I am on the apparatus committee for my department and we our in the process of designing a new engine company. Our newest rigs have hose beds that are extremely high, due in part to the 26" deep rescue compartment config. around the apparatus. Our committee is looking to lower this by making some changes in our design but still carrying 750 gallon in water and the current apparatus inventory. This is where I need your help. We have photos/blueprints of various depart. rigs from around the country. I would like to lower our bed as low as FDNY does, however, the FDNY rigs we have photos/prints of have 500 gallon tanks. If any of you have an apparatus that has a 750 tank with a low hose bed config or ideas for our apparatus I'd like to hear from you. It would be very helpful to have pics to show the rest of the committee. You can contact me at Abbott992@aol.com or just post to the forum.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
Thread: hose bed height?
07-28-2004, 10:44 AM #1
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
hose bed height?
07-28-2004, 02:46 PM #2
Low hose beds
Our new Sutphen pumper has a 1000 gallon tank and the hose bed is just above shoulder height from the ground for a 6'person. From the rear step, it's around mid-chest high. Talk to the manufacturers about tank design. Ours is in an L shape, but you can "L" it and then "T" it to accomplish this. Good luck.Captain/EMT-P
07-28-2004, 09:22 PM #3
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
Your best bet will of course be to speak to some FDNY members on this forum, but I was flipping through some firehouse back issues and read ( I'm going by what was in the magazine )that the engine's on Staten Island are 750 gallons with about a 72 inch hosebed height. L-shaped tanks of course. Remember though, a gallon is a gallon and will have to go somewhere. Ultimately, the apparatus will be longer, have a higher bed height or lose compartment space. That said, there are some pretty good designers out there. Someone should be able to accomadate your requirements.
07-29-2004, 02:48 AM #4
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
The traditional T tank does offer a lower hosebed height, but the L tank can lower it considerably lower, only problem is watching the weight on the front axle as your just moving the weight. You could possibly be looking at a 18-20K front axle with less turning radius. Make sure you get a weight & balance estimate from the company to make sure your not out of whack.
07-29-2004, 10:31 AM #5
I wa the Chairman for our New Engine....A 2004 ALF 500g/2000gpm w/ a VERY LOW hose bed in the rear.....I only stand 5'5" and can reach the first horseshoe of the primary bed from just standing on the street. I will be more than happy to send you pics and info on how we did it. email me at email@example.com
We went with a L shape tank and had a top mount pump, with NO pre-connected crosslays. We don't use them!....that space has a Generator and a transverse compartment. The copartments are full depth 32" on the officer side and 14" and 32" split on the drivers side. The overall length is 31' 9".....and the hose bed is about 84" long, 4.5" deep, and 56" of the ground. If you go with 750g than you will have to make the truck longer. I can't seem to get my pics posted here from my files but if you would like I can email them to you.
This is a pic from the ALF website. E156 was also in the show in Baltimore so if you saw it then you have a better idea.
Last edited by VinnieB; 07-29-2004 at 11:03 PM.IACOJ Member
07-29-2004, 06:09 PM #6
I tride to email you pictures but they gor kicked back....fatal error said...."EXCEEDED STORAGE ALLOCATION"......IACOJ Member
07-29-2004, 10:04 PM #7
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
Correction, the article actually states fifty some inches bed height. Sorry for the innacuracy
07-30-2004, 10:37 AM #8
When writting your hose bed spec write it as a performance spec.
eg, 750 gallon water tank, Main hose bed floor shall be no more that 72" from ground level and shall hold no less than 1000 ft of 5" hose in 50ft lengths, 500 ft of 2.5" hose and A Sisco load consisting of 150ft of 2.5" hose and 2 accordian laid 150 ft lengths of 1 3/4" hose all in 50 ft lengths.
Transvers beds shall be no more thah 60" from ground level and shall be able to hold 200 ft in 50ft lenghts of 1 3/4" hose.
Adjustable dividers shall be installed in each bed to seperate the various hose loads, Each divider shall include a hand notch at the rear to assist in climbing.
Just an example.
08-04-2004, 08:55 AM #9
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
So many more questions!
There are soooooooo many more variables and a lot of blanks to be filled in to try and help on your question of hosebed height.
Personally the tone I get from your question is that you have a new pumper that you like your nice big and spacious 26" deep full height rescue style compartments, but you do not like what it did to the hosebed height? There are a ton of ways to skin a cat, but you can have your cake and eat it too!
I MUST agree whole heartedly with the Canadian Fyr Guy! A cubic foot is a cubic foot! NO mater what we do, it all takes the same volume of space - ie: water/foam/equipment/crew/hose/ladders yada yada. So, does that mean we need to stick with tradition? Hell no, but we can only package so much in so much space. It can be reconfigured to accomplish what you may be saying, but many questions would need to be answered by a legitimate manufacturer or designer! Capn22 also get an applause! Performance spec’ing is a great way to keep an open document, attract bidders and make the manufacturer “think” verses giving you standard and sometimes rediculous designs. Performance spec’ing establishes minimal criteria and minimal safety expectations, yet gives the buyer a wide array of choices. You as the buyer though have a responsibility to stick to your guns and buy what you asked for, verses rolling over and saying “oh well, its nice to get it all, but we are going to take that low price, because we do not care about safety! BS! Get what you ask for, or do not ask for it. FyrDog460 is 199% correct, these designs require engineering! Require every manufacturer to supply you with a detailed engineering weight analysis! They can all do it, so make sure it meets the axle loading and correct front to rear distribution ratios as reccommended by TBEA, NTSB, NFPA, (as the old school of common sense!) etc.
One would need to be incredibly presumptuous in throwing out suggestions on how to lower your hosebed without knowing much more like:
How many personnel?
Foam and/or what type of foam system?
Hose capacity requirements (LDH and other)?
How many preconnects?
How much equipment and what is the EXACT inventory of tools? INVENTORY INVENTORY INVENTORY!
What fixed components do we need (generators/light towers/reels etc)?
What is a low hosebed? 40"? 50"? 60"?
How do you want your ladders stored? Slide In-Drop Down-Slide Off?
Are there suction hoses to contend with?
What is the door height and length requirements?
What body material? Alum-S/S?
Regardless, there are MANY ways to accomplish what you are asking.
I am throwing out a thumbnail sketch of a "low hosebed" yet provide the following in this particular design. There are many other ways to do this, but here is one that gives you the following general parameters:
400 (yes 400) cubic feet of storage compartments
1000-2000' of LDH or other assorted hose (again volume is volume)
upper dunnage, reel, speedidry, "miscellaneous" roof compartments
safe upper walkway access area
HUGE compartments (double deep both sides)
Hosebed at 59" off ground
Crosslays 60" off ground
Ladders 48" off ground
6 person cab
Med/Storage cabinet in cab
6000 watt light tower
360 degree floodlighting
"L" Style tank
Just some food for thought!
Lots of other ways to accomplish what your thinking, but it takes a bunch more info. L-Tanks are a great way to get hosebed heights controlable, but many manufacturers will try to talk you out of them, as it requires that thing called engineering, which many of them do not like. Many see these as "one off" designs and do not want to screw with them. I would rather suggest that the manufacturers need to accomodate lower hosebeds, lower crosslays, smaller more compact rescue style designs to accomodate where the fire service is going.
My vision of where its going? Smaller, more compact, more versatile designs, yet able to pack a punch! We all liked getting "combo" rigs, but all of a sudden they are these unmanagable behemoths, that it takes a pole vaulter to access! The continued downslide in paid staffing, availability of volunteers inherently makes us do more with less and "combo" rigs help us do that. I will not get on my rear mount kick again, but it is the way to the future, allowing us to crunch down that pump package, making the fire pump more of an auxilliary device, opening up compartment space for all the other tools required for todays fire service. Be realistic, how many times in the last 12 months did you pump at capacity verses the amount of times you went on a med run or extrication? I know the BIG PUMP guys will bash that one, but I am not saying you do not need pump volume (yes we need pump volume!), but we need to do it while keeping vehicle size in control.
Be open minded and look at everything available before letting tradition force you into a behemoths that is rediculously high, cumbersome and not really all that functional if you are realistic and put the testoserone aside! One other thing I should not fail to mention is that we as customers of the manufacturer also have to accept the cost related to accomplish all of this special "stuff" until which point and time it becomes more standard. No different than going out and buying a plasma screen or a Digital TV, until the volumes increases by market demand, the prices remain high. Once users increase volume, prices decrease as more and more manufacturers realize they have competition and are not the only game in town!
Sit down and make a priority list. 1-2-3, as to the priorities and functions of the true mission. Is it #1 structural? Is it #1 rescue/tool hauler? What is the #1-2-3 thing we need to accomplish in the 80/20 scenario? ALWAYS inventory and think ahead and plan plan plan! Do not allow “feelings” get in the way of the priority list and move you off the base requirements. Spend your time before buying (it will pay off) and do not let a manufacturer tell you what you need because they do not want to engineer something!
Good luck and once again, DO NOT let tradition ruin a good design!
Stay safe and good fishing!
08-04-2004, 11:09 AM #10
Good Points firefish. What I forgot to include in my last post was that we took about 3 years on our committee. 3 years from inception to delivery. The biggest factor for us going w/ a low hose bed was because we have many LOOOOONNNGGG stretchs. What we did was eliminated crosslays, and load ALL the hose in the rear. We have 2 beds of 300' 1.75" over 600' of 2.5", 1 bed of 400' 2.5" and a bed of 1000' of 4". We also add a discharge in the rear. The body is S/S and we had space left over once we put everything on the engine. We don't need to put all of our eggs in one basket because we have a Heavy Rescue, Tower Ladder, and another Engine. So this Engine is just that....An Engine!.....But if we wanted we could put a FULL set of Lukas Tools (that's what we use) on board and still have room left over...Right now whats onboard is 6 SCBA w/ spares, 1 LDH manifold, 1 LDH siamese, 2 water thiefs, 1 TIC, 6 radios, 6 handlights, 4 hooks, 1 playpipe, 1 mercury nozzle, Fittings for 4 to 5", and 4-6", plus the basic dbl fm and male connections....a Hydrant bag, 150' of life rope and 150' of search rope, 2 sets of irons, 1 10lb maul, bolt cutters, piercing nozzle, 40 pounds of speedy dry, 25 gallons of bulk foam, a 95gpm and 125gpm inductor, foam master stream nozzle, 3 foam nozzles, 5 gallons of baracaide w/ pack. A 950cc saw, and electic smoke ejector. We kept to the basics with this engine. As soon as I get the pics up on our website I can post them here to explain better.IACOJ Member
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)