Hey folks, hoping to solicit some advice. My local FD is in the market for a new water tender and a debate is going on about whether a three axle is too big. We currently are running a couple two axle trucks. One 2500 gallons, the other 2000. My first inclination is bigger would be better so we were looking at picking up a 3 axle AWD truck and putting a 4000ish gallon SS tank on it. A few of local water haulers running similar trucks think it's a terrible idea, too big. We are rural, and the closest we have to a hydrant are 2.5" standpipes in a few places, charged with low pressure. It's a real challenge to get adequate water to a heavily involved structure, even with mutual aid resources. We are mostly on marginally maintained twisty mountain roads. Thoughts?
We had the same issue as you guys …. there is no such thing as too much or too big when fighting fire, especially when there is no luxury of having endless water thru a hydrant or from a Lake source …..We were very seriously looking at a tandem (or as you call a three axle) tender with the same 4000 gal sized tank ….. BUT ! ….. we wound up with an '05 Pete single axle air brakes, with 21,000 miles and a 2200 gal tank it had a 750gpm Berkley with an air shift live pto ….. Not a bad little rig ! ….. Our reason for going with it was ONLY because any member that was/does drive it had to have a CDL ….. out of our 25 member hall I was the only one with that, and to put others thru the training to get them the CDL was too costly, very unfortunate ….. I found that when shopping for a rig that the tandems were almost cheaper to buy only because the singles were more in demand, nation wide the dealers could ask more for the singles because they are easier to sell (law of supply and demand) …. at a larger hall 10 miles from ours, which we do mutual aid to and visa-versa, has such a tender (tandem w/4000gal), last year they had that problem where alot of the older members retired and the newer/younger members did not have a CDL …. they were forced to park that tender for about a year until they had some trained. At that time I volunteered to assist them to drive it in case of a major incident, which luckily never came about. As in your case, if you guys don't have those type of problems, I would ONLY go with that type of three axle AWD truck you speak of …. the wheel base and turning radius of the 2 rigs are not that much apart (maybe 2' OAL) and being that I was a log hauler (6&7 axle rigs,usually 2 trailers that decked on the back of the truck when empty) we found that the tandems with dual axle lockers will go more places in mud and snow than the single axle loaded up shop trucks would/could go. I am really curious where this is going to go for you, and what your hall will wind up with …… Good-luck with coming up with the right solution ! ….cheers
CA recently changed from the "firefighter class B" which is the same test as commercial, but restricted. Now we have a new system where firefighter endorsement is on the class C. I converted to commercial so I could be an instructor, but everyone eventually licensed under this new plan will be able to drive class A equipment. Our dept is Albion-Little River actually, Fort Bragg is just the closest city. Currently we require a chief sign-off to roll any equipment. Starting with rescues, then licensing and approval for rolling heavy apparatus, and then again to be cleared to roll tenders. I think if we have a 3 axle water truck, it will be another special sign off by the chief. But technically any FF with class C with FF endorsement can drive classA. I personally think that due to load spread and rubber on the ground is a safer and more effective way to go if proper caution is exercised. But we have received dire warning from a handful of firefighters and a few private water truck operators. What we really need IMO is a custom build. We won't be able to buy another truck for a long time, so SS tank on a heavy (not deuce) military surplus chassis. http://memphisequipment.com/files/trucks/M920_8X6_TRUCK_FLYER.pdf These things are pretty cheap with low miles-$20k range. Dual 58k drivers with air lockers in the rears, with a 20k drop axle and a 20k driven steer axle. 16 speed ratchet shift auto, internal (not exhaust) engine brake, s-cam brakes.
Just out of curiosity, what is the issues the nay sayers have with three axle tankers? I'm wondering what there reason is for not wanting the extra capacity available.
Having been in 2 shipboard fires all I can say is there never enough water. We had a whole ocean of water but no power so we had to use emergency "P250" gas fire pumps but you never have enough water. The city of Tijuana Mexico has no fire mains only 2 axle water trucks I would sure hate to be there in a big fire
All the wind farms I have worked on use their 3000 gallon trucks to fight fires and/or support local fire departments. Almost a weekly deal when we were in Oklahoma, the trucks were kept full at all times. About half of them had remote water cannons on the top of the tank. They did require a class A, plus tanker endorsement.
All wheel drive makes for an expensive, custom, high sitting, bad steering, rough riding truck. I would not get it. Tandem rears with full lockers will go some amazing places even with a dead front axle. You don't need to be off road with a truck this big anyway, though, that is what fire hose is for. Some fire departments around here have been known to scour the truck papers for a used chassis that fits their needs, then building the water tender buildup on that. You can get a big motor, good transmission, (they still use Roadrangers here, the thinking is if you can't drive a stick you don't need to be operating such a big truck at all), and generally bigger, heavier stuff than you could afford if buying all new. Remember most FD water tenders will hardly run a thousand miles a year, so that new truck will be a new antique someday. In most cases a water truck builder would make one that works just as well and cheaper as one that has that "fire" cost doubler in the description. Anyway, back to the original question, what are the water truck guys saying is wrong with big? They ought to know something. But just the same, I think big is the way to go, so long as it will fit down most roads. Reverse is a perfectly good gear to drive in if you need to. Driver training is essential.
Thank you all for the insight and replies. To answer follow up questions regarding why to go smaller, the issue is driver safety. Those against getting something bigger think either more axles or more weight is just too much of a risk. I disagree with the more axles reasoning- not even sure I understand the reasoning, but the more weight, water slosh, surge and slant gives me pause. As to all wheel drive, the idea is not to go off-roading. Too many times we have had a truck get stuck turning around, which takes a piece of equipment out of service at a critical time, and potentially closes an escape route. The times we get stuck historically have been almost all on structure fires, and mostly trying to get equipment turned around. I agree that a custom build high sitting modified to front drive, is not a good idea. Rough riding is fine with me, high sitting is not. The concept of a 3000 gallon tank on a class A chassis has been floated. I am not personally a big fan, I'd like to bring more water. But 3000 would be a better size for out of unit (strike team) deployment. (On a 3+ axle truck) Seems like most folks are thinking for the most part similarly to I am, anyone feel like playing devil's advocate?
If your going 3000 or more tandem is the only way to go. I agree dual lockers are outstanding in less than desirable conditions.
Also when you are looking at tanks make sure you get one fully baffled. There is a Usfs and an napa standard on the baffles. Also look into quick dump valves. There are different trains of thought regarding tank size and the speed of reloading at a fill point. Some say smaller is better for shuttle operations due to the fact that they reload faster. Personally the smallest tender I have worked with has been 2500 gallons. With tenders that size I wouldn't recommend sirens on a tender some departments won't allow anything but amber warning lights on their tenders.
Dang auto correct nfpa
over here we call for bulk water which comes in a semi tanker with 45,000lt. Then just use a pumper to get it out.
I think a three axle or maybe even one with a lift axle giving you 4 axles would be the way to go. I think a bigger truck will be safer as my tri axle handles way better with a load than my single axle stopping power and sway. I would stay away from awd for turning radus full locking rears will get you there if you should be there. I would love to be in a position to build a truck like that personaly I would find a older cabover without a sleeper with a big engine and install locking rears and a 8LL trans and about a 4500+ gal. stainless tank. That would keep the truck as short as possable and give a good turning radis. My dept uses custom built pumper tankers that are a mile long and loaded down with so much crap the three axle only holds 2250 gal. but we have a good mutual aid system and always get enough water. Good luck with your build.
Also, I forgot to mention that I have seen many fire departments go to extreme lengths to avoid a third axle. This is foolish, in my opinion. Especially with the outrageous axle loadings that are now allowed on fire trucks in California. The best thing you gain with a third axle is another set of brakes, which is the most abused part of a fire truck. I think that generally speaking, axle loads for fire trucks should be lower than commercial vehicles, since they have to perform to a higher standard. To quote a wise fire mechanic, the apparatus has 2 pedals (in an automatic) one of which must be on the floor at all times.
The Fire Department I belong to has a used milk truck which I don't recommend getting, however it is a tandem axle truck and holds a lot of water I think around 4,000 gallons. Our municipality here kinda thumbs their nose at Fire Department spending so they buy what's cheap. Ours has no pump on it which kinda sucks, however it has a 4" storz coupling and a 2 1/2" coupling on the back for loading it and a big dump gate. I've been to several significant structural fires with it and it can fill our portable drafting pool which is 3500 gallons and still have a little leftover. We also have a flexible 2 1/2" suction hose that can hook up to the pumper or our brush/rescue unit since it can't pump to any vehicles on it's own. We do however have a large portable 20 h.p. gas powered pump that uses the 4" suction lines from the pumper that can be set up at an open water source and manned by one person for the sole purpose of loading tanker trucks. Normally our tanker takes 23-25 minutes to load from a 2 1/2" line in our fire hall (suppose to be upgraded to 4" storz) but with the portable pump it takes about ten to fifteen minutes through a 2 1/2" hose. My best suggestion is go with the tandem axle but get it with a pump whether it's pto powered or powered independently as several of our neighbouring Fire Departments have large tankers that can double as a pumper and it's much more versatile and easier to hook up to a pumper or brush unit without having to continually line up a suction line. And if your Department has one get a portable pool or dump tank that can be stored on the tanker and deployed by one or two people.
All good advice, and to kind of tack on to that, being in California, you might want to consider the minimum state equipment/pump complement for whatever size of tender you decide upon. Unless something has changed in recent years, whenever you roll a water tender on a State (brush) fire or maybe even a Fed fire for that matter, you are not providing mutual aid so the 12 hour free mutual aid thing does not apply, and your equipment and man hours are billable, to provide some extra income (reimbursement) for the District for their time and trouble, and the operator too.
I think this is the pump we have as a mobile tanker filling setup. One of our neighbouring Fire Departments fitted theirs so as to make it removable and to provide a pump and roll capability for their tanker. http://www.fire-pump.com/pfp-20hpHND-2D.html
At this point I am convinced (again) that we want bigger. The Chief is not convinced, but is open to the possibility. What I am looking at is this truck: http://memphisequipment.com/files/trucks/M920_8X6_TRUCK_FLYER.pdf available surplus for appx. $20,000, paint it white or red. A 3800 gallon stainless steel tank with a 750 gpm Berkley pump hydraulic drive from the pto driven winch hydraulics (pull kingpin and winch off) I'm hoping to spec the tank to have an internal vertical cylinder 100 gallon foam tank for refilling apparatus on scene with a hose, and running an around the pump foam system to have the tender feed premixed foam right to the engines. I have heard these folks http://www.randcotanks.net/tankkits.htm are competitive in pricing. A local operator got one- not show finish- probably paint the tank. We already have a turret from a decommissioned type 1 which I intend to mount with a SS 3" pipe passing through the tank. As to milk trucks, I would love to have one- they have SS tanks, and I can baffle in house- without baffles they, I am sure, are SCARY when half full. These might help a LOT with that btw: http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/00511302/00511302.html you can make your own with a table saw, rivet gun and here's a supplier http://www.interstateplastics.com/N...1131-7p&dim2=48&dim3=96&thickness=0.125&qty=1 I think the portable pump is too rich for our blood We use commercial off the shelf pumps. They don't make the pressure, but they SELF PRIME which is very nice. Our latest addition has been two 3" diesel portables. We paid $700 apiece (needing minor work) off E-bay and I butchered a couple old structure hoses to tig weld the 2.5" nst couplers right onto the pump housings. Reduced to 2.5" I figure they flow about 200ish gpm. Similar to this http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-3-Indus...ater-Pump-Electric-Recoil-Start-/180861137276 Might be a cheap and effective solution for the milk truck... At this point, I am thinking the final cost would be in the range of $40-50k I really appreciate the various insight. It has sent me looking in different directions and considering other options. I should have put up a thread a year ago. That is about how long this 2vs3 axle discussion has been going on.
Yeah there's no doubt any kind of portable fire pump will be quite expensive. Some of our members were expressing a need for a portable that they could mount on our pumper and use it in a way where somebody could sit on the hose bed and do a pump and roll kind of thing and use it to pump from streams, ditches, ponds etc. But the Wildfire (formerly Wajax) MK3 pumps that are used by both the Province and some of our neighbouring municipalities cost $5,000 each. http://www.wildfire-env.com/eng/products/waterax/portablepumps.php?p=1 However recently a local tool and farm supply type store here similar to Northern Tool has been selling some Chinese knockoff pumps that use knock off Honda engines for only a few hundred bucks and some come as a kit with a suction hose and strainer and a length of forestry hose sufficient for most of the grass and brush fires that occur here. http://www.princessauto.com/pal/product/8224040/Regular/Emergency-Fire-Water-Pump-System Funny thing is many people I've talked to said that these Chinese knock offs often run better than the new Honda's coming out. lol
Add the name "fire" to anything and the cost goes up 5-10x I would thoroughly "burn in" any Chinese pumps from the farm store before taking any out into the field on a real incident. I wonder how parts would be on that military truck. Read here before buying to get an idea of what they might be like http://www.vannattabros.com/truck6.html http://www.vannattabros.com/truck39.html
I always thought more was better for getting water to the fire also, hence, once upon a time we had a 5000 gallon RS9 REFUELER that we repurposed into a tender and it worked very well as a nurse tender and you didn't expect it to get there quickly. 50 mph was MAX speed. Then DOT tore into us for overloading, 66,000 pounds on 3 axles. 260 inch wheelbase. We eventually retired it and downsized to a 3000 gallon tender on a 6x6 chassis. still slow at least it will do 60 downhill. We did not have the tank built by a "fire" builder per say, but they have built numerous fire tenders for area Fire departments. You should also take into account the fact that fire tenders are always loaded, so springs and brakes tend to not last as long as civilian counterparts. fire tanks have cross baffles as well as longitudinal baffles for countering the effects turns at speed, and less than full loads. If you are looking into any kind of NFPA compliance, remember that they only count 90% of the tank water you have on board, 10% is discounted as waste, spillage and carried back. They also have started to reduce the tender size to 2000 gallons, the theory being that smaller tenders have a reduced learning curve for bringing new drivers into your ranks, smaller seems to be safer. Finally, NFPA limits tender speed to 35 mph when performing tender shuttles to contribute to driver safety! I hate sounding like a naysayer, but having been a Volunteer firefighter for 23 years and having built several trucks, I would back off the water max and consult a chassis builder about loading. I have read far too many NIOSH Reports dealing with firefighter fatalities and the some of the contributing factors being; overloaded chassis, unsafe speeds, unsafe designs, and inexperienced drivers. I will take whatever FLAK anyone wishes to send me! STAY SAFE!
just wondering is that A.M's frame long enuff to put a 3800 gallon water tank on
BVFDfire- Those are the same concerns we have with a big truck. We can address the learning curve to some extent by teaching on engines, and then two axle tenders (we have two) before clearing to roll something bigger. I hope not to adorn the NIOSH books. As to naysaying, I think most saying "nay" are doing so in the interest of safety. The chassis I am eyeballing is rated by axle loading to 156,000 pounds. Tire ratings (11r24.5's) limit ACTUAL load to 84,000 pounds based on 11r24.5's being in the range of 6000 per tire. The truck itself weighs 30,000 empty and with the proposed 3800 gallon tank/pump etc. I figure to add about 38,000 pounds for a total of 68,000 pounds laden. Tires underloaded by 16,000 pounds if you count the drop axle with the limit being the tires, not the chassis and axles. Would you consider this to be heavy towards "water max"? Or were you referring to getting a smaller truck in general? PS Cab rear to frame end is about 16 feet. I feel a little foolish, I don't know how long the average 4000ish tank is! I'll have to look into that little detail!
'Totalloser' I wouldn't really take the naysayers seriously whether or not somebody has 23 years of experience or not you make do with what you've got and that's all there is too it. Our Fire Department here covers a large area and some of it is pretty remote and our budget is absolutely pathetic so we've had to make do with what we can afford. Last year we had a large bush fire that was threatening a town and we couldn't get any air support from the Provincial government. Every department in our mutual aid district and a few department from outside were either at our fire or another fire southeast of us or another fire to the north of us. We had farmers and municipal equipment trying to cut fire breaks and using their own resources to help us out. And because of our ingenuity and a change in weather we barely managed to contain the fire and only suffered two structure losses, maybe if the Provincial government wasn't so stupid here we could of gotten the fire under control sooner with no structures lost.
I just looked up the used Army truck that you posted and it's design is based on a commercial truck design by the Crane Carrier Corporation so things like chassis and engine components should be pretty easy to get a hold of. However the Cat transmission I'm not familiar with, but considering that this truck series was suppose to be commercial off the shelf those parts should be readily available. However the length of the frame will be a governing factor towards the maximum capacity of the tank I don't think a milk tanker makes a very good tanker as the chassis we have is a lighter design and I don't think it can really handle the rigors of a busy fire department and having internal baffles adds a lot to the strength of the tank of which ours I noticed is going to need some work soon.
That 23 years that I mentioned before has all been volunteer and nearly all of those years having to make do with what we got, we have used a converted milk tanker, retired because of wreck. we have even had 2 tenders that were Propane delivery trucks that we merely stripped the propane pump and added a repurposed used water pump off of a farm. The point is; we built them in house and as cheaply as possible, the end result, two of them totalled as a result of load shift and overturning, luckily the drivers walked away. The 3rd one, frame finally broke and had to be scrapped. You say you are volunteer, as I still am, keep in mind that the most important asset that you can ever hope to have within your department is your volunteers! Build the SAFEST truck that you can with what you have to build with, and make sure that "everyone goes home". By the way, the tender that I have posted here was built by us in house, from the Refueler that I mentioned before for a total cost of $18,500 including IMRON paint and decals, and we had to beg for every dime of it! yes I do know how to make do with less!
I value all opinions. It's easy to feel strongly about these sorts of things considering the consequences of less, and the consequences of more. Our department is very lucky to have a local parcel tax, in addition to county funding and community support. We can afford to have professional work here and there, and purchase something relatively fancy once in a while. I am unwilling to put anything in service without steel bi-directional baffles, but I can make those myself if need be. I will check back with the Chief and see how likely this is to go forward, and based on that, I'll get with the tank manufacturer and see what they say about tank placement on a chassis this short. Oh and the commercial off the shelf commercial chassis and components is one of the selling points of this truck. It's almost a wish list of components with the possible exception of the drop axle. As to the in-house build, that's impressive. You must have some DEDICATED folks!
Hope it all goes well buddy and if you have the chance post some pictures when you start building it.
that truck may have been unsafe or broke in half but you got to admitt it sure looks good. like the old dodge mediumduty trucks. If you don't mind me asking what powertrain did it have and what size tank :scool
Not knowing your response area or really dealing with water shuttle operations, I gotta give you guys an attaboy! I am in a volunteer department in Long Island ny and we get the cream of the crop. We are spoiled ask any fire apparatus salesmen. There are three types of fire trucks. Municipal trucks, Long Island fire trucks and then the rest of the country. My district covers 7.5 sq miles , and serves 33,000 residents approximately 1700-1900 calls per year split 55/45 rescue calls vs fire. We replace ambulances every 10-12 years engines every 12 years and we get 20 years on a ladder truck 4 firehouses 8 companies 5 engine 2 truck 1 heavy rescue 250 members Every time I am out of Long Island I hit the local Fd to trade patches or t shirts, and also pay it forward and fill the boot or grab some food at a pasta dinner or pancake breakfast. I would recommend the smaller tank but still run it on that military chassis you posted. It would be plenty of axle and braking for the smaller tank..the truck would be faster to fill and unload as well easier and safer to drive. Cycle times would be faster too
Our district covers roughly 40 square miles, is split by two rivers with the three ridges connected along the coastline by Highway one. To get from one ridge to the next you have to drive down to the highway and back up the next ridge. Including all funding, we operate 6 stations (one is unofficial) on maximum of about $200K (including donations paid assignments, donated equipment etc.) Our membership varies, but right now we have dipped to 30 volunteers, and about 20 at any given time will make it to a "big" incident. Our oldest trucks are late 70's, our newest early 2000's. Most trucks in our district will serve for 30+ years and we cannot afford to buy new except perhaps a pickup truck. We currently operate a type 1, a type 2, two type 3's, two tenders, two type 6's (4x4 200 gallon chevies), two rescue/support units and three water vehicles. Due to geography, tenders delivering the first 2000ish gallons may get there in 10 minutes from station, the next tender load will be at least 10 minutes later. After that, the bulk of our water supply will have significant latency primarily due not to onload or offload, but drive time latency. In ideal locations, a full tender cycle will take 30 minutes. Most locations it will be longer. We estimated that non-ideal locations put water delivery average with our two tenders operating in the range of 30 gpm. Again, with almost all of the latency in drive time. This is why the big tender is being considered. Right now if a tender gets stuck in the mud turning around, our water delivery to scene drops to 15gpm. Now in REALITY we have mutual aid resources coming from all of our neighboring districts on a big one, which for the most part are similar in staffing and resources to ours. But water delivery is THE number one challenge for us with big fires. A couple years ago, I pushed very hard to get more portable pumps. Some scoffed at the low output of 50gpm@rated 100gpm flux on the small pumps. Then I drew out the numbers on tender delivery and proved that a SINGLE 1.5" portable delivers more than both tenders running. We now have 5 portables- three 1.5", two 3" and possibly will be getting two more 2" (donated) if I can get them running right. On our last structure fire, we had a pond nearby and were able to deliver 130,000 gallons to the fire and saved the adjacent structure. I don't think the bigger (3800) tank will be that much of a game changer, but it will make a difference. Assuming a single tender is bringing 15gpm to a remote location, the larger truck would be bringing more like 25. And if stuck it can dump it's load and get UNSTUCK turning around, it means the delivery won't drop to 0. This truck I am looking at by math has less axle loading, less brake loading and less tire loading than the two trucks we are currently running, and that's with the 3800 gallon tank. It is also SUBSTANTIALLY less loading compared to a three axle running 4000 gallons- 17% less brake loading (not including engine brake) and 24% less wheel loading. If a tires blows on either of our current tenders OR a commercial 3 axle 4k, the side with the blow becomes overloaded by 2500 to 6000 pounds with the commercial 3 axle being the worst. This truck is the only of the four trucks mentioned that would remain UNDERLOADED on that side- by 2000 pounds. This latter issue resonates particularly with me as last year I had a sidewall blow going to a structure fire with one of our tenders. :O Also, wildland incidents in our area are dominated by privately operated 3 axle trucks with dual rear drivers, and all of the *really* scary situations I have been aware of have been with two axle trucks. Mostly from getting the frontend light and swinging sideways (single open rear diff and light front= bad) In the cases where passengers were baling out of the truck and pasty white, the 3 axle trucks were tooling right up the hill. When the frontend gets light in a tandem truck, tire scrub prevents pivot. You might spin tires, but the truck remains aimed. This is not the case with a two axle truck unless it has a rear locker engaged. The same principle that allows a one wheel peel allows the truck to spin sideways with no resistance if the frontend comes up- even for a moment. Frame length: So the design load center is 132" from the cab but the load center to the tail is only 66". To balance the design load center the load would extend another 66" which would bring the deck length to 264" (22') It looks like the frame would need to be extended.
The weight of the engine and the front diff. should also help keep the nose of that truck securely on the ground. I have driven many of the Freightliner FLD120 trucks and if it's one thing they are quite nose heavy, so the used army truck your looking at is very similar to that series. Plus the extra tires on the back should help keep it steady in case of a blowout unless you get one on the steering axle.
I wanted to add one more thing: if that military truck you posted has the Spicer 16 speed or anything like it, you might have trouble finding anyone to drive it efficiently. AFAIK, nobody liked those things and I think they are all but gone around these parts now. They work totally different than a Roadranger, and confusing.
It had a 504 V-8 Cummins and the "old AT 41" Allison automatic, first thing DOD did when they got them was remove the shift linkage that tied the shift points to the throttle; took awhile and ended up running a piece of rope thru the firewall to figure that one out. We first thought it was a triple nickle, but no such luck! CPL showed 504, all in all it was dependable just slow. All we ever did to driveline was replace injectors and Air compressor. and build the shift linkage. It hauled 5000 gallons and utilized a 600 gpm Waterous midship pump.
id look into using foam such as a CAFS system instead of buying an oversized truck that will be hard to maneuver and dangerous without a competent operator. plus when you get into such a large size you need to consider NFPA standards on how long it takes to unload the water. if you invest into a pumper tanker or an engine with a CAFS system you'll use considerably less water so your gallonage is lower. yes it costs more money to pay for foam than free water but if your in an area with low supplies of water and you can use a CAFS system which uses less water then your ahead. also the knock down time is reduced greatly and the rekindle chances are reduced to basically impossible.
We are doing both actually. Two of our trucks are pending in house retrofit to CAFS. CAFS is iffy for a water curtain though, or hydraulic ventilation. Also useless for advance on venting propane. There are still going to be things that having water will be useful for, but CAFS is an integral component in our overall plan. I'm not concerned so much about NFPA though. We take the good and leave the silly when it comes to NFPA standards. In a perfect world, I'd like a CAFS truck on every ridge. In the next few years that may be the case. The first two units will be in the range of 150-200gpm (20-25cfm) but I'm hoping to eventually have a twin screw compressor tied into a smooth bore turret on one of the trucks. That one's probably five years out though.
It s nice to see such a engaging convo on fire apparatus on HEF. Just wonder why some of you guys push the CAFS systems. I find that a proportioning system with a on board tank of class a foam get the job done. We use FoamPro on all of our engines. We carry 60 gallons of foam in the tank we also have a pickup tube that we use on big foam jobs. Our hazmat support truck had 1100 gallons of assorted foam plus all the major oil terminals have bulk foam in IBC totes. A CAFS system can't be used to supply a tower ladder. You can't pump the finished foam thru another pump on a ladder truck. The foam pro system can make 1000 GPM of foam. Basically as fast as you can supply the foam system with concentrate it will make the foam. Three years ago we had an over turn gasoline tanker with fire. It was on the border of two adjoining counties before we got there the other chief decided to call for a airport crash truck to try there luck with foam. All the did was spread the fire. Because they didn't know it was gasoline and not diesel that was burning and they also forgot that with the ethanol blended fuels you need ARAFFF alcohol resistant foam.
Personally an Allison auto or a good 8ll might be the best for a tender and at least 400 hp. Cafs has its place in the fire service but I think I would take a good tender over a cafs truck. There is a lot of good ideas here and the biggest question you have is how to use some of them and wether you wanted a pumper tender or a tender.
CAFS systems arent meant for defensive attacks where youd be using a tower, its more for initial attacks because it makes for 1/3 weight hoses so its easier for low man power crews to handle, also its a 3D foam meaning itll stick to exposure buildings instead of running off like water or traditional type foams. you can look up youtube videos on it and see. it also reduces the amount of water needed to suppress fires, its not meant to replace traditional foams for vapor suppression or flammable liquid fires. if your using a tower to put water on a fire its a lost cause already because more than likely you dont have anyone in the building and you have a good water supply or your water would run out quickly using a tower with a bad water supply.
Our brush/ rescue truck came with an integral foam cell we've got a 1" booster hose reel with 200' feet of hose and a 300 gallon tank and a front bumper mounted remote control monitor. Our Department is a poorly funded department with an operating budget of $10,000 a year.... Unbelievable I know but once in a while we're able to buy something half decent and having that 'built-in' foam cell sure is nice when we get a wind driven grass fire or we don't have any nearby water sources for drafting. I was trying to convince the members to put a pump on our used milk tanker even just a 2" gas powered pump with a booster hose reel so we could use it for some mop up work and putting out roadside grass and brush fires but they shot down my idea. And it doesn't help that our Fire Chief doesn't understand anything mechanical only hockey. Yet at the same time one of the other guys wants to put a small gas powered water pump on our gutless GMC gasoline powered pumper that has a 1000 gallon tank so it can do essentially the same thing as it's not a 'pump and roll type pumper'.
with a properly spec'd tandem axle the weight should be balanced so that AWD will not be needed. Honestly i would look at a good used redi-mix chassis. spec'ed for the DIRT and off road situations not to much power to brake driveline or get drivers in trouble. a good wheel base and frame length for a 4000 gallon tank. personally i think you are wasting your money with a stainless tank. you can buy 2 epoxy coated steel tanks for the price of ONE stainless tank.
One thing I really like about this site is the focus on business, and what money is worth spending and what is just a waste. This is something that the rural fire service can miss because of trying to keep up with the big, rich, city departments and their bells and whistles and NFPA stuff. Also, these city departments are running several fires a day where rural departments might only run a few a month, so the experience the engineers are getting tends to be lower, and confronting them with a panel covered with knobs and buttons can be overly challenging when just trying to get water on the fire. Plus, every knob or button has some system behind it to break and repair and use up limited funds. One gadget I am partial toward, however, is the simple FoamPro injection system.
I agree especially when you consider how sparsely populated some parts of this province are, many people posting on this thread don't realize that when we talk about being remote or sparsely populated that also means a very small tax base to draw funds from, as well properly training the membership. Recently my dad's Fire Department (he's Deputy Fire Chief) responded to a fully involved house fire and since most people on that Fire Department work out of town they had to get four other Fire Departments to show up as they all had a small turnout as well. And the first two guys that showed up to call were complete rookies and didn't know how to operate the pumper, but did manage to get the lone occupant out and hooked up attack lines direct to a fire hydrant and took a defensive position against the house fire and protected exposures. Though sparks and embers started a grass fire down the street (it was windy).
It's not an answer to your question, but if water delivery is the main issue, can your department contract with local water hauling companies to be on call? The first FD that I served at had a pretty good mutual aid program. On the bigger fires outside the hydrant district we'd call in mutual aid and/or hire a local water hauler (swimming pool tanker) to come in. It could be a win-win depending on the condition of your current tanker (can you keep using it) and the availability and willingness of your local water haulers to enter into an "on-call" contract.
I have been trying to put in place the infrastructure to integrate a NIMS system to add private operators. We have a D8 dozer transport and two 4000 gallon tender operators willing to come when needed, but the organizational structure in the FD is not in place to mobilize this equipment. As to the proposal, it's dead. I think it would be a fantastic tool, but those who don't are very loud. The discussion is ending with the claim that a 27' long 8'3" wide 3800 gallon tender needs a pilot vehicle to operate on the highway. I've had enough of it. Thank you all for your thoughts and advice. I truly appreciate the input even though ultimately the project has failed.
That's very good advice. The California rural fire district in which I reside spec'ed and purchased a single rear axle fire engine so over weight that the spring brakes would not hold it on the slightest slope or hill. The remedy was to fit the largest brake pots available to the rear axle, for only a slight improvement. That fire engine is a more dangerous vehicle to drive than any other truck that I have driven. As Birken says, the braking performance of fire vehicles should meet a higher standard; no one else would ever dare to drive an overloaded ten wheel, or six wheel, truck at Code Three (lights and siren) speeds.
Sorry to hear that. That's too bad. You can hope that some contractor where you are has a 3800 gal water truck, and motivates the truck to the fire, when the fire happens. That happened once, where I live, tho' the guy with the water truck never got any credit for his actions...
I completely agree with you.
Yeah I'm sorry to hear that too, I have to deal with the same kind of 'numpty's' as you do I suggested a pump for our tanker to enhance it's capability a little , they shot it down but still raised money to buy a thermal imaging camera we'll hardly ever use.
Good lord, it's small world. I had the same struggle with management years ago. They wanted to buy a thermal imager while half the fleet was suffering from brake, tire or steering failure. I wanted to get approval to replace rusted out wheels that wouldn't hold the bead seal on a tender, and the chief wanted a $3000 doo dad to tote around in his pickup truck. Actually at the time I think it was more like $10,000. He instructed me to just keep the tires filled up, so for months I went to the station twice a week to fill the leaky tires. Surprisingly I won with the thermal imager. But I did not get funding allocated for the wheels. I finally had to use tire slime to get the bead to hold. One of the main detractors from the project has the ear of our board president and it appears it will be handed to him. They are considering spending about twice the money (which we don't have- financing is being considered) to buy a brand new light duty commercial chassis and load it to max GVW with a 2000 gallon tank. Neither one of them knew what a DPF is. I tried. Our chief is stand up, but we have a bunch of new board members and it takes time to get everyone on the same page. This is why they call it herding cats...
Yeah last year on the way to a big grass fire I was driving that heap of a tanker and a gravel truck going the other way threw a big rock and broke the passenger side windshield......This was last September and it still hasn't been repaired. This past winter we had a big structural fire we responded too, and with having our rescue truck being combined with a brush fire truck and not having anything to keep the slip on tank and pump setup warm they managed to damage a valve. Well they still haven't fixed that either. After seeding is done in the next couple days and I'm done hauling fertilizer I'm going to go work in Alberta there is little to no construction work in Manitoba just some in the city.
The M920s would be good candidates. There are also M916s which don't have the tag axles but are 6x6. M915s are the same except no front drive axles. The biggest issues with theses truck is the Cat 16speed auto. They are tough to find parts for. Luckily the newer versions have an Allison 5 speed auto. I own an M123. Maybe 20 years ago it'd be a good truck to use, today it is too difficult to drive, slow, and expensive to maintain. They didn't make very many to begin with and parts are hard to find these days. They have a 5 speed NON synchro and only go 43 TOPS. Plus they are 9.5ft wide which is overwidth. The M911s are what replaced the M123s. They use Detroits and Allison 5 speeds so they are much easier to drive. A town near me has one actually. Again, parts avalability is still not that great. Total production is only 1200. A few were recently surplused. Top speed is about the same as the M123. http://www.massfiretrucks.com/Upton_Tanker_1.jpg The M920s/916/915s don't have the severe speed limitations as the 911/M123 or lack of parts. The fact that they use Cummins 400s makes parts easy to get engine wise. Your FD doesn't get first dibs on surplus military vehicles? You referenced buy an M920 for $20k from a private dealer, probably Oshkosh?
http://bulktransporter.com/news/ [email protected] &YM_MID=1401301&sfvc4enews=42 Just thought i would post this here, NTTC was so concerned that firefighters were dying in tender accidents that they made a safety video.