1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,167

    Default Quints vs triple

    Are there any departments that run quints as their primary engine and have gone back to a standard pumper, or are considering going back to a pumper less the ladder?

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    10

    Default

    We ran a quint 1st out for a long time and switched back to a engine 1st out truck always did engine work and engine did truck work as well as a smaller water tank our engine has 750g and foam system seems silly not to use it

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    I take it your district needed the water more than the ladder?

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    FIREMECH1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    HUSKER LAND
    Posts
    2,425

    Default

    Take it as you will.....

    After annexing another town that ran a quint first out from a Volly department, the FD immediately put it out of service and sold it.

    FM1
    I'm the one Fire and Rescue calls, when they need to be Rescued.

    Quote Originally Posted by EastKyFF
    "Firemens gets antsies. Theys wants to goes to fires. Sometimeses they haves to waits."

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Did they say why?

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    FIREMECH1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    HUSKER LAND
    Posts
    2,425

    Default

    Yes, they did.

    A quint takes away either a pumper or an aerial. It also takes away manpower.

    That's the short end of a longer story.

    FM1
    I'm the one Fire and Rescue calls, when they need to be Rescued.

    Quote Originally Posted by EastKyFF
    "Firemens gets antsies. Theys wants to goes to fires. Sometimeses they haves to waits."

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Thanks.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    ENG103's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    America, #@[< Yeah !!
    Posts
    64

    Default

    I believe St. Louis has ordered or is in the process of ordering several standard pumpers in addition to some new quints. Not sure of how many of each, but it really says something when the department that made the "Total Quint" concept famous abandons it.

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FIREMECH1 View Post
    Yes, they did.

    A quint takes away either a pumper or an aerial. It also takes away manpower.

    That's the short end of a longer story.

    FM1
    But, it's really not that simple of a story. Like many things in the fire service (and life in general) it's not a "one size fits all" situation.

    Clearly there are instances in which the use of quints have resulted in the loss of some companies along with their staffing, particularly in some larger departments. However, an important point to consider (at least IMO), was the department going to loss those companies & personnel anyway? Did the use of quints actually cause the loss of the separated companies or did it prevent the closure of some fire stations?

    Additionally, there are many departments that deploy quints primarily as a dedicated function unit whether it be as an engine or a truck and without the loss of manpower.

    On the opposite end, there are many smaller departments in which the quint is a very useful addition. I work in such a department. As our once bustling mill town went downhill, so did a lot of our staffing. We reached a point in which we were down to 2 staffed engines (2 FF each). Our truck wasn't very useful at many of the more "bread and butter" type fires because it didn't respond on the initial dispatch (due to the low staffing), but rather when off-duty personnel came in on the callback for the fire. Due to our city layout and tight streets, it would routinely find itself "parked out" because of needing to drop the supply line long before it would arrive at the scene.

    Eight plus years ago, we replaced one of the engines with a quint and it has been a huge success for us. Sure, it's not as nimble as our short wheelbase pumpers, but it gets around the city quite well. It has worked great as a pumper. While it's well short of being a "full-fledged Truck", it has provided us a way of getting an aerial into position on fires that we otherwise wouldn't have been able to or in a much quicker fashion. It's also been useful on other calls, but the most important thing is that it meets what we need it to be as a Truck and it hasn't taken any manpower away from us. In fact, our staffing has increased some.

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ENG103 View Post
    I believe St. Louis has ordered or is in the process of ordering several standard pumpers in addition to some new quints. Not sure of how many of each, but it really says something when the department that made the "Total Quint" concept famous abandons it.
    But what is it actually saying? If this is the case in St. Louis, then what is the actual driving force behind the change? Is it because the TQC doesn't work well enough and they are now abandoning it? Is it an economics issue since pumpers cost considerably less than quints and money is tight? Is it a management issue in which new leadership (that never bought into the TQC) wants to go back to a more traditional deployment even though the TQC was working?

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    FIREMECH1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    HUSKER LAND
    Posts
    2,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FIREMECH1
    Yes, they did.

    A quint takes away either a pumper or an aerial. It also takes away manpower.

    That's the short end of a longer story.

    FM1
    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049
    But, it's really not that simple of a story. Like many things in the fire service (and life in general) it's not a "one size fits all" situation.
    You think???

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049
    Clearly there are instances in which the use of quints have resulted in the loss of some companies along with their staffing, particularly in some larger departments. However, an important point to consider (at least IMO), was the department going to loss those companies & personnel anyway? Did the use of quints actually cause the loss of the separated companies or did it prevent the closure of some fire stations?
    We are a larger department. And with a quint inside a station that normally houses a med unit, engine, and aerial, you lose response times, as well as back up for another call. A quint doesn't do any good to replace 2 vehicles. As for losing personnel, or closing of a station, has NEVER BEEN in the books.



    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049
    Additionally, there are many departments that deploy quints primarily as a dedicated function unit whether it be as an engine or a truck and without the loss of manpower.
    If that works for them, then that is fine. But, they can't do what 2 dedicated rigs can do. You lose if the quint runs an EMS call with a med unit, and the fire call is on a 3 story building, across the street.

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049
    On the opposite end, there are many smaller departments in which the quint is a very useful addition. I work in such a department. As our once bustling mill town went downhill, so did a lot of our staffing. We reached a point in which we were down to 2 staffed engines (2 FF each). Our truck wasn't very useful at many of the more "bread and butter" type fires because it didn't respond on the initial dispatch (due to the low staffing), but rather when off-duty personnel came in on the callback for the fire. Due to our city layout and tight streets, it would routinely find itself "parked out" because of needing to drop the supply line long before it would arrive at the scene.

    Eight plus years ago, we replaced one of the engines with a quint and it has been a huge success for us. Sure, it's not as nimble as our short wheelbase pumpers, but it gets around the city quite well. It has worked great as a pumper. While it's well short of being a "full-fledged Truck", it has provided us a way of getting an aerial into position on fires that we otherwise wouldn't have been able to or in a much quicker fashion. It's also been useful on other calls, but the most important thing is that it meets what we need it to be as a Truck and it hasn't taken any manpower away from us. In fact, our staffing has increased some.
    And there, in red, is exactly why it works for you. But to say that it will work for us, is gibberish. A quint takes away, as I said, either an engine, or an aerial, as well as manpower on a career department. Manning of our department is 4 per rig. You put in a quint, you lose 12 people, 4 per shift. That doesn't work here.

    FM1
    I'm the one Fire and Rescue calls, when they need to be Rescued.

    Quote Originally Posted by EastKyFF
    "Firemens gets antsies. Theys wants to goes to fires. Sometimeses they haves to waits."

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    I believe, and I seeing how this thread is going, I have been misunderstood. I was not asking if you replaced a pumper and ladder with a quint, I was wondering about the departments that keep their ladders\platforms and just moved from Triple to Quints.

    If you have 10 pumper and 5 ladders, you would move to 10 Quints and 5 ladders.

    If you have this, is it working out or, will the next replacement apparatus be a Triple instead of a Quint?

  13. #13
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FIREMECH1 View Post
    You think???


    We are a larger department. And with a quint inside a station that normally houses a med unit, engine, and aerial, you lose response times, as well as back up for another call. A quint doesn't do any good to replace 2 vehicles. As for losing personnel, or closing of a station, has NEVER BEEN in the books.


    If that works for them, then that is fine. But, they can't do what 2 dedicated rigs can do. You lose if the quint runs an EMS call with a med unit, and the fire call is on a 3 story building, across the street.


    And there, in red, is exactly why it works for you. But to say that it will work for us, is gibberish. A quint takes away, as I said, either an engine, or an aerial, as well as manpower on a career department. Manning of our department is 4 per rig. You put in a quint, you lose 12 people, 4 per shift. That doesn't work here.

    FM1
    I think you significantly misunderstood what I was saying. I was specifically addressing your statement that "A quint takes away either a pumper or an aerial. It also takes away manpower".

    Part of the point I was trying to make is that there's a difference between a fire apparatus being a "quint" and actually being used as a "quint". There are some departments that operate dedicated truck companies using apparatus that is technically a quint, but rarely use it in an "engine company" role. There's also some that operate quints, but rarely use them in a "truck company" role.

    When I referred to station vs company closures, I was not in any way discussing your department. I've been involved with discussions regarding a department's transition from "traditional" engine/truck companies to using "quint" companies. Comments from some from the department mirror your thoughts on quints, probably because they lost the single role units and overall manpower with that transition. A significant factor in moving towards the widespread use of quints in a department seems to be the perceived "cost savings" aspect of using a "dual role" unit.

    My point regarding that situation and others facing similar ones is that the "anger" at the quint itself may be misplaced. For example, a department has 20 stations deploying 20 engines and 5 trucks. They transition to a TQC deployment of 20 quints with the same unit staffing levels. Clearly, the transition to quints cost 5 companies worth of manpower and equipment. My point in this type of situation, is that the department may very well have been looking at losing 5 companies worth of manpower and equipment anyway. Under the traditional deployment, the loss of 5 companies (say 3 engines and 2 trucks) means that some fire stations will either close or be left with only the truck company (without suppression capabilities) in service, plus the loss of 2 aerial devices. While maybe not an ideal situation, is the decision to use quints and keep all of the stations open and staffed with a suppression capable unit along with a number of additional aerial devices a better "solution"?

    Finally, I don't believe I said anything about whether or not using quints would or would not work for your department. Again, I was addressing your specific comment. My department put a quint in service and it didn't remove an engine or truck and it didn't take away manpower and we are a career department.
    Last edited by FireMedic049; 05-22-2010 at 11:21 PM.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Finally, I don't believe I said anything about whether or not using quints would or would not work for your department. Again, I was addressing your specific comment. My department put a quint in service and it didn't remove an engine or truck and it didn't take away manpower and we are a career department.
    Have you found the added capabilities worth the step up from an engine, or was it a waste to add the ladder?

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    FIREMECH1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    HUSKER LAND
    Posts
    2,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049
    I think you significantly misunderstood what I was saying. I was specifically addressing your statement that "A quint takes away either a pumper or an aerial. It also takes away manpower".
    My apologies, I did misunderstand what you were trying to say. Sometimes I read what I want to read, without actually taking the time to read it fully.

    Apologies to Acklan, as well. I also misunderstood in what you were asking.

    FM1
    I'm the one Fire and Rescue calls, when they need to be Rescued.

    Quote Originally Posted by EastKyFF
    "Firemens gets antsies. Theys wants to goes to fires. Sometimeses they haves to waits."

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    No apologies necessary. No harm no foul. I think sometimes in a effort to help we misread content from time to time.
    You opinion is always welcomed and appreciated.

  17. #17
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FIREMECH1 View Post
    My apologies, I did misunderstand what you were trying to say. Sometimes I read what I want to read, without actually taking the time to read it fully.

    Apologies to Acklan, as well. I also misunderstood in what you were asking.

    FM1
    No problem, glad we got it cleared up.

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acklan View Post
    Have you found the added capabilities worth the step up from an engine, or was it a waste to add the ladder?
    Yes, I believe the step up for us was a huge benefit. As I mentioned, prior to that we had no aerial unit "on-duty" and responding with the initial dispatch. This led to some access issue at many calls due to our city layout and the need to put a supply line in the street before it could get to the scene.

    Obviously we've lost the ability to easily reposition for aerial use once lines come off, but so far that situation doesn't come up that often and for the most part we try to position for aerial usage upfront as best we can. Regardless, we have no problem getting the neighbors to come over if we need another aerial unit for the time being. I'm hopeful that we can replace the current quint from front-line service sometime in the next few years so we can have an aerial unit in reserve and automatically responding on the callbacks.

    We've also found it to be useful on some other calls to have the aerial ladder at our immediate disposal.

    As I stated, it has worked great as a pumper so far for us. A bigger hosebed would be nice, but the one it has now works well enough. No issues with laying or packing the LDH with the sidestacker style hosebed. We don't have a 2-1/2 line on it, but that really hasn't been an issue. We really don't use large handlines that often. Most of our work is residential and the small lines are adequate. If we need the bigger lines, they tend to be defensive commercial jobs and we have the ability to add a nozzle to the 3" if need be or we just use the 2-1/2 off the engines.

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    450

    Default

    FireMedic049,

    Without knowing your response area and assuming you have FDCs, what do you hook-up to the FDCs if you don't carry 2 1/2" on the quint?

  20. #20
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VanIsleEVT View Post
    FireMedic049,

    Without knowing your response area and assuming you have FDCs, what do you hook-up to the FDCs if you don't carry 2 1/2" on the quint?
    3 inch and some connections are now 5" storz.

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    450

    Default

    So you still have a hose bed in addition to the LDH bed.

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VanIsleEVT View Post
    So you still have a hose bed in addition to the LDH bed.
    Same hose bed holds the 5" and 3" loads.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. $$$ on Quints and Aerials?
    By westtexas in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-13-2006, 05:31 PM
  2. Quints
    By imtxff44 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-29-2003, 12:16 AM
  3. Eng with a stick
    By pres41 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 01-02-2002, 05:40 PM
  4. For The Gentleman who wanted Info On QUINTS
    By NFD270 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 12-01-2001, 01:54 PM
  5. Saint Louis (MO) F.D. Quints
    By 15hoseman in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-04-2001, 02:13 AM

Posting Permissions

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register