Pumper-Tankers

[Patch6713 18]

Recently my department formed a committee to review the types of trucks we buy. The initiative is to try an reduce the number of trucks in the department while still providing a similar level of service. Currently we operate 5 engines, 4 tank trucks, 4 mini-pumpers, 1 ladder, one rescue, and some support vehicles out of four different firehouses. I was assigned the task of looking into combination vehicles, i.e. pumper-tankers and rescue-engines. What I am asking is for anybody with any experience with these combination trucks, or better yet went from single use to combination use trucks, to give their opinions on them. I wankt to know what you liked, didn't like, etc.

[lalautze 35]

We have gone through a similar situation in our area.

Our department purchased a "rescue-engine" ten years ago and when we specified an engine in 2008 we chose not to go the "rescue-engine" route.

Our concerns with the 2002 design was the very high hose bed and ladder compartments. We find ourselves going to other trucks for hose and ladders because of this. Also this vehicle is a rear mount pump but all of the plumbing comes off the rear side compartments and takes up more space than I think it should. While the truck has lots of compartment space for rescue equipment included four coffins on top it suffers from easy access to some of the "bread & butter" structure firefighting equipment. While that stuff is accessed less often we find it hinders us on structure fires. This vehicle is the same overall dimensions as our other engines so handling and scene access are not an issue. Could some of the issues be resolved at the design stage? Possibly but we did not follow it up. I was not a member of the department when this vehicle was designed but I was around when it was delivered.

In 2008 we designed a "engine" with a rear rescue tool compartment. On this truck we specified that everything be accessible from the ground or one step up to the tailboard/running board. Everyone finds this truck much easier to operate and get equipment off of. The rear rescue tool compartment has a cutter & spreader attached to a pump with 100-foot reels. We carry some cribbing and struts in other compartments and find this covers 99% of our extrication calls. Also we returned to the top-mount pump panel which our older engines have and the members prefer. I was a member of the design committee for this truck.

Since we run a heavy rescue regardless we found that the "rescue-engine" design really didn't help us out any and made access to some equipment more difficult. I do not foresee us making a return to that design although I would admit that some of our issues could be resolved if the apparatus was designed differently.

Regarding the pumper-tanker. One of our neighboring departments replaced a pumper and tanker with a combination unit. All that I will say is that they got a tandem axle pumper-tanker and it does not handle or maneuver like an engine. When I see it on scene the apparatus takes awhile to get it down the drives and into position. Be aware of impact of size of the apparatus on your response area and operator driving abilities.

If you have any other questions let me know.

Edited October 3, 2012 by lalautze

[firemoose827 324]

Coming from a predominantly rural area with no hydrants (in my district we only have 3 dry-hydrants) I use engine-tankers frequently and see no issue with them if properly specced for your needs and area. Obviously you dont want a huge wheelbase and weight if you run on mostly small country roads and long driveways. People think the more water the better...think about travel distance to water source, fill time at the fill site and return trip to get your overall gpm's received from that unit. We have a 2000 gallon pumper/tanker and 3 dry hydrant fill sites located at different parts of the district, never more than a 2-5 minute ride from the scene. It fills in about 4-5 minutes and dumps in about 2 minutes (fully open). We can get more water out of that than using a large, 4000 gallon tanker that you cant maneuver on small roads and driveways, and takes longer to fill. Up until recently when our engine failed pump test, we used our 1000/1000 front mount engine as front line with the 2000/1250 KME Pumper/tanker as the water supply. We can have 3000 gallons on scene initially and our pumper/tanker would return to the scene with an additional 2000 gallons within 6 minutes...if we couldnt put it out with 5000 gallons in the first 10 minutes of operating we did something wrong!! Plus we had additional tankers from neighboring mutual aid; one 3500 gallon tanker, one 3000 gallon tanker and one 1250/1500 pumper tanker all within 10-15 minutes out.

You just need to plan your area and see what you need, what works, and whats cost effective. What calls do you run the most; MVA's or structure fires? Rescue calls or fire calls? Then you can properly spec out what your department needs it apparattus.

Best of luck to you guys, hope you get it worked out.

[Patch6713 18]

Thanks for they replies

[conman 40]

Patch, we have a 3000 gallon pumper tanker and a rescue pumper. If your interested in coming down to have a look at them just pm me and I'll gladly show you our set up

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Pleasantville operates with a rescue pumper...feel free to contact me for info or to set up a visit. There are several pumper tankers in Westchester, you could make a nice day trip checking out different rigs.

I personally am a big fan of the concept of a rescue pumper, however, storage does become a big issue.We fit everything we need on the rig but some pieces of equipment are in tough spots. For example, our Res-Q-Jacks are up in the coffins on top of the truck. Requires two people to lift the double coffin and to pass down or lift up the jacks before and after use.

I have had limited experience using pumper tankers (engine tankers in some places). I do know that some places use them as a first due apparatus or second due. It is nice to get the extra water on the road with a pump in places with limited water/man power.

Best of luck,

Madison

[SSweet88MonteSS 0]

I believe Croton's new tanker is a pumper tanker.

[provfd 49]

Pumper tankers are great when they are first due, who wouldn't want 2500 gallons right away? Depending on the call, that truck may be all you need. They are a bear if they are in a tanker shuttle because of the length and ability to navigate what is usually tight quarters. As mentioned the height brings it's own challenges as well.

[16fire5 693]

One thing you didn't bring up but is worth considering is if you keep single role vehicles can you staff them? You very well may have been able to when you make the purchases back 20 or more years ago but what's your manpower these days? During the day? If staffing is no issue and you ran lots of fires single role vehicles might be the way to go but lets face it no one has the manpower to get all those rigs out. If some of your stations are not going to get two rigs out i may be better to replace the pumper and tanker with a pumper tanker. Maybe your main station has more manpower they could have a pumper and a pumper tanker there that could also be the spare for the other stations.

As for the rescue pumpers I think the designs over the last few years have really done a good job of getting a lot of space into the new rigs. Also staffing again comes into play. Can you get an engine and a rescue out at 1000 on a Tuesday? All the time? 50%? Only if Joe is home? If not you are not alone. If you are only getting one rig out and it doesn't have both tools and a pump and water eventually you will be caught with you pants down. In the rural setting this can be a busy rig if you plan it right. It can not only handle all the MVAs but if it has a pump it can fill tankers and do supply and fill in for front line pumpers out of service.

One thing I commend you and your department on is actually having the discussion. Many places are increasing the number of rigs or replacing without thinking about this. Single function rigs may be better but they do no good if they are sitting in the firehouse.

[grumpyff 1,159]

With the engine-tanker concept just remember it will not be able to fulfill both roles at a working fire. It will either be an engine, or a tanker and if you are dealing with a rural water supply, you may have to call in additional resources as a result. Also not sure how this would reflect in your ISO if an engine and a tanker a required for your area, but now you have one piece to fill both roles. Then again, most of the places around here have a rating of 9.

[Bnechis 3,961]

With the engine-tanker concept just remember it will not be able to fulfill both roles at a working fire. It will either be an engine, or a tanker and if you are dealing with a rural water supply, you may have to call in additional resources as a result. Also not sure how this would reflect in your ISO if an engine and a tanker a required for your area, but now you have one piece to fill both roles.

ISO requires a minimum of 2 class A pumpers on every structure response. They only consider a tanker for the 8b classification (i.e. if you are a 9 and have 4,000 gallons on wheels in your 1st response they will make you an 8b and save some of your residential properties some money). They do not require a tanker to deliver water for improved rating (they require you prove you can develop the needed fire flow and they do not care how you do it).

Then again, most of the places around here have a rating of 9.

That is do to lack of plaining or simply ignoring ISO. There are rural depts without hydrants that rate a 4 and almost every dept that owns 2 engines and a tanker are eligable to be an 8b.

[Tanker 10eng 140]

I believe Croton's new tanker is a pumper tanker.

naaaa... our new tanker is a Tanker... not a pumper / tanker. It does have a 1750 gpm pump on it, but that is because we have been doing allot more with nurse operations at structure fires ( depending on the site conditions, and the volume of fire ). Aside from that, the only hose we carry is for filling operations...All the equipment it carries is to do tanker operations - or - a car fire...

[JM15 386]

or a car fire?

[Tanker 10eng 140]

or a car fire?

always wanted to put out a car fire with a side chute .... came close, but not yet..

[JM15 386]

lol gotcha now

[Remember585 815]

Bill - it's a 1500 GPM pump. Your memory is shot.

By technical specification it is, in fact, a tanker-pumper. It is a 3000 gallon tanker with a 1500 GPM pump. It has two 1 3/4" crosslays (200' & 300') for use where/when needed. As "Tanker 10eng" said, it is designed to be a nursing / shuttling apparatus - it's similar in purpose of our old tanker, just with a larger pump, more seating for members and newer upgrades.

[Tanker 10eng 140]

as stated by my senior, I'm a " dumb a**.. " ( 1750 -1500 )...what ever it takes.. lol... its a tanker.

[Patch6713 18]

Thanks guys for all the replies.