How Do You Define A "High" Hosebed

[Bnechis 3,961]

Initially, I thought the hosebed was rediculously high, but the more you look at it, the more you realize it really isnt...very nice peice.

How do you define high?

The bottom of the bed on the left (or top) is approximatle 6 feet from the rear step, while the one on the right (or bottom) is 3 feet.

While they are for different environments and carry different amounts of water & hose. what is high and how critical is the height of the hosebed?

Edited June 20, 2011 by markmets415

[x129K 1,393]

How do you define high?

The bottom of the bed on the left (or top) is approximatle 6 feet from the rear step, while the one on the right (or bottom) is 3 feet.

While they are for different environments and carry different amounts of water & hose. what is high and how critical is the hight of the hosebed?

Good question.

To me, high, or actually too high, is where a member, while standing on the back deck has to get on their tippy toes, or a small fold down step to reach the hose they wish to pull. As you can imagine, this often results in being off balanced at best and makes it somewhat of a difficult task. However, it is a trade off that sometimes must be made in rural areas without municipal water and hydrants where these pumpers carry 1000 gallons or better.

As we build these monsters to "do it all", the hosebeds get higher and higher...and the rear decks get smaller and smaller...we fight hard enough, before we even begin the fight so to speak.

I love the idea of being able to grab a line and deploy it with your feet planted firmly on the ground, but sadly, it just isnt an option for most departments...unless they sacrifice gallonage, or compartment space.

[Task Force 7 65]

Even at 6'7" tall, I'd prefer the hose bed on the right!! If I can't reach the hose with my feet firmly planted on the ground (that does not mean rear step) then it's too high.

[markmets415 524]

Here is one that is way to high to even be used safely in my opinion, granted it is our tanker but it carries 700' of 5" for driveway deployment if needed but as you can see it surely isn't user friendly nor safe! Plus it has the little 1/2 turn fasteners that hold the hose bed cover down, UGH!

Love your new engine Capt., ESPECIALLY the hose bed.

[markmets415 524]

Now this is a better, user friendly hose bed for us and has more of a chance of being used then our tanker. It has 2500' of 5". It's very hard to really compare the two rigs as one main purpose is carrying water and this one is our source pumper which is charged with getting water to the scene and has a booster tank of 500 gallons of water, which allows for a larger and lower hose bed. Another point to make and one that plaques us is the size of older fire stations, we are faced with height and length restrictions which effects how we can build a rig.

[x129K 1,393]

Here is one that is way to high to even be used safely in my opinion, granted it is our tanker but it carries 700' of 5" for driveway deployment if needed but as you can see it surely isn't user friendly nor safe! Plus it has the little 1/2 turn fasteners that hold the hose bed cover down, UGH!

Love your new engine Capt., ESPECIALLY the hose bed.

Yes, that is "dangerously" high Mark..from a standpoint of grabbing the hose, and the potential from injury of those big couplings coming down..

I like the building opposite Amenia's firehouse - same color as the tanker..LOL

And forget the hosebed on NR's engine - check out THAT SWEET FIREMAN'S 'STACHE ON THAT GUY! LOL...

(I kid...the engine is top notch, as is the owner of the stache..)

Edited June 20, 2011 by x129K

[Bnechis 3,961]

Yes, that is "dangerously" high Mark..from a standpoint of grabbing the hose, and the potential from injury of those big couplings coming down..

Worst is climbing on top to repack it. A slip from there is a LODD. Actually OSHA requires railings or fall protection at that hight.

[x129K 1,393]

Worst is climbing on top to repack it. A slip from there is a LODD. Actually OSHA requires railings or fall protection at that hight.

Wow...great point. That never crossed my mind...

Scary.

[firedude 985]

There is a reason they put a humman figure in the PE Drawings!

Low:

In the middle:

High:

Edited June 20, 2011 by firedude

[Remember585 815]

Agreed that we should always make the best effort to design a rig that has our safety in mind. BUT, sometimes a rig has to do more than lug hose and water around, hence the taller hosebed.

When we got our most recent Engine, the hosebed was viewed as "high" by many. While I agree that it's higher than we would have preferred, equipment we use more often than that hose is stored below the hosebed, making it easier for us to get to.

For us, and I know others are different and some are similar, we drop hose off the bed maybe 10-12 times per year, but the equipment stored below the hosebed is pulled 2-3 times more than the hose in our hosebed. "Cheater" lengths of 5" are stored in close proximity to the pump panel on all 3 Engines so the MPO rarely has to go out of his way to ring a hydrant.

Those of you blessed with hydrants everywhere can afford to have 500 gallon tanks and lower hosebeds. We lack that luxury in many portions of our district, so our Engines have 750 gallons and two have 1000 gallons of water.

I like the new E199 from Bedford Hills - it's a multi-purpose apparatus hence the hosebed is a bit higher than that of New Rochelle's E21 which is an Engine only. Correct me if I am wrong, but E25 had a higher hose bed to facilitate storage of more equipment, right? Either way, they're all well designed rigs.

[x635 4,066]

Worst is climbing on top to repack it. A slip from there is a LODD. Actually OSHA requires railings or fall protection at that hight.

Easy everything on this engine, including climbing up to the hosebed (Plano, TX FD):

Here's a few other hosebeds that have been specfically designed for their department's operations in mind:

The hosebed height is because they (Austin FD) carries 1,000 gallons on it's first due:

Houston FD E-68, one of the busiest engine companies in the city:

Dallas FD, hosebed spec on new Engines:

Lake Travis FD, TX Hosebed on their newest engines:

Westlake TX Pierce PUC Hosebed (ladder folds out into a "pool type" ladder and lower diamond plate folds out into a step with "gator grip":

[Bnechis 3,961]

Correct me if I am wrong, but E25 had a higher hose bed to facilitate storage of more equipment, right? Either way, they're all well designed rigs.

E-25's is higher because that was the best that manufacturer could manage. E-21 actually has more storage and the storage is lower.

[x129K 1,393]

Viva La Booster Jose!

[x635 4,066]

E-25's is higher because that was the best that manufacturer could manage.

Engine 25's Pierce Arrow XT Hosebed:

[roofsopen19 34]

The hose bed on the saratoga rig is no lower than 238, 51, or 29...

There is a reason they put a humman figure in the PE Drawings!

Low:

In the middle:

High:

[16fire5 693]

All good posts but another thing to consider in this discussion is the depth of the bed. Correct me if I'm wrong but the new NR engine has an L shaped tank to accomadate the low hose bed. This lowers the bed and shortens it. The NR rig appears to have 3 dead loads of hose off the back that the firefighters will remove and stretch to the fire and in cities in this area sometimes a great deal of hose. So first off the need for large dead loads of hose is necessary. Second I personally have found that I like stretching off the short beds better because the shorter folds can be stretched easier. With a long bed the folds are long and tend to get caught on everything when stretching (especially on streets with parrallel parked cars and the other things you see in the urban environment). In NYC most engine companies place the first few lengths in horseshoe fashion that are easy to carry and I tended to prefer these be short too. I liked to be able to have them off the ground if I lifted them up to avoid obstructions.

[FFPCogs 863]

I guess I'm just way to old school. Given the choice I prefer a hosebed that you don't have to leave the ground to access to stretch from and that includes mattydales (crosslays). But as we see time and again rigs just seem to get bigger and bigger as Depts, due to budget constraints, try to fit more into one package. I have never been a fan of multi-task Engines, (and even less so of quints) as my experience is that once everything is crammed unto a rig to perform multiple tasks it ends up not doing any of them particularly well. I can understand higher hosebeds due to the need to carry sufficient water, but even that has it's limits. Anything you need a ladder to access( and that includes repacking) is just too damn hgh to be truly practical..IMO. If a rig needs to carry more than 1000 gallons buy a damn tanker and leave the hose work to the engine. But hey I'm spoiled my FD has hydrants every few hundred feet and truth be told we could do without 5" as well.....but that's another topic.

I guess the key point to remember when spec'ing out Engines is that when all is said and done FFs are going to have to operate off those rigs so the easier and safer it is for them to do so the better.

Cogs

Edited June 21, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the new NR engine has an L shaped tank to accomadate the low hose bed. This lowers the bed and shortens it. The NR rig appears to have 3 dead loads of hose off the back that the firefighters will remove and stretch to the fire and in cities in this area sometimes a great deal of hose.

Its a vertical tank, not an L. yes 3 dead loads: 1 3/4" with TFT, 2" with straight noz., 2 1/2" w/ straight and 5" Supply

[antiquefirelt 994]

As I think I've said before, our most recent truck committee struggled to make the hosebed as low as possible and given other constraints: minimum tank size, overall engine length and the hoseloads to be carried we were forced to choose which were the priorities.

In the end, we asked ourselves what each obstacle accomplished. The water tank size allows us more time before the water supply must be completed, a major issue with parts of our first due with no hydrants. The overall length was pretty much set by the apparatus bay floor areas where the engine could be positioned. The hoseloads are determined by what we felt were necessary amounts of LDH, a 2.5" bed for fire attack and a 3" line with a mini-monitor that doubles as a alley stretch. The last factor was to ask "what does a low hosebed do for us"?

We found that it isn't the bottom of the hosebed that matters, but the top of the finished load we carry. A single stack of 5" LDH could be right on the frame rails and still end up far too high. The wider and longer the bed the less height needed. In the end we found we couldn't have our cake and eat it too, so we decided to allow the top of the load to be higher, but mounted all the ends (nozzles/gun) outside the bed where you can reach them from the ground under more stressed fireground conditions. . A few short pieces of webbing properly placed allows one firefighter to pull any of the loads free of the bed from the ground as well. The sacrifice is when it comes to reloading, which as BNECHIS noted likely requires fall protection by the letter of the law, but to us was the most controllable time where we could guarantee the appropriate number of firefighters, working safely, utilizing proper technique and in a slower controlled setting.

Edited June 21, 2011 by antiquefirelt

[spin_the_wheel 460]

Here is the working end of one of our new Ferrara Engines from the other day. The committee stressed a short wheel base and low hose bed. Eliminating the booster reel helped keep a low bed.

Edited July 2, 2011 by spin_the_wheel

[16fire5 693]

Here is the working end of one of our new Ferrara Engines from the other day. The committee stressed a short wheel base and low hose bed. Eliminating the booster reel helped keep a low bed.

Do you usually stretch off the dead loads on the back like the FDNY? Assign a member to control the stretch? Pack the hose left to right only?

[spin_the_wheel 460]

Do you usually stretch off the dead loads on the back like the FDNY? Assign a member to control the stretch? Pack the hose left to right only?

Yes this particular Engine company does this most of the time, as well as a fire to hydrant stretch if they are first due. We have pretty good hydrant spacing in our district. They will use the preconnects off the sides from time to time dependig on the crew, but this is not the norm.

[16fire5 693]

Yes this particular Engine company does this most of the time, as well as a fire to hydrant stretch if they are first due. We have pretty good hydrant spacing in our district. They will use the preconnects off the sides from time to time dependig on the crew, but this is not the norm.

One of the downsides of crosslays is people thinking they need to line them up with the front door which blocks out the truck. One positive of the reverse lay which the FDNY calls the "backstretch" is the engine sees 3 sides of the building and gets the opportunity to drop a couple lines in the front of the builing and then get out of the way. Your good hydrant spacing makes this a more viable stategy.

Edited July 3, 2011 by 16fire5