Hello,

I think the manufacturers of this type of conveyor may contact you on reading this query. Alternatively, you may search for the website.

As I know, one French company (possibly) had supplied this type of conveyor for long distance conveying, possibly in Orissa, eastern part of India. Decades back we had also visited the place to see this equipment, but it is a matter of past now. The engineers in India who know about the equipment may also respond to this query.

Ishwar G. Mulani

Author of Book : Engineering Science And Application Design For Belt Conveyors (new print November, 2012)

Author of Book : Belt Feeder Design And Hopper Bin Silo

Advisor / Consultant for Bulk Material Handling System & Issues.

Pune, India.

Tel.: 0091 (0)20 25871916

Email: conveyor.ishwar.mulani@gmail.com

Website: www.conveyor.ishwarmulani.com ■

I believe that Metso is now the owner of the original Cable Belt technology but I have not seen any activity with this system for quite some time.

Joe Dos Santos ■

At 2 km, I would anticipate Trough Belt would be substantially less expensive.

We have competed against Cable Belt on 20 km OLC and won in 2007. Recently, we competed on 27 km and won.

Why would you wish to use a Cable Belt system? If you ask this question, you are likely to receive answers that reflect which choice is better.

The advantage for trough belt, using modern design standards, are many:

1. Many supplier vs. two

2. More flexibility on route selection

3. Wider range of tonnage with efficient design performance

4. Less maintenance and longer life between component replacements

5. others can add to these claims ■

Cable Belts fall into the same category as the Wankel engine: why dispense with cylinder head valves when there are billions working well enough already. These ideas capture the imagination but when it boils down to it they introduce more problems than the predecessors.

Cable belt technology started life in A Scottish coal mine in the 1950's when a clever mine manager, aren't they all, realised he could supplement the carcass strength by clipping a steel cable alongside his existing textile carcass. This original arrangement could be seen in very early advertising literature. In the era of King Coal the concept was hailed by the NCB and British Rope Engineering Company (BRECO) was partnered into the equation to apply their extensive cable expertise towards long haul conveying. This partnership developed a more marketable arrangement with the rope support grooves and the stiffened weft. It could not simplify the rope reeving and on large installations, Selby drift (I never did like trying to spell Gascoigne Wood), the sheave dimensions became impressive, but that was all. Transfer tower width became a joke. The only reason there was a large cable belt at Selby, a so-called showpiece mine, was because the National Coal Board had a vested interest in showing their royal baby to the public. The cable belt was outperformed by the troughed belt conveyor which ran some distance alongside in another drift. If there had been only the cable belt to rely on the mine complex in question would have produced far less coal.

To answer the question: there are no advantages to a cable belt. Larry was politely pulling his punches and Joe accurately observed that the equipment seems to have faded into oblivion. ■