Thread: PUC Engines

  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    56

    Default PUC Engines

    My dept is looking into the PUC and other competing designs to buy instead of the standard mid-ship pumper. I have my reservations about the pump in an urban environment where it is likely to pump a high-rise FDC, ladderpipe, draft from the river, or relay pump. However I think it's a great idea for a rescue pumper or rural engine.

    I would like to hear from some PUC users, particularly those who have had the opportunity to pump more than your standard residential fire.

    Even if you don't have one and have an opinion about the PUC based on research or testing I would like to hear from you too.

    I am a fairly new user of this forum and imagine there was some discussion in previous threads which I will search. Thanks for any help you can provide.

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Im gonna add a question onto this...the dept that i am on is also looking into replacing and engine with the puc concept. so my question is, does the puc configuration allow for rear discharges or intakes?

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    13

    Default

    The PUC will support rear intakes and discharges and the pump should be more than able to pump in any of the situation listed above. Talk to your sales rep. amd get the information you need and a list of PUC users you can contact.

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    224

    Default

    If I'm not mistaken, I believe the PUC pump is hydrostaticly driven. That's how it gets it's full pump and roll rating.

    Our neighbors just got one, and rear intakes and discharges are not a problem. They're about as country as country can get, though- so no experiences with high rise pump ops or dual pumping, etc. LDH relays and tanker shuttles aplenty. I believe they've used it to supply the ladder pipe on their aerial before.

    Several other manufacturers use the compact, low slung pump design. Off the top of my head: KME builds their Eliminator series tankers like this; 4Guys also will build tankers with low mounted, compact pumps; and finally Ferrara's MVP uses a similar design.

    The MVP uses the standard split shaft drive. If you want pump and roll, they will install an auxiliary engine driven pump as well. Seems like a win-win package: compact, simplified pump panel, frame rail height crosslays, and a crap-ton of compartment space.

    As for your other concerns, I don't see why the pump would perform urban type pump evolutions any differently than any other rated fire pump. It's just set up differently to maximize storage space, lower pre connects, and tanks, have pump and roll etc, and do it on a reasonable wheelbase. I believe they're Darley pumps.

    This type of design is just the new generation of rescue/ multi-use engines. E-One and Crimson make them, too. The PUC, however, is the only one I know of with a standard hydrostatic pump.

    If you're seriously looking into any of these trucks, and have questions, you could always look up the depts listed under new deliveries on Pierce's or Ferrara's websites who've purchased PUC's or MVP's. Just to set the record strait, are you an urban, suburban or rural dept?

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nozzle nut 22 View Post
    If I'm not mistaken, I believe the PUC pump is hydrostaticly driven. That's how it gets it's full pump and roll rating. ?
    Think CONCRETE MIXER. This is basically the drive system that Pierce is using.

    I also believe that due to this drive system, they cannot exceed 1250gpm, I could be wrong.
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FWDbuff View Post
    Think CONCRETE MIXER. This is basically the drive system that Pierce is using.

    I also believe that due to this drive system, they cannot exceed 1250gpm, I could be wrong.
    Their website indicates 1500gpm is the top end for pump capacity.

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Their website indicates 1500gpm is the top end for pump capacity.
    I knew there was a limit, just couldn't remember what.
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Although the pump is rated at 1500 GPM, with a 60 lb. hydrant supply, this pump will supply over 2200 GPM. The drive is off the back of the engine (REPTO, Rear Engine Power Take Off) via a small drive shift actuated by an electromagnetic clutch. Yes, it's pretty much the same as what's used on certain cement mixer trucks. Place the transmission in neutral, set the brakes and flip one (yes, only one!) switch, and the pump is engaged. If you want to pump and roll, just place the transmission in gear and release the parking brake. It does not go through the transmission like a standard split shaft pump transmission, that's how you get the pump and roll. The pump is designed and all patents and molds are owned by Pierce but Darley does cast the pump but only because Pierce does not have a foundry. The pump carries a six (6) year warranty by Pierce, that's a year more than Waterous or Hale will do.

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    56

    Thumbs up What Environment?

    The area in question covers the gamut - urban core, two interstates, major shipping port, suburban commercial/residential, rural farmland and woodlands, and everything in between. I am trying to convince the decision makers that the PUC is a better fit in the rural or suburban setting when it is currently slated to go downtown.

    Several replies said to contact recent purchasers - this only puts me in touch with new users, many of which have not put the new truck through it's paces. It also typically leads to a chief or other high-ranking officer when I really want to hear from the pump operators - the reason for posting here first.

    When the PUC was first introduced, I saw a few at trade shows and the UL specs concerned me. When a single stage pump requires 2000 RPM to achieve the 250 PSI test pressure, that's more noise, fuel consumption, and wear and tear than a two-stage at 1400 RPM pumping the same volume and pressure. The 2000 RPM is also close to the governed RPM, which led me to question the ability to pump in excess of the rated capacity, something our current stable of Waterous CS and CM do very well.

    Thanks for the comments - all quite helpful.

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    56

    Default Question for MVFDWA

    Does the PUC have any similarities to any of the current Darley PTO pumps? Or is this exclusively a Pierce design?

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 16Scott View Post
    Does the PUC have any similarities to any of the current Darley PTO pumps? Or is this exclusively a Pierce design?
    I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that this was a Pierce design however Darley builds the manifolds for Pierce.

    You know, with over 600 PUC units in service, they must be doing something right and when you look at the departments that have purchased them, they run from very rural to very urban, so I doubt one could go wrong purchasing this unit.

  12. #12
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,326

    Default Various ramblings...

    I'm not sure if you'd looking at a Pierce PUC specifically, or simply that style of cab/body design. I'll give you a few different thoughts on some topics related to this discussion.

    At work, we have one of the first PUCs delivered in the state. The reaction to it is mixed, to be honest with you. It serves in a very busy district, with apartments, sporting venues, single family dwellings, interstate area, and a mixture of retail and industry. Prior to their PUC, the company was assigned a 1998 Pierce HDRP since we serve as one of the bases for the regional tech rescue response team. The HDRP was long, wide, tall, and awkward to drive up and down the road to calls 10x a day. Therefore, when it was slated for replacement, we (the apparatus committee) were approached by the Pierce rep about the PUC - it offered only 6sf less compartment space, but in a significantly smaller package (less WB, OAH, OAL, etc). Because we got one of the early models, we didn't have many others to compare it to. If we were going to order another one today, we'd do some things differently.

    Of the 20 engines we have in front line service, this is the only PUC, and we don't have plans on ordering any more. We've simply found that the standard mid-ship pump works better for our daily use.

    That being said, we've just completed specs for a PUC-style pumper for our first-out engine at my VFD (we did not use Pierce specs, we wrote our own). My VFD is a mixture of suburban and rural, and this rig will respond to far more MVA's and EMS runs than it will ever fight fire. While it's designed for fast deployment of hoselines in the event of fire, our demographics and population just don't produce a lot of structural fires.

    We did a rear intake on ours. We rely very heavily on rural water ops, so with the rear intake, we can maintain much higher flows than all of the bends needed for a rigid front intake.

    As you pointed out, there are other manufacturers out there doing PUC designs, such as this PUC-style aerial from Rosenbauer. The Ferrara MVP has been mentioned, and there's also the EMAx from E-One, the PRO from KME, and the Transformer from Crimson. Each of these designs offer an "alternative" design to the standard mid-ship pump, and I believe each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

    As for the pump, it is manufactured for Pierce by Darley, and it's REPTO design is exclusive to them. However, there's no reason you couldn't take a Waterous S100 or Hale 8FG pump and work with another manufacturer to design something along those same lines (assuming that you all haven't already made your mind up for a Pierce product).

    Hope this helps...
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 16Scott View Post
    The area in question covers the gamut - urban core, two interstates, major shipping port, suburban commercial/residential, rural farmland and woodlands, and everything in between. I am trying to convince the decision makers that the PUC is a better fit in the rural or suburban setting when it is currently slated to go downtown.

    Several replies said to contact recent purchasers - this only puts me in touch with new users, many of which have not put the new truck through it's paces. It also typically leads to a chief or other high-ranking officer when I really want to hear from the pump operators - the reason for posting here first.

    When the PUC was first introduced, I saw a few at trade shows and the UL specs concerned me. When a single stage pump requires 2000 RPM to achieve the 250 PSI test pressure, that's more noise, fuel consumption, and wear and tear than a two-stage at 1400 RPM pumping the same volume and pressure. The 2000 RPM is also close to the governed RPM, which led me to question the ability to pump in excess of the rated capacity, something our current stable of Waterous CS and CM do very well.

    Thanks for the comments - all quite helpful.
    Try to find SOMEONE who has had one for awhile. I would be MOST interested in seeing the pump test report on a 6yo WORKING Puc. For my PERSONAL opinion, stick with a Waterous or Hale pump. Even if it means a "conventional"pump layout. T.C.

  14. #14
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    Try to find SOMEONE who has had one for awhile. I would be MOST interested in seeing the pump test report on a 6yo WORKING Puc.
    TC - when I go back to work tomorrow, I'll pull the most recent pump test records for our PUC and see what information I can give everyone.
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    Try to find SOMEONE who has had one for awhile. I would be MOST interested in seeing the pump test report on a 6yo WORKING Puc. For my PERSONAL opinion, stick with a Waterous or Hale pump. Even if it means a "conventional"pump layout. T.C.
    T.C., I'm not looking to stir anything up or pick a fight with anyone....but I am curious what your thoughts and concerns are that would cause your personal opinion to stick with a more conventional style pump builder.

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    TC - when I go back to work tomorrow, I'll pull the most recent pump test records for our PUC and see what information I can give everyone.
    I have a REASON for asking. Not apt to have a Puc here anytime soon(our neighbors have a couple) but we use exclusively Hale pumps for a reason. Got no problem with waterous either,but as the fleet(minus one) is all Hale doesn't make much sense to me to take another direction. We have had another brand in the past that had incremental documented, progressive failure over the 30 years it served here.At the end,it was a glorified hose wagon. T.C.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcatee1 View Post
    T.C., I'm not looking to stir anything up or pick a fight with anyone....but I am curious what your thoughts and concerns are that would cause your personal opinion to stick with a more conventional style pump builder.
    I'll PM you. T.C.

  18. #18
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    I have a REASON for asking....
    I know exactly what you mean. Down here, Waterous dominates the fleet at both of my departments, so I can relate to the desire to stick with a brand that works for our individual agencies.
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcatee1 View Post
    T.C., I'm not looking to stir anything up or pick a fight with anyone....but I am curious what your thoughts and concerns are that would cause your personal opinion to stick with a more conventional style pump builder.
    You have a visitor message. T.C.

  20. #20
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    S.E. Iowa
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Talk to the Iowa City, Iowa FD. They run 3 of them.

  21. #21
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    98

    Default

    I would check the torque rating for the repto vs. the torque requirement for the pump. They can both be found online. Everyone talks about the pump and roll capability of the puc;does anyone do much of that at high flows? At a normal P&R flow I would think just about any PTO pump is as, if not more, efficient.

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    South Jersey (The 51st State)
    Posts
    11

    Default

    If you're not completely set on the PUC pump, which I am not for a variety of reasons, Any manufactuerer can build a narrow pump house, and put compartmentation around it. Be careful when considering some designs pump panel - compartmentation layout. The Square Footage calculation will include the compartment area that the pump panel is taking up space in.

    As with any apparatus, service after the sale and the overall construction needs the most attention. Some popular manufacturers today are way off the mark compared to where they were 10 years ago and the quality shows. Stay away from lots of plastic parts and cabs and compartments that have a lot of polished stainless trim pieces. Typically all that is covering up something beneath it. It's also advisable to look away from manufacturers that use a ton of proprietary parts. Normally you can only get those parts from factory authorized dealers. That won't help much 5-10-15 years down the road.

  23. #23
    MembersZone Subscriber
    npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EES_SEAN View Post
    If you're not completely set on the PUC pump, which I am not for a variety of reasons, Any manufactuerer can build a narrow pump house, and put compartmentation around it. Be careful when considering some designs pump panel - compartmentation layout. The Square Footage calculation will include the compartment area that the pump panel is taking up space in.
    I'd like to reinforce this point even more - that first compartment on many PUCs is virtually useless as its almost all pump controls. The same applies to other configurations, so I'm not just picking on the the PUC. We have two rear mount pumpers, one of which the manufacturer used virtually the entire compartment on the rear officer side for their panel. I KNOW that they didn't need to use that much space, but no one would make a stand about it to the builder so we lost 3/4 of a compartment to nothing but an oversized pump panel. Be wary of inflated storage volume figures. Some builders do a great job of minimizing the impact of a pump panel in a compartment, others not so much.
    "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program

  24. #24
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    You could also try Miami-Dade Fire Rescue. I believe they have several PUC pumpers in service.

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by npfd801 View Post
    I'd like to reinforce this point even more - that first compartment on many PUCs is virtually useless as its almost all pump controls. The same applies to other configurations, so I'm not just picking on the the PUC. We have two rear mount pumpers, one of which the manufacturer used virtually the entire compartment on the rear officer side for their panel. I KNOW that they didn't need to use that much space, but no one would make a stand about it to the builder so we lost 3/4 of a compartment to nothing but an oversized pump panel. Be wary of inflated storage volume figures. Some builders do a great job of minimizing the impact of a pump panel in a compartment, others not so much.
    I definitely know where you're coming from. I've seen more than a few rear mounts like that. The Dr's rear cmpt was basically a covered pump panel, with maybe some adaptors mounted to the side, or a hydrant length or two on the bottom.

    That was one of the things that impressed me most on the MVP. How compact they were able to make that pump panel- heck, there are 2 vertical slide out tool boards, AND shelving in that first compartment! Makes me wonder why the HECK most pump panels are so big to begin with.

    I like the idea of a pumper capable of volume pump and roll, w/o needing to have a second engine to drive the pump. (and ending up the size of an ARFF truck...) Granted, you most likely won't need that capability often. It would sure be nice for those well involved garages at 0 dark thirty, to be able to nail it with a good sized bumper monitor as you pull up- or bury the exposed house in foam. Ground floor taxpayer fires come to mind as well. I believe both Fallon, NV and Rattlesnake, CO own rigs like that. I think they're hot shift PTO, though.

    I, too, am anxious to hear from PUC owners how that pump works out for them. Our neighbor's is brand new- about a year.

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: 09-04-03
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-07-2003, 08:26 PM
  2. World Of Fire Report: 07-13-03
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-28-2003, 08:31 AM
  3. Indiana -Antique Fire Engines
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Buffs' Firehouse
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-27-2003, 01:20 AM
  4. World Of Fire Report: 12-18-01
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-20-2001, 10:34 PM
  5. World Of Fire Report: 11-23-01
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-26-2001, 07:15 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