mentioned above, BWE's require homogenous material. This is for two reasons. Firstly, the BWE cannot put much 'dig force' to bear onto the rock. They are very weak diggers. Draglines can put enormous force bear, and can even dig limited amounts of unshot rock. Secondly, everything a BWE digs gets loaded onto a conveyer. As such it requires very small particle size, well below the capacity of most mines to blast rock into. Thus, you tend to see BWE's relegated to two situations: (1) Primary stripping, where the overburden is sands or loose unconsolidated material (reference the Goonyella-Riverside BWE, before it collapsed). (2) Soft coal, such as the brown coal (reference the German coal mines), where the coal is extremely thick and the conveyor can transport directly to the power station.

Draglines are expensive, as mentioned in the article. However, a full BWE system (including conveyor and stacker) is MUCH more expensive.

In summary, DL's and BWE's and very different mining machines, performing very different mining tasks. As such, they cannot be directly compared. However, in terms of $/m3 cost of movement, the BWE would beat the DL, but not by much. --David Drew

Focus on Mining draglines

I believe that we should focus the article to look at mining draglines. In number used, and dirt moved, mining draglines vastly outnumber non-mining draglines. Thus, when quoting statistics, like weight, bucket size, etc, we should quote averages for mining draglines. Also, when discussing of method of movement, how they're powered, how they work, a mining focus would be more effective.

I believe that most people who come looking for information on draglines would come looking for information on mining draglines. Perhaps we could have a separate section for civil engineering draglines. David Drew (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles on "Draglines" not "Mining Machines", so to be encyclopaedic should cover the 'full story' not just part. Expanding the mining coverage is fine, but all types need coverage for balance. The only reason they (mining) vastly out number others today is that Hydraulic machines have grown in performance and you can buy several for the price of one 'Big Muskie' and move them about eaiser.

Put a table in of the biggest machines for example comparing stats then. I can balance it with smaller machines. (ps user:David Drew can you sign your posts ~~~~ so time and date appears). Thanks -BulldozerD11 (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Testing of signing mechanism. Thanks for showing me how to do that. David Drew (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, sent you a welcome message which has some handy tips . Like constructive editors who have valid points and sensible contributions rather than the vandals, hadn't realised till I checked the history that the posts above were all new.

Heres a small dragline for comparison At Tractor Wiki Web Site not uploaded it on here yet.

Wow, that's a really small dragline. That's got to be small than some 'scale' draglines that I've seen for training purposes. David Drew (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

They were used in the UK for small gravel pits and that one in the colours of British waterways who used it for canal dredging. A lot were used in the Fens for drainage canals. Its a "Toy" now theres about 50 or 60 other machines were that is at the Vintage Excavator Trusts site in the UK. The biggest being a RB 110 face shovel Shown Here. BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed table of machines

Here's a draft of a table to be incorporated into the main article. It can clearly show the differences between the small and the large draglines, and how well the draglines scale.

It obviously needs some more work, but is it appropriate to use this page to draft up stuff like this?

	P&H 2355	Marion 8200	Marion 8750	Bucyrus-Erie 4250-W 'Big Muskie'
Bucket Size	11 m3	55 m3	114 m3	168 m3
Boom Length	48.7 m	99 m	107 m	94.4 m
Dig Depth	20 m	45 m	55 m	56.4 m
Dump Height	20 m	43 m	48 m	?
Dig Reach	43 m	86 m	96 m	302 feet (92 m) (Dump Radius)
Power System	Diesel - Electric	Electric	Electric	Electric
Weight	694 tonnes	3,750 tonnes	~6,500 tonnes	14,500 tonnes
Movement method	Tracks	Walking	Walking	Walking

Wow, this table tool is really annoying use. David Drew (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Best place for trial stuff is create a sandbox at your User space User:David Drew/Sandbox which is sub directory of your space If you start writing templates do them there then they dont effect the main wiki space which some code can do.

Looks good to me, some I looked at used other coding and where a lot less clear to edit. You can do a few for the Wikia Im building for all the stuff that Wikipedia (some editors)dont like , It got a section for mining machinery, as the basic pages are the Wikipedia ones as a starter (why re-invent the wheel) then building up the lists of machine models and "All" preserved machines. I've currently got 450 part written articles on Tractors, Plant (engineering vehicles in the USA), Steam engines, Heavy Haulage etc. Youve got some good stuff in the US (asuming you are by the size of the machines your talking about). One of our biggest draglines the "Ace of Spades" has been sold to the USA. its a 65 cu yd P&H 757 weighing 4000 ton, it worked its self out a couple of years ago now.

If your adding more models it may be better flipped over with the machines down the side, as after about 8 you will have a problem with screen width for smaller monitors. All the articles on this sort of thing are a bit lacking and need building up and better cross linking with better explanations of terminology, but somes down to the US / other countries differences in English. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the primary advantage of putting the table here is that other people can add to it, especially the smaller draglines. I'm also from Australia. In the Bowen Basin and Hunter Valley regions, we've got lots (at least 30 in the Bowen Basin alone) of draglines in the 30m³ and up size. On my particular site, we've got two 8200's and two 8750's and the baby P&H. Our neighbour mine across the road has eight draglines of 8050 and 8200 size.

Yes , but they can also edit it when its in the article. The advantage in a sand box is that you can build it up adapt things with out loads of edits filling the article (comment not criticism). Isnt Minings a boom industry down under these days ? Our open cast sites are tiny in comparison, mainly reclaiming former underground mine sites.

Location after i made the assumption and comment I saw you had added a Australian machine, so thought id be wrong. Was looking at a couple of Chamberlain tractors the other day, a 70 and a 90. Im off its 4:00 Am here was going before i had a quick check of whats happening 3 hours ago - BulldozerD11 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Pictures

Having been next to and even up in the cab of a large dragline while it was walking I would have to say that these pictures don't do it justice. I also feel that the picture of the pile driver is misleading since this really is not what draglines are primarily used for. The video that I linked to gives a good illustration of how draglines operate including the fact that slacking the drag rope allows the bucket to tip forward. I do have pictures with people in them that show the scale better. I have a picture with my foot on the main power cable, I have a good shot of the walking cam, and a fairly good shot of the tub. I think some more pictures would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brehmel (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the second picture. That appears to be a "crane" with a piledriver, no bucket is being "drag"ed. I am going to delete it.Sammy D III (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Panama Shovels?

In "History", should the paragraph "The Marion Steam ...1997." be changed to something like "The Marion Steam Shovel Dredge Company (established in 1880) built its first walking dragline with a simple single-crank mechanism in 1939. The company changed ...1997."? Should the next paragraph; "Bucyrus International supplied ...weight." be changed to something like "Bucyrus International entered the dragline market with the purchase of manufacturing rights for the Heyworth-Newman dragline excavator in 1910. Their "Class 14" dragline ...weight."? In both paragraphs the deleted text refers to shovels used in Panama, not draglines.Sammy D III (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dragline excavator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050913064809/http://ohiobio.org:80/muskie.htm to http://ohiobio.org/muskie.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://research.ict.csiro.au/research/labs/autonomous-systems/field-robotics/mining-robotics/dragline-automation
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://research.ict.csiro.au/research/labs/autonomous-systems/field-robotics/mining-robotics/dragline-automation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305211903/http://www.bucyrus.com:80/mining-equipment/draglines.aspx to http://www.bucyrus.com/mining-equipment/draglines.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118050355/http://www.hecltd.com:80/hec_products_mining_dragline.html to http://www.hecltd.com/hec_products_mining_dragline.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Error in walking animation

The walking animation shown of the original patent is incorrect. It needs to be reversed, as no machine can move the way shown here. The tub is always drug backwards, not pushed forward (this would just dig into the ground). [J. Kumpf, VP Engineering, Marion Power Shovel Co. 1990 - 1997) commentary left in article 15:35, 6 October 2024 by 75.76.245.89, moved from article by Meters (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The animation is File:Martinson Tractor.gif in the "Draglines in mining" section. The IP is correct. The animation is clearly running backwards. The uploader of the .gif seems to have realized the error since they uploaded a reversed gif File:Martinson Tractor (reverse).gif the next day. I will make the change. Meters (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Also fixed the same error in Walking vehicle and Walking excavator . Meters (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging uploader user:Mliu92 since they are still active. Meters (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)