GA_Dave Posted September 10, 2016 Author Share Posted September 10, 2016 Engine 8, South Bend, IN (retired) 1976 Mack CF 1250/500 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack58B42 Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 10 minutes ago, Red Horse said: I can understand how front line pumpers/ladders get retired. I am surprised though as to the number of tankers that seem to be retired at a relatively young age. Any logical answer? An aluminum petro tanker, or stainless milk tank? No DOT/EPA tightness test issues. And if you have bulkhead leaks between compartments-who cares?? No food grade issues in the case of a milk tank. Or do departments just want purpose built fire tankers these days? My 2-cents worth on the "converted truck" issue: 1. Many tanker drivers in volunteer departments are not necessarily experienced tank-truck drivers, and in many states a CDL is not required to drive fire apparatus. So a smart chief will want a tanker that is over-built to carry the full weight of, let's say, 3000 gallons of water under stressful conditions, with a driver that may not be as aware of truck/load/road conditions as might be ideal. 2. Related to above - petro tankers are specified to carry, usually, gasoline, which is 2-plus lbs lighter than water per gallon. If the tank/chassis of the truck is designed for that, and not water, it can cause weight distribution problems, especially if not well-baffled, or baffled at all. In a 3000 gallon tank, that's 3 extra tons of fluid, and, again, if the truck is not correctly specified for that additional weight, combined with a part-time driver who might have questionable training, it's not usually recommended that a petro tanker be converted to fire service. 3. My feeling about tankers vs. pumpers/ladders is sort of just the opposite.... BECAUSE pumpers/ladders are subject to annual testing to confirm that they do what they are supposed to do, I'm a lot more comfortable with a 35-year old one of those fighting fires than a tanker that may or may not be spec'd for fire service, may not be baffled correctly for the stop-and-go let's-get-there-fast type of driving by potentially inexperienced drivers, and which may have been converted by amateurs who aren't aware of the physics and math involved in properly specifying a truck for fire service. That being said, I came from a volunteer dept. that, back in the 50's did a couple of their own conversions for their first pumper, and brush trucks, but they were done by a guys who actually ran a trucking business and knew what they were doing. But when it came time to get a tanker, they did not mess around, and bought a huge Peterbilt that was well-baffled, and properly equipped for the modern fire service, especially concerning safety, and made sure that the suspension and weight characteristics would make the truck as safe as possible, understanding, that not all of the drivers in our district would have the same truck-driving experience that they would have had over the years. And they nailed it. In the 21st century, we now only have one professional truck guy that drives the truck - the rest are mostly guys that have never driven anything bigger than their F250, with the exception of fire apparatus. In this case, I think that the NFPA, and insurance industry is right to push for tankers that are purpose-built, and not petro/gas/milk/military tankers that are re-purposed to try to save money. It's a nice thought, and I understand that some departments have absolutely no choice but to do it due to lack of funds, but, having driven our tanker, I can see how easy it can be for an inexperienced driver to get into some big trouble very quickly in a truck carrying 25,000lbs of water sloshing around, while under high-adrenaline driving conditions. And it's tough to not have the ability to draft, have proper dump chutes, be able to carry a portable tank, or SCBAs, and have all the other equipment needed at a fire ground.... Now, as for purpose-built tankers, my opinion would be the same as for pumpers/ladders. If it's getting older, but will still pass a safety inspection and can get the job done - let it keep working! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 10, 2016 Author Share Posted September 10, 2016 Engine 10, Mechanicsville Hose Company, South Amboy, NJ 1986 Mack MC/Rescue Systems, Inc. 1250/500 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post fxfymn Posted September 10, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted September 10, 2016 Not to hijack the thread, but in addition to Mack58B42's well thought out comments I'll add that the way tankers, or tenders for the western crowd, are used has changed quite a bit over the last 25 years which has dictated a different design than was commonly used before. In previous generations most departments used the tankers as on-site water sources, whereas they are now used to supply portable tanks which other pumpers can draw from while the tanker leaves the scene to get more water. This requires "quick dumps" which the driver can operate from the cab, a feature that is tough to build into a home made conversion. The insurance industry drove some of this since property owners can now get lower fire insurance rates if the FD can prove they can sustain a certain flow of water on the scene by using tankers in lieu of hydrants in rural areas. Also, going away, tankers are the most dangerous type of apparatus to drive in the entire fleet. Having a modern chassis is at least helpful in making it safer. I consider tankers so dangerous that I believe they should never be operated with red lights and sirens, a pretty radical thought for the fire service. Why? A tanker that arrives a little later to the scene is much more effective than a tanker that wrecked on the way and never made it at all. 4 Quote Money, sex, and fire; everybody thinks everyone else is getting more than they are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Horse Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 GA Dave, Mack58B42, and FxFymn, Thx-all good points- I guess the one that really got me thinking was 86 Mack from Bargaintown NJ. Looked like it might have been a purpose built tanker and I'm thinking-"ok -30 years old-but did it respond to every call? Garaged? Well maintained?." Likewise a shot of a 93 CH-but granted it was pulling a 59 Heil! As for the danger of liquid loads, good points- but most MC 306 tanks were built for gas (6.2 pds/gal or distillate fuels-heat, diesel @ 7.2 pds. In an 80,000 lb state this usually meant an 8500 gal gas load or a 7300 gal distillate load. Now water would equate to about 6500 gallons. And the safe way to do that would be to run the smallest compartment empty- and typically most 8500 gal tanks would have a 900 to 1100 gallon compartment as the smallest. My guess would be however, that the inexperienced would light load all the compartments-creating the most slop-that is if they paid attention to weight laws. In any case, absolutely correct in terms of the dangers of a liquid load. "Mass in motion" was a catch phrase we used- take a corner too fast and guess what- that liquid load would climb up the tank shell dramatically changing your center of gravity. Which of course accounts for most of the tanker off ramp accidents. For sure that is the one case where the driver explanation of why he wrecked the truck of..."the load shifted" is absolutely correct! Bottom line-nothing like good training and qualifying people for specific units-not a fireman but would hope that is the usual rule rather than exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 11, 2016 Author Share Posted September 11, 2016 Red Horse, You are correct on the Bargaintown rig, it was purpose built for the Fire service. The 93 CH/59 Heil is still in service. While most commercial tank trucks are designed to carry a specific weight, it is not typical that they hold that weight 24/7/365 unless there is a fire. Fire Service tankers do just that and it takes a toll on them. Here's an analogy: Pick up your wife and carry her to the other end of the house. No big deal (unless she's the size of MY wife!) Now, sit in a chair and have her sit on your lap. For several hours. Now, jump up and run, carrying her to the other end of the house. See the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 11, 2016 Author Share Posted September 11, 2016 And now we return to our regularly scheduled Mack Fire Apparatus..... Engine 42, Broughton, PA (retired) 1978 Mack CF 2000/750 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 11, 2016 Author Share Posted September 11, 2016 Engine 6, Cooperstown, NY 1989 Mack MC/Pierce 1250/1000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 Engine 2, Hopwood, PA 1980 Mack MC 1000/750 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 Tanker 1262, Pine City, NY 1989 Mack MC/Saulsbury 350/2100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 13, 2016 Author Share Posted September 13, 2016 (edited) Engine 1, Fleetwood, PA (retired & collector owned) 1946 Mack 85LS 750/300 #85LS-1084 Edited September 13, 2016 by GA_Dave 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 13, 2016 Author Share Posted September 13, 2016 Tanker 5, Hydetown, PA 1987 Mack R/New Lexington 500/3000 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post GA_Dave Posted September 14, 2016 Author Popular Post Share Posted September 14, 2016 Antique, Taneytown, MD (retired & collector owned) 1949 Mack 85LS 750/500 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share Posted September 14, 2016 Engine 1, North Union Township, PA 1994 Mack MC/New Lexington 1750/1000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post GA_Dave Posted September 15, 2016 Author Popular Post Share Posted September 15, 2016 Engine 301, Lutherville, MD (retired & collector owned) 1954 Mack B-85 750/500 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 15, 2016 Author Share Posted September 15, 2016 Ladder 1, Volunteer Hose Company #1, DuBois, PA (retired) 1977 Mack CF/Hamerly 0/0/100' Thibault 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post GA_Dave Posted September 16, 2016 Author Popular Post Share Posted September 16, 2016 Engine 1, Friendship Fire Company, Winchester, VA (retired & collector owned) 1950 Mack 85LS 750/400 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 16, 2016 Author Share Posted September 16, 2016 Tanker 291, Westfield, NY (retired) 1979 Mack R/Kari Kool 0/3500 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 17, 2016 Author Share Posted September 17, 2016 Engine 16, Union Fire Company, Lebanon, PA (retired) 1978 Mack CF 1500/500 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 17, 2016 Author Share Posted September 17, 2016 Snorkel 16, Franklin, TN (retired) 1987 Mack CF/F.M.C. 1500/300/85' Snorkel 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry T Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 On 9/16/2016 at 3:20 PM, GA_Dave said: Tanker 291, Westfield, NY (retired) 1979 Mack R/Kari Kool 0/3500 318 Detroit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 18, 2016 Author Share Posted September 18, 2016 Engine 736, Liberty Fire Company #4, Schuylkill Haven, PA 1980 Mack CF 1000/500 x-FDNY 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 18, 2016 Author Share Posted September 18, 2016 Engine 21, Franklin, TN (retired) 1987 Mack CF/F.M.C. 1500/750 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 19, 2016 Author Share Posted September 19, 2016 Rescue 42, Goodwill Fire Company, Enhaut, PA (retired) 1980 Mack CF/1993 Swab Wagon Company refurb 2000/325 x-FDNY 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA_Dave Posted September 19, 2016 Author Share Posted September 19, 2016 Snorkel 31, Glen Ellyn, IL (retired) 1964 Mack C-85/Pierce 0/0/65' Snorkel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.