Rear mount pumps

[THEENGINEGOES]

What are your opinions about rear mounted pumps on an engine ? We have a few guys who would like to have the pump in the rear on our new engine. Most of us are hesitant to say the least , but that is only because we don't have them now , nor does any of our mutual aid depts.

[txgp17]

I think a rear mount is superior to almost all others.

• The water tank load can be moved forward for better stability.
• The pump intakes and discharges can be located on the rear and sides with minimal piping resulting in less friction loss, and a safer area for the operator to stand at.
• The operator's panel is better located to allow the operator to see the other side of the truck with just a few steps.
• It typically uses less space which opens up other areas for storage.

[efd281]

I am 100% against rear mount pumps. Are they effective...yes. Are they worth more than the life of the operator who you are placing in line with the on coming traffic...NO!! (Well most of the time!! JK ) I know of too many firefighters who have been caught in between the rear of their apparatus and the car of a looky-lou that have either died or lost their legs. It just seems like a bad idea. Our engines are all top mount panels. We have an excellent view of the scene and we are out of the traffic. I know that some people don't like them for the sake of getting up and down off of the truck, but come on...we are firemen right? Aren't we supposed to be in shape?

Once again, this is my opinion only and if it offended anyone....My Apologies!!

[efd1524]

agree with 281 90%. Standing behind a fire truck is the last place I want to be standing for a prolonged period of time.

Were i disagree when it comes to mid mounts, most folks i think dislike them because of safety concerns of falling in poor weather.

[RFDACM02]

I am 100% against rear mount pumps. Are they effective...yes. Are they worth more than the life of the operator who you are placing in line with the on coming traffic...NO!! (Well most of the time!! JK ) I know of too many firefighters who have been caught in between the rear of their apparatus and the car of a looky-lou that have either died or lost their legs. It just seems like a bad idea. Our engines are all top mount panels. We have an excellent view of the scene and we are out of the traffic. I know that some people don't like them for the sake of getting up and down off of the truck, but come on...we are firemen right? Aren't we supposed to be in shape?

Once again, this is my opinion only and if it offended anyone....My Apologies!!

This is why we placed our pump panel on the officers side in the rear compartment. The up and down off the pump panel was one serious reason we did this. It has nothing (ok very little ) to do with being in shape. We've had injuries from guys straight legging it off the running boards and plenty of bruised shins/knees from slips on the icy/wet running boards. Not to mention adding at least the width of the walkway to the length of the truck.

The rearmount pump does limit the amount of piping and associated friction loss. We have but two discharges out the back, then one in the drivers side rear compartment (for a 200' donut preconnect) and one 2.5" to the front bumper which gets a gated wye to two more 200' preconnected donut loads. We also liked the single master intake being center mounted in the rear. As the first due pumper, this engine will almost always be fed from the rear. If you're hooking the hydrant its a snap lining it up: just drive by the hydrant! No lining up the steamers or offsetting just right. If this was a drafting peice I'd still favor the rear mount over the side mount as backing in would still be better than trying to get the best position for drafting with the side mount. Unless you set up all your draft sites for a side mount, they're a pain!

[neiowa]

There are may threads, some very long, that discuss in detail the subject. I suggest a search.

I'm totally sold on the rear mount design. To the advantages posted above add that have a 4' shorter WB (vs midship pump compartment) which greatly improves maneuverability. GREAT layout for a rural truck as the intake/pump are at the rear of the truck 4' from the foldatank and you can conviently operate your drive by tanker shuttle. The safety improvement of elimnating the backing up of tankers greatly out weigh the speculation about pump operators being rearended. To my mind that's just nonsense.

Operator panel is seldom on the rear panel normally on the driver or the officer side. I think best/most logical is on the officer/curb side (IE out of traffic). The same guys that whine about the traffic danger line have a side pump panel on the driver side.

[txgp17]

efd281,
Your opinions are not without merit, but I offer these to counter them:

1. Everyone is not in shape, and they never will be. And even if 99% of us were in shape, you increase the risk of injury from falls by making a firefighter get up and down each time he has to perform tasks on the fireground.
2. If the appratus is turned to the left slighty when spotted on scene, it allows the driver to stand out of traffic on the safe side of the truck, assuming a Dept has sense enough to spec the operator's panel on the right hand side. I can see no logical reason to keep buying trucks with the operator's panel on the lefthand side. If we were in England, it would make sense.
3. Top mount pump panels add about 3-4' to the wheelbase. This is a huge amount that signifantly reduces the vehicles mobility.

[efd281]

First, thank you all for your opinions given in a professional manner. It just makes the boards easier to read.

1. I still maintain that the rear is dangerous, no matter where the pump panel is and a slip-trip-fall is much better than a LODD.

2. Yes, you can turn the truck slightly to reduce the risk to the operator. But I still see the operators standing away from their panels far enough to be outside of the protection of the truck. I have also seen too many videos of cars on the interstate squeezing by firetrucks on the "blocked" side.

3. Top mount panels add 30" to the truck. This is only a monumental concern if you are in a very tight urban area. Wichita KS as well as Seattle WA run top mounts and get by just fine. Also, the idea that you gain compartment space is as absurd in the rear mount configuation as it is in the Pierce PUKE....The compartment that you would have gained gets filled with pump panel.

Again, thank you for your calm and educated responses.

[RFDACM02]

First, thank you all for your opinions given in a professional manner. It just makes the boards easier to read.

1. I still maintain that the rear is dangerous, no matter where the pump panel is and a slip-trip-fall is much better than a LODD.

2. Yes, you can turn the truck slightly to reduce the risk to the operator. But I still see the operators standing away from their panels far enough to be outside of the protection of the truck. I have also seen too many videos of cars on the interstate squeezing by firetrucks on the "blocked" side.

3. Top mount panels add 30" to the truck. This is only a monumental concern if you are in a very tight urban area. Wichita KS as well as Seattle WA run top mounts and get by just fine. Also, the idea that you gain compartment space is as absurd in the rear mount configuation as it is in the Pierce PUKE....The compartment that you would have gained gets filled with pump panel.

Again, thank you for your calm and educated responses.

Along the same lines or respectful disagreement. I think the top mount does offer better protection from direct vehicle impact, but you lose the ability to jump out of the way if you see the car coming! I certainly wouldn't want to be on the topmount walk way when the truck gets hit! Still, it's better than taking the direct hit. It does depend on how your operators function. Our guys rarely stay at the panel with feet planted. They do a lot in the area of the engine.

The rear mount pump can give you more space due to the use of the pedestal style pump which is more compact, as well as having much less piping taking up space. The manifold can be fairly compact and direct as well. When compared to a typical mid-ship pump the pedestal is a smaller package and can fit between two full depth compartments. Of course you can configure the mid-ship with only one suction out one side or use the pedestal pump in the midship area to gain the space.

Again, depending our how you operate the rearmount seems more efficient. As NEIOWA pointed out the rural water stuff seems a natural fit, but I'd note that urban settings can also see the benefits. As I noted earlier, trying to line up with hydrants that are not perfectly spaced from the road is difficult with a mid-ship/side suction as you have to figure how to make the connection with your pony roll without kinking it because you're to close or ading too it because your a little short. Toss in a few cars and a curb and now your fighting to find space to put it. With the rearmount you should have plenty of space in the street behind you. If you are too far, just add a length and stretching back, too close? Loop it back away from the truck. The configuration also naturally allows for more of the hose to run inline with apparatus to free up street width for other apparatus or god forbid, passing cars.

Lastly I'd note that if you are running a sustain pump operation and have vehicles passing close by that could hit your personnel, your not operating as safe as you could. So the operator is safe up on the panel, where are the other guys? If you guys are like us, we;re constantly retrieving or returning stuff to the apparatus. These personnel are just as much at risk if not more as they are usually focused on their task and are less aware of the road than the operator.

OK really final for this post. Did anyone look at Toyne's reverse top mount panel at the FDIC? We saw it at the factory and were wondering the advantages of this set up?

[npfd801]

OK really final for this post. Did anyone look at Toyne's reverse top mount panel at the FDIC? We saw it at the factory and were wondering the advantages of this set up?

I think it could be really useful for those departments that nose in on rural fires (i.e. up long driveways, etc.), so your pump operator could see what's going on without looking over his/her shoulder all of the time.

[todd3603]

We made the transition from top mount, to side mount, to placing our first rear mount pumper in service in November. So far all the companies have really taken to the design change with no complaints, actually many more positive comments have surfaced over the other two designs. We opted for the pump panel in the driver side rear compartment, this was primarly to have the operator on the opposite side of the vehicle exhaust exit. We cover only a few miles divided highway, weighing pros to cons it made sense to stay with DS mounted control panel, as our responses to other areas of the district were 50/50 at best on which side of the apparatus was to the traffic side. As far as scene visibility, as our policy has the engine pulling past the scene for aerial placement, it gives the operator a 270 degree view of the scene, has worked well. This engine will make over 2000 runs yearly, so far so good, and plans are definately to stay with all rear mount pumpers in the future at this point. When I was doing my homework prior to this change, I did not find the numbers to support that a great % of firefighters operating rear mounts pumpers had been injured or killed due to the design, actually no supporting numbers that this increased the ratio over top/side mount pump panels. To the post that stated he "knew" of a number of firefighters killed and injured operating rear mounts, I would love to have their names, departments or incident dates so I could do further research as to why personnel in his area are being affected that greatly, maybe I'll change my mind. Lastly, compartment space, with the rear mount design you do gain space over the midship design, atleast with my selection of a SD100 waterous pump, as you have one compartment utilized as panel and appliance storage, however all discharge/intakes are off the rear, thus no discharge/intake panel is required on the passenger side as with most midships. My 2 cents.

[RFDACM02]

We opted for the pump panel in the driver side rear compartment, this was primarly to have the operator on the opposite side of the vehicle exhaust exit.

This was a sticking point for us as well. We really wanted to put the panel on the officers side with the exhaust being the only real detractor. We even looked at some sort of wyed off exhauat with a diversion switch for pump ops, but opted to consider carrying a section of exhaust vent system hose to use as redirection. We're still looking into whether this could cause issues for the motor? Worst case scenario is we'll plug in the electric PPV fan so it gets used for something!

[todd3603]

With the new 2007 emissions "crap", everything will probably have an effect, or atleast they will tell you it will because they really don't know I have came to love taking the engine out of service every fifth day or so for 40 minutes for regeneration, the guys just love switching out trucks We looked at other options too, just didn't find anything workable, however at this point, the DS location has worked out well, however each response area differs and what works for me certainly will not work for others.

[npfd801]

You regen every 5th day? Man that seems a lot more than what I was told would be needed.

[todd3603]

That is our average. The frequency of regeneration seems directlly related to the number of starts and stops, not the time the engine is operated. We are currently tracking regeneration frequency versus starts/stops and engine hours operated. We make 6-7 responses daily from this engine, plus inspection, pre-plan and hydrant inspection trips, so it has its fair share of starts/stops. Additionally, we cover 10sq miles, so almost every start/stop is proceeded by a short run, very little highway time.

[donethat]

I was told the engine can be re-gened while driving. If that is correct then you can be doing the re-gen when doing inspection and pre-planning trips, as well as going to the store for groceries. No need to remove from service.

[RFDACM02]

I think it could be really useful for those departments that nose in on rural fires (i.e. up long driveways, etc.), so your pump operator could see what's going on without looking over his/her shoulder all of the time.

That seems to be one of the few true advantages. One of the few things I like about normal top mounts is the ability to lean against the back of the cab for warmth on cold nights on the pump panel. This seems to nullify that. Also does it add complexity to the pump controls or maybe its only available with electric controls? In any event it probably addresses some FD's needs and is an option for them that would seem to have little overall impact on the standard design.

I was told the engine can be re-gened while driving. If that is correct then you can be doing the re-gen when doing inspection and pre-planning trips, as well as going to the store for groceries. No need to remove from service.

This is also what we were told. I know we had concerns of re-gen that happened during a pumping evolution and were told this would not be an issue.

[todd3603]

I was told the engine can be re-gened while driving. If that is correct then you can be doing the re-gen when doing inspection and pre-planning trips, as well as going to the store for groceries. No need to remove from service.

The engine regeneration can be done while driving, as long as you can maintain 1400rpms as required by the process, hard to accomplish in a suburban setting. It can also be done during pumping operations, however the same rules apply.

[Rescue101]

Buy Cummins! No regen(at least on the ISM500).No rears here,I think Adam's makes THREE for the whole state.Never had a problem with a midship,and I doubt we'll be changing anytime soon.But the Boss might have a mind cramp and that could change.We've had one or more of everything else.Neighbors have one with Cafs,I still don't see it but hey:It's not my wagon and it's what they wanted.Works good. T.C.

[npfd801]

Snipped for sanity:

Also does it add complexity to the pump controls or maybe its only available with electric controls? In any event it probably addresses some FD's needs and is an option for them that would seem to have little overall impact on the standard design.

As far as I could tell, it isn't any different with regard to linkages and what not, as the pump is directly behind the cab, the walkway is just moved further back on the rig (as opposed to the walkway and then the pump). The only electric valves would be what's desired by the department.

http://www.toyne.com/uploaded_files....20Mount%20demo

There's photos of the rig at the link above. Most people here probably know it, but I sell Toyne for one of their dealers, so I wanted to put that out there. I'm not advocating this pump arrangement as better than any other, and I know for a fact I've seen another builder do it, so it isn't like Toyne is the only game in town that will do this. The photos are just to illustrate the unit in question.