Small tankers or SUPER tankers???

[Joker]

Small tankers: 1800-2000gal w/ 500gpm pumps on single axle business class chassis, or....
SUPER tankers: 2500-3500+gal w/ BIG pumps on tandem axle heavy chassis, or...
something in between??
Which set up has worked best for you? Give some pros and cons to each.
Thanks.


------------------
A friend once told me to shoot first and ask questions later, I was going to ask him why....but I had to shoot him first.

[e33]

It really depends on alot of factors. First and foremost..how much water do you need to move? What are the capacities of bridges and roads, and the list continues. I cant see why you would want a small tanker personally, why not just get more water on the pumpers? But the chassis is also dependent on load...tandems for more water and such. We are awaiting construction of a 3000 gal tanker on a comercial chassis. This type of chassis is best suited if you plan on only using as a water hauler, if you were planning to carry any crew, step up to smaller custom cabs to keep length down to a resonable size. This is just my general opinion.

[K A]

Unless there is a bridge or weight limit no small tanker will ever touch a well designed big tanker in a shuttle.

ISO at minimum will want to see 500 gpm for housing for full credit. If water is 1 mile away you'll need at least 5500 gallons on wheels. Plus an attack engine. 2 miles 7700, 3 miles 9900, etc. Gonna take a bunch of little tankers.

[Nick]

Take a look at vacuum tankers, for the same size tank they are smaller and faster and can thus increase your "equivelent flow" by a good 25% or more.

[FIREOFFICER725]

I look at it this way, In our area we have a town that has hydrants but also a lot of area with out. We run automatic 3 company responce on any reported structure fire. In our house we have 2 main engines and a big tanker. The first engine is a Pierce Lance modle with 1500 gal of water on it which is our first run on structure fires. The second engine is a Pierce Dash model with 1000 gal of water and rescue tools for a quick cut job if needed. We also have a 3500 gal tanker. We have it this way because lets say we have a fire outside the hydrant zone when that first engine gets there you know you have 1500 gal of water to use befor that tanker gets there with its 3500 gal. so thats 5000 gal of water to use on a house fire directly off the bat and of course if needed the next due stations have the same so with using big tankers and having that same water on the engine as a smaller tanker you decress the number of units on scene with still having the same water and or more.

But thats just how i see it

[npfd801]

Holy thread from the dead batman. Almost ten years old!!!!

[ATFDFF]

I look at it this way, In our area we have a town that has hydrants but also a lot of area with out. We run automatic 3 company responce on any reported structure fire. In our house we have 2 main engines and a big tanker. The first engine is a Pierce Lance modle with 1500 gal of water on it which is our first run on structure fires. The second engine is a Pierce Dash model with 1000 gal of water and rescue tools for a quick cut job if needed. We also have a 3500 gal tanker. We have it this way because lets say we have a fire outside the hydrant zone when that first engine gets there you know you have 1500 gal of water to use befor that tanker gets there with its 3500 gal. so thats 5000 gal of water to use on a house fire directly off the bat and of course if needed the next due stations have the same so with using big tankers and having that same water on the engine as a smaller tanker you decress the number of units on scene with still having the same water and or more.

But thats just how i see it

I think you win the award for biggest Bump of the year....or decade as it may be.

Though, I do hope his department has made up their mind by now.

[westofd1]

bigger is not always better. in large water supply shuttles that we have participated in over the last 10 years some of the smallest tankers ran circles around the big ones. ours is 2000 gal size it works well for us. do an shuttle survey on the tankers. time to fill, time to dump, and road time. its all about what a tankers gpm is in a shuttle. u may have trouble accepting this but check with some of the nations guru's that deal with Big Water shuttles. til later stay safe.

[FIREOFFICER725]

just keeping things alive seeing how things have changed over the years

[allison20]

With the low amount of personnel we have, rather have 2 big tankers than 4 small ones.

[westofd1]

so u would rather have 250 gpm than 500 gpm? on average in a well run shuttle will produce 125 gpm each tanker. some well designed tankers will be a little more. size does not matter. !

[neiowa]

so u would rather have 250 gpm than 500 gpm? on average in a well run shuttle will produce 125 gpm each tanker. some well designed tankers will be a little more. size does not matter. !

Do the math. Travel time for 2000gal same as 3500gal = higher gpm with less manpower.

[westofd1]

wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!! fill and dump times u must have forgotten!!! come to new york or better yet take some supply courses. do the math the way iso wants it done. bigger is NOT always better.

[KB1OEV]

wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!! fill and dump times u must have forgotten!!! come to new york or better yet take some supply courses. do the math the way iso wants it done. bigger is NOT always better.

Right,

If your fill station and/or water source can't fill the big tankers as fast as they are coming in, then you may actually do better with smaller ones.

There has been a rash of apparatus bought in my area that is too big/heavy to travel on some roads due to bridges and low branches and such. Its incredible to see a dept spend $400k on a truck and only realize after they take delivery of it that it won't go under a bridge leading to half of the town. Going around adds 10min extra to response times.

[westofd1]

also what is the gpm your tanker will contribute in a shuttle???? its a 3500 gallon tanker with 1 2 1/2" fill line and a 6" round dump! it takes 10 minutes to fill and another 10 minutes to dump 90 % of its load. travel time is calculated by formula. a 2000 gallon tanker has 2 - 2 1/2" fills on rear and a 10" newton dump. it fills in 1 1/2 minutes and dumps 90 % of the load in 1 1/2 minutes travel time is the same. now for the math follow closely! the 3500 gallon tanker with no drive time. with me yet or should i back up. 10 minute fill plus 10 minute dump = 20 minutes! 2000 gallon tanker with no drive time 1 1/2 + 1 1/2 minutes & no drive time = 3 minutes
3500 gallons divided by 20 minutes = 175 gpm
2000 gallons divided by 3 minutes = 666.66 gpm
get a calculator and check the math. now if u consider drive time in here, the 3500 tanker is a 300hp with a 9 sp.tranny vs the 2000 tanker with 330hp with an automatic. the larger is slower? as soon as u throw some obstacles in such as turning around on a narrow back road or at the dump site or fill site it'll changed the gpm the tanker is capable of. the smaller tanker is more agile all around than a 10 wheeler.
the 3500 gallon tanker used above does exist in our county and i'm sure there are alot more around this country. not all large tankers are the same as we do have have a few that will be close in gpm as the small ones. as for the 2000 gallon tanker there are several within 10 miles of our station.

[mitchkrat]

ISO Credit:

Both tanker have 10" sq dumps and can offload at 1000 gpm, both tankers have ldh tank refills and can fill at 1000 gpm - 5 mile drive

The 2000 gallon tanker gets a credit of 136.9 gpm

The 3500 gallon tanker gets a credit of 195 gpm

ISO makes the tankers back up to the dump tank, whether you have side dumps or not.

I have a 2000 gallon on a single axle - very manuverable but manuverabilty is less important with side dumps.

We also have a 2500 gallon on a twin screw, the neighbors have 3000 gallons on a twin screw. If I had my choice - we would sell the 2000 gallon tanker and buy a 3000 gallon tanker.

[westofd1]

wrong do tests or drills and u could see the results to many no it alls on here as well as morons that think they know bye!

[simpleguy68]

Take a look at vacuum tankers, for the same size tank they are smaller and faster and can thus increase your "equivelent flow" by a good 25% or more.

Ummm.... no. For the same tank size, a vacuum tanker, being round, will be longer than an equivalent oval, T, or square. Nearby department has a 3000 gallon vacuum tanker, we have a 3000 gallon T-tank. The difference in length... over 4 feet.

The speed factor only works if you're drafting from an open source, loading from hydrants is the same. Dumping with a vacuum is slightly faster than with a standard 10" rear dump, but almost too fast.

[simpleguy68]

wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!! fill and dump times u must have forgotten!!! come to new york or better yet take some supply courses. do the math the way iso wants it done. bigger is NOT always better.

Fill and dump times for the same amount of water, no matter if its carried on two smaller tankers or one larger tanker is the same. With two smaller tankers, you now have to have to operators and you have an additional truck clogging up the fill and dump sites.

The biggest argument against large tankers is that added length contributes to decreased manuevaribility, which can increase shuttle times. A properly designed large tanker can overcome this limitation. Our 3000 gallon tanker is shorter than a neighboring departments 1800 gallon. Most weight limits are also per axle, so a 3000 gallon tanker spread over three axles will have a lower per axle weight than a 2000 gallon single-axle, PLUS you have another set of tires and brakes to stop with.

Too many departments order these tankers and try to make them do too many things, ending up with a tanker that doesn't do its most important job well. A tanker's first job is to shuttle water, but many departments add crew cabs and larger pumps (with longer pumper panels) and even top-mount pumps, resulting in a truck so long that you can't get it in and out of the dump and fill sites easily.

[DFDMAXX]

wrong do tests or drills and u could see the results to many no it alls on here as well as morons that think they know bye!

Is being a moron quantified by a lack of spelling skills?

If small tankers work for you, then do it.

It doesn't work for us quite so much. Doubling the tankers needed also doubles the manpower needed to operate them, which we do not have. So do you want to put 2000gal tankers on the road or the same number of 4000gal tankers? Manpower is our greatest limitation.

Since we run bigger tankers, we spec them out properly. 5" fills with 12" dumps. Tankers are filled with minimum of 5"LDH.

You mention a 2 1/2 fill and a 10 minute dump time. If you had spec'd the tanker out properly you might not have this problem.

[Sleeper6]

Shall we reword the original post to read a "PROPRELY DESIGNED big or small" tanker?"

Anyone and spec a pile of poop and and argue that it doesn't do it's job well. That's not the point of the post here.

[DFDMAXX]

also what is the gpm your tanker will contribute in a shuttle???? its a 3500 gallon tanker with 1 2 1/2" fill line and a 6" round dump! it takes 10 minutes to fill and another 10 minutes to dump 90 % of its load. travel time is calculated by formula. a 2000 gallon tanker has 2 - 2 1/2" fills on rear and a 10" newton dump. it fills in 1 1/2 minutes and dumps 90 % of the load in 1 1/2 minutes travel time is the same. now for the math follow closely! the 3500 gallon tanker with no drive time. with me yet or should i back up. 10 minute fill plus 10 minute dump = 20 minutes! 2000 gallon tanker with no drive time 1 1/2 + 1 1/2 minutes & no drive time = 3 minutes
3500 gallons divided by 20 minutes = 175 gpm
2000 gallons divided by 3 minutes = 666.66 gpm
get a calculator and check the math. now if u consider drive time in here, the 3500 tanker is a 300hp with a 9 sp.tranny vs the 2000 tanker with 330hp with an automatic. the larger is slower? as soon as u throw some obstacles in such as turning around on a narrow back road or at the dump site or fill site it'll changed the gpm the tanker is capable of. the smaller tanker is more agile all around than a 10 wheeler.
the 3500 gallon tanker used above does exist in our county and i'm sure there are alot more around this country. not all large tankers are the same as we do have have a few that will be close in gpm as the small ones. as for the 2000 gallon tanker there are several within 10 miles of our station.


Jeez, talk about comparing apples to oranges. A 3500gal tank with a single 2.5 fill and a 6" dump VS a 2000 gal tank with 2 2.5 fills and a 10" dump? And smaller powerplant with bigger tank which contributes to longer travel times since the power to weight ratio is completely different? On what planet does this make a good comparison?

You give a lot of information based on what YOU have, and one of the things you have is a 3500gal tank that was NOT set up properly with a large enough fill or dump.

So because you have a screwed up tanker the numbers you report must hold up for the rest of us? Nope, I don't think so.

Kinda childish calling folks here morons based on your tiny little slice of the fire service.

[westofd1]

do we have to explain it further? not all 3500 gallon tankers are the same nor are 2000 gallon tankers. in my original post what gpm does your tanker contribute in a shuttle. not all tankers fill and dump at same rate thats why the question what does your tanker contribute in a shuttle GPM! 3500 gpm for one minute then its 25 minutes before it contributes another 3500 gpm. when u time your tanker for fill or dump times, do u figure it when the valves opens and closes? tell me how do u do it. we do it this way, cones at 200' from fill or dump sites, times start then, drive in, position, hook, start fill or dump, when deemed full or empty by site officer, shut valves, and proceed 200' to cones, whether its the start cones or if its end cones for a drive thru site. road times are calculated, which can be disputed, performance issues, drivers,etc.

[gilamonster]

do we have to explain it further? not all 3500 gallon tankers are the same nor are 2000 gallon tankers. in my original post what gpm does your tanker contribute in a shuttle. not all tankers fill and dump at same rate thats why the question what does your tanker contribute in a shuttle GPM! 3500 gpm for one minute then its 25 minutes before it contributes another 3500 gpm. when u time your tanker for fill or dump times, do u figure it when the valves opens and closes? tell me how do u do it. we do it this way, cones at 200' from fill or dump sites, times start then, drive in, position, hook, start fill or dump, when deemed full or empty by site officer, shut valves, and proceed 200' to cones, whether its the start cones or if its end cones for a drive thru site. road times are calculated, which can be disputed, performance issues, drivers,etc.

FOLLOW ME

You can spec a larger tanker with more hp and gearing to match. The end result is that a 3000-4000 gallon truck can MATCH the speed of a smaller tanker.
Manuverability is the only factor where a smaller truck wins.
The MATH IS PRETTY FRIGGIN SIMPLE!

@ the same fill speed of 1000 gallons 2000 is full in 2min versus 3:30 for a 3500. 90 seconds is within the variable in all calculations.If it takes 1 min to dump 1000/ 2000 in 2min 3500 in 3.5 min. Another 90 seconds. 3 min load and dump for almost twice the water. IS 3 MINUTES FASTER THAN STARTING ALL OVER AND MAKING ANOTHER TRIP????

Lets say 20 min per trip. it will take just under 7 trips for you to catch the larger tanker.


The math aint that hard.

Stay Safe

[westofd1]

follow this if u can read what is the gpm your tanker will do in a shuttle? did u follow the question. i dont know what perfect state u r in but around here not all fire depts have new equipment. theres tankers around here that still date to the late 1970's & early 1980's.

[nameless]

wow, I had trouble following what westofd was typing, not because it was complex, but the spelling, punctuation, and grammar was horrible. I'm not an english professor, but you have to maintain a certain level of writing skills for a smooth conversation. Hint: a . (period) should not go at the end of a question, a ? (question mark) should. Follow me or do I have to back up?

[Rescue101]

Or you can REALLY screw with the #s and plug a vaccumn tanker into the equasion.That will put a dent in the 10" dump numbers.No question it's important to know what your tanker can do.Also your neighbors.We run big ones here 2500+.

[simpleguy68]

FOLLOW ME

You can spec a larger tanker with more hp and gearing to match. The end result is that a 3000-4000 gallon truck can MATCH the speed of a smaller tanker.
Manuverability is the only factor where a smaller truck wins.
The MATH IS PRETTY FRIGGIN SIMPLE!

@ the same fill speed of 1000 gallons 2000 is full in 2min versus 3:30 for a 3500. 90 seconds is within the variable in all calculations.If it takes 1 min to dump 1000/ 2000 in 2min 3500 in 3.5 min. Another 90 seconds. 3 min load and dump for almost twice the water. IS 3 MINUTES FASTER THAN STARTING ALL OVER AND MAKING ANOTHER TRIP????

Lets say 20 min per trip. it will take just under 7 trips for you to catch the larger tanker.


The math aint that hard.

Stay Safe

Yep, for an extra three whole minutes, I can nearly double my water. Then factor in the extra time it takes to hook and unhook the hoses TWICE as much on the smaller tanker and the actual times are even closer, and once again, I'm getting nearly twice the water.

ISO is in a perfect world, one which has little to do with the way actual fireground tanker shuttle works. I've done the ISO test, pull forward 200', dump the water, then pull forward another 200' has nothing to do with real-world conditions where you're shuttling water a mile or more.

[FyredUp]

The one element that is most important when it comes to tankers is can you drive it on the roads and bridges in your territory. It makes no sense to have a 3500 gallon tanker IF you can't drive it across any number of bridges in your territory, OR if you can't get it into farm door yards.

To me, the next element is comfort in driving. In today's world most people don't drive big trucks and having a big tanker no one wants to drive or won't drive over 40 mph because they aren't comfortable makes its big payload less valuable.

The best advice about any type of apparatus is to know your area, know your personnel, know your needs, and then buy what works for you. It may be that neighboring departments have totally opposite needs and personnel and buy polar opposite tanker types.

[neiowa]

Or they are still living in 1980, can't/won't modernize, are as hardheaded as some FF in the NE.

Our new 3000gal Frtliner is a pussycat to drive. Having the right rear suspension makes a huge difference in tanker performance. If still buying plain spring suspension you need to get a clue.

[westofd1]

To answer some of your question. Are they hard headed or can't. Both. some area departments have a old time force at meetings, the 1 tanker i mentioned in earlier post, the chief and a few of the younger members wanted to update back of truck. It was to replace the 6" round dump with a 10"sq. newton dump on rear as well as installing 1 on each side. It also was to install 2 new fill valves on rear 3", they were to be located as low as possible on rear of truck. the older members at the meetings shot it down everytime they brought it to the floor. That was probably 6 years ago now. Its still that way today. There are other departments around that do not have funding available and have not been lucky enough to hit paydirt with the fire act grants.
And on the other side there is a department in county that has a nice looking tanker that is 6 or 7 years old now that has its tank fill at least 6 feet off ground on rear of truck. its a 5" valve with handwheel operating mechanism. It kills the fill site workers to drag the line over to and get it hooked, it takes time to hook and unhook.
As for the hardheaded in the ny area fire service, we all can be.
Thats why my statement of bigger is not always better comes into play. Stay Safe

[viperfire1]

2500 Gallon Tank - not eliptical
500 - 750 gpm fire pump
Two door commercial chassis
Tandem Rear Axles with a little weight to spare
Enough compartment space for minimal engine equipment
30 ft hard suction
2500 Gallon porta tank
At least one preconnected atack line and 3/4" - 1" booster reel, short
Larg Dumps or Swivel Dump
Ground spray device for watering roads

Even with trained drivers and great suspension a heavy truck is a heavy truck and unless you drive them regularly - intimidated or not - it is a dangerous combination. So dont load up too much water and make it too big just so we have to make fewer trips to the watering hole. Risk is not worth the reward. And a minor but important point. If you want to be able to sell the truck in 10 - 20 years dont design a beast no one else will want.

[mitchkrat]

[QUOTE=neiowa;1063934]Or they are still living in 1980, can't/won't modernize, are as hardheaded as some FF in the NE.

Our new 3000gal Frtliner is a pussycat to drive. Having the right rear suspension makes a huge difference in tanker performance. If still buying plain spring suspension you need to get a clue.[/QUOT


Sounds like you got your new truck in - any pics to share?

[mitchkrat]

To answer some of your question. Are they hard headed or can't. Both. some area departments have a old time force at meetings, the 1 tanker i mentioned in earlier post, the chief and a few of the younger members wanted to update back of truck. It was to replace the 6" round dump with a 10"sq. newton dump on rear as well as installing 1 on each side. It also was to install 2 new fill valves on rear 3", they were to be located as low as possible on rear of truck. the older members at the meetings shot it down everytime they brought it to the floor. That was probably 6 years ago now. Its still that way today. There are other departments around that do not have funding available and have not been lucky enough to hit paydirt with the fire act grants.
And on the other side there is a department in county that has a nice looking tanker that is 6 or 7 years old now that has its tank fill at least 6 feet off ground on rear of truck. its a 5" valve with handwheel operating mechanism. It kills the fill site workers to drag the line over to and get it hooked, it takes time to hook and unhook.
As for the hardheaded in the ny area fire service, we all can be.
Thats why my statement of bigger is not always better comes into play. Stay Safe

Our pumper tanker has the same issue with the 5" refill be mounted higher than I would have liked it. We are working on an appliance that will let us rapidly drain the water off the supply line without shutting down the hydrant.

[westofd1]

Another item i forgot earlier. Check with the manufacturer about what psi tank can be filled at. The tanker i mentioned in above post could only be filled at 50 psi as per tank manufacturer. Our new tanker is labeled at 175 psi max. When its full water does fly.

[imafireman]

We are being told to only fill our tanker at 50 psi, especially when it is close to being full. It doesn't have anything to do with the plumbing. It is a poly tank with a poly door on top. They say that too many times popping the door on top with too high of pressure will break the door off of its hinges, and it is a major pain to have it repaired. Just passing on what I have been told. Stay safe.

Kelly

[islandfire03]

We are being told to only fill our tanker at 50 psi, especially when it is close to being full. It doesn't have anything to do with the plumbing. It is a poly tank with a poly door on top. They say that too many times popping the door on top with too high of pressure will break the door off of its hinges, and it is a major pain to have it repaired. Just passing on what I have been told. Stay safe.

Kelly

it sounds like they didn't install a big enough vent/overflow pipe in your tank. The fact that it's a poly tank shouldn't make it fill slower. With a 4 " direct fill ours will fill at 125 psi in 2 1/2 minutes off of 4 inch LDH.

[Catch22]

Our pumper tanker has the same issue with the 5" refill be mounted higher than I would have liked it. We are working on an appliance that will let us rapidly drain the water off the supply line without shutting down the hydrant.

Are you afraid of getting your legs wet? :p ;)

We have a valve with a drain on our direct-tank fill. We'll just hit the drain and bleed off the pressure, then uncouple the 5". It drops some water, but with the angle of the valve, it drops off rather easily. Of course, the guys doing the filling wear their bunker pants and boots so they don't get soaked.

[FyredUp]

Are you afraid of getting your legs wet? :p ;)

We have a valve with a drain on our direct-tank fill. We'll just hit the drain and bleed off the pressure, then uncouple the 5". It drops some water, but with the angle of the valve, it drops off rather easily. Of course, the guys doing the filling wear their bunker pants and boots so they don't get soaked.

It gets to be a real pain when the temp is below freezing. You get wet and freeze or the ground gets wet and splippery.

[Catch22]

It gets to be a real pain when the temp is below freezing. You get wet and freeze or the ground gets wet and splippery.

I can understand that. Fortunately, we haven't really had to deal with it. The couple of times we have, the guys spread sawdust on the little bit of ice we had to get traction and it worked out fine.

Truth be known, it's not often we run a real shuttle. Usually we can get our 1,000 gallon engine, 2,500 gallon pumper/tanker and 6,000 tanker and have enough to do the job. On occasion, we'll call in a couple more 2,500 gallon tankers.

We're trying to get things a bit more efficient and run "real" shuttles, but getting the other departments around here to accept anything but nurse tankers is a feat in itself.

Plus, I just gotta give mitchkrat some grief. He's got a sister to our pumper/tanker.

[ponebutton2]

I have served as Water Supply Officer in a rural mutual aid coalition for about twenty years. During that time we have experimented with tankers ranging from 1000gal to 3000gal. Size does matter in a relay operation - same size. If you intersperse larger and smaller tankers it just seems to mess up the orderly flow that we have learned to depend on. We have found 1500gal to 2000gal to be the ideal size in our area of northern Minnesota.

Single axle mid-range commercial trucks with diesel engines and automatic transmissions with locking rear axles have worked well for us. This size vehicle has adequate braking and steering for our conditions which can be quite demanding - hilly, narrow and twisty roads with no shoulders. Vehicles need to be nimble and easily manageable on all surfaces. Larger vehicles have proven more difficult to turn around and manage on our roads and drives.

We fill at about 800 to 1000gpm using 5"LDH located at a standardized location on rear right with Storz about 30" to 36" off the ground. We tried top fills but had some problems with people falling off icy walkways when trying to open and close fill doors. We tried just leaving them open but created another problem when water spillage froze on roadways.

We are now using a section of 3" hose coupled 2 1/2" both ends and adapted to 5" Storz as the hookup end in tanker filling. We use one jumbo wye to control filling and another in the same line to back drain hose between tankers. We also have one other jumbo wye located near the water supply pumper which can shut down the whole operation if necessary and it can also divert a small water flow to allow us to keep our lines running in subzero temps. This is an important feature since we cannot afford to have pumps, lines, fittings, etc freeze up. We also keep a bucket with antifreeze and water mix near the fill end of the hose to store the fill adapter in between fills - helps keep adapters clean and ice free.

Side dumps are great but many tankers still only dump off the rear. A swivel chute or dump direction adapter can help with this if you can predict which
direction you will need to dump each time. We have not been able to do this so backing in still seems to be the norm. Both of these methods lose a bit of dumping time due to various reasons but it's probably worth it versus backing in.

One of our most important discoveries was that 2100gal drop tanks work best for us since they are relatively easy for two persons to deploy and do not take up a whole roadway which can be an important consideration if you have snow banks on both sides. I have often thought an 8' wide drop tank would make sense. If your fleet uses 2100gal drop tanks you will have a 3500gal tanker standing by to unload last part of load. This could slow down the whole parade. Something to think about. Of course multiple drop tanks would also help with this problem but they take up more road space, take more time to set up, etc - it's all about trade offs.

I guess the real messages here are:
1. Standardize vehicle and tank size depending on your own local road and bridge conditions.
2. Standardize that size for everyone in your mutual aid group.
3. Standardize fill size and location.
4. Standardize discharge position[s] and location[s].
5. Standardize drop tank size for everyone.
6. Standardize rear suction location and size on pumpers.
7. Use a diamond layout pattern for drop tanks when possible.

Oh, did I forget to say "standardize everything?"

[FyredUp]

I have served as Water Supply Officer in a rural mutual aid coalition for about twenty years. During that time we have experimented with tankers ranging from 1000gal to 3000gal. Size does matter in a relay operation - same size. If you intersperse larger and smaller tankers it just seems to mess up the orderly flow that we have learned to depend on. We have found 1500gal to 2000gal to be the ideal size in our area of northern Minnesota.

Single axle mid-range commercial trucks with diesel engines and automatic transmissions with locking rear axles have worked well for us. This size vehicle has adequate braking and steering for our conditions which can be quite demanding - hilly, narrow and twisty roads with no shoulders. Vehicles need to be nimble and easily manageable on all surfaces. Larger vehicles have proven more difficult to turn around and manage on our roads and drives.

We fill at about 800 to 1000gpm using 5"LDH located at a standardized location on rear right with Storz about 30" to 36" off the ground. We tried top fills but had some problems with people falling off icy walkways when trying to open and close fill doors. We tried just leaving them open but created another problem when water spillage froze on roadways.

We are now using a section of 3" hose coupled 2 1/2" both ends and adapted to 5" Storz as the hookup end in tanker filling. We use one jumbo wye to control filling and another in the same line to back drain hose between tankers. We also have one other jumbo wye located near the water supply pumper which can shut down the whole operation if necessary and it can also divert a small water flow to allow us to keep our lines running in subzero temps. This is an important feature since we cannot afford to have pumps, lines, fittings, etc freeze up. We also keep a bucket with antifreeze and water mix near the fill end of the hose to store the fill adapter in between fills - helps keep adapters clean and ice free.

Side dumps are great but many tankers still only dump off the rear. A swivel chute or dump direction adapter can help with this if you can predict which
direction you will need to dump each time. We have not been able to do this so backing in still seems to be the norm. Both of these methods lose a bit of dumping time due to various reasons but it's probably worth it versus backing in.

One of our most important discoveries was that 2100gal drop tanks work best for us since they are relatively easy for two persons to deploy and do not take up a whole roadway which can be an important consideration if you have snow banks on both sides. I have often thought an 8' wide drop tank would make sense. If your fleet uses 2100gal drop tanks you will have a 3500gal tanker standing by to unload last part of load. This could slow down the whole parade. Something to think about. Of course multiple drop tanks would also help with this problem but they take up more road space, take more time to set up, etc - it's all about trade offs.

I guess the real messages here are:
1. Standardize vehicle and tank size depending on your own local road and bridge conditions.
2. Standardize that size for everyone in your mutual aid group.
3. Standardize fill size and location.
4. Standardize discharge position[s] and location[s].
5. Standardize drop tank size for everyone.
6. Standardize rear suction location and size on pumpers.
7. Use a diamond layout pattern for drop tanks when possible.

Oh, did I forget to say "standardize everything?"

I had to laugh when I read this post. Not because the information isn't great and valuable. But because of a little story I am going to tell.

We had a massive fire at a recycling plant in a neighboring fire departments territory. We had 14 tankers hauling water from 3 different counties and my volly FD had an engine at the fire and had a tanker hauling water. We were designated as one of the 3 fill sites. Our brush rig went to the closest hydrant(It was about a 7 mile run to us) we dressed the hydrant with 2 gate valves and connected 2 - 3inch lines. The first tanker in we had to adapt up to 4 inch storz, the second to agricultural cam locks, third to 5 inch storz, fourth back to the 2 1/2 inch threads on our 3 inch hose...To say the least it was a night mare. We got to where we recognized the tanker coming in and would have the right adapter inplace when they stopped, but what a hastle.

Next county fire association I brought up looking into a standard tanker fill connection. I said I don't care whether it is 4 inch storz, or 5 inch storz, or cam locks, or even threaded 2 1/2...just something standard for all county tankers. It got quiet, I mean REAL QUIET. It was like how quiet it gets in a western just before the shooting starts. NO ONE SAID A WORD. So it went no where. If we had a big fire again today it would be the same mess.

As a result of that day we added a set of 2 1/2 inch cam locks to our list of adapters for our tanker. We already had one fill set uop for 2 1/2 inch threaded and the other with a 5 inch storz with a 5 to 4 inch storz adapter attached to it. Waste of money, but it is what it is.

[ponebutton2]

Well, we went through some of that as well and would still be fighting the problem if we hadn't been able to fund adapters through a local grant - tie cash to just about anything and you will have followers. We simply set the parameters and said if you want some of the grant cash you need to follow them. We performed a telephone inventory of just about everyone within 100 miles and found that we really needed a few items to provide universal access. So we bought those items and everyone went home happy and able to fit into their neighboring systems.

Back in 1991 my FD bought a new Intl 2000gal tanker for about $92000 while a neighbor bought two 1800gal Intl tankers for about $96000. Ours was a bit flashier and had 4x4, while the neighbors were basic and functional 2x4. So basically they had 3600gals rolling when we had only 2000gal on the road for about the same money. The importance of this became apparent when our tanker went into the shop or was otherwise unavailable. Sometimes multiple slightly smaller might make some sense. Cost/Benefit deal isn't it?

Agreed, you still need to find drivers, but staffing is another thread isn't it?

[mitchkrat]

I can understand that. Fortunately, we haven't really had to deal with it. The couple of times we have, the guys spread sawdust on the little bit of ice we had to get traction and it worked out fine.

Truth be known, it's not often we run a real shuttle. Usually we can get our 1,000 gallon engine, 2,500 gallon pumper/tanker and 6,000 tanker and have enough to do the job. On occasion, we'll call in a couple more 2,500 gallon tankers.

We're trying to get things a bit more efficient and run "real" shuttles, but getting the other departments around here to accept anything but nurse tankers is a feat in itself.

Plus, I just gotta give mitchkrat some grief. He's got a sister to our pumper/tanker.

We have the same setup - and yep I get my feet wet!

We have a design for the appliance I want to make to drain the hose - just trying to get the local aircraft machine shop to make me a prototype out of aluminum.

Ran into the same problems here with getting some of the neighbors to try a water shuttle - finally convinced the county fire chiefs association last fall to let me teach a class and then conduct a drill. It was amazing - had a lot of converts!

A week later, had a house fire/propane explosion in the neighbors district and they set and ran a shuttle for the 1st time.

Had another class/drill this spring - had several departments that had already made improvements/changes to equipment from what they learned in the fall drill.

We do have quite a mix of tankers in our county, 2000, 2500, 3000, 3500 and 5000 gallons - makes setting up multiple dump tanks a must.

[neiowa]

Good post

I have served as Water Supply Officer in a rural mutual aid coalition for about twenty years.....

AH Stock has a new swivel dump that will go on the end of their existing dumps (behind the valve). Run you around $1300 with extension chute for the end.

One of our most important discoveries was that 2100gal drop tanks work best for us since they are relatively easy for two persons to deploy and do not take up a whole roadway which can be an important consideration if you have snow banks on both sides. I have often thought an 8' wide drop tank would make sense. If your fleet uses 2100gal drop tanks you will have a 3500gal tanker standing by to unload last part of load. This could slow down the whole parade. Something to think about. Of course multiple drop tanks would also help with this problem but they take up more road space, take more time to set up, etc - it's all about trade offs...

Oh, did I forget to say "standardize everything?"

Foldatank will make you a custom size at same price as std tank for a given capacity. So for 2100gal go to 10' wide x 12'7" long tank (std would be 11'3" square). Or maybe its 8' x 15'10". In my area a 10' wide tank behind the pumper leaves drive by space. You can't fix stupid so if the crew places the tank with wrong orientation....

[drakescrossing]

Aurora, Oregon fire an dual 4200g tenders a few months ago when i was a resident volly there. Talk about one huge tender. It even had its own masterstream!

[DFDMAXX]

Good post



Foldatank will make you a custom size at same price as std tank for a given capacity. So for 2100gal go to 10' wide x 12'7" long tank (std would be 11'3" square). Or maybe its 8' x 15'10". In my area a 10' wide tank behind the pumper leaves drive by space. You can't fix stupid so if the crew places the tank with wrong orientation....


Size does matter, no doubt about it

We have a 2500gal drop tank on our 2500gal pumper/tanker, and another 2500gal drop tank on the 4000gal tanker. If we had a 4000gal drop tank we would not have room to put it on many calls. If placed on the road, it would not allow any room to drive past.

[Fyrtrks]

So you want a super tanker. Here is one I delivered a few months back. 5000gwt 2000 gpm with a deck gun. Check out the Peterbilt in this thread.http://forums.firehouse.com/showthread.php?t=107637

[Ledebuhr1]

frytrks,
Does that department have trouble getting drivers for a truck that big? Something like that wouldnt be for shuttling water, but rather being a portable fire hydrant.

[Fyrtrks]

It was an almost direct replacement. The tank size didn't decrease from the old unit, the pump size did increase. They have another tanker that isn't as big. As far as drivers most of the guys in the department do drive big trucks so they are used to it.

[Catch22]

This is our version of a "Super Tanker". 6,000 gallons. We don't know what the pump is "rated" at, but we calculated it putting out 1,250 on day when we were playing around with it.

Fortunately, there's only a few bridges that can't handle it. The bigger problem is it takes the entire back 40 to turn it around.

Until we get some of the other departments into the tanker shuttle game, we're pulling it to a scene and laying LDH to it and pumping the water to the attack engine. As other tankers come in, they pump off into this truck, using it as a massive dump tank.

And before it's thrown out there, yes, it's a little overweight. We haven't put it on the scale yet to see how much, but our calculations from dry weight on the scale to full put it pretty close to the GVW. Only certain people are authorized to drive it, all of which have CDL's and/or are accustomed to driving large apparatus.

[Andy2802]

I like the way you guys do bussiness..... and I see your Brush Truck from Unruh made it in Fire Apparatus Magazine... looks nice!

[bum291]

Most tankers here are in the 2500 gal - 3000 gal range, they are reasonable easy to move around. I have seen a few ones that are larger than 5000 gal, but they are getting to big for shuttle duties but are good if one tank worth of water is enough. Our own has 2100, it's the biggest we could put on the frame we had.

[Ledebuhr1]

catch22,
Who built that truck? was it built as a fire tanker? that truck is hauling almost 50k in water.

[Catch22]

I like the way you guys do bussiness..... and I see your Brush Truck from Unruh made it in Fire Apparatus Magazine... looks nice!

I'm glad you said something! I hadn't seen that it was in there until I went to looking after reading your post. I'm surprised my wife hadn't thrown it away yet!

Our pumper/tanker ended up making Rosenbauer's tanker brochure the year after it was built. I'll have to put the FAM picture beside the brochure in the ol' scrapbook.

[Fyrtrks]

My guess is it's a retired Air Force refuling tanker truck. I sure hope they had it baffled. Here is a newer version. The photo was just too large to post.

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070425-F-6699G-300.jpg

[Catch22]

catch22,
Who built that truck? was it built as a fire tanker? that truck is hauling almost 50k in water.

I don't know who exactly built it. It's actually a surplus truck through the FEPP program. It used to be an Air Force refueler, I believe designated as an R-11, which was put on either an OshKosh or a Volvo chassis (this one's an OshKosh). When we picked it up, it had less than 9K miles.

We sunk less than $5K into it to paint it and adapt the intakes/discharges over to fire threads (OE is victaulic). We saved a lot of money by just giving it a good acid wash to knock off the oxidation on the paint and using implement paint.

After we removed the hose and reels, the HUGE freaking fuel filter, and some other things, we dropped the dry weight down to around 26K. GVW is around 68-69K (I'd have to look at the papers to make sure).

The big problems we've had with it is that the motor is a bit underpowered (Cummins 330 HP) and it takes a country mile to stop when it's full. Now when it's empty, the thing'll haul tail. But, with 6K gallons of water, we don't want even experiences OTR drivers going too fast. We actually don't even allow it to respond emergency and didn't bother to put sirens on it. There's a lightbar for when they're nearing or on scene, just to make it a bit more visible.

[Catch22]

My guess is it's a retired Air Force refuling tanker truck. I sure hope they had it baffled. Here is a newer version. The photo was just too large to post.

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070425-F-6699G-300.jpg

Yes, it's baffled. That's one of the first things we looked at before we signed the dotted line.

[neiowa]

catch22,
Who built that truck? was it built as a fire tanker? that truck is hauling almost 50k in water.

Oshkosh R-11 built as refuelers for the Air Force in the late 80s/early 90s. AF is getting rid of all of them and a fair # in the DOD surplus system. Pump as built was a Hale 500gpm as I recall. Low powered as engine and gearing was designed for putting around nice flat air base. Cummins around 350hp and Allison trans.

You can reduce weight some by tearing out the filters and water separators housed in the box behind the cab. Substantially overweight filled with water rather than jet fuel.

[tomwnh]

You wouldn't catch me behind the wheel of that truck. You say you are not sure of the gross weight but do know about what the GVW rating and dry weight is. Doing some quick calculations using your numbers I would guess that truck is about 7,000 pounds over the rated GVW.

Weight of water 8.35 lbs. X 6,000 50,100
Dry weight of truck 26,000
TOTAL WEIGHT 76,100
GVW of truck loaded -69,000
AMOUNT OVER GVW 7,100

If it was me I would be looking at the limits of the department's liability insurance first thing tomorrow. Your statement on it taking a country mile to stop it scares the hell out of me. What happens if someone stops short or pulls out in front of you? Experienced driver or not, that truck is a lawyers dream.

[npfd801]

AH Stock has a new swivel dump that will go on the end of their existing dumps (behind the valve). Run you around $1300 with extension chute for the end.


Beware of this, while a very cool product, if you retrofit an existing tank make sure that the dump chute on the swivel will clear the top of your current drop tanks. ;)

[HSFDChief600]

I have wondered about that chute. It has to slow the flow down with that bend.

[npfd801]

I have wondered about that chute. It has to slow the flow down with that bend.

I may have an opportunity to see how fast an apparatus equipped with such a dump can dump its load. If I can get times, I'll advise.

[Fyrtrks]

The fly boys have a disagreement on the exact weight of Jet fuel depending upon it's grade. It can be from 1.5 to 2 pounds lighter. Now I would agree with Tom and say that tanker, while it was nice that it is being reused it is over loaded. That truck was designed to carry from 9,000 to 12,000 pounds of jet fuel less than the water it has on it now.

I am sure it could still be usefull but also be safe with some modifications. You could cut the back 1,000 gallons off of the truck and while that compartment is nice to have, maybe it would best to remove that and relocate the tank and rear axles foward more. This would transfer some weight to the front axle.

Tom isn't a dang shame that the lawyers have scared everyone into beliveing all of this bunk and that they and the NFPA have destroyed the business of firefighting. There was a day and time where a tanker like the Purdy unit was a great idea and even greater thing that the town was resourcefull enough to buld it. Now they have brain washed us into scolding the customer.

Catch22 don't be mislead I am not faulting you nor the FD. I know how hard it is for you guys to get money. I do not think you did a bad job. I imagine that if you had the money you would have prefered to buy something new.

Rember those who served and were lost for us today.

[DFDMAXX]

This is our version of a "Super Tanker". 6,000 gallons. We don't know what the pump is "rated" at, but we calculated it putting out 1,250 on day when we were playing around with it.

Fortunately, there's only a few bridges that can't handle it. The bigger problem is it takes the entire back 40 to turn it around.

Until we get some of the other departments into the tanker shuttle game, we're pulling it to a scene and laying LDH to it and pumping the water to the attack engine. As other tankers come in, they pump off into this truck, using it as a massive dump tank.

And before it's thrown out there, yes, it's a little overweight. We haven't put it on the scale yet to see how much, but our calculations from dry weight on the scale to full put it pretty close to the GVW. Only certain people are authorized to drive it, all of which have CDL's and/or are accustomed to driving large apparatus.

Ya know... just an idea here. It looks like there is room ahead of the drive axles for a lift axle, tag, pusher, whatever the local term is in your parts.

An older, simple axle with some life left in it can be had from a salvage dealer for not much. Gives you better handling of the weight, and most importantly another set of brakes.

Unless the military has some differences like different frame rail spacing, or something else I don't know about.

[LaFireEducator]

In my 30 years, and several departments, i have worked with 2 primary systems.

The first was up north, primarily in VT, with 3 departments.

Tankers were either nurse tankers ranging from 1200 to 2000 gallons (mostly 1500g), or engines with quick dump and quick fills most kicking in at about 1000g with a few 1250's. Portable ponds 1000-1500g.

Very easy to turn in tight places. Quick to fill and dump.

2nd system is the system down here in LA.

Most tankers are 3000g and most have pumps and full compliment of engine equipment. Most departments also have a tractor-trailer tanker 7000-8000g, that are generally reserved for operations at commercial and larger structures. They often function as the initial water supply and either get out of the way, refill and then standby as an emergency tanker if the shuttle has problems. Some departments have their 1000-1500g engines setup with dumps and fills as "rabbit tankers". Ponds are generally 3000g.

Since all tankers, with the exception of the TT units have pump, pump-off operations are far more common than dump-off operations.

Down here things are fairly flat so hills are not an issue. Obviously the 3000g tankers are slower and less maneuverable than the smaller yankee tankers.

Given my choice, I prefer the systems that I worked in up north. Though, that being said, the systems work well down here and are designed around what the rating system water shuttle demands for performance to meet thier gpm criteria.

[neiowa]

Beware of this, while a very cool product, if you retrofit an existing tank make sure that the dump chute on the swivel will clear the top of your current drop tanks. ;)

Correct.

Max height from top of chute to bottom is 23.72" We're on a F900 w/Marmon Herrington 6x6 so plenty of clearance. May not fit your truck and still clear a standard 30" portatank (you can order portatank in whatever height you want).

[tomwnh]

The fly boys have a disagreement on the exact weight of Jet fuel depending upon it's grade. It can be from 1.5 to 2 pounds lighter. Now I would agree with Tom and say that tanker, while it was nice that it is being reused it is over loaded. That truck was designed to carry from 9,000 to 12,000 pounds of jet fuel less than the water it has on it now.

I am sure it could still be usefull but also be safe with some modifications. You could cut the back 1,000 gallons off of the truck and while that compartment is nice to have, maybe it would best to remove that and relocate the tank and rear axles foward more. This would transfer some weight to the front axle.

Tom isn't a dang shame that the lawyers have scared everyone into beliveing all of this bunk and that they and the NFPA have destroyed the business of firefighting. There was a day and time where a tanker like the Purdy unit was a great idea and even greater thing that the town was resourcefull enough to buld it. Now they have brain washed us into scolding the customer.

Catch22 don't be mislead I am not faulting you nor the FD. I know how hard it is for you guys to get money. I do not think you did a bad job. I imagine that if you had the money you would have prefered to buy something new.

Rember those who served and were lost for us today.

Dan, I agree that they did a good job taking an older truck and recycling it and I don't mean to come off like I am scolding them but like you say, lawyers today have us thinking in these terms. Lawyers are out there just looking for their next payday. I've seen to many departments, apparatus dealers and manufacturers sued over the years for no other reason than some lawyer looking at them as deep pockets to be picked. Thirty years ago people would never consider suing a fire dept. Today, they sue if they don't think you got to thier house fast enough.

If they were ever involved in an accident with that truck they would have no defense. He has admitted here in print that the truck is difficult to stop and it is over the GVW. My opinion, they should find some way to cut down on the amount of water carried for their own protection.

[Rescue101]

Or add another axle,which MIGHT be easier on this west coaster. A pusher similar to the little wheeled version Anchor motor freight used to use would fit nicely and still give you the big brake drum.

[Catch22]

You wouldn't catch me behind the wheel of that truck. You say you are not sure of the gross weight but do know about what the GVW rating and dry weight is. Doing some quick calculations using your numbers I would guess that truck is about 7,000 pounds over the rated GVW.

Weight of water 8.35 lbs. X 6,000 50,100
Dry weight of truck 26,000
TOTAL WEIGHT 76,100
GVW of truck loaded -69,000
AMOUNT OVER GVW 7,100

If it was me I would be looking at the limits of the department's liability insurance first thing tomorrow. Your statement on it taking a country mile to stop it scares the hell out of me. What happens if someone stops short or pulls out in front of you? Experienced driver or not, that truck is a lawyers dream.

Now I'm going to have to go to the farm center and put it on their scales. I know my calculations when we did it had it a LOT closer to GVW than that. Mind you, I'm citing numbers off of memory, which isn't so good anymore. It seems like we were within 2,000 lbs of GVW. Maybe I got the dry weight without the filters mixed up with the weight with the filters or something. The paperwork with the numbers is at the station, so I don't have access to it when I'm messing around on the forums here. I'll see if I can't find the time to get to the station and get the actual numbers to throw up here.

Also keep in mind that a "country mile" is just a phrase. All I mean is that it takes a bit more distance than an engine or smaller tanker to shut down. Of course, it only gets to 45 mph running flat or downhill, and literally takes a mile to get to that speed. Uphill, it's a LOT slower.

Our current plan is to try to get another one for our second station, which will be in the hilly/curvy portion of our district. It's sole purpose will be to fill tankers from the station (which is a lot closer than running back to town), and be replaced with this one while it goes to fill, and then transition between the two. With the biggest tankers in the area being 2,500 gallons (ours and one other), we've got at least two fills out of each truck.

I'm also aware of the attorney factor. That's the big reason we're DAMN careful who's driving it. There's only about 4 guys on the department authorized, and they're guys that don't get all wound up when the tones go off and don't get in a hurry, not that you can with this rig. If one of them aren't available, it doesn't leave the station.

[Catch22]

Ya know... just an idea here. It looks like there is room ahead of the drive axles for a lift axle, tag, pusher, whatever the local term is in your parts.

An older, simple axle with some life left in it can be had from a salvage dealer for not much. Gives you better handling of the weight, and most importantly another set of brakes.

Unless the military has some differences like different frame rail spacing, or something else I don't know about.

We were looking at just that very closely during the conversion process. Our Deputy Chief has a trucking company and has a couple of tag axles running around we were going to throw under it. Like I say, though, I know we were a lot closer to GVW than 7,000 lbs, so it wasn't a major issue at the time.

We actually meant to throw it on the scales to see what the fully loaded weight was and where it was in reference to GVW as opposed to calculations when we got it done. We just never got around to it for some reason. Now that the wife's out of school for the summer and can watch kids, maybe I can get that done.

[laddertruckgoes]

Around here the smallest taker is 2000 gallons (the county minmum) but most of them are 3500 to 4000 gallons.

We only have 1 tractor drawn left in the county, and that company also has a 4000 gallon sister tanker. Most of the tankers in the county have pumps and minimal hose, a few are also Pumper-Tankers and run as such.

In anyone is in the market for a "Super Tanker", Bakerton WV is selling thier tractor drawn 9000 gallon rig which has a 2000GPM pump hanging off the tail end of the rig. It's in good shape, needs a minor bit of TLC, but would serve well for years to come. It's formerally of Minitola (Buena Twp) New Jersey.

[DFDMAXX]

We were looking at just that very closely during the conversion process. Our Deputy Chief has a trucking company and has a couple of tag axles running around we were going to throw under it. Like I say, though, I know we were a lot closer to GVW than 7,000 lbs, so it wasn't a major issue at the time.

We actually meant to throw it on the scales to see what the fully loaded weight was and where it was in reference to GVW as opposed to calculations when we got it done. We just never got around to it for some reason. Now that the wife's out of school for the summer and can watch kids, maybe I can get that done.

Even if it is under the GVW rating, a pusher is nice. We have a 4000gal tanker that is 3000 UNDER the GVW rating, but the way it stops we are getting a tag axle on the next one.

It isn't always about the GVW rating. Just because the axle is rated for the load, do you think you get bigger brakes? Nope. I've worked on them myself. Same brakes on 34K drives as on the 56K drives. Front brakes do get a bit wider with a heavier axle.

That's why I don't get the guys who put a 53K quint on 2 axles. A 22K front and a 31K rear. They claim it's rated for it, which it is. But the brake performance suffers a lot. Our tanker is 53K on 3 axles and it needs a fourth.

A neighbor has a 37 ton ladder on 3 axles. It is within the manufactures GVW rating. But I bet you can guess how well it stops.

This goes double for volunteer departments. They don't always have a "qualified" person driving, so they need a truck that is a little more forgiving.

If you do get a used tag axle, stay away from the little ones with the 16" dual wheels. They may be rated for 10K but they have bent under that weight, and the little 12" brake drum don't perform as well. And the cost for parts is VERY high compared to a standard tag. I know, my truck has 2 such axles. Little bit of weight savings, much higher maintenance costs and less longevity.

[mitchkrat]

We have a auto aid neighbor that has a semi with 5k with a 750 gpm pump. It also has a 6" dump system.

I know it takes the right driver, but I have seen him turn his tanker around in a much shorter distance than our 2500 gallon tandom.

[donethat]

DFDMAXX:
I think one of the reasons manufactuers get away with putting 50,000#+ on two axle chassis is that NFPA requires an auxilary braking device such as a JAKE Brake, transmission retarder, or a Telma electric retarder. These devices go a long way on stopping the rig without a lot of load on the brakes. The Air Force refueler is probably over the GVW and probably has no auxilary braking device. It was desiged to drive around air bases at 25 - 30 mph. I think a self steer tag axle would be their best choice to make it a legal rig GVW wise, and pick up some additional braking capability.

[DFDMAXX]

DFDMAXX:
I think one of the reasons manufactuers get away with putting 50,000#+ on two axle chassis is that NFPA requires an auxilary braking device such as a JAKE Brake, transmission retarder, or a Telma electric retarder. These devices go a long way on stopping the rig without a lot of load on the brakes. The Air Force refueler is probably over the GVW and probably has no auxilary braking device. It was desiged to drive around air bases at 25 - 30 mph. I think a self steer tag axle would be their best choice to make it a legal rig GVW wise, and pick up some additional braking capability.

I understand why they do it. We are not covered by any of the weight restrictions imposed by the state ( at least here in Wisconsin ) regarding axle weights or spacing, we are only expected to work within the confines of the manufactures specification.

The individual states make laws regarding weight in part to protect the roads or bridges from to much deterioration, but the other part is safety.

If they have deemed that safe operation of a large truck requires a certain amount of brake capacity to be safe, then why the exemption? By their own criteria a truck with fewer foundation brakes is not safe, regardless if a truck has an auxiliary braking system such as a Jake, Telma, transmision retarder, etc. They are called "auxiliary" braking systems for a reason. They do not take the place of the "foundation" brakes found at each wheel position.

Now I am not saying that a large ladder truck needs two more axles under it to meet state weight laws. By the time you put them on, you would have a lot less compartment space and I have no idea where you would put the outriggers.

I'm just saying that maybe we need to be somewhere in between. The state grants us permits to run heavy with standard equipment, it's just a money issue. But there are limits. The state will not grant us a permit to run the way some fire apparatus do. Why? They say it's unsafe.

Now, I'm not some safety sally who wants to change your firetruck. My experience with braking systems as an operator and a mechanic makes me believe that this is a serious issue when the weight goes up and the brake capacity goes down. Maybe the disc brakes help the brake capacity vs. weight ratio. Any info would be appreciated.

[donethat]

In many states, exemptions for weight and size have nothing to do with safety. It's who has the most effective political lobby.
In the mid-west state I grew up in there are weight and size exemptions for forestry trucks, mining trucks, and age exemptions for farm vehicles.

I could drive, and did at 14 years old, a farm tractor pulling two trailers full of hay bales, and a duece and a-half straight truck full of corn or wheat even though you had to be 16 to get a drivers license. As long as you were on a back country road and not on a state or federal highway and were sponsered by an adult it was legal. Same as most states don't require CDL's for fire fighters even though the rigs are being driven very aggressively at high rates of speed.

[Catch22]

OK, I got a chance to get to the scales today with that big sucker. We weighed in about 71K. GVW is 68,400 per the plate on the truck, and the curb weight is listed at 26,400 (I believe that's with the filters, reels, etc). Unless I transposed a number somewhere (didn't take notes since I was within an hour of being home), those should be accurate numbers.

Yes, it's still overweight, but not by 7K. It could probably use a tag axle, but that's something we're gong to discuss with the board and the guys that know more about trucks than I do.

[chiefengineer11]

OK, I got a chance to get to the scales today with that big sucker. We weighed in about 71K. GVW is 68,400 per the plate on the truck, and the curb weight is listed at 26,400 (I believe that's with the filters, reels, etc). Unless I transposed a number somewhere (didn't take notes since I was within an hour of being home), those should be accurate numbers.

Yes, it's still overweight, but not by 7K. It could probably use a tag axle, but that's something we're gong to discuss with the board and the guys that know more about trucks than I do.
Did you weigh the axles?

[Ledebuhr1]

Catch22,
Was the tank full?

6000x8.3(lbs per gal)=49,800 of water.
26,400+49,800=76,200 minimum without anything extra.

IF it was 71k gross, then your about 5,200 minimum over Gross.

I do think a tag would help with this just make sure it has good brakes.

[Catch22]

Did you weigh the axles?

We had to split-weigh it, since their scale doesn't go above 60K. We did the tandems together. I don't remember what it was for front/rear exactly, seems like it was 18K front, 53K on the tandems.

Catch22,
Was the tank full?

6000x8.3(lbs per gal)=49,800 of water.
26,400+49,800=76,200 minimum without anything extra.

IF it was 71k gross, then your about 5,200 minimum over Gross.

I do think a tag would help with this just make sure it has good brakes.

The 26,400 included the filters, reels, and hose, all of which we removed. When I say filters, don't think I'm talking about small filters. One of them was about 3' in diameter and probably 4' or so tall. The hose reels were rather large, as well, and equipped with some heavy freaking hose.

Like I say, we're going to revisit the tag axle thing. But, by the way, 71K - 68K = 3K. ;)

[Ledebuhr1]

Catch22,
You say the curb weight was 26,400, if you added a full tank of water that would be 49,800 of water, so it would be 76,200.

thats why I asked if your tank was full.

[Catch22]

Catch22,
You say the curb weight was 26,400, if you added a full tank of water that would be 49,800 of water, so it would be 76,200.

thats why I asked if your tank was full.

I understand. Let me try it this way, the plate on the door that includes all the original equipment has the curb weight of 26,400. The actual curb weight without all the stuff we removed it much less. And yes, the tank was full. We had just refilled it after a run.

[bwspeer]

"HSFDChief600"
We have the chute and have used it many times. It may slow the flow slightly but on a 10" dump you cannot tell much difference. It is much easier and time saving than putting your truck on a bind or the time having to back into that position .:D

[laddertruckgoes]

I understand. Let me try it this way, the plate on the door that includes all the original equipment has the curb weight of 26,400. The actual curb weight without all the stuff we removed it much less. And yes, the tank was full. We had just refilled it after a run.

Brother - I'll let everyone else nitpick your rig to death... I'll just share one simple phrase with you.

"Good Luck With It... and Be Safe Out There!"

[evfd3100]

Brother - I'll let everyone else nitpick your rig to death... I'll just share one simple phrase with you.

"Good Luck With It... and Be Safe Out There!"
Excellent advice. I'm not going to tell somebody what fits their department's needs. If it works, then great. If not, then lesson learned next time.

[Catch22]

Brother - I'll let everyone else nitpick your rig to death... I'll just share one simple phrase with you.

"Good Luck With It... and Be Safe Out There!"

I appreciate it.

I'll tell you the way I look at it. We're a vollie department with a $60K per year budget trying to provide the best service we can. We get creative at times, and push the envelope at times. But we do make things the safest possible.

If for a second I thought that this truck would hurt or kill someone, it would be pulled out of service. We've taken steps to make sure that doesn't happen, and I'm sure we'll take other steps as time goes on.