[WIP] Five-axle mobile crane (inspired by Liebherr LTM1200)

[Erik Leppen]

Since the beginning of my AFOL-hood, I have been a crane guy, with many mobile cranes built in the past. Now, during the more recent years I tried to diversify, partly thanks to competitions like those on Eurobricks, and built various other vehicles. I think it's time to see if I haven't unlearned how to build a crane :)

 

So, the goal. I aim for a five-axle crane in the same scale of 42009. I think five axles is a perfect balance: enough to be imposing, but not so much it becomes awkward :) I use the Liebherr LTM1200 as a source of inspiration. The extra space between axle 3 and 4 gives me some extra leeway, but I also find it to look better. This image is from the Liebherr folder; I drew a grid over it with 8 studs for the wheels, and some markings in red.

 

Most functions will be manual. Not sure if I can even get a motor in, but I will try. But there is one function I really want: suspension. I think it just looks cool to have a multi-axle vehicle with suspension on all wheels, and it makes my model less of a 42009-clone. To do this, some other functions will have to be dropped, like the motorized double-acting outriggers.

 

This is the progress so far. Each axle is a fixed unit that is connected to the frame by two shocks and two ball joints. As vertical space is limited and Lego suspensions always tend to become taller than desired, I had to find a way to create a sturdy frame, so I went for studded Technic bricks. This makes the frame very strong. Also I think it's a nice deviation from all-studless building :) (This will principally be a studless model, don't worry.)

 

Then, the steering. If you ever want to add and connect the steering to so many suspended axles, let me warn you: it's not fun. Every axle needs two U-joints. I just ran an axle with lots of U-joints (at least 6) through the entire thing. Not optimal, but it works. The outrigger housing is a real pain to work around. Steering angles per axle are varied the 42009 way: by having different steering arm lengths. The ratios are 100% : 50% : 0% : -67% : -100%, or, in easier numbers: 1/2 : 1/4 : 0 : -1/3 : -1/2, where the denominator is the length of the steering arm. Axle 3 is the only axle connected to the fake engine.

 

Speaking of which, there's hardly any room left for that! So I decided I will add a boxer engine (which is lower), and it will still have to stick out one stud above the roof of the cabin. So be it. Driving the fake engine will be a challenge by itself too, because the unwieldy geartrain for the front axle's steering is in the way. I will have to sacrifice a lot of ground clearance for the driving axle.

 

 

Next up: add the fake engine, add the outriggers, lay out the measurements of the cabin, and see if I can get the first boom segment in place.

 

One note about colors. It will not be yellow. I just don't want to add another yellow crane, but I'm still in doubt about color options. I love trying out weird color combos as you might know, but the boom will probably be white, because of the panels I have (thanks to 42025). So I will probably do a multicolor scheme where white and black/gray are combined with one or two non-grayscale colors.

 

I love to hear what you think of the first take :)

[jwarner]

Looking good so far, I personally like that you're using a studded frame. It really makes your model (or what you have so far) unique. Can't wait to see five-axle suspension! Are you using live axles? I'm still learning the technical jargon.

3 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

It will not be yellow.

+1 on that decision, it's nice to see something that's not your run-of-the-mill construction yellow.

[Saberwing40k]

Why not make it in the colors of Boer B.V.? You've already got most of the colors there, you just need some white on the bodywork.

[lcvisser]

I'll be following this  I'm very much into cranes lately 

I think it's an excellent decision to go for a studded frame: the strength of those beams are underrated. The odd/even thing will add complexity of course, but surely you can manage.

Have you considered putting the springs horizontal, parallel to the frame, and use a L-shaped liftarm to transfer the spring force? I've been playing around with that idea for a while to get a nice, "flat" suspension, but haven't been able to come up with something yet that is sufficiently robust... @dikkie klijn seems to have something like it on his FTF FS-20, but the photo's are not enough for me to figure out how it works.

 

[Erik Leppen]

On ‎23‎-‎3‎-‎2018 at 3:25 AM, jwarner said:

Are you using live axles? I'm still learning the technical jargon.

I believe that's what it is called, but I'm actually not sure myself. I can put up a render when I have more time.

On ‎23‎-‎3‎-‎2018 at 5:05 AM, Saberwing40k said:

Why not make it in the colors of Boer B.V.?

Could be an option, but personally I don't like a yellow-white combo. But maybe. I am playing around with pneumatics, which are yellow so they are kind of an eyesore on the model unless there are some yellow details. (I really would have appreciated if Pneumatics V2 cylinders would have been gray or another neutral color...) Currently I'm working with white for body parts and boom (update coming tomorrow when I have time to take/edit/upload pictures), but I consider most of it temporary. I'm thinking of white-blue but I'd like to use more unconventional colors, so I will just do some experiments and take a pick later.

19 hours ago, Ludo Visser said:

Have you considered putting the springs horizontal, parallel to the frame, and use a L-shaped liftarm to transfer the spring force? I've been playing around with that idea for a while to get a nice, "flat" suspension, but haven't been able to come up with something yet that is sufficiently robust...

Actually to be honest, no, I haven't considered that. It's a good idea to keep in mind, but in this case I'm not sure what I would gain by doing that. There's enough space for the springs currently (although barely), and I think the current setup with vertical springs has the least amount of play in it. I'm afraid that an extra linkage will mostly complicate things and increase more play and unwanted forces and friction. Although with studded bricks the flex can be kept to a minimum (indeed, they are great for these sorts of purposes) The main problem with the chassis is not that I don't have 6 studs vertical space for the springs, but that the underside of the chassis must sit 3 studs above the axle to give it space to move. Which means I have 5 studs height to play with. Even running everything with 5x7 frames probably wouldn't make it as rigid as the current studded setup. In a set like 42009 the bottom of the chassis is 3 studs lower, giving much more room to strengthen it.

I'm just thinking, I could use studded bricks for the boom too by the way, 8421-style. Depends on what would keep the weight lowest. Currently I'm going for panels, similar to 42009 but with less holes. (Pictures tomorrow.)

[grego18f]

You have already done some serious progress .

About your issue with the drive axle, why not removing it and put in AWS with different steering mods? Or maybe use some linkages for the steering, as on the #42043?

I was working on a LTM too (is it the season? ), but ran out of time. Nevertheless, I came with a compact gearbox for the superstructure that might interest you.

Link to the .lxf

The boom attachement is just 2 studs too much forward compared to the scaled LTM 1300 6.2. The motor (a L seems to be a good compromise) can be placed on the left side of the superstructure. The bottom winch is for a cable actuator but it can be replaced by gearing for some LAs... It sure needs to be reinforced but I am pretty sure it will not be a hard task.

Btw, I am a huge fan of your cranes!

[Erik Leppen]

Thanks for sharing your version fo the superstructure gearbox @grego18f! In fact I was working on the same part of my model as well, but my gearbox is far from as compact as yours. I will get back to that, because: it's update time! :D

It looks like a lot has happened, but most of the change you see is just panels.

I came to the conclusion that the boom needs to be almost 60 studs long to match the scale  So I clicked 5 panels together to get 55 studs and tried to fit the main boom cylinder. I went for pneumatics because these can be coupled in series, like is done in 8460 and 8421. The new longer cylinders have almost twice the range of the old ones (6 studs against 3.5) so I have plenty of length (12 studs range). In this version I used 2 cylinders, but I think I will use 4 in the final version to get enough lifting power (but I only have 2, so another 2 are on my bricklink wanted list). The hose nozzles on the cylinders are kinda in the way though, so I hope I can place them sideways in a later version.

The other things that have happened, besides a rudimentary first tryout of the superstructure, is:

• outriggers
• fake engine
• rudimentary first layout of cabin size

I just placed some beams where the cabin will be, to help me get the measurements correct. As for the engine, the drive axle runs underneath axle 1 and 2 and then upwards via a chain.

An observant reader may notice that the chain is driven with the old 14t bevel gears. It's not an official building technique and those gears are very old, but I still sometimes use it. in thise case, when I used 16t gears the chain was either just too tight or way too loose. That's the reason for the 14t gears.

Another important addition are the outriggers.

Thanks to the new sliding elements I could make them two-stage in a reasonable size. The second stage will not be driven though (I don't see room for any drive system, not even a 1x11 pneumatic cylinder), and I have no idea yet how the feet will work, but most likely, sadly, is like in set 8053: manual and not linked. I might try pneumatic here too, but that will be hard with all the wires needing to be tucked away when retracting. Also I'd need to buy new parts for that.

The other update is that I started with the part that @grego18f also showed: the function switcher in the superstructure. Mostly for getting an idea about the size and space needed to operate the functions. It's huge...

A normal batterybox can be stuck at the back and then the length of the entire thing is about right, but the space on the original Liebherr where the counterweight is placed during crane operation, is entirely filled with gearbox (and batterybox)...

The thing is that I found out that ideally, I would need 5 functions...

• slewing
• one axle through the turntable for the outriggers
• boom extension
• winch
• pneumatic compressor

There's a normal 4-way switcher inside, and an extra driving ring with only one clutch gear to engage/disgage the compressor. The drive axle to the comprssor takes a lot of space and is not reinforced, so this needs a revision.

The underside shows the long drivetrain through the turntable (over the other side than where the L motor is. The 20t gear will be linked to one of the clutch gears of the switcher), and the long drivetrain for the slewing (in the center, with the worm). So this takes a lot of space and I hope I can find better ways for this. The 4-way switcher is a separate module (currently - it is not locked in place right now)). The 20t on the axle of the L motor that sits between the 5x7 frames, drives the 12t on the side of the switcher module.

After this first version I will see if I can find a cleaner way of doing everything, and I might try a variation of Grego's version with the driving rings placed above each other on the side instead of horizontally at the bottom.

 

So yeah, in total, it's quite an update, but poses quite some challenges as well. Which is good - it wouldn't be fun if it was all easy 

[1gor]

Eric,

did you consider a possibility to make all wheel drive crane model?

[Wolf_Zipp]

Erik,

your crane looks very nice!

I think the connection of the 2 cylinder for the boom is not strong enough, there will be much force to lift the boom, and it fold away.

Do I see it right? The turnpoint of the wheels is inside the rim ?? Great !

I would take a separate motor for the pneumatic, it needs power and long runtime.

@I_Igor  it will be only 3 axles possible for drive, look at the angles.

[Erik Leppen]

11 hours ago, I_Igor said:

Eric,

did you consider a possibility to make all wheel drive crane model?

Yes, I did, but I quickly dismissed that idea because I didn't see a driven steered suspended axle doable within the desired width. Maybe it's possible with a driven live axle, but I haven't thought of that option before. I do expect it to be quite a challenge - doing all the drivetrains for 4 steered axles and 1 driven axle was already a challenge, so I don't expect 5 steered and 5 driven axles feasible. If you drop the suspension, things get a lot easier. But it's certainly an option for a future model :) (Maybe I should try that for a 2-axle crane one day, instead of going for 5 axles).

22 minutes ago, Wolf_Zipp said:

I think the connection of the 2 cylinder for the boom is not strong enough, there will be much force to lift the boom, and it fold away.

You're right, this is a temporary solution. I might go 8460-style, with an extra linkage connected to the boom. And I will experiment with placing the cylinders sideways.

23 minutes ago, Wolf_Zipp said:

Do I see it right? The turnpoint of the wheels is inside the rim ?? Great !

I would take a separate motor for the pneumatic, it needs power and long runtime.

@I_Igor  it will be only 3 axles possible for drive, look at the angles.

You're right about the steering pivot point of the wheels. I wanted specifically to have the steering joint as close to the wheel as possible. Although the current solution uses the axle for the wheel also as a linkage for the steering arm, so it's not optimal, friction-wise. The added benefit though is that it has Ackermann steering :D

I won't add another motor just for the cmpressor, but what I might do is add a switchbox before the main gearbox with two options: compressor, or all the rest. So that when the compressor is used, all the rest is not engaged so won't eat up motor power.

In the meantime, I experimented some more with the superstructure gearing, and for the second and third version I first checked out the dimensions of the actual superstrrcture on the real crane and laid that out digitally first. But I keep running into problems so I am looking for suggestions here. I'll show 2 attempts:

In this version, the motor operates 4 functions, the compressor is not placed yet. It has fewer gears than the first version, but there are several problems. The 5x7 frames (drawn transparent) I think are needed for strength, but they intersect with the gearing for the slewing. The gearing for the slewing has the problem that the 8t gear that mates with the turntable ring is "hanging" from below without reinforcement, so it might slide off during play. (See the red vertical 6L axle that intersects the frame). The third problem is that I think the motor wire will not be long enough to reach the batterybox which will come under the yellow 3x11 panels. The fourth problem is that the batterybox doesn't fit there beacuse the dogbones (drawn in red) are in the way.

So, lots of problems, time for another attempt:

(I use a lot of color coding for beam lengths for easier distinction.) Geartrain for slewing is moved to the side (color-coded light-lavender), using the new worm on a 20t gear. The function through the turntable (color-coded medium-lavender) needs to "climb over" the gearing for the gearbox (color-coded bright-light-yellow) which is unwieldy and hard to reinforce. Also, the 16t gear on the red 6L axle intersects with the boom (which is not drawn)  I want to try this version with real bricks, to see if I can make improvements. I needed to dismsis some of the panels/shaping to make the functions fit. Also, I foresee a structural/rigidity problem around the transverse medium-azure 13L beam.

Also, still, no sign of a  compressor... There is room though, for a pneumatic cylinder that I want to add for tilting the cabin (drawn at the bottom of the image using normal parts, as I don't have that part digitally yet)

So yeah, this is a hard part of the build/design :) (This does give you a sense of how I use digital means when designing. I use digital methods to set out measurements in 3D, route geartrains and place the main structural elements, and then try building it in real to refine/finalize it and connect everything.

[lcvisser]

Wow, that's a lot of update!

I really like the 2-stage outriggers, I don't recall seeing that before. I assume that the lowering will also be manual?

The drive axle under the axles seems very fragile, are you sure you want to go that way? I think you can do better 

As for the superstructure: How about putting the gearbox like in 42009? It seems it can fit where in the second version is now a rather long light-grey 7L(?) axle running form the motor. You can distribute the slew function and the function going through the turn table (outriggers?) from the gears on the motor side, and the others from the "far" side. There might still be a problem with the length of the cable though...

(I need to get back to my outriggers... )

[1gor]

16 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

Yes, I did, but I quickly dismissed that idea because I didn't see a driven steered suspended axle doable within the desired width. Maybe it's possible with a driven live axle, but I haven't thought of that option before. I do expect it to be quite a challenge - doing all the drivetrains for 4 steered axles and 1 driven axle was already a challenge, so I don't expect 5 steered and 5 driven axles feasible. If you drop the suspension, things get a lot easier. But it's certainly an option for a future model :) (Maybe I should try that for a 2-axle crane one day, instead of going for 5 axles).

I understand. I would probably try also first with 4 x 4 crane; something like upcoming 42082 set

[grego18f]

Regarding the two versions, I think it could be simplier to leave the slewing. Actually, your crane will be manual and, in my opinion, it gives more playability when slewing by hand (see the 42009...). You could then have another motorized function.

Have you ever considered using a cable actuator instead of pneumatics?? From my experience, they teend to be very powerful.

Here is an example from Pipasseyoyo

Great progress anyway, following this closely!

[Erik Leppen]

On ‎26‎-‎3‎-‎2018 at 9:20 PM, Ludo Visser said:

Wow, that's a lot of update!

I really like the 2-stage outriggers, I don't recall seeing that before. I assume that the lowering will also be manual?

The drive axle under the axles seems very fragile, are you sure you want to go that way? I think you can do better 

As for the superstructure: How about putting the gearbox like in 42009? It seems it can fit where in the second version is now a rather long light-grey 7L(?) axle running form the motor. You can distribute the slew function and the function going through the turn table (outriggers?) from the gears on the motor side, and the others from the "far" side. There might still be a problem with the length of the cable though...

(I need to get back to my outriggers... )

I also think manual lowering will be the only option. About the drive axle: I will reinforce it at the front end, but I won't move it somewhere else; I see no options to route it differently.

Regarding the superstructure: I think I'm on to something.

I added a third driving ring right from the motor, with 1 gear going to the compressor, and the other going to the existing 4-way function switcher. Then, I swapped the motor and the compressor, so the compressor is in the front, and the motor in the back (hard to see in this photo), which solves the cable problem. The main gaerbox is still in the center, because most functions have to "go" there. But I think I have nice short geartrains to all functions.

Here's the bottom view:

Becaues the motor axle goes right to a driving ring, this means that if the compressor is engaged, the whole 4-way gearbox is disengaged, so it doesn't eat up motor power by friction. And all the functions have a wormgear anyway. Thanks to the idea by @Wolf_Zipp.

The second update I have today is that I started experimenting with colors.

Testing a green-white combo right now. Thinking of adding dark-gray as an extra color (see front wheel-arch), and some black for the cabin. I do notice I'm a bit limited on green parts though, so I might switch to something different entirely. I personally do think the yellow cylinders match nicely (and these can't be recolored).

I do hope I have enough room to route all the wires for the pneumatic functions though. I think a tilting cabin would be a nice touch...

[offroadcreations]

This is coming along nicely, I look forward to the finished model. I like the chassis with the combination Technic and studded Technic, must be very sturdy.  

Also that pneumatic cabin is a cool feature, I hope it becomes final. 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Offroadcreat1ons

[Erik Leppen]

I've made some good progress over the weekend, so I have another update! Much of the progress is cosmetic, however I have a small functional update as well.

I added more body to the carrier, mostly wheel arches and the cabin (there's not much else).

I went for dark-gray for the wheel arches, which I find a good contrast with green and white.

Here's a better look on the cabin and engine bay.

On the original engine bay I used 3x11 white panels, but these had two problems: I needed them for the boom, and the mechanism for the outriggers didn't fit underneath them. So I used system parts. I think it works well. I also managed to lead the gearing for the steering to the roof, although the geartrain isn't really nice here (another U-joint had to be added). But it seems to work, and it has a 1:3 reduction so not too much force is needed to steer.

There's no seats yet. I decided the seats will be yellow, because then the color usedin the pneumatics comes back in other places, which is more coherent than adding another color. And I think gray seats are a bit boring :)

Also, and this is the functional update, I came up with a mechanism for the outrigger feet.

It has only 2 studs of vertical travel, so they won't touch the ground even when extended, so support plates are needed. But I think this is nicely compact. The picture is a bit dark, but I used the new dark-gray worm gear on a 7L gear rack.

I also made quite some cosmetic progress on the superstructure, and I added the counterweight which is the battery box with some white boxes at the sides. I again used system parts for this.

The biggest challenge in the supestructure will be to find room for 2 pneumatic switches + tubing. Especially for the main boom. Speaking of which...

I finished (hopefully) the first boom section, and covered it with panels and tiles. I also started on the superstructure cabin. 

Here's a final photo of the entire thing so far (without wheels). What I personally like here is how the entire superstructure stays nicely within 9 studs height, including boom and cabin when lowered. The two parts aren't connected yet, they lie loose together in this picture. The boom looks too short, but that's the projection in the photo. It will overhang the roof of the cabin by one or two studs, which is slightly less than the real version but much better than 42009. Now the hope is that the pneumatics are strong enough to lift it (when filled with another two sections), but with 4 large cylinders I expect this to work fine.

I really hope I can get a third boom segment in. Two is a bit simple, but these double-extension mechanism are things I find really difficult, with all the ropes and stuff.

So, plenty of stuff still to do. The pneumatic tubing, boom segments, and the extension mechanism are the most important.

[Thirdwigg]

Good choice on the DBG. It looks good with the white and green.

Those outrigger feet are great. 

[lcvisser]

Nice progress!

I like the compactness of the outrigger feet, but am I seeing correctly that the 7M gear rack has no support? Does it skip?

What is the tan gear for on the superstructure? I don't recall it's function...

I'm looking forward to see your progress. Especially when you start putting things together. I hope the suspension holds up; have you tested it yet?

[Erik Leppen]

54 minutes ago, Ludo Visser said:

What is the tan gear for on the superstructure? I don't recall it's function...

It's connected to the changeover catch that toggles one of the two driving rings inside the superstructure. There's another gear on the opposite side. I may replace it by some kind of handle later, to indicate it's a switch, not a pulley.

54 minutes ago, Ludo Visser said:

am I seeing correctly that the 7M gear rack has no support? Does it skip?

It doesn't skip. It is "friction locked" (so not form-locked, so don't tell @Didumos69): in the two vertical round holes of the gear rack I put black pins with pinhole, the vertical 10L axle through these holes holds the worm. The worm is "locked in" by two cross blocks connected to the dark-gray horizontal 14L gear rack. The 10L axle stays in place becuase the worm holds onto the axle with friction.

Or, as a picture says more than a thousand words...

If you have the new worm gear, you should try it out :)

[lcvisser]

Ah, I missed the pin with pinhole, this render is easier to see how it fits together. I just order some of the new worm gears, so I’ll give it a try!

[Jeroen Ottens]

I am abit late to the party, but I have been following this with interest. I was wondering (too late I guess) whether vertically positioned 3x11 panels would be useful for the chassis instead of studded beams. They add also an incredible stiffness when used like that (and when properly braced). Of course you do block a lot of sideway holes and you are quite limited in terms of lengths, since you can only do multiples of 11 studs.

Anyway, the build looks great. I like the colourscheme a lot and the combination of pneumatics and electric drive are used in a good way here.

[Wolf_Zipp]

On ‎23‎.‎03‎.‎2018 at 3:25 AM, jwarner said:

Looking good so far, I personally like that you're using a studded frame. It really makes your model (or what you have so far) unique. Can't wait to see five-axle suspension! Are you using live axles? I'm still learning the technical jargon.

On ‎24‎.‎03‎.‎2018 at 5:53 PM, Erik Leppen said:

I believe that's what it is called, but I'm actually not sure myself. I can put up a render when I have more time.

 

Sorry Erik,

I could not wait .... and build the axle in other colour to see the pivot point in the rim . It´s only symbolic to see the system, with a different stearing method

(Your Pictures are to dark with all the black parts)

IMG_20180408_101938 by Wolf Zipp, auf Flickr

IMG_20180408_101914 by Wolf Zipp, auf Flickr

[AFOLegofan66]

fantastic build Eric...this is going to be a really awesome crane when done!!

[Erik Leppen]

Sorry, @Wolf_Zipp, I forgot about the renders But your rebuild of the axle seems correct :) I see you used linkage-based steering, which is an interesting idea. I don't think I replace the steering I already have, what I have seems to work fine right now.

On ‎8‎-‎4‎-‎2018 at 4:09 PM, AFOLegofan66 said:

fantastic build Eric...this is going to be a really awesome crane when done!!

Thank you! I hope you are right, because I'm really struggling with the pneumatic tubing. There need to be tubes rom the compressor (right side) to the switches (left side) and from the main boom switch to the 4 boom cylinders. And theres almost no room underneath the boom, and I don't want to raise it because the top is nicely flat like the real crane.

What doesn't help is that the V2 tubing is stiffer and I have most of the correct lenghts only in blue, and I'd rather not have blue tubes everywhere.

I'll show what I have in a minute.

Edit: here comes!

This is the clearest picture of the tubing right now. As you can see, it's not very tidy yet, and of coures the tube running over the boom needs to find a place somwehere. Maybe I have to lead it all the way behind the main structure, and move the battery box a half-stud to the rear (the batterybox has to be connected to the vertical brown 5L axles are on the right of the photo. Unfortunately, The structural ridigity of the cabin joint is lost to make room for the tubings, so this has to be redesigned in a way. Which is hard with a limited choice for beams in green. Anyhow, the main problem with this version is that the main boom sits one stud too high - it is not connected to anything right now and you see the gears for the extension mechanism don't mesh.

Here it is without the boom and the undercarriage. I really want to connect both ends of the cylinders, but this means I need 8 tubes, so it's necessarily messy. The main issue is there's no room for the 3 tubes running underneath the main boom. The one to the compressor might be rerouted as I described above, but the two that go to the main cylinder has to be approximately where it is now.

Ok, the following is unrelated to the whole pneumatic problem, but I do have a little update. I changed the geartrain for the outriggers to a worm-based version. Unfortunately, this is 1/2 stud higher than the old version, so the fake engine had to be either shortened or raised. I went for the former, also to give more room to the main boom cylinder (the white 13L beam was slightly in the way for that, so I was glad I could move that 2 studs forward too). So the outrigger drive from the superstructure works! I also made a nice easy-to-control "hitch" for the turntable. The left and right slider in the 5x11 frame are connected via a linkage. Unfortunately the turntable is held with axles, not pins, so it has a slight bit of play, but was the best way to achieve a modular build and be able to connect and disconnect the superstructure without having to take the whole undercarriage apart every time. With a stretch of the imagination, you could view this as an extra "function" :D

Edited April 9, 2018 by Erik Leppen
Update

[Appie]

Perhaps you have already considered it, but how about running the tubes under the floor of the crane? Perhaps even on the level of the turntable? I wouldn't recommend turntable level, but it is possible.

 

But for just routing them through the floor of the crane: looking at these pictures 1 and 2 you might have space for it? Assuming this space hasn't been eaten by structural reinforcements, hard to tell on your last picture for me.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Appie
typo