2 inch hose...Are you using it?

I used 2" attack lines on two the departments early in my career back in the mid to late 80's, and I have mixed feelings on it. One used it for all of thier attack lines, and the second used it as a reel line for selected situations where a little more flow was required beyond the standard 1 3/4". On that department, it was discontinued shorly after I arrived and we switched over to all 1 3/4".

While it does provide excellent flows, especially for commercial fires, I found it to be heavy and difficult to move around in a small residental space, such as a trailer or less than 100-1200 sf home with a heavy fire load.

Certainly it is a very good choice for departments where that 3rd man on the hoseline is almost always available, but if you are consistantly operating with 2, I found it to be less than ideal for interior operations.

From what I understand, my previous department (which was the one that got rid of the 2" shortly after I arrived) has switched to 2" as the primary attack line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

I used 2" attack lines on two the departments early in my career back in the mid to late 80's, and I have mixed feelings on it. One used it for all of thier attack lines, and the second used it as a reel line for selected situations where a little more flow was required beyond the standard 1 3/4". On that department, it was discontinued shorly after I arrived and we switched over to all 1 3/4".

While it does provide excellent flows, especially for commercial fires, I found it to be heavy and difficult to move around in a small residental space, such as a trailer or less than 100-1200 sf home with a heavy fire load.

Certainly it is a very good choice for departments where that 3rd man on the hoseline is almost always available, but if you are consistantly operating with 2, I found it to be less than ideal for interior operations.

From what I understand, my previous department (which was the one that got rid of the 2" shortly after I arrived) has switched to 2" as the primary attack line.

---

I have to disagree with you on the weight and ease of movement. We are an only 2 inch for handlines FD and while having 3 on the line is nice we practice moving the line with 2 FFs. I can tell you on more than a few occasions I have been involved in moving the 2 inch line into a home with only one other firefighter on the line and had no difficulties doing it.

For the circumstances that we bought it for it works perfectly for us and I don't figure that we will be changing anytime soon.

My dept has been using 2in handlines since before i became a member 10 years ago....I honestly cant see doing it any other way...ive used 1.5" and 1.75" in training and so forth but actually hated it and couldnt wait to get back to the 2in we have no problem with advancing the line with 2 guys through even the worst cluttered residential structures or commercial structures. We've also changed from dry line to wet line advancement when we changed over to the nitrile rubber hose with smoothbore pistol grip nozzles

Might be a bad time to bring up Paul Grimwood but we have been decreasing line size and increasing training.

Still using 2 inch and 2 1/2 but just another tool in the tool box.

What is encouraging is that individual departments are taking the time to experiment with what they use and what they encounter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootstraps

Might be a bad time to bring up Paul Grimwood but we have been decreasing line size and increasing training.

Still using 2 inch and 2 1/2 but just another tool in the tool box.

What is encouraging is that individual departments are taking the time to experiment with what they use and what they encounter.

---

Okay, I'll ask.

1) What is the relevance of the Paul Grimwood comment?

2) Please explain what you mean by decreasing the line size and increasing training? Fire of a specific size takes a specific flow to cool and effect extinguishment. So unless you are meeting the needed flow all the training in the world won't help.

Hey Fyredup,

I think I can maybe shed some light on that for ya. In Canada the "standard" methods of "attacking" a fire are somewhat "different" than in the States. UNFORTUNATELY, MOST Canadian FD's bought into the whole "little drops of water" concept decades ago...we generally canned all the straight bores, and pretty much uniformly opted for 1 1/2" attack lines.

This is essentially Paul's Fog Attack and 3D attack type stuff. AS I view it, it works well in EUROPEAN structures, which are generally much heavier built, AND it can work well in the LARGE Canadian CITIES, where they have Full time FD's and can respond and be on scene with sufficient manpower to mount effective interior attacks on contents or single room fires.

REALITY is in Canada, almost 95% of all FD's are Volunteer or Paid on Call.....many have HUGE coverage areas and are chronically short of volunteers..SO, are often responding to and arriving LONG past the point were it becomes a full involved structure fire, NOT just a room or contents fire, YET many still grab their little 1 1/2" lines with their little automatic fog nozzle and off they go...

SO, in MOST cases this "thinking" is a falicy. Firstly, I can almost gaurentee that these FD's "BELIEVE" they are flowing LOTS OF WATER...cause the lines are hard to control and Nozzle reaction is high...so it must be flowing lots right?...lol...

There ARE more and more Fire Chiefs and senior Officers that are seeing what is wrong...there are movements in effect to return to the tried and tested straight bore nozzles and 2" lines, myself included....

All the Canadian Provinces have seperate levels of training established, some to FF1 and 2 levels, some to higher Provincial standards, regardless, the "fire Marshal's and Fire Colleges have been teaching this outdated Fog and 1 1/2 crap for sooo long, that is almost ingrained now...and is TOTALLY ineffective in tha vast majority of situations....

I'm actually glad that you and others posted up on this thread what YOU all are using....let me do some investigating and looking up nozzles and hoses etc......so THANK you all for YOUR input...it is appreciated.

:o

I'm guessing he is refering to Grimwood's push toward 3D firefighting which favors the European style of construction and fire loading.

It revolves around smaller compartments, more natural or fire resistant materials, and smaller required GPMs applied in controlled fog and pencil streams.

It works. Really, it works...under the right conditions.

The opposite end of the spectrum is Ray MacCormack tactics which call for a big hit to get a big knockdown...Lots and lots of water applied in straight streams...

It works. Really, it works...under the right conditions.

I agree with the idea of bringing a big gun and using only as much ammo as needed. Once you are in there, if you drag a small line, you do not have the option to flow more if needed. Just sayin....

As far as training, Grimwood pushes (rightly so) lots of compartment fire training to first understand fire behaviour, and second, recognize violent fire behaviour. The point behind the recognition is that knowing when to go is as important as knowing how to put it out.

Understand that Grimwood himself has stated that one technique does not solve all fire conditions. The construction and fire loading may dictate what you will choose to do.

I've got Grimwood's 3D Firefighting book. That and his articles on his website are where I got this info. I neither endorse nor nay say these theories. I just add them to the tool Box.

Having said that, If I'm told I have one tool for most fires, I choose a medium size hitter (2" or oversize 1 3/4"). Just sayin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fireeaterbob

I'm guessing he is refering to Grimwood's push toward 3D firefighting which favors the European style of construction and fire loading.

It revolves around smaller compartments, more natural or fire resistant materials, and smaller required GPMs applied in controlled fog and pencil streams.

It works. Really, it works...under the right conditions.

The opposite end of the spectrum is Ray MacCormack tactics which call for a big hit to get a big knockdown...Lots and lots of water applied in straight streams...

It works. Really, it works...under the right conditions.

I agree with the idea of bringing a big gun and using only as much ammo as needed. Once you are in there, if you drag a small line, you do not have the option to flow more if needed. Just sayin....

As far as training, Grimwood pushes (rightly so) lots of compartment fire training to first understand fire behaviour, and second, recognize violent fire behaviour. The point behind the recognition is that knowing when to go is as important as knowing how to put it out.

Understand that Grimwood himself has stated that one technique does not solve all fire conditions. The construction and fire loading may dictate what you will choose to do.

I've got Grimwood's 3D Firefighting book. That and his articles on his website are where I got this info. I neither endorse nor nay say these theories. I just add them to the tool Box.

Having said that, If I'm told I have one tool for most fires, I choose a medium size hitter (2" or oversize 1 3/4"). Just sayin.

---

First off let me say that I am of the Ray MacComack school of thought in regards to fire attack.

With that being said I have read Paul Grimwood's book 3D firefighter as well as the air track management book that is along the same school of thought. Whilie i struggled to choke through the fire attack portions of the book. I did learn alot of good information on fire behavior and other related stuff. I recommend that people read it with an open mind and take what you can from it as it relates to your department's tactics and building construction.

First off, I should not have mentioned Paul. In retrospect I do realize the controversy that that raises in the forums. My apologies.

Oh and My Name is Bootstraps and I like to go to FIRES!

I dont post here alot but I spend alot of time here. I am Canadian as-well.

What made me post here was Fyredup's thread on how their department did alot of looking at flows and what that meant to them.

I see too many departments, FT, POC and Vollie that do training in the same old way that they have done for the past 30 years without looking outside the box. That's why 6-7 years ago I got interested in what Paul was doing and promoting.

The area that our department covers is a mix of concentrated urban, rural residential and rural industry. Three very distinct areas that have 3 very distinct response needs from our department. We can be on scene in 3 minutes, with a 900 square foot house to a 70,000 square foot warehouse/manufacturing floor in 15 minutes.

As has been pointed out we do things abit different up in the Great White North, but we still carry 1 3/4, 2 and 2 1/2, fog, combination and smooth. Tools in a tool box.

My comment of increased training and decreased size was directed at our approach to training on quick response, low square footage fires. This is where the 3-D method shines in my opinion.

Again, I find it awesome that small and large size departments are experimenting through training to best meet what they are being face with.

We did do a lot of testing, experimenting, and actual in service use testing, before we came to our decision of 2 inch hose, 200 gpm at 75 psi combo nozzle and the 1 1/4 inch slug. We know our area, our daytime staffing, and the reality that in our case the first line 9 times out of 10 make or break us in battling the fire. Because in the first few critical minutes we may not have adequte personnel to pull that second line.

To me I couldn't care less what method of fire attack you use, 3-D, indirect, direct, combination of any of those, the simple fact that cannot be refuted is the application of water must be greater than the heat produced or you will fail at extinguishing the fire. Of course this can be accomplished one of 2 ways: 1) Overwhelm the fire with flow from nozzles, 2) Apply inadequate amounts of water, never extinguishing the fire until it burns down to the rate of flow you are applying. Both work. The first is generally far more satisfying to both the firefighters and the property owner.

One of the FDNY guys said to several people on this forum a while back "Don't do what we do simply because we do it. What we do may not work where you are." That is the truth, no matter who you emulate, differing construction, differing staffing, differing equipment, and more all play into tactics and strategy. Evaluate YOUR area and all of the above and come to the right solution for you.

What FyredUp said above.

There are two things that our department should change that I got from Grimwood's Eurofirefighter.

The first is: stop using the booster reel (40gpm) and use the 1 3/4 inch hose at 100gpm and 50-75 psi

and the second one is: use more modern nozzles that allow us to do effective 3D attacks.

And from what I hear and see we'll get there some day in the near future.

Edit: We use the 1 3/4 inch because that's the smallest line we have, apart from the booster reel. The next hose size would be 2 3/4 inch.

The more tactics you know and train on, the more situations you can adapt to... Sometimes we have manpower out the wazzoo, other times we are WAY short. Having a medium to big hitter on the front line that can get a knock may be the answer for us... But I whole heartedly agree, testing and evaluating your needs will lead to the right solution...

Side note, I think our 1 and 3/4 is a whole lot closer to conquest's 1.89. Stuff might as well be 2"...

We had a pole barn fire a couple of days ago fought entirely with 2 inch lines. We were flowing at the peak of the fore 800 gpm, 2 lines with the 1 1/4 inch slugs flowing 300 gpm each and another with a combo tip flowing 200 gpm. Knocked down a ton of fire pretty quickly flowing class A foam from the 2 lines flowing 300 gpm.

Again the beauty of the 2 inch showed though immediately the first line off only had 2 guys on it and they were immediately flowing 200 gpm, they were easily able to move the line. Once we established our water supply they went to 300 gpm and as more FFs arrived we added the other 2 lines. Most of the time all of the lines were operated with 2 FFs.

So I went out and retested our lines today, seems we never got our chart updated after we switched to the Conquest. Numbers were a little off. Our 400' 250 GPM 1 3/4" line is 210 PSI PDP and the 250' 160 GPM 1 3/4" line is 90 PSI PDP.

Glad this thread caught my attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fireeaterbob

The more tactics you know and train on, the more situations you can adapt to... Sometimes we have manpower out the wazzoo, other times we are WAY short. Having a medium to big hitter on the front line that can get a knock may be the answer for us... But I whole heartedly agree, testing and evaluating your needs will lead to the right solution...

Side note, I think our 1 and 3/4 is a whole lot closer to conquest's 1.89. Stuff might as well be 2"...

---

The difference between Pauls approach and Rays approach boils down to just ONE thing. Paul's approach works very well on compartmentized fires. Rays approach works well on..............ALL fires(structural).Now I've been around long enough to have played in both camps. You use a line that doesnt flow enough you will be chasing all nght. Use the RIGHT line and the Fire goes out and you go home. T.c.

We are currently testing the 2" hose and are loving it. Getting around 175 gpm with a 200' preconect TFT dual-force nozzle and only pumping 100psi @ the pump. 8lbs heavier(charged) than 1 3/4" per 50' slightly higher nozzle reaction but well worth the added GPM's. Its half the friction loss of 1 3/4"

We just bought new hose and rebuilt/replaced our nozzles. We had old TFT handline nozzles which we rebuilt with the Dual Force Tips on both the 1 3/4 and 2 1/2 lines. Very cost effective move to update the nozzles. We also have 100' trash lines on 2 of our engines and a 3rd 1 3/4 line on our third engine that we went to the Midforce dual pressure nozzles. We also just replace all of our 1 3/4 handline with Mercedes KrakenExo. It has a very low friction loss (6.9 psi @ 100 gmp per 100') and a high kink resistance. The hose is labled as 1 3/4 but has a bowl diameter of 2 1/8. We start the the flow @ 100 psi pump and adjust from there. With this set up, we are flowing between 180-200 gpm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PCFR 823

We are currently testing the 2" hose and are loving it. Getting around 175 gpm with a 200' preconect TFT dual-force nozzle and only pumping 100psi @ the pump. 8lbs heavier(charged) than 1 3/4" per 50' slightly higher nozzle reaction but well worth the added GPM's. Its half the friction loss of 1 3/4"

---

Wait, what? You're flowing 175 gpm but it's 32 lbs heavier (in 200 ft) and has higher nozzle reaction? So where's the gain over 1.75"? Lower engine pressure and RPM's. So it's harder on the crew but easier on the engine? Seems like there should be more gain to me. We flow 180 from our 200 ft. 1.75" lines at 150 psi and a nozzle reaction of around 70 psi (manageable by 1 FF).

We use 2 1/2" for commercial high rise fires, with 75ft lengths. We're considering trying 2 1/2" off the standpipe and the lead length being 2". It's still in the planning stage and we haven't tested this yet. As a side note, we use 1 3/4" for residential high rise also 75ft lengths. Not sure if we're planning to change that to 2" at this time.