Like Tree4Likes

Thread: Engine-Tanker? Anyone, Anyone?

  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    48

    Default Engine-Tanker? Anyone, Anyone?

    My dept is looking to replace a 1986 Dash Pumper open bucket, 1000 gpm, 1,000 gal tank. This engine has very limited compartment space and we can not carry what equipment is required to meet our county standards, it does not meet current NFPA standards, has mechanical issues costing thousands each year to repair,do to the current county standard of carrying LDH, it has maxed out the weight limit on this engine and has this weight is making the front end skate when going down the road (was not built for today's fire service). We would like to replace it with an Engine-Tanker (1250 + GPM, 2000-3000 Gal tank, side and rear dumps). Our first due area has only 3 fire hydrants (1 street that has 3 hydrants over 1 mile), the rest of our 42 square miles are covered by what we bring with us or by rural water supply ops (draft site & tanker shuttle), draft sites are 2 private ponds on the far out skirts of our area. Not only in our area but our neighboring companies area and our mutual aid area's are also 70-85% rural water supply area's.

    Currently we have a 2005 Peirce Rescue Engine (1250 GPM, 1000 Gal, Hurst tools), a 1993Peirce Engine-Tanker (1000 gpm, 1800 gal), this unit only has a rear dump, very limited compartment space, this unit was bought in 1993 as a demo and was a quick fix to replace a unrepairable engine, being a demo it didn't meet many of the needs we faced and would face in the future. This only meets the county Engine-Tanker status due to the tank size and is facing replacement in 2016. We also bought a used 2004 Ford Mini Pumper in 2010 to access the draft sites and limited access driveways (farms, farm lanes, mountain homes) in our area, handle brush fire's, tow our rescue boats and handle our trail & mountain rescues.

    Based on previous discussions with the GRANT GUY's on here, the 1986 is the one to try to replace, at least in years past (we never wrote a apparatus grant in yrs passed).

    The questions are is this a good plan to replace the 1986?
    Can we replace it with an engine-Tanker?
    Will having a Engine-Tanker already hurt us?
    Whats the 2013 AFG standards for Engines, Engine-Tankers?
    Average award for Engine-Tankers?

    Our mutual aid (3 counties in 2 states) call load for the engine-Tanker has tripled in the last 2 years, our in county mutual aid request for our engine tanker has increase by 60% and our first due structure assignments have increased 32?% in the last 2-3 years. Having our current engine tanker out on mutual aid calls have caused us to rely heavily on our newer 1000 gal engine for fire attach. Due to our location our closest backup is coming from 15-18 minutes away and the closest tankers are 20+ minutes away to much of our area. The roads in which our mutual aid companies have to travel to reach us also adds to the response times, rural roads. The new E/T would allow us to handle to increase in mutual aid calls while still leaving us an engine in house to cover our first due with large amount of water due to long mutual aid responses and very limited water supply in our area.

    Wondering what everyone's thoughts are, options, grant writing tips, Anyone have a successful Eng-Tanker grant narrative? Brian, Kurt, anyone? Thanks.

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Our dept cover's 42 square miles with a population with 3,800. Most of the homes in the first due were built 50-60 yrs ago, with many being as old as 100+. We cover a major highway that brings over 8,000 commuters from West Virginia into Maryland and Washington D.C to work daily. We also have a major commuter train line and freight line passing through our area bringing another 3-5 thousand commuters daily and thousands of hazardous materials and chemicals through on the freight line. We protect the Potomac & Shenandoah Rivers, the Appalachian Trail, Historic battlefield and homes, Mutual Aid to Historic Harpers Ferry and Shepardstown WV that has old and out dated water system that requires tankers on all working fires. With the numerous attractions in our area and being a major tourist area, our population can double and even triple daily, not including the commuters passing through daily. We also protect in our first due, a elem. school, a gas station, 2 hotels, 3 mini mart/small grocery stores, a diner, a liquor store and the US Park Service Maintenance/repair/storage facility all within our non hydrant sections of our first due area.
    Last edited by WheelmanEngCo11; 01-23-2013 at 02:12 PM.

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber
    WJVaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dickson TN
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Sounds to me like you need to drop the engine part of this and look at a tanker with a 750 gpm pump. AFG does not recognize the pumper tanker per say. It is usually listed as one or the other. Of course this might have changed in the past year or so.

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    48

    Default

    We are looking to get an "Engine" but with more then 1500 gals of water, Hope to get 2000.

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,726

    Default

    As Warren said, anything over 750gpm is counted as a pumper so you already have a couple of those. Technically you don't have a tanker since the 93 is 1000gpm, so you'll show 3 total pumpers, attempting to replace the 86. Which will be an uphill battle since on paper it was replaced twice as frontline by the 93 and the 2005. Even if the 93 is argued out of a pumper category which is easily done if it's just a 2-door with an eliiptical tank and no compartments, the 86 was still replaced as frontline by the 2005. And that is what is being looked at, frontline trucks. So with 1 station you already have a 2005 frontline pumper, so you're behind anyone that applies that has a 2004 as their frontline truck.

    And that's even if you do have the above and the 93 is nothing but a water-hauler and you put it down as a tanker, which is also technically within reason. You'd still have the 05 and the 86, so another pumper is a long shot. Aiming tanker to replace the 93 is the "strongest" of the apps given the situation, but still a very long shot.

    Don't get hung up with GPMs either unless you're looking at PTO. Like I've said many times here and in the workshops, GPM ratings are done by the number of 2.5in discharges, not the actual pump behind the panel. The pump itself is the same up to 2000gpm for most manufacturers, at least 1500gpm if not some being more than 2000gpm. Meaning the rating changes based on the 2.5s which is the number of pipes off of the manifold. Only has 3 - 2.5in discharges? It will push 2000gpm when mated with 400HP out of any one of those pipes. After all, most LDHs are a 2.5in off the manifold to a 2.5 to 5in storz adapter anyway. So it will move the water you want, but have the rating to be a competitive app. Besides, everyone's trying for large GPMs just to make ISO happy but for the last few years they're making everyone pump to prove they can move the water. Even if you have a fleet of 2000gpm pumpers if you can't do the test when they audit, you don't get the credit. We have one department that did it with all 750-1000gpm trucks and got the full GPM rating on their tests without totalling 3500gpm. ISO is starting to ignore paper ratings, the people have to be able to back up the capabilities of the machines to score.

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    EMT6126's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Byrdstown TN>
    Posts
    177

    Default

    I may of over looked this but, what is your call volume? Does it support what you are asking for?
    Jeff
    I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    48

    Default

    We ran 386 calls in 2012, 38 structure fires with 34 being working fires or multiple alarm fires. We have seen over 60-70 calls more each of the last 2 years. Our current Engine Tanker runs 35% of the fires in the neighboring county and when it comes to working fires or water supply task force/Tanker Task Force it runs 86%. We have run 18 calls so far in 2013 with 3 being working fire, with 2 being mutual aid.

    When we run mutual aid, it takes our "Big water" out of our area which leaves us waiting 16-20 minutes for the next engine (750 gal) and 20+ for the next "Tanker". Our mutual aid request has nearly tripled in the last 2 years, with us being added to additional assignments in 2013. We are located in the southern end of our county and are 1 of 2 companies that protect the "southside". The whole southern end of the county is 98% rural water supply area (no hydrants, 1 mid size pond). We have the only engines over 750 gallons between the two companies, which makes our Eng-Tanker due on all structure fires in the south county. Our E/T is also due on 3 additional company alarms as a tanker.

    With the increased call load, increase in fires, increase in mutual aid calls, longer response times from neighboring companies, limited water supply within our lower county and mutual aid area's, increase in population in these area's, We need an engine that has 1500+ gallons of water, can operate as a full engine company and operate with a 4 person crew. Just last night we had an ems manpower call and a auto fire on the highway back to back, then as the engine was clearing the auto fire we had a first due working fire in our rural water supply area that we had to call in our 3 alarm tankers due to initial alarm and tanker task force tankers failing to respond. Our thought is replace the 1986 with a 1500+ engine with tanker capabilities (drop tank, rear dump) that can handle all first out first due fires with the current Eng-Tanker running behind as the water supply, which would get us 2300+ gallons of water, manpower (which a 2 person tanker wouldn't give us) that will make us have the 2in 2 out / RIT crew on scene within minutes of dispatch. If we get hit for mutual aid, it leaves us 1 of the 2 large water units in our area and to cover our county. The biggest problem is all of our neighboring and mutual aid companies area all volunteer (as we are to) and most of the time we have to go to the second alarm tanker or 3rd alarm tankers due to these companies not being able to get an engine and tanker out on the calls.

    We are doing grants because are annual budget has taken another $20K hit this year and 96% of our budget comes from donations and fund raisers, We do not receive any tax money and 78% of our population is under the poverty line which makes donations and fund raising extremely hard. Our 2005 Engine was in the works for over 10 yrs to get the funds saved up and we still are working to pay off the loan which will be done in December of 2013. The mini was bought used and we just had to buy a replacement recuse boat after our 30 yr old boat became unsafe and unrepairable. Both our 1986 and 1993 engines are suffering numerous mechanical issues and costing 6-8k a year in repairs. Both of these engines were bought as demo's and don't meet the current standards (NFPA & our county), and don't meet today's needs and functions. They were low dollar demo's bought because we needed something "NOW" and the funds were not available to spec out and purchase a new unit that met the needs. With these engines we are 15+ yrs behind on standards and required space.
    Last edited by WheelmanEngCo11; 01-24-2013 at 01:49 PM.

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,726

    Default

    Another case of makes sense, but has a slim chance given the current apparatus. After all the first Devil's advocate question that comes to mind is why isn't the 2005 the war wagon you're explaining you need here? Obviously financial considerations come into play since biggest you'd be able to get on a 4dr chassis is 1800gal tank, otherwise goes to bigger tandem axle which increases cost. Especially since the rural water supply need was probably just the same back then if not worse off.

    Plus then there's the part that normally you don't want a pumper-tanker (1500+gal) as the first out piece since it gets tied to the scene and can't shuttle water. 4dr to drop people off, makes sense, but if it's going to be the shuttle truck as it should be since it can hold the most water, having a full pumper complement of equipment on board isn't the best investment of anyone's funding. Hybrids are a nice animal in some cases, but they generally don't do either job exceptionally. Your explanation of your situation on this thread, which of course is limited in some senses because of space/time, defines the need for a 4dr tanker to get water and people from point A to point B. It doesn't need to be a full-blown pumper because you shouldn't tie it to first-in duties under normal response conditions given what you stated for mutual aid reliability. If you can run 2 drivers under normal conditions at any time of the day, you have your attack pumper in the 2005 and just need the big water tank coming with the ability to act as an attack piece if needed on concurrent calls.

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Thanks Brian, I see where ya coming from. Our 2005 is currently our first out because of the other two's conditions. We run our current engine-tanker day side on all fire or possible fire related calls due to staffing and limited drivers if we can, so we choose to run the big water first just to be safe. The 2005 is a rescue engine and carry's extrication equipment. Our day time staffing is maybe 1-2 drivers and maybe a 3rd person (most members work 9-5, so they don't/can't run after 5am and until after 6pm). Another reason why we want a "Do all" engine.

    Do you think we should go for replacing the 1993 Engine-Tanker(1800 Gal) instead of the 1986 with a new Engine-Tanker (Engine with 1500-1700-2000) Gal? Both the 1986 and 1993 need replacing, so we just gotta pick the one that gives us the best chance. We also talked about replacing the 1986 (1000gpm, 1000gwt)with a new Engine with 1000-1250 gpm, 1000-1500 gwt. That way its pretty much and engine for an engine. My Chief would like to get as much water as we can on an engine, We had a tanker back in the day and didn't work for us well, Didn't meet the full needs we had. Our area is real hilly, back rural roads and our current ET can't pull the hills and both the 1986 and 1993 are really unstable and over weight and with the road conditions we are really worried having them run 24/7.

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,726

    Default

    Problem is that the neighbors not having much rolling water makes it tough for just a pumper since you're already talking about issues in them showing up, so with minimal water ditching the 93 without having a big tank replace it will be counter-intuitive.

    Your backroads make big water an issue also, so in the weight/driving sense you'll have issues with a tandem axle whether it's got 2 or 4 doors. Also comes into play making a 4dr with 1500-1800tank since you're pushing the vehicle's GVW at that point too.

    Also sounds like you're not getting enough bodies to make a 4dr worth the extra weight or cost. 1-2 drivers and maybe a 3rd FF makes 3 seats across 2 trucks. Sounds more like a 2dr with 1000gpm and 1500-1800gal is what will be able to get around, supply water, and pump if/when needed. Replacing the 86 that is since if you have water supply issues you'll still need that 93 coming if the immediate mutual aid is short on bodies and rolling water also.
    Brian P. Vickers
    CEO - Vickers Consulting Services, Inc
    FH.com/Firehouse Mag Contributor
    www.helpmewithgrants.com
    www.facebook.com/vcsinc

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Our staffing problem is we have 4 volunteers who are career ff's, 2 work the same shift and the other two work the following shift so it depends on the shift, depends on our staffing. Some days we will have 8 members others days we may have 2 responding, Nights we have usually 6-9 responding, so staffing flexes.

    Currently the Engine-Tanker runs depending on the call and staffing levels, days with limited staffing and its a fire, investigation, unknown fire we run it due to the water and knowing we don't have staffing to get it out if we need it. Other times, we running it second out on first due calls(structure, brush, investigations etc) that may need the water or it runs all structure calls in our neighboring company area's or mutual aid area's. We have 3 tankers and 1 Engine-Tanker between the 5 neighboring companies (in county and mutual aid counties). Only 1 tanker is staffed 24/7 with a career driver, the rest of the tankers and the E/T is coming from all volunteer stations. Must of the standard engine from our mutual aid companies are 750-1000. Our neighbor in the south county is moving their engine-tanker from their main station to the sub-station that shares the south side with us when they get their new straight tanker in by May, their main station is about 25 minutes from us, sub station is 15 minutes from us.

    The 93 (Engine-Tanker) was a demo that has very limited space for equipment (limited hose load, limited compartment space for modern equipment, only has a rear dump, no quick fill) so it's more of an engine when Pierce made it, but they put the 1800 gal tank, there are a few of these trucks that we have seen but none have the 1800 gal tank, ours is pretty much a 1 of a kind. The only thing that makes it a engine-Tanker in our county is the rear dump and tank size, in mutual aid again it's run as a tanker but only due to the tank size. When run mutual aid, it also transfers as an engine after being released from the scene (again why we need the engine component). It's double edged for us... that's the problem with our area and our combo apparatus, we are always in the gray area.

    Another problem is our county standard say's a tanker must be X, and Engine must be X, we can't get a 2 door commercial cab with 1500-3000 gal with a 1250 pump and call it an engine-Tanker, it would still be listed as a tanker no matter the pump size. Engines, must be 4 door, 750gpm and up, 750 and up tank, must carry certain equipment (which is a lot of compartment space, more then we have now on our ET). Makes it hard between our county standards and the Grant standards and wording.
    BB3939 likes this.

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,726

    Default

    County is just using NFPA, so nothing surprising there. Except for the 4 door thing since there's no requirement for pumpers to have a certain number of seats. NFPA 1710/20 only deal with the number of FFs showing up by a certain point after dispatch, doesn't matter how many doors a truck has. So must be some county requirement they have for some reason that doesn't make sense. 4 doors doesn't guarantee enough FFs showing up more than having 2 doors does, just costs more to get done sometimes.

    Sounds more like you should stick to pumper and just add foam to it in order to make the water last longer. Especially if the 2005 is the rescue, 86 is the main issue then. 2005 hurts doing a pumper replacement, but probably no more than trying to replace the 93 with another tanker which is the only way to really be competitive on that front. In terms of stats, straight tanker is the best option trying to replace the 93 since it is 20 years old, which can have 4drs and a 750gpm pump and boatloads of compartments.

    Something like this: http://www.ustanker.com/Deliveries/D...px?OrderId=103

    Only with 750gpm to avoid getting kicked by AFG. Also looks like it satisfies the county since it is 750gpm. **Disclaimer for all the lawyers out there: not endorsing or denigrating US Tanker, just easy to find stuff on their site as a reference so it's nothing more than a pic of a truck to put a visual to the discussion. As a matter of fact, I have gotten email from people after posting links...

  13. #13
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Brian, Thanks again. What the average amount awarded for tankers? We have an internal issue LOL, The grant committee is kinda split, My Chief wants an engine with as close as 2000 gals as we can get, One of our committee members wants a straight tanker, I like both and would love to have both but kinda agree with the Chief, the other member of the committee wants whatever the Chief wants LOL...This should be fun .

    The problem is like I said we have two pieces that need to be replaced, but can't afford to do both and can't afford to replace 2 with 1 unless we can get everything we need on that 1 piece which through the grant process will not cover price wise.... Never seen a $500k apparatus awarded for an engine.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    EMT6126's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Byrdstown TN>
    Posts
    177

    Default

    Wheelman Eng.co11, can you PM me withyour email address
    I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,726

    Default

    Wheelman, that's because it won't happen. Unless you have foam you're not going to get over $300k for a Class A pumper, or even a 4dr tanker with compartments. Custom chassis don't get funded, but you can come out of pocket for them which many do. So you won't be getting that big old war wagon but sounds like the back roads where you'd really need the water wouldn't handle it.

    That truck I sent the link for is 2000gal on 4dr single rear axle so sounds like it's about what would fit all the committee members.

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BC79er View Post
    Wheelman, that's because it won't happen. Unless you have foam you're not going to get over $300k for a Class A pumper, or even a 4dr tanker with compartments. Custom chassis don't get funded, but you can come out of pocket for them which many do. So you won't be getting that big old war wagon but sounds like the back roads where you'd really need the water wouldn't handle it.

    That truck I sent the link for is 2000gal on 4dr single rear axle so sounds like it's about what would fit all the committee members.
    You wrote that custom pumpers won't get funded. Can you expand on that some more please?

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    When you start talking about tankers and the 750 GPM limit, don't let that freak you out too much. I think it was touched on earlier, but the GPM rating on a pump means little these days.

    When you look at pumps, there is no difference in the heart of the pump between gallonages. A Hale QMax 1000 GPM is the same pump as a 2000 GPM. A Waterous PTO pedestal pump at 750 is the same as one at 1250. They have the same impellors and bodies.

    The difference is the "rating", which essentially comes down to NFPA and how many discharges you have. LDH discharges count for 500 GPM and 2 1/2" count for 250 GPM.

    Just because you have a 750 GPM pump doesn't mean you can't pump well more than that out of it. The issue you'll get into is ISO won't count it as what it'll test for flow, but what it's rated at the pump panel

    You can get a tanker with a pump that will do everything your '86 will do and then some. You can get them with pump-style bodies like Brian linked, you can get multiple preconnects, deck guns, etc.

    When you get right down to it, if you're on tanker water how many times do you actually flow 750 GPM or more?

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    islandfire03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,637

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by expertshot View Post
    You wrote that custom pumpers won't get funded. Can you expand on that some more please?
    The AFG is not about funding custom chassied engines or tankers. They are providing funding for basic NFPA compliant apparatus at a cost effective basis.
    there are price limits on what AFG will pay for any type of equipment.
    Just because dept A decides they want a gold plated 8 man cab on a custom chassis with a 1000 gwt and a 3000 gal pump, won't make it score well.They can only get funded for a basic commercial chassis with a reasonable sized pump and water tank. They can increase their own contribution to pay for ALL the added expense of upgrading above what AFG will fund..

    As an example: you request a 1000 /1000 4 man cab engine. The grant folks decide your narrative makes sense, & they award you $275,000.00 minus your match. You determine that you want to buy a $550,000.00 super war wagon engine /tanker with 6 man cab.
    You would be responsible for the additional funds to make up the balance, call it $230,000.00 in addition to your match on the grant funded amount

    However the catch here is is you have that kind of cash sitting around , then you really don't need help from AFG and thats would affect your scoring drastically. So you don't get past the computer scoring.
    A catch 22 situation.


    Wheelman: In my opinion you will have a very hard time convincing any peer reviewers that the 93 is worthy of replacement at 20 years old.[there are many departments trying to replace 35 yr old trucks as their first out] You may even have a hard sell with the 86 as you have the 2005 in the fleet average scoring mix.

    The arguments given here for having a engine tanker might make sense to you trying to get rid of 2 trucks that make your job harder to accomplish, BUT it doesn't make the scoring matrix improve.
    If the 86 & the 93 were deficient, & lacking in compartment space for the equipment you need, then that should have been fixed with the 2005 purchase.
    At best you might get a 2 door commercial single axel with 1500 gallons and a basic load while staying under GVW rating. If you have to have a 4 seater and full engine compliment of equipment ,+ hose load to meet your county specs, you will end up with a tandem axel to carry the weight. You quickly get into the $400k + up price , which is way outside of the AFG limits.

    PS: The argument that the 86 or 93 doesn't meet current nfpa standards is a moot point. They don't have to. They only need to meet the standard in effect when they were manufactured.
    Last edited by islandfire03; 01-25-2013 at 12:40 AM. Reason: added paragraph

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Thanks for the info Islandfire.

    I spoke to FEMA about this issue before they started taking 2012 AFG applications. Interestingly, I recall them stating there was no per se bar to custom chassis but the suggestion was to keep it less than $450,000 or $550,000 with equipment. Now if in practice FEMA does not fund custom chassis pumpers then that is good to know.

    In my opinion, the question then becomes how to get funding for a custom chassis pumper through the AFG program. Are there any successful custom chassis awards anyone here is familiar with? Locally, we have found the custom chassis pumper holds up substantially better than a commercial chassis. Local departments have some 10 to 20 year old custom chassis pumpers that are by no means "BMWs" but have had little to no issues and continue to run like new. The same departments have some commercial chassis pumpers and tankers that are less than ten years old that have had many thousands of dollars dumped into them because the commercial products cannot handle the wear and tear of the area. I realize some of the problem can be design, but $300,000 for a pumper just is not a lot of money, especially after all the cost increases and requirements we have today.

    All of the grants I wrote made it through computer scoring. One apparatus application I wrote was for a custom chassis pumper to the tune of $490, but it was by no means a "war wagon". Some of the money was being used to put NFPA required equipment on the pumper and training... I would call the pumper a chevy versus a BMW. If FEMA would not fund all of it, I think most people would take some money, but then the question becomes how to write the application to explain the situation.

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    McMechen VFD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    McMechen, Wv
    Posts
    254

    Default

    in 2010 We wrote and were awarded a grant for 295k (275k for the truck 20k for equipment ) We were awarded early on. They did not care we went custom we spent a total of 350k for a custom pumper with the equipment. We were awarded in a somewhat early round. I would not even think about writing one for a pumper at that price.

    I would ask the norm and fund the rest.
    John & Sheila
    McMechen Volunteer Fire Department
    "Always Ready Always Faithful"

    www.mcmechenvfd.com
    jdavis@mcmechenvfd.com

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,726

    Default

    It more or less comes down to use, like call volumes. Since every piece of equipment has a maintenance level at certain milestones (time or actual mileage in the case of vehicles), the larger departments will hit those milestones more often. I.E. use/abuse their stuff more often in the line of duty versus sitting around waiting for stuff to happen.

    In the average department where there are 400 total calls per year there is no difference in wear/tear and maintenance on the two types of chassis, especially considering that many calls a different truck rolls on it. The overall view is also that the cab only gets used for 5-10 minutes on the way to the run. The rest of the components of the truck are the same (pump, tank, compartments, etc) and that's what used the whole call. So since the main argument behind custom is the cab, there's no real benefit to something being used for an extra 5-10 minutes per call.

    Obviously there are nuances to it, such as max HP since customs can take the bigger motors. And if you have a solid response 24/7 where you need 6-8 seats, it makes sense to have custom. But at the same time, look at the cost-benefit from the other side of the coin: for the same $500k they can give a truck to 1 department, or fund 2 for 2 departments which may handle more runs and cover a larger combined population, meaning a better investment.

    It also depends on the truck. We hit the 12th heavy rescue ever in the program last year (our 3rd) and that was $350k. Quints and aerials are all custom chassis but that's a moot point since no one really builds them on commercial chassis. Pumpers and tankers, WUI, and the like can be built on either one but dollars to donuts the custom costs a chunk more with no inherent benefits like I stated in the previous paragraph.

    So in a nutshell, there really isn't a way to get funded for one. Of course there will be someone that comes out and says they hit one, but 1 out of 1000 apps asking for a custom chassis pumper isn't much support in favor of making that application a competitive one. I haven't done the math to go, but I'm pretty sure that most everyone will agree that over 95% of the pumpers and tankers funded are commerical chassis requests. Most end up funding the difference to get the commercial chassis afterwards by adding local funding, but just look at the spreadsheets from the past years, most fed share amounts are under $300k meaning the project request is $325k and under. The changes in standards, raw material costs, and other factors are why it's even possible to put in an app in the low $300k range. 2-3 years ago there way no way to be competitive over $300k.

    Plus it depends on who you ask for pricing from. I've had several folks in the past couple of years get 4dr tankers with 2500+ gallons of water for under $250k excluding equipment. Others swear they can't get one for less than $330k yet every year I see about $100k in difference from the low to the high quotes on the same exact specs. We still have folks getting 2dr tankers for under $230k, some under $200k. There's BMW, there's Chevy, and then there's the realization that a Cadillac is a Chevy with a $20k higher sticker price and a different set of badging glued on it. Not saying they aren't nice, but does anyone do more than $20k worth of difference in their commute in 8-10 years?
    McMechen VFD likes this.

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Manufacture and dealer prices change based on location also. You can get the same truck from a different dealer and the price will change. Travel cost to and from the builder 3-4 times over the 8 month building time cost more if you have to travel from Pa to Mn for Rosenbauer, then the same truck built by 4Guys in Pa. Sometimes you will have two dealers and hour apart and the trucks cost will be different for the same truck.

    Truck prices are going through the roof, you use to get a commercial tanker for 100k, now the same truck 5 years later is $220k. Commercial Vs Custom, My vote is for Custom. Custom last longer by far and have a better warranty and the custom's stand behind their work and have a much better rep. The county I live in spent millions on commercial and in the first 3 years everyone racked up thousands a piece in repair bills and had tons of mechanical failures, So after year 4, they got rid of them all. Even the engines that were assigned to slow (200 calls a year) station were junk. Not one made it to 60k miles before the bodys rusted off, motors and trans acted up, electrical issues including when the pump was engaged, the truck would take it self out of neutral and drive off or the discharges would charge by them self driving down the road....Total 8 million dollar OOOPS. Now they are back to custom and they are holding up after 3-4 years at 4,000 call a year stations. Like they say, you get what you pay for. The Fire/Rescue/Ems service is not a place for the Gov. to nickle and dime and look to cut a dollar (But they do LOL)

  23. #23
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    25

    Default

    It was pretty well-known that it was going to be an up-hill battle with getting an award. Even with the very unique circumstances (I realize every dept. has unique circumstances) the thought was it was worth a shot.

    I completely agree with cost-benefit arguments. With this application FEMA would also need to fund SCBA. It was noted that the dept. has an Operations and Safety grant request in, two years in a row, but it did not include SCBA for a pumper the department does not have. With SCBA, the other equipment, and training the it becomes harder to create more pros than cons to funding the application. I'm not saying unique circumstances cannot outweigh higher than average costs, but it is definitely the road less traveled.

    After communicating with departments across the country, I am of the opinion that it is time for local decision makers to stop relying on FEMA and the Federal government primarily for support. It troubles me that some politicians have not done what is necessary to ensure that needs are met. Some of these politicians will not raise taxes or re-allocate funding from pet projects thinking FEMA will come in and save the day with a grant. As a result, some applications go to peer looking like a department is just asking for to much from FEMA...but the departments probably would not have needs met unless the funding comes from the Federal government.

  24. #24
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WheelmanEngCo11 View Post
    Manufacture and dealer prices change based on location also. You can get the same truck from a different dealer and the price will change. Travel cost to and from the builder 3-4 times over the 8 month building time cost more if you have to travel from Pa to Mn for Rosenbauer, then the same truck built by 4Guys in Pa. Sometimes you will have two dealers and hour apart and the trucks cost will be different for the same truck.

    Truck prices are going through the roof, you use to get a commercial tanker for 100k, now the same truck 5 years later is $220k. Commercial Vs Custom, My vote is for Custom. Custom last longer by far and have a better warranty and the custom's stand behind their work and have a much better rep. The county I live in spent millions on commercial and in the first 3 years everyone racked up thousands a piece in repair bills and had tons of mechanical failures, So after year 4, they got rid of them all. Even the engines that were assigned to slow (200 calls a year) station were junk. Not one made it to 60k miles before the bodys rusted off, motors and trans acted up, electrical issues including when the pump was engaged, the truck would take it self out of neutral and drive off or the discharges would charge by them self driving down the road....Total 8 million dollar OOOPS. Now they are back to custom and they are holding up after 3-4 years at 4,000 call a year stations. Like they say, you get what you pay for. The Fire/Rescue/Ems service is not a place for the Gov. to nickle and dime and look to cut a dollar (But they do LOL)
    I agree. I have seen numerous situations where the commercial chassis company and the "cabinet" maker have played off the problems on each other so the department gets stuck with the problem because neither would back up their work. Sole-source build is the way to go, IMO. It is hard to explain so much in such little narrative space on these grant applications. In some cases, departments arrived to their conclusions based on objective facts rather than opinion. It just sucks when one is on a department that has to go through all that "trial and error".

  25. #25
    Forum Member
    islandfire03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,637

    Default

    Wheelman: It sounds like you have been drinking the koolaid.
    The body rusting off or engine acting up at 60.000 miles won't make a difference if it is on a custom or commercial chassis. they are the same. engines, transmissions, axels, springs, brakes, tires, . Custom chassis manufacturers use off the shelf components with the same warrantees as commercial chassis builders. If the crews abuse a truck or don't maintain it there will be issues.

    In any case you are not making a good argument for grant funding for a custom.
    McMechen VFD likes this.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Our new Engine/Tanker
    By johnsb in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 01-25-2013, 12:35 AM
  2. Pumper/Tanker vs. Tanker Funding Question
    By KOA74 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-14-2011, 10:43 PM
  3. engine or tanker ? manpower or water ?
    By Firecat104 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 04-16-2009, 08:09 AM
  4. VCFD Engine 36 & Brush Engine 336 (pics)
    By seagrave7 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-26-2008, 08:35 PM
  5. Crimson Tanker vs Rosenbauer/Central States Tanker
    By mtzionc2 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-27-2007, 06:05 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

Log in

Click here to log in or register