the largest crawler loaders in comparison caterpillar 983, komatsu D155S strengths defects characteristics differences: hello, doing a short research on crawler loaders, I found that the biggest I think was the caterpillar 983, while for its competitor komatsu, a similar opponent I think was the D 155S, derived from the crawler tractor of their respective bulldozers, weight on the 45 tons. the caterpillar 983, s I have not misunderstood should be derived from the legendary d8. other information or photos I have not found, if any user friend has photos or technical information I invite them to attach information materials or photos, other manufacturers such as John Deere, liebherr coupled prototype handcrafted or Russian Chinese that I do not know I do not know if they have ever built loaders cingolat so big let me know. thank you
The 983 shared some components with the D8 however was a distinct machine of specialized design and not a built up D8. Loaders are quite different from dozers in base design as frames and running gear. The D155S is a Pirated version Clone of the 983 as are most of the Komatsu's as Clones of Cat base designs using different power plants and some alternate power train designs.
I can't imagine a machine weighing over 70,000 with narrow tracks on anything but completely dry ground with the engine in front. With the bucket capacity the same as a 973 I'm guessing the 73 will probably move more dirt in a day due to speed.
If I remember correctly, In 1969 I loaded trucks with a Allis Chalmers HD21G loader. AC called them shovels. It had a huge bucket 4 cubic yard bucket. It seemed huge to me at that time ! The machine weighed over 74,000 lbs. It wasn't very fast with a heaped bucket of clay. Allis Chalmers made a HD41 dozer. I don't think it was available with a loader on it. I've only seen pictures of them. I'm sure they were very expensive in there day .
basically komatsu has created a mechanical shovel superior to caterpillar to overcome it in the eternal competition. sin on the net there is no news of these machines. https://contractormag.co.nz/classic-machines/caterpillar-983-crawler/ https://tractors.fandom.com/wiki/Caterpillar_983_Crawler_Loader https://contractormag.co.nz/classic-machines/caterpillar-983-crawler/ Manufacturer Komatsu Model D155S-1 Horsepower 350.0 HP Bucket Capacity 5.9 CY
They don't make them anymore which says a lot. I'd guess maitainance and undercarriage costs make them prohibitive.
Speed was the issue IMO. A 988 was so much faster if you had to move any distance at all from the face to the truck. If you do it right there should be little driving of a loader but so many times that is not possible.
The bigger tracked loaders were slow A bit awkward and cumbersome articulated rubber tire loaders seem to be much more nimble, had speed and ability to not rip up the platform on which operated unlike tracks Tires do wear out but tire shops can get them changed quickly, not so much on tracked machines. Again boils down to needs and abilities, breakout force tracked is far above that of rubber tired loaders of similar size.
That's why the 988 had a spade bucket when digging out of a bank, to give it a point to get in with. Not going to get dumped out the door by a blown front tire either!
I believe that by now the excavators have surpassed both the tracked and the wheeled ones as a technology, for big jobs a front excavator is better. turn the tower on the axis of the fifth wheel the wheel loader or tracked loader must maneuver on the excavation front to dig and load the bucket, then backwards towards the dumper body, while the excavator makes the truck park next to it, sinks the bucket into the ground fills it, lifts, turns and unloads, and returns to the excavation front, with less downtime, maybe you combine it with a bulldozzer, right? I see the large mechanical shovels useful if you have to load large boulders to move blocks of marble in the quarry. don't you agree?
That operation above is done with a wheeled loader as well. I have cut a road with a 988 and if you do it right, there is very little driving. Into the face, fill bucket, full throttle and disconnector pedal, turn wheel hard, back up, turn wheel hard the other way and dump. Switch sides with the next truck.
Big difference between a mining shovel and a track loader. Bucyrus Erie made a prototype 5yd. crawler loader type shovel. It was never put into production but I think someone on here was very familiar and said it was a fast loader. Found a video of it from Keith Haddock. He retired from a mine in Alberta and I've talked to him on the phone. He has written several books on mining and heavy equipment including Marion. Bucyrus-Erie 60-S swing shovel - YouTube
Like a Skid steer on steroids!!
depends on the work you have to carry out, a contractor in the area had taken heavy machinery to build a dam, but he had to move and transport a mountain of material and load large boulders, if you have photos of large caterillar komatsu or other brands crawler loaders also prototypes I invite you to attach photos, thanks again for your availability and patience, thanks.
Track loaders are hard to beat in their area. Brush and demo being two of them. Team a loader with a dozer and good operators and it's a great combo. I favor track loaders but that's what I've been on in the commercial building trades for years. Excavators have replaced them in most situations these days. I do lots of brush, lakes, ponds and new house sights, my 973 is the weapon of choice. 963's are good machines but switch between them and it feels like you are getting little done with the 63. They aren't the greatest in mud which is fine with me, just gives me an excuse to not work in it.
No doubt. Love our 953C. It's 17 years old with 5K + hours and still produces. Love to have a new one but $250K is hard chunk of change to swallow.
Working in the steel slag does not look like a fun job. Hard to tell but looks like an extra windshield in the pic. I imagine you'd have to be pretty fast loading and getting out of there.
Must have one hell of an air conditioner!
Surprised there isn't fire nozzles all over it. Curious if the track pads are rubber and if a machine like that would have special high temp. hoses and such? Imagine a hyd. leak.
the 973 was a super loader , an entrepreneur in the area owned it loaded boulders to create artificial cliffs, they also leveled a hill to build buildings a real move hills an eat mountains very powerful and fast, I remember when he treaded a huge eucalyptus and has moved it, she got up from behind for the effort, an exceptional magnificent machine.
I really enjoy the 963s we use to load clay with here, company also has rubber tire Deeres where they handle the more loose materials better/faster but hard to beat a old track machine for breaking out compacted piles.
from my parts of crawler trucks, only old models are used for large earthworks, excavators are used, wheel loaders are used in quarries and in aggregate plants in concrete mixing plants to feed plants for packing asphalt or concrete. I wanted to ask if I'm not too boring, what other brand produces crawler loaders, I think john deere and Liebherr, right, what can you tell me about these brands which are the bigger models and what performance they would have, I still believe that caterpillar is unsurpassed. volvo i don't think ever built tracked cars nor hitachi i think, am I right? unfortunately I know little and nothing about other brands. fiat allis the biggest was fl 20 and fiat hitachi I think fl 175, but I don't remember well the numerical series, benati I don't remember honestly. 755 k fiat fl 20 fiat hitachi fl 175 BENATI BEN 7.16 ELECTRONIC CONTROL this crawler loader with rear engine is the legendary Benati Ben 7.16 electronic control, motor 135 hp diesel, hydrostatic transmission with electronic control of the power regulation, single lever for speed control, steering control with independent pedals, automatic parking brake, rops safety cabin, in production towards the end of the 80s , modern lines and avant-garde solutions for those times,
I didn't realise that BENATI made larger machines. They made smaller Crawler & Wheel Loaders in the 80s-90s.Also Backhoes,I think. I operated a Fiat Allis FL14E....a smooth machine which got lots of power to the ground. Liebherr 631 were good to operate too...big hydraulic power. The 955K&L were great machines. Crawler Loaders are a fantastic,versatlie machine if armed with ripper & 4in1.A decent sized Wheel Loader can do a lot of varied work too.A 966 is a very handy Loader.
I repeat to you in my part you do not see more tracked, only in the countryside and in the mountains to draw roads and plow up the ground, unfortunately with the crisis the sector is in crisis bulldozzer I have not seen any for years. unfortunately the crisis has stopped the sector. john deere i don't think they matter in europe, only some old small crawler models i had seen in the countryside.
Deere and Liebherr partnered a long time ago, I am not certain it still draws a successful following. Company I am working for has a 755K, nice machine when working, been to the dealer several times for issues and has had numerous service calls for same issues.
Liebherr never seen in my area, I think it is German I suppose for the German tradition it must be a good earthmoving machine, I repeat never seen in my part I cannot give a judgment, John Deere some old machinery from the 60s small crawler, in my part 955, 541, 953, caterpillar 950 wheeled excavators, then the dealer fiat allis was like crawler trucks, therefore he had a monopoly on the earth moving machinery market. fiat allis fl14E turbo
those trackpads are for steel mill application, there would also be a full fire extinguisher system and possibly a different hydraulic fluid, there was a water based hydraulic fluid used in a steel rolling mill I used to work at it looked like milk, that was in the late 1970's. I used to drive a Komatsu D41S track shovel, which was lifted into a 30' deep pit beneath an 150 tonne capacity electric arc furnace, once the top was taken off the slag pile, the slag would stick on to the tracks. That was a beautiful machine with an 80hp 6 cylinder engine, there was a lot of powdered lime in the bottom of the pit and I suppose it got sucked into the engine because after 4 hours running it needed one gallon of oil in the engine, but it always started first try hot or cold and ran very smoothly.
Still has to be a very dangerous application. Have seem pics. of large wheel loaders like Clark 475's burnt up removing slag.
My first machine was a 350 crawler loader, and I ran an International 175 a bit 40 years ago, and a 977. Since then I very rarely see them anymore. One look in the trade papers and I see why. The 175 I stumped an orchard and built a rock wall with huge boulders, and loaded topsoil in solo trucks.
Yes Dave, the machine I operated got on fire a few times, although not while I was driving it, and not seriously, there would be another operative "fire watching" with a 2" water hose, the regular driver, who had been doing the job for 30 years, only used to wear a paper dust mask, I used to wear a siebe gorman mask with double filters and keep the cab door closed and blower on full blast. The overhead crane would lower a skip down on to the top of the slag pile, which would be 18' to 20' high, through a hole with a steel plate over it on the shop floor level. Before they removed the plate, I would backblade the slag pile to reduce its height, this would expose the red hot slag who's consistency would stick to the tracks, I would then try and dig a small hole for the skip to sit in, this would reduce the steep angle required to drive up the pile to load the skip, which made driving the machine more comfortable. When the red hot slag was backbladed I was careful to not sit the machine over the hot material while waiting for skip to be tipped, ( I always checked the machine for oil leaks before it was lifted down the pit). the only light was a 500 watt halogen light hung down above the skip, once a bucket full was tipped it was like being in outer space, everything went black and all you could see was the windscreen wipers. If you moved the machine with such low visibility and ran over any obstruction,( there was scrap down there which had missed the furnace during charging), you were so disorientated that it felt like the machine would tip over, so I learned to wait a few seconds until dust cleared and the light showed through, happy days!!
beautiful machines you mentioned, they look like fossil finds, dinosaurs from the museum of science and industrial technology, were the forerunners of our current modern machines. what leap has technology made in recent years.
Sounds like a job you absolutely have to do right. Do you know if most most steel mills have someone at the ready with a fire hose?
A good track loader can do a lot of work. The newer hydrostats are pretty quick to maneuver.
No, talking about 4 total machines for sale in my state. They are very few out here. They seem to be about 6% of available loaders on the market.
Thanks for sharing that Willis. Running a track loader in a steel mill application is someone you don't run into every day. Fascinating and terrifying all at the same time. As far as track loader manufacturer's go: Komatsu - made a front and rear engine Cat copy JCB - made a rear engine machine Hanomag - front engine machine Massey Ferguson - front engine machine Dresser - front engine International - front engine Now most of the above list is the same engineering/design when each company was bought or absorbed through merger. Probably one of the rarest track loaders. JCB rear engine. The machine was really ahead of it's time with a 1971 release date.
thanks for your news, crawler loaders are now a rarity, due to the crisis and the more versatile crawler excavator. if you have photos I invite you to insert them in the discussion, in my part the most recent crawler loader would be a fiat allis fl14 E turbo, a prehistoric find. Thanks again Hanomag - D 600 C Laderaupe
Dave, the melting shop I worked at was one of the first in the UK to have electric arc furnaces installed, and had a system of pits and tunnels beneath it, most other melting shops slagged out onto shop floor level, so the furnace was in an elevated position, IE on first floor level, the track loader slagging out would have access to drive to the outside where any fire could be dealt with in comparative safety. The only way to extract the loader I drove was by overhead electric crane, so early intervention with a fire hose was very important. We had hours of waiting to go down the pit because we had to have an atmosphere test to check the oxygen levels, as they teemed the molten metal from the ladles through a shield supplied with argon gas to prevent hydrogen embrittlement in the steel ( you will know about that being a welder - low hydrogen welding rods) and argon is an asphixiant and heavier than air, so it was important to check if argon had settled in the pit. The company I was working for was a small company and the boss did'nt like spending money so no automatic fire surpression system on their machine! The modern machines used on slagging duties, as in the pictures Trombeur has kindly posted would have automatic fire systems and heat resistant cab glass. Most steel mill track loaders have a wire towing rope for recovery should they break down, some brave soul would have to connect the rope to the recovery vehicle! Sadly the melting facility closed in 2003, sadly partly because it always made money, and it made engineering steels which were supplied to aircraft, oil, nuclear and automotive industries.
Very interesting indeed. Have heard of Tig welders in confined spaces having to stand on their head to let the argon flow out of them. Your boss must not have put much emphasis on employee safety. I would think a lot of operators would refuse to do the the job without automatic fire suppression on the machine. If the company made money, what caused it to close down?
I think the JCB was hydrostatic too but had some issues. JD came out with their hydrostats in 1976. Case had some hydrostat dozers but not sure about loaders. Cat were kind of late with hydro's but still have a big market share for track loaders. I think they're very versatile machines.
As far as I know the JCB was hydrostatic. What really impresses me about the machine is for 1971 design and engineering JCB basically made what the rear engine track loader is today in concept.
It had great visibility. A lot of machines were ahead of their time and never took off. Then years later something similar comes along and it's a big success. Terex Titan, O&K RH300, Michigan 675, etc.
Curious question - were there any other hydrostatic track loaders or dozers for that matter in 1971?
It seems like the John Deeres were the first ones in '76. Of course not counting your example.
Not that I've ever come across and I've read several books on heavy equipment. Thomas claims to have had the 1st. hydrostatic skid steer in 1969. Bobcat had the M970 in 1970 that was their biggest machine and also hydrostatic.
thank you for your precious historical testimonies that are not present in any book, on these old finds of industrial archeology, it would be necessary to create a virtual museum with technological evolution and innovations. acquaintance told me that benati, poclain eo & k had made machinery to be used in the steel mill for slag and slag, I believe benati had made a machine called "ponies that lowered into the crucible of the surrounding area to clean it of slag and slag, but not I find toto or historical references unfortunately. https://www.bauforum24.biz/forums/topic/61084-arbeiten-im-fegefeuer-cat-laderaupen-973d-im-einsatz/
The steelworks is still open, they moved the melting to another plant and mixed the melting shop workers from both plants. The amalgamated melting facility only used to produce leaded steels for automotive body work, top quality engineering steels require a specialist set of skills and the failure rate during the testing of the steels were very high. I believe the management were trying to close the plant I worked at, they spent £90million on a rolling mill at the other plant but it would not roll round material for some reason, so the rolling came back to the old plant. at this present time the company is owned by an Indian company and is up for sale due to the financial backer of the Indian company going broke. I suppose this is a similar story worldwide fixing things which aint broke!
CM1995, I almost bought a JCB 110B track loader as a none runner in the late 1980's from a guy near me, it was hard to establish what was wrong with it, I think there was a weakness with the final drive on that model, any way he was asking too much for it to take a risk
JCB 110 JCB 110 Front End Loader, built in 1971 A tracked loading shovel, the first of its type to feature a hydrostatic transmission and twin tiller loader controls. The machine was the first to be awarded with a Design Council Award in 1972. The crawler loader would continue to be developed, with the 112 and 114 models. https://en.wheelsage.org/category/wheel-loaders?page=8
Great pics. you posted. Curious why they have the sides tilted in. You would think having a larger cab would be better.
It's a very advanced machine, and tilting the sides in would make the rollover protection stronger. That could be one reason ? You being a welder could see how rolling that dozer over on the box it would resist folding better than a square one.
ROPS could be designed either way. Smaller foot print on top could make it roll completely over instead of just on its side. Cab looks like it would be quite noisy with no sound insulation. Wonder if JCB sold the rights or just figured it wasn't a good enough seller and dropped it? Rear engine is nothing new though. Hough had a rear engine track loader (model 12) in 1955! It was way ahead of its time. 1956 Hough loader - Tractors and Equipment - BigMackTrucks.com
Did that 1956 Hough have a hydrostatic trans?
That's a nice restored H12. Eimco also made a few rear engine Loaders,including a Steel Mill version. Some of their stuff is interesting to look at.
Jim never heard of the brand before. Thanks for sharing. Found this website with some neat pics - https://classicdozers.wordpress.com/dozer-gallery/eimco/
Eimco made Overshot Loaders & even a fairly standard Wheel Loader,plus their underground mining gear. Some of that 50s/60s thinking & design is interesting. I wonder what an RG Letourneau Crawler Loader might have looked like...
Just imagine pushing the loader into a pile filling the bucket then back up to the truck and bring the bucket over your head. We're not real operators..
Take note that the truck is a Koehring Dumptor!
The H12 wasn't hydrostatic. A Letourneau would have never worked as RG didn't like hydraulics but preferred rack and pinion. Look at the early Letourneau wheel loader with rack and pinion for the bucket.
komatsu and benati jd have also made machines with a similar conformation. who copy each other trying to make the machine more competitive, performing and attractive to potential buyers.? '' KOMATSU-D66S-1-TRACK-LOADER Hough model 12 ??'
The Komatsu was a copy of Cat but they were short lived because of too many issues. Machine on trailer is a model 12. It had to be state of the art in the 50's compared to other track loaders! Getting in the seat was probably the biggest challenge.
Letourneau ??' of that brand I only know the large wheel loaders and some loaders for timber, I do not know the chronology of the models, I think it has been acquired, around little news and information. LeTourneau D-800 LeTro-Dozer '1978–85 https://en.wheelsage.org/users/car-maniac/pictures/letourneau
I finally stopped by Rhine and took a bunch of pictures. Here's the crawler loader it's an L model. The bucket arm assembly was made in Great Britain, maybe the whole machine is.
Sky that was one heck of a demo machine in its time.
Check out this link from the book on Letourneau. Scroll down to page 105. Look at the size of that gear for the rack and pinion! Down further image driving a 200' long 3 section scraper at 15 MPH. https://books.google.ca/books?id=4k...hUKEwiak-CQl47xAhUS6p4KHT8IA0gQ6AEwGnoECC0QAw
Here is one more of the 977 bucket, then there was this other bucket that was significantly larger but not on a machine. I'm guessing it was put on a 988 or something similar.
It doesn't look that menacing to me for 977 bucket. The 4 in 1 on my small 931B looks just as tough if not more.
Less likely to get damaged in some applications where trees were present ?
Or some designer wanting it to look unique.
Seems to be one of their styling cues from the time. Check out the 3C2 and 3C3 from the same era.
Kind of boxy too but great visibility.
Lots of glass. In the UK working in a cab like a greenhouse was rarely a problem.
Bigger cab would allow you to make it more homey with a few plants.
We have a customer a long time ago with a Terex hydrostatic dozer, looked ancient to me but alas, year model unknown. UPDATE ACTUALLY they had a Euclid TC12 from the mid 1950's - NOT hydrostatic, but similar in concept - one engine and one transmission for EACH SIDE, could steer by setting left or right side throttles differently, also could steer by brake each side, or could put either side transmission in different gears WOW
A TC12 had seperate engines and trans. for each track but quite a bit different than hydrostatic. There were other single engine crawlers with counter-rotating tracks. One I can think of is a Massey Ferguson MF500 available as a dozer or loader. I can't remember what brand but at least 1 more dozer had counter-rotating tracks. Hough maybe?
That was a dozer..not a track loader.
My dad had a hough loader when I was a small kid. I remember playing on it and the seat setting in front of the motor. I believe it had slick or real small grousers on it. It's the only one I've ever seen and he sold it while I was around 5 years old I think which would have been around 1965. This brings back memories!
Liebherr had hystat from the start in their dozers and track loaders. Just don’t know when the start was. I actually spent time in a JCB 112 over 30 years ago. The controls were the main thing wrong. Three separate levers for the bucket, all spaced out so it was hard to multi-function, and a lever for each track like an excavator. For a tight turn you needed two hands as the travel on them was too much for one handed operation other than almost in a straight line. If they’d fitted two joysticks they’d have sold a lot more, but as it was, the old front engined Cats and Kommies were far easier to operate.
Re: ih100 comments on the JCB controls: It's surprising how the "small things" screwed up a machine that possibly was just as good as the Cats of the era. Obviously the engineers at the factory did not pay close attention to the ergonomics of the control station... Jon.
May have been innovative but JCB machines from the 70's were very crude and bulky, especially the backhoe loaders. The sloped in sides on the loaders probably made some operators a little claustrophobic.
IH was joystick technology around at the time? Kinda fascinated with the loader for the simple fact it was "before it's time" machine and I'm a track loader guy. Found this while searching -
I couldn't tell if it sounded a little sick or not because of the other mini dozer. I think they used a Perkins engine that usually run pretty smooth. A better operator might have shown more of it's maneuverability and the tracks look way too tight. A Hough model 12 was way ahead of its time with a rear engine design in the 50's. 1956 Hough loader James Dick's restored 1956 Model 12 Hough tracked loader. National Heavy Equipment show at the International center in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.Interesting unit, any make it to the USA? www.bigmacktrucks.com
Another interesting video on the JCB track loader - Really ahead of it's time.
Curious why they weren't more popular? They look to be pretty quick.
Believe it or not, they were hard work to operate, certainly compared to a power shift Cat. Someone will correct me if I’m Wrong but I think the 110 had a Perkins 4236 and the 112 had a 6354.
When you dig it’s amazing how many companies had a go, if briefly, with rear engines hystats. O&K, Poclain, JCB, Cat, Dresser (think IH were nearly there before the buy-out), Liebherr, Deere. Hough were the daddies with their rear-engines mechanical drive. Apparently Cat bought one of the first to Go on sale. Apparently. Wonder why? I‘ve often thought something like a 100 Drott with a hystat power train would be a damn sight better small machine than any of these CTL’s. Cat managed to sell a lot of 939’s but they were close to ten tonnes at the end. I know in some quarters it’s sacrilege to say this, but the old IH implement joysticks transformed operation, and IH were using them as far back as the 1950’s. I can’t see why anyone would prefer separate levers yet you can still spec a Cat machine with either. Mind you, I suppose a lot of newer operators can’t understand why anyone would prefer V-drive and steering pedals over a single joystick, but I hate the joystick drives.
I have a 1959 IH TD15 Drott skid shovel with a single joystick. It seemed odd at how smooth and efficient it worked next to the 2 stick/2 pedal steering, manual transmission, and over center main clutch lever.
where I come from you can see old Fiaf Allis FL10s and old Caterpillar 941s, in the countryside to arrange land or in the hills to build roads or terraces, bulldozzers and dozers are not used some tracked agricultural tractors with the front blade that can be removed but for agricultural applications.