Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
Closed Thread
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 87
  1. #1
    Joker
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post Small tankers or SUPER tankers???

    Small tankers: 1800-2000gal w/ 500gpm pumps on single axle business class chassis, or....
    SUPER tankers: 2500-3500+gal w/ BIG pumps on tandem axle heavy chassis, or...
    something in between??
    Which set up has worked best for you? Give some pros and cons to each.
    Thanks.


    ------------------
    A friend once told me to shoot first and ask questions later, I was going to ask him why....but I had to shoot him first.


  2. #2
    e33
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    It really depends on alot of factors. First and foremost..how much water do you need to move? What are the capacities of bridges and roads, and the list continues. I cant see why you would want a small tanker personally, why not just get more water on the pumpers? But the chassis is also dependent on load...tandems for more water and such. We are awaiting construction of a 3000 gal tanker on a comercial chassis. This type of chassis is best suited if you plan on only using as a water hauler, if you were planning to carry any crew, step up to smaller custom cabs to keep length down to a resonable size. This is just my general opinion.

  3. #3
    K A
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Unless there is a bridge or weight limit no small tanker will ever touch a well designed big tanker in a shuttle.

    ISO at minimum will want to see 500 gpm for housing for full credit. If water is 1 mile away you'll need at least 5500 gallons on wheels. Plus an attack engine. 2 miles 7700, 3 miles 9900, etc. Gonna take a bunch of little tankers.

  4. #4
    Nick
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Take a look at vacuum tankers, for the same size tank they are smaller and faster and can thus increase your "equivelent flow" by a good 25% or more.

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    MARYLAND
    Posts
    10

    Cool Why a lil tanker?

    I look at it this way, In our area we have a town that has hydrants but also a lot of area with out. We run automatic 3 company responce on any reported structure fire. In our house we have 2 main engines and a big tanker. The first engine is a Pierce Lance modle with 1500 gal of water on it which is our first run on structure fires. The second engine is a Pierce Dash model with 1000 gal of water and rescue tools for a quick cut job if needed. We also have a 3500 gal tanker. We have it this way because lets say we have a fire outside the hydrant zone when that first engine gets there you know you have 1500 gal of water to use befor that tanker gets there with its 3500 gal. so thats 5000 gal of water to use on a house fire directly off the bat and of course if needed the next due stations have the same so with using big tankers and having that same water on the engine as a smaller tanker you decress the number of units on scene with still having the same water and or more.

    But thats just how i see it

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,216

    Default

    Holy thread from the dead batman. Almost ten years old!!!!
    "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FIREOFFICER725 View Post
    I look at it this way, In our area we have a town that has hydrants but also a lot of area with out. We run automatic 3 company responce on any reported structure fire. In our house we have 2 main engines and a big tanker. The first engine is a Pierce Lance modle with 1500 gal of water on it which is our first run on structure fires. The second engine is a Pierce Dash model with 1000 gal of water and rescue tools for a quick cut job if needed. We also have a 3500 gal tanker. We have it this way because lets say we have a fire outside the hydrant zone when that first engine gets there you know you have 1500 gal of water to use befor that tanker gets there with its 3500 gal. so thats 5000 gal of water to use on a house fire directly off the bat and of course if needed the next due stations have the same so with using big tankers and having that same water on the engine as a smaller tanker you decress the number of units on scene with still having the same water and or more.

    But thats just how i see it
    I think you win the award for biggest Bump of the year....or decade as it may be.

    Though, I do hope his department has made up their mind by now.

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    West Oneonta,NY 13861
    Posts
    137

    Default

    bigger is not always better. in large water supply shuttles that we have participated in over the last 10 years some of the smallest tankers ran circles around the big ones. ours is 2000 gal size it works well for us. do an shuttle survey on the tankers. time to fill, time to dump, and road time. its all about what a tankers gpm is in a shuttle. u may have trouble accepting this but check with some of the nations guru's that deal with Big Water shuttles. til later stay safe.

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    MARYLAND
    Posts
    10

    Cool welcome back

    just keeping things alive seeing how things have changed over the years

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    mountain view, AR
    Posts
    144

    Default

    With the low amount of personnel we have, rather have 2 big tankers than 4 small ones.

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    West Oneonta,NY 13861
    Posts
    137

    Default

    so u would rather have 250 gpm than 500 gpm? on average in a well run shuttle will produce 125 gpm each tanker. some well designed tankers will be a little more. size does not matter. !

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westofd1 View Post
    so u would rather have 250 gpm than 500 gpm? on average in a well run shuttle will produce 125 gpm each tanker. some well designed tankers will be a little more. size does not matter. !
    Do the math. Travel time for 2000gal same as 3500gal = higher gpm with less manpower.

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    West Oneonta,NY 13861
    Posts
    137

    Default

    wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!! fill and dump times u must have forgotten!!! come to new york or better yet take some supply courses. do the math the way iso wants it done. bigger is NOT always better.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Windsor, MA
    Posts
    237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westofd1 View Post
    wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!! fill and dump times u must have forgotten!!! come to new york or better yet take some supply courses. do the math the way iso wants it done. bigger is NOT always better.
    Right,

    If your fill station and/or water source can't fill the big tankers as fast as they are coming in, then you may actually do better with smaller ones.

    There has been a rash of apparatus bought in my area that is too big/heavy to travel on some roads due to bridges and low branches and such. Its incredible to see a dept spend $400k on a truck and only realize after they take delivery of it that it won't go under a bridge leading to half of the town. Going around adds 10min extra to response times.

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    West Oneonta,NY 13861
    Posts
    137

    Default

    also what is the gpm your tanker will contribute in a shuttle???? its a 3500 gallon tanker with 1 2 1/2" fill line and a 6" round dump! it takes 10 minutes to fill and another 10 minutes to dump 90 % of its load. travel time is calculated by formula. a 2000 gallon tanker has 2 - 2 1/2" fills on rear and a 10" newton dump. it fills in 1 1/2 minutes and dumps 90 % of the load in 1 1/2 minutes travel time is the same. now for the math follow closely! the 3500 gallon tanker with no drive time. with me yet or should i back up. 10 minute fill plus 10 minute dump = 20 minutes! 2000 gallon tanker with no drive time 1 1/2 + 1 1/2 minutes & no drive time = 3 minutes
    3500 gallons divided by 20 minutes = 175 gpm
    2000 gallons divided by 3 minutes = 666.66 gpm
    get a calculator and check the math. now if u consider drive time in here, the 3500 tanker is a 300hp with a 9 sp.tranny vs the 2000 tanker with 330hp with an automatic. the larger is slower? as soon as u throw some obstacles in such as turning around on a narrow back road or at the dump site or fill site it'll changed the gpm the tanker is capable of. the smaller tanker is more agile all around than a 10 wheeler.
    the 3500 gallon tanker used above does exist in our county and i'm sure there are alot more around this country. not all large tankers are the same as we do have have a few that will be close in gpm as the small ones. as for the 2000 gallon tanker there are several within 10 miles of our station.

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Udall, Kansas
    Posts
    434

    Default ISO Calcs

    ISO Credit:

    Both tanker have 10" sq dumps and can offload at 1000 gpm, both tankers have ldh tank refills and can fill at 1000 gpm - 5 mile drive

    The 2000 gallon tanker gets a credit of 136.9 gpm

    The 3500 gallon tanker gets a credit of 195 gpm

    ISO makes the tankers back up to the dump tank, whether you have side dumps or not.

    I have a 2000 gallon on a single axle - very manuverable but manuverabilty is less important with side dumps.

    We also have a 2500 gallon on a twin screw, the neighbors have 3000 gallons on a twin screw. If I had my choice - we would sell the 2000 gallon tanker and buy a 3000 gallon tanker.

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    West Oneonta,NY 13861
    Posts
    137

    Default

    wrong do tests or drills and u could see the results to many no it alls on here as well as morons that think they know bye!

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Take a look at vacuum tankers, for the same size tank they are smaller and faster and can thus increase your "equivelent flow" by a good 25% or more.
    Ummm.... no. For the same tank size, a vacuum tanker, being round, will be longer than an equivalent oval, T, or square. Nearby department has a 3000 gallon vacuum tanker, we have a 3000 gallon T-tank. The difference in length... over 4 feet.

    The speed factor only works if you're drafting from an open source, loading from hydrants is the same. Dumping with a vacuum is slightly faster than with a standard 10" rear dump, but almost too fast.

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Texas
    Posts
    284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westofd1 View Post
    wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!! fill and dump times u must have forgotten!!! come to new york or better yet take some supply courses. do the math the way iso wants it done. bigger is NOT always better.
    Fill and dump times for the same amount of water, no matter if its carried on two smaller tankers or one larger tanker is the same. With two smaller tankers, you now have to have to operators and you have an additional truck clogging up the fill and dump sites.

    The biggest argument against large tankers is that added length contributes to decreased manuevaribility, which can increase shuttle times. A properly designed large tanker can overcome this limitation. Our 3000 gallon tanker is shorter than a neighboring departments 1800 gallon. Most weight limits are also per axle, so a 3000 gallon tanker spread over three axles will have a lower per axle weight than a 2000 gallon single-axle, PLUS you have another set of tires and brakes to stop with.

    Too many departments order these tankers and try to make them do too many things, ending up with a tanker that doesn't do its most important job well. A tanker's first job is to shuttle water, but many departments add crew cabs and larger pumps (with longer pumper panels) and even top-mount pumps, resulting in a truck so long that you can't get it in and out of the dump and fill sites easily.
    Last edited by simpleguy68; 05-18-2009 at 11:49 AM.

  20. #20
    Savage / Hyneman 08'
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westofd1 View Post
    wrong do tests or drills and u could see the results to many no it alls on here as well as morons that think they know bye!
    Is being a moron quantified by a lack of spelling skills?

    If small tankers work for you, then do it.

    It doesn't work for us quite so much. Doubling the tankers needed also doubles the manpower needed to operate them, which we do not have. So do you want to put 2000gal tankers on the road or the same number of 4000gal tankers? Manpower is our greatest limitation.

    Since we run bigger tankers, we spec them out properly. 5" fills with 12" dumps. Tankers are filled with minimum of 5"LDH.

    You mention a 2 1/2 fill and a 10 minute dump time. If you had spec'd the tanker out properly you might not have this problem.
    We do not rise to the occasion. We fall back to our level of training.

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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