|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/31/2006
Posts: 136
Location: Lloydminster, Canada
|
Always enjoyed listening to seasoned operators as to which machine can move the most material
at the end of the shift.
Spend a few hours with a operator on a O&K RH400 and a P&H 4100 BOSS, they both love their machines and are very good at what they do.
Both guys will tell you how their machine can out work the other.
Myself I was surprised at how efficient both units are and at the end of the shift large quanities
of material have been moved.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 8/24/2002
Posts: 4,218
Location: usa
|
Hi Ted, I have never run an electric rope shovel at all, and only got to "play" a little bit with an RH 400, but my guess is that it all depends on the digging conditions and what the exact task is at the time... But if you put an RH 400 and a 4100 side by side on a bench digging shot rock or loading oilsand or muskeg,"Not frozen" my bet is that the rope shovel is more productive.. and efficient. But when things get frozen, or benches are realy hard, or ramps need building, well then its hats off to the big hyraulic machines versatility... But lets here from some of the guys who work with them all the time. I know a guy thats run them all and he MIGHT not agree with me... At one time he was the only man in the world to have run every RH 400 built at that time in production operations... he was a true fan of the hydraulics... but then he got a seat on a brand new BOSS...
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/23/2007
Posts: 2,639
Location: Pennsylvania
|
When Bethlehem owned Lehigh Coal they had a bunch of stick fronts working loading 100 ton Eucs. 2 Marion 191M's and a Bucyrus 195B I think. As soon as they got their hydraulic shovels, the stick fronts were shut down for good. My one friend who's the senior Demag operator at Lehigh used to run the stick fronts. He tells me that the hydraulic shovels can out dig those electric shovels in no time. But again, I guess it all depends on what your digging in and what the owners prefer to run. Put an old Bucyrus 280B next to a PC3000 (which are close in size) and the 280B would have no chance of out diging the power of the 3000
-Justin "Everyone's Goal Is To Mine More Coal!"PAmining http://www.youtube.com/user/PAmining
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/27/2007
Posts: 2,647
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta
|
Basically, an electric cable shovel should almost always out load a comparably sized hydraulic machine. That being said, efficiency can be a totally different animal. If a mine has a relatively short lifespan, say about 10 years, a hydraulic machine would most likely be more efficient. The smaller initial purchase price, coupled with the reduced service life of a hydraulic machine would likely make a hydraulic machine more cost effective. The electric cable shovels tend to have longer service life and higher prices, therefore, it would usually be less cost effective to put one into a short life mine. Consequently, it would likely be less efficient.
There are many factors that determine which would be more efficient, including, life of mine, remoteness (availability of ample electric power), type of material being loaded, amount of mobility required of the loading tool, and many others. Size of the shovel and size of the trucks being loaded also play a very important role in determining which would be more efficient.
Now, in a low face, the hydraulic will be a better choice and will out load a cable machine. But in a relatively high face, the cable machine will beat the pants off of a hydraulic machine. They have far more power and reach, and if they don't need to move as frequently as a result of these factors, they can keep loading while the hydraulic will be moving around to the material. The hydraulic shines when in lower faces since they can move so much faster and easier. The geometry of the front end also plays a significant part in which will out dig the other. Digging a ramp, the hydraulic will outperform the cable machine since it is able to move to suit the conditions far more than the cable machine is.
Something else to think about is whether the material is all the same or whether it has to be benched to separate the different material types. A hydraulic can separate material far more efficiently than a cable machine can.
There are so many factors in determining which is more efficient, and it really comes down to what application they are working in. Bulk loading, a cable machine is more efficient. For any operation where varied factors influence the digging conditions and complicate things, a hydraulic tends to be more versatile, and in many cases, more efficient.
Hope that made some sense.
Brian
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/27/2007
Posts: 2,647
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta
|
JustinE wrote:Put an old Bucyrus 280B next to a PC3000 (which are close in size) and the 280B would have no chance of out diging the power of the 3000 Keep in mind that you are comparing machines from different eras. Put a current cable machine of comparable size up against the PC3000 and it would be a totally different story. Brian
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/29/2009
Posts: 101
Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
Brian has pretty much hit the nail on the head. The main reason in choice for either shovel really comes down to the digging conditions. You almost never see a rope shovel at a hard rock mine these days (eg iron ore). The main advantage that the hydraulic shovel has is that it can crowd its bucket back and forward, and this is where most of its breakout force comes from. It can get in underneath toe and when the face is tight, and rip it out. Where as a rope shovel can only scrape up the face, and what he gets is it, no working the bucket, no second chances. However in poofter dirt like coal and sands, a rope shovel should be faster
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/23/2007
Posts: 2,639
Location: Pennsylvania
|
Greasemonkey wrote:JustinE wrote:Put an old Bucyrus 280B next to a PC3000 (which are close in size) and the 280B would have no chance of out diging the power of the 3000 Keep in mind that you are comparing machines from different eras. Put a current cable machine of comparable size up against the PC3000 and it would be a totally different story. Brian True. I've never been around any new electric stick fronts so I can't comment on their performance. I just used that example because it's something I'm familiar with. The older stick fronts from the 70s and such were no match for hydraulics of their equal size. Now I'm sure with today's modern stick fronts, there's a difference.
-Justin "Everyone's Goal Is To Mine More Coal!"PAmining http://www.youtube.com/user/PAmining
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/11/2007
Posts: 1,528
Location: Indiana
|
Justin,
How does the older Demag shovel or backhoe compare to some of the newer equipment, hydraulics-wise?
-Alex
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 8/24/2002
Posts: 4,218
Location: usa
|
Almost all the older hyd machines were much slower than the newer units. A new machine two thirds the size of an old generation, "say an H485" would get its butt pounded in total production. The older machines had power, but lacked the speed the of the new systems. Just like almost all of the various machines of different vintages. New wheel loaders are much faster than old, etc.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/21/2003
Posts: 728
|
Ah the Age old question ...
Well a Hydraulic machine is a Digger and a Cable machine is a Loader.
Mine Duration, Material and COST are the factors.
I've seen a Hydraulic ripped down, Relocated, Rebuilt and digging in a very short period of time.
The cable machine needs Auxiliary equipment like an RT, Dozers and Power. Then there's Blasting. A hydraulic can be a lone ranger in the pit ... Fill it with diesel and its digging in any conditions.
The UK is a prime example of why a Hydro is the preferred choice. No blasting permit then you aint finding gold with a Cable machine.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/28/2009
Posts: 424
Location: Alberta, Canada.
|
TimT wrote:Almost all the older hyd machines were much slower than the newer units. A new machine two thirds the size of an old generation, "say an H485" would get its butt pounded in total production. The older machines had power, but lacked the speed the of the new systems. Just like almost all of the various machines of different vintages. New wheel loaders are much faster than old, etc. Perfect example is a Cat 5230. For their generation, they where top of the line. Pit them against a P&H 4100XPC, and they lose.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/27/2007
Posts: 2,647
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta
|
MammoetMan wrote:Perfect example is a Cat 5230.
For their generation, they where top of the line.
Pit them against a P&H 4100XPC, and they lose. Not a fair comparison at all. The 5230 is nowhere near the same size as a 4100 of any series. You need to compare machines that would compete in the same general size class to get a fair comparison. Might as well be putting a mini excavator up against a 45 tonne machine. Brian
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/23/2007
Posts: 2,639
Location: Pennsylvania
|
Redjack Ryan wrote:Justin,
How does the older Demag shovel or backhoe compare to some of the newer equipment, hydraulics-wise?
-Alex All the newer Demag’s are very powerful, reliable, and productive machines to run. They’re easy to maintain and service because most were hydraulic/hydraulic control..aka.. the “Hydro-Pilot” as Demag called it and are a very simple setup. For example the engine room has a lot of room to work and is not as tight and compact as the new Komatsu’s are. Companies over here have run Demag shovels/backhoes since the 90s or later and have literally pounded the hell out of them and their still running today. The Demag’s have a lot of power but are slightly slower than the newer hydraulic shovels like the Komatsu’s. But here's the benefit of the machine being slower...much smoother to operate, and I mean A LOT smoother. The new Komatsu’s are have a hell of a lot more power than the Demag’s and better operator comfort, but they’re as jerky as hell to operate because of how much power and speed they have.
-Justin "Everyone's Goal Is To Mine More Coal!"PAmining http://www.youtube.com/user/PAmining
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/23/2007
Posts: 2,639
Location: Pennsylvania
|
MammoetMan wrote:TimT wrote:Almost all the older hyd machines were much slower than the newer units. A new machine two thirds the size of an old generation, "say an H485" would get its butt pounded in total production. The older machines had power, but lacked the speed the of the new systems. Just like almost all of the various machines of different vintages. New wheel loaders are much faster than old, etc. Perfect example is a Cat 5230. For their generation, they where top of the line.Pit them against a P&H 4100XPC, and they lose. Haha, yeah right! Junk is what they were! Really a shame to, especially coming from Cat.
-Justin "Everyone's Goal Is To Mine More Coal!"PAmining http://www.youtube.com/user/PAmining
|
|
|
Guest |
