Comments on: Why don’t Americans GET high reach…?

By: jimkottar

jimkottar — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:20:17 +0000

Demolition Contractors I came across your site when this site is very help full. ,I'm very interested in this story. Thanks for this information.

By: admin

admin — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:45:01 +0000

Thanks for your input Mick; it’s much appreciated. Interestingly, I have just learned that the US’ National Demolition Association is about to adopt the NFDC’s High Reach Guidance Notes (which, incidentally, I co-wrote) so it seems that the NDA think that high reach machines are on the way: http://www.demolitionnews.com/2009/09/01/exclusive-video-stateside-view/

By: Mick Goodhind

Mick Goodhind — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:21:45 +0000

I have to agree with Jeffrey Pittman when he states that the cost of the equipment is the most relevant factor. In Arizona there are very few high reach projects that would warrant the purchase of such a machine, and the price of the work in this economic climate, would not support the rental or purchase. We are therefore looking for other ways to achieve our objectives safely. Just as it was twenty years ago, here in the States, when no excavator had a thumb, high reach excavators will become more common when used ones begin to appear on the market. Until that time, small businesses such as ours will continue with our innovative, and to some primitive, ways of completing the demolition of our few tall structures.

By: Jeffrey Pittman

Jeffrey Pittman — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:26:32 +0000

First, high reach excavators are very expensive and specialized. I face issues every time I move a piece of equipment with the DOT Police, overwidth, overweight, etc.
We are a small contractor most jobs are less than a month in duration, so you have to look at the cost associated with mobilization of large equipment to do a smaller project. Plus our excavator has to serve many functions, besides getting the building on the ground, it has to load trucks. Try to load a large dump trailer with a 60 foot long reach. My little JD 135 RTS can run circles around a long reach.
Plus when I finish the building, I have to remove the unsuitable soil. We have to have machines that can perform a variety of projects, not just hoist a grapple or crusher attachment 60 feet in the air.
I would love to own a long reach excavator, but I am not going to spend 350k to buy one. I can buy 5 good low hour used JD 330’s for that kind of money.

Plus we are located in Louisiana, have to mat many times when you use a 100,000+ lbs machine.

By: Can open, worms eveywhere… |

Can open, worms eveywhere… | — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:07:23 +0000

[...] There was an initial (and ongoing) flurry of comments here on Demolition News (click here to read the story and then hit the word comments in blue at the foot of the article to follow the [...]

By: admin

admin — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:51:47 +0000

Welcome to the debate James (and sorry if we bothered you during your annual shutdown). Always good to get some input from a manufacturer that supplies the world market.

By: James Richardson

James Richardson — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:34:39 +0000

A very interesting debate.

Its worth highlighting, before sharing an opinion, that approaching the USA as one market can often create misunderstanding as nearly every state has its very own economic, geographic and demographic characteristics which influence the way they do things regionally .

Its my sense that there are a number of factors influencing the general trend (the majority already highlighed by other bloggers);

- Culture, the mind set in the USA is still very objective and often focused on getting the job done in the quickest and most convenient method. Explosive demolition is therefore preferred.

- Resource, despite all the negaitive press about the credit crunch the USA is still the richest country in the world with more space and resources. Up until now there has been little pressure to recycle or reuse in the way there has been in Europe.

Building Design, there is a major divide between how buildings are constructed in cicties vs suburbs / countryside. Whilst skyscrapers dominate the imagery of the USA the majority of buildings outside of the CBD of major cities are often low rise and /or constructed of timber all of which can be dealt with by a standard excavator.

Money; I have worked in many markets and in almost every one (there were sometimes other drivers in China) the bottom line is the major factor to how things are done. The USA will be no exception and there are no doubt underlying commecial reasons to why they prefer to do it their way.

All this said its worth noting that there are companies in the USA, albeit a minority, using high reach excavators ,as featured by the world press during the twin towers clear up. Which concludes there are many ways to skin a cat and when the circumstances are right high reach is still seen as an important method, even in the USA.

By: admin

admin — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:58:40 +0000

Thanks for your input Lindsay; great to get some feedback from someone with a more global perspective.

By: Lindsay Gale

Lindsay Gale — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:53:42 +0000

The impression I have got in reporting on the sector is that high reach is coming of age in the USA. While they may not match their European counterparts in height, they are beginning to get there.

Jewell Equipment, the US equivalent of Kocurek in Europe cartainly seems to think so. Mark Ramun told D&Ri in January 2008 that the company had seen a 400% growth in orders over 2006 levels and at that time he expected to see further growth in 2008 of 25-30%.
It is my understanding that there is less of a requirement for such equipment given the nature of most US cities and towns – more spread out, less high rise than typically you see in Europe – but demand is nevertheless growing.

By: John Woodward

John Woodward — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:34:50 +0000

I think that USA do not use high reach because historically they have used explosive demolition on taller structures and tend to use conventionally configured machines on smaller jobs.
I am concerned that most of the “demolition gone wrong” Utube footage, from Europe and USA, is where a building is undercut by a machine that cannot reach the top. There is also a lack of use of ramps to get the machine to reach higher and work safer.
The footage is of jobs that went wrong where no one was killed and so it is viewed as a lucky escape, and if “we got away with it this time” is the thinking then nothing will change for the next time they consider undercutting a structure.
It is difficult for a UK contractor to make it in the USA as the perception of risk is greater in UK and if that is translated onto a USA tender then the UK contractor will not be competitve.
I watch, as we all do, Discovery channel shows of USA blowdowns and sit there whilst they run skidsteers on the 10th floor without a barrier or watch the driller working alongside an open edge 15 floors up and cannot believe that people are not killed or that enforcement is not applied. The shows also show a simple police roadblock at blast time, something that the UK would never allow.
I fully accept that USA will not recycle as we do because they have large areas of landfill and no incentive to reuse materials, so there is no driver to encourage recycling. Also USA does not Greenpeace or similar lobbying government to reduce co2 and think sustainabilty so recycling is not on the agenda in the USA. If, for example, USA did not have vast oil reserves they would probably buy more Toyota Prius but why go green if you have unlimited oil reserves to run your 6 litre Camaro?
Eventually USA will “get ” High Reach but it will take some time as market forces and site locations in UK dictated how our industry advanced and those two forces are vastly differnet in USA to UK.
In the meantime perhaps we Brits should go over to USA to discuss how we do things here and try to see if there is common ground.
The IDE are actively seeking to recruit members in USA so that could be a way to spread the word.