Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: tanker builders

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4

    Default tanker builders

    Does anyone know anything about Mid West Fire?


  2. #2
    Forum Member CaptOldTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trojun84 View Post
    Does anyone know anything about Mid West Fire?



    Look ok to me, depending on what you want and how you want it ticked out and the money you have to spend.



    http://www.midwestfire.com/
    Stay Safe and Well Out There....

    Always remembering 9-11-2001 and 343+ Brothers

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber Saltspringfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trojun84 View Post
    Does anyone know anything about Mid West Fire?
    We just bought a PTX 3000 from them... quite happy. Nieghboring department has a 1500. Good guys to work with and good bang for buck I would say.

    http://www.midwestfire.com/recent-de....php?model=PTX
    Last edited by Saltspringfire; 04-07-2010 at 07:06 PM.
    "We accept great personal risk to save another person's life; We accept moderate personal risk to save another persons property; We accept no personal risk to save what is already lost"

    Visit us on the web @ www.saltspringfire.com

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    123

    Default

    I still don't understand why departments still buy conventional tankers.

    Buy a vacuum tanker.

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SW Missouri
    Posts
    1,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue601 View Post
    I still don't understand why departments still buy conventional tankers.

    Buy a vacuum tanker.
    Because 99.9% of the time we fill off a hydrant.

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    308

    Default

    That would work great--if we had any real hydrants.....

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    West Burlington, IA
    Posts
    120

    Default

    The department I served on before moving to my present department owns 2 Midwest Fire vehicles, 1 is a 2000 gallon tanker, the other is a 2000 gallon pumper/tanker. They're very happy with them from what I understand.

    I was around when we sent out bids for the tanker. Midwest Fire was the most reasonable we found at that time. That was about 10 years ago now.

  8. #8
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1524 View Post
    Because 99.9% of the time we fill off a hydrant.
    It's NOT just about the FILLING. Equally important is OFFLOADING. AND you CAN fill a vac off a hydrant just as you do a conventional tanker. T.C.

  9. #9
    Forum Member FFWALT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    344

    Default

    I cannot comment about Midwest Fire because I cannot recall being around any of their apparatus.

    I definitely agree with Rescue101 about vacuum tankers. They can still be filled as a conventional tanker off of a hydrant but this limits their potential. Their improved dump times over a conventional tanker plus all the potential water sources they make available compared to a conventional tanker make them definitely worth considering when you are looking to replace a tanker. After seeing one operate and having one in our fleet for 5 years I don't think we'll ever go back to conventional tankers. Pretty sure when our two conventional are phased out they will be replaced by vacuums because to us they are definitely worth the money.

    Speaking about the cost, if you compared a vacuum to a conventional tanker with the same features, I don't think the difference would be that drastic.
    Train like you want to fight.
    www.kvfd.net

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Texas
    Posts
    284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    It's NOT just about the FILLING. Equally important is OFFLOADING. AND you CAN fill a vac off a hydrant just as you do a conventional tanker. T.C.
    But you can't pull a vacuum off of a hydrant (at least not in my district), so you can't fill it any faster.

    And I'll agree that you can offload faster with the vacuum tanker IF you're using drop tanks. But in 98% of the time, we pump straight from the tanker to the engine, so that doesn't matter. Even discharging into a drop tank, the difference is less than a minute. We recently did a tanker shuttle class and the difference between our conventional tanker's 3000 gallons through a 10" dump and a neighboring department's 3000 gallon vacuum tanker using pressure was less than a minute.

    Then again, for the same amount of gallons, that vacuum tanker is going to be 4-6 feet longer than a conventional square-sided tanker. With our narrow roads and driveways, that translates into a harder time getting in and out, which negates any advantage gained through the faster discharge.

    Now, we paid $148k for our Fouts 3000 gallon tanker in 2006. The neighboring department bought their 3000 gallon WaterMaster at about the same time and paid $242k.

    So my question is, if you don't have easily accessible fill sites or you're filling from a hydrant, AND turning radius is important, why in the world would you pay $90k extra just to get something you'd hardly ever use? Seems like a total waste of your taxpayers' money.

  11. #11
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    No arguement,Vacs aren't for everyone. My comment was directed more or less toward the fact you can do normal fill/ dumps with the Vac,along with advanced capability. You have a VERY valid point on the length. For US a Vac,is a very Viable way to go with a Tanker,due to many lakes and ponds. If your operations are otherwise a standard Tanker may be the way to go.Looks like we agree on the 3000 though. T.C
    .

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Texas
    Posts
    284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    No arguement,Vacs aren't for everyone. My comment was directed more or less toward the fact you can do normal fill/ dumps with the Vac,along with advanced capability. You have a VERY valid point on the length. For US a Vac,is a very Viable way to go with a Tanker,due to many lakes and ponds. If your operations are otherwise a standard Tanker may be the way to go.Looks like we agree on the 3000 though. T.C
    .
    I agree to... err... agree...

    However, there are several folks out there that push one type of tanker or the other, regardless of the actual situations a FD finds itself in. It all boils down to a FD taking a good, hard look at its OWN operations and buying the apparatus that fits those operations.

    I am a HUGE proponent of 3000 gallons on a tandem axle versus 2000 on a single. My biggest arguments are that the PER AXLE weight of the larger tanker is actually less AND you have twice braking ability.

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simpleguy68 View Post
    ...

    Now, we paid $148k for our Fouts 3000 gallon tanker in 2006. The neighboring department bought their 3000 gallon WaterMaster at about the same time and paid $242k.

    So my question is, if you don't have easily accessible fill sites or you're filling from a hydrant, AND turning radius is important, why in the world would you pay $90k extra just to get something you'd hardly ever use? Seems like a total waste of your taxpayers' money.
    Talk about comparing oranges and a bucket of rocks. Or perhaps a Yugo to a Accord. Both are cars or both are BRT. That doesn't make them comparable.

    Compare the cost of a 3000gal dryside tanker from a 1st tier manufacturer with the cost of a Watermaster.

  14. #14
    Forum Member islandfire03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,490

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    Talk about comparing oranges and a bucket of rocks. Or perhaps a Yugo to a Accord. Both are cars or both are BRT. That doesn't make them comparable.

    Compare the cost of a 3000gal dryside tanker from a 1st tier manufacturer with the cost of a Watermaster.
    You mean like the bankruptcy special you bought from a 1st tier manufacturer???????

    A tanker is not a complicated piece of equipment to build. You don't have to spend ridiculous amounts of money to haul water from point A to B.
    We recently looked at a watermaster as we're surrounded by water. Problem is ,it's salt water, which is not recommended to be used in the unlined aluminum pressure vessel of the vacuum tanker. The available water supply we do have from ponds tends to be a little brackish and thick. Also the added length really huts the maneuverability on narrow roads and long driveways. We decided that the benefits of a vacuum tanker aren't there for us. For some folks with lots of untapped streams rivers and ponds that can be accessed with the vacuum hose thats a different story. TC will be able to make much better use of one as he's surrounded by fresh water.

  15. #15
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simpleguy68 View Post
    I agree to... err... agree...

    However, there are several folks out there that push one type of tanker or the other, regardless of the actual situations a FD finds itself in. It all boils down to a FD taking a good, hard look at its OWN operations and buying the apparatus that fits those operations.

    I am a HUGE proponent of 3000 gallons on a tandem axle versus 2000 on a single. My biggest arguments are that the PER AXLE weight of the larger tanker is actually less AND you have twice braking ability.
    Nope,you have 33% more brakes.You're only adding 1 X and one set of brakes. YES,it will have better handling. And probably slighly less footprint PSI to the ground. You WILL go thru tires(rear) faster than a single. All that aside we are looking to replace our 2200 gal SINGLE with a 3000 0r v3500 gallon TANDEM. If at all possible($) it WILL be a Vac. T.C.

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    you go from 6 wheels to 10. That's over a 50% increase in rubber.

  17. #17
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    True,but the rubber is only as good as the friction holding it back. I've got TWO HD tow trucks,one a single,one a tandem. I'm VERY familiar what difference an axle makes, I still say 33% more, but we all can have our opinions. T.C.

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Texas
    Posts
    284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    Talk about comparing oranges and a bucket of rocks. Or perhaps a Yugo to a Accord. Both are cars or both are BRT. That doesn't make them comparable.

    Compare the cost of a 3000gal dryside tanker from a 1st tier manufacturer with the cost of a Watermaster.
    So I should pay a whole lot more just so the d@mn thing can say Pierce or KME or E-One or who gives a crap what else on the side. We looked at apparatus from almost every manufacturer when we bought our tanker, including a tanker from Pierce. Guess what? That Pierce sat on the same Kenworth chassis (sans A/C) with the same engine and transmission. It had the same pump (which is a drop in unit from Darley) and the tank was made by the same company with the exact same warranty. So how much extra would we have to pay for the Pierce? $45k... for the same truck.

    Which, BTW, is still $45k cheaper than the Watermaster.

    Your comparison of a Yugo to a Accord is misleading. A more apt comparison would be a Chevrolet to a Buick. Yep, the Buick is nicer and costs a lot more and impresses your friends, but it has the same frame, suspension, engine, and transmission as the Chevy.
    Last edited by simpleguy68; 04-11-2010 at 10:15 PM.

  19. #19
    Forum Member CGITCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sumner IA
    Posts
    496

    Default

    Our department is unique in our tankers. We run 3 tankers, 1250 gallons on single axles. Two soon to be replaced by 2000 gallon single axles. We could have tandem big *** tankers, but this little thing called Iowa winter makes things a bitch to get through with all that weight. We make our trucks to handle the tougher terrain. And we can get a lot more effective shuttle going with a couple smaller trucks than one or two big ones.

  20. #20
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Don't know where you live in Iowa BUT: We have harsher conditions HERE than Iowa ever thought of. VERY few Single axle tankers left. Just about everybody around here runs 3000-3500 gallons on tandems. If you like singles,run 'em. But on water supply,I'm betting we could bring OUR operation to Iowa and perhaps show you a thing or two.As a side note: I'm NO authority on Iowa but I have been there enough to know that my stuff could work there. And WELL, so I'm pretty comfortable making this assertion.You can get some pretty nimble tandems,the only place we've ever had any issues is really tight turns on ice/snow. And once you learn how,it's manageable. T.C.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. World Of Fire Report: 01-16-06
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-23-2006, 10:08 PM
  2. World Of Fire Report: 10-21-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-24-2005, 07:34 AM
  3. Tanker Debate in Coal Country!
    By coldfront in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-18-2005, 10:50 PM
  4. World Of Fire Report: 10-04-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-12-2005, 07:28 AM
  5. World Of Fire Report: 03-26-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-29-2005, 09:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts