What do you classify as an Engine-Tanker?

[IzzyEng4 427]

I saw the post for a new Engine-tanker on the forum and got me thinking what is a true Engine-Tanker (or pumper-tanker, engine-tank, tanker-pumper depending what a department calls it.)

In CT there area several different departments with different pump sizes and tank sizes. For instance, a neigboring department to my town has 2 engine tankers. One has a 1250 gpm pump and a 3000 gallon water tank, while their other has a 1250 pump and 2000 gallon water tank. But what about departments, such as in eastern CT have 1000 gpm pumps and 1000 gallon tanks and call them Engine-Tanks. Should they?

For me, I believe an Engine-tanker / Tanker pumper should be a truck on any chassis that is rated as a Class A (1000 gpm pump or greater) and have a minimum of 2000 of water with or without a dump valve and a folding drafting tank on board. Also to if the unit is considered an attack unit, then the desigantion in my mind should be "Engine-Tanker" or "Pumper-Tanker" where as if the primary function is to tansport water to a scene from a source then call it a Tanker-pumper or Tanker.

I don't beleive that any truck with less than 2000 gallons of water in a tank on an attack pumper should be called and Engine Tanker / pumper tanker, its a pumper or Engine. Also too any tanker with a 500 to 750 pump should just be classified Tanker, which I have seen otherwise, but very few, under this designation (just like mini attack pumpers with no more than 750 pump on them being called an Engine)

Just my thoughs, what do you all think? Now I'm not looking at any NFPA designations right now, just personal opinions.

[exmrvfc 0]

Izzy,

From my experience with tanker operations, the ETAs (Engine Tankers) were class A engines with 1000 gallons or more. Tankers had small to no pumps as their primary mission was water haulage. When we called in Mutual aid we knew the size of the ETAs and you based the number requested by total gallonage coming in and what was needed per the fire flow formula. We had 2 ETAs (1 1000 gallon & 1 1500 Gallon) and a EL (engine-ladder with 1000 gallon tank and 1500 pump). I liked the ETA concept as it gave you the most flexibility and a smaller overall truck. That was nice on some of the small back country roads and made it easier to handle.

If you are going to call it an engine it has to be at least a class A engine. Calling it an ETA just means you have 1000 gallons or more. When water is scarce, that extra 500 gallons can mean a lot. Considering most Engines carry 500 or 750, I don't think it is a stretch to distinghuish an ETA at 1000 gallons.

[res6cue 67]

In Rockland, the term "Tanker" basically refers to any apparatus that has at least 1000 gal. As far as I know, there are only two trucks with more than 1000 gal, Tallman's 20-2000 and 20-Tanker, each with 1250 gal. I can't think of one truck here that has a pump below 1000 GPM with at least 1000 gal of water, so I suppose they're all technically "Engine-Tankers" by whatever standards we're using.

Personally, I think it's a bit silly calling an engine with a 1000 gal tank a "Tanker", but that's just me. I would say anything over 1500 or 2000, sure, but 1000 gal seems too common around here for what are otherwise run of the mill engines.

[CHIEFPHIL 90]

Izzy - cjeck out this site

http://qvec.org/welcome.htm

This is one of the eastern CT regional dispatch centers, they have a specfic page on the requirements of naming pieces of equipment. Such as Engine Tanks, Engine - Hose, Engies etc.

Knowing several FF's from that end of the state, where mutual aid and auto mutual aid is very common, they have told me it is a good way for the IC to know what type and capabilities of the rig coming in is . We are not talking about crossing on town line, but several.

Sometimes I wish the rest of the state would follow something like this... but that is for another time.

[danb 10]

I believe the county( Orange) regonizes it as an Engine/Tanker ( usual call over the county as an engine) with a 1250gpm pump, and 2000 gallons of H20 on it with the associated seating for a engine company

but dont quote me on that generaly thats the genral guideline in Orange County for "Engine/Tankers"

[IzzyEng4 427]

Actually Chief, that is who I was refering to in Eastern CT all those departments and thier designation of ETA's ect.

Also too, well at least the apparatus in New Haven County, pumpers with 1000 gallons of water on them are engines (and there is at least 10 desgined like this around my area).

I just can't see calling a unit a engine tanker if it has 2000 of less (since it is very rare seeing 1250, 1500 or 1750 gwts) and doesn't have a dump valve which most of those classified ETA's w/ 1000 gwt's do not. An engine tanker can double as an attack pumper and also a water hauler and dump its load. I just find that odd calling it something it isn't functioned to do. That just me though.

[Doc 11]

I think the tanker / engine / pumper-tanker / engine-tanker naming thing is another one of those confusions caused by evolving technology. In a lot of the old apparatus sales brochures I've collected from the 1960's and 1970's anything with over 750 gallons was called a pumper-tanker or tanker. Maybe they were still concerned that an engine shouldn't have water - just hard sleeve, some fittings, a bin of coal and a bag of horse apples. It lookes like following the acceptance of the diesel / air brakes combo, tank sizes just took off to meet the increased understanding of modern fireloads. Now it seems like 750 to 1000 gal is the norm for an engine. So, yeah. One department's pumper-tanker is another ones engine.

Somebody once told me it depends on how deep in the sands of history a department keeps it's head. I think it has more to do with hydrant spacing and whether or not you know how to use a jet siphon.

[10-Buff-4 0]

I think this counts as an Engine-Tanker:

http://www.nefirenews.org/ne/EastFarmsCTET9.JPG

Well, it's called an Engine-Tanker, anyway. Pumps 1500 gpm, carries 2000 gallons, 25 gallons of A and B Foam, and Hurst Tools.

The town has a second one of these too. I don't have a photo of that one.

Hope this helps.

-DA BUFF

[Guest JQP442]

Just my opinion, but if it doesnt have at least 2000 gal of water, at least one dump and a 'portable pond' its not a tanker and the word shoud be not be used. If someone is calling for a takner, thats what they should get. Not an engine with 1000 gal of water that a dept keeps an old name on. As far as adding Engine or pumper or something else like that to the name, I think its just someting else to get in the way of getting what your asking for.

Edited October 31, 2006 by JQP442

[Arrowxt 8]

A lot is lost in a word. Tanker. What it is supposed to do is deliver water. A pumper/tanker has to do both. What gets lost within the word of tanker is not how much water it has on it , but the rate of delivery, and recovery. (To empty the tank , then refill and deliver...) . So what if you have have 3000 gallons of water on the unit, if your dump time is long and your fill time is long it screws up the entire operation. A true "pumper/tanker" would have a dump and fill method that would constitute a great recovery rate along with a full comlpliment of ladders, supply hose, cross lays , hand tools , manpower. Thus it would also have to navigate as an engine, but with the size of such unit(2000-3000 gallon tank) most if built correct would have tandem axles and be longer than your average pumper. Ad a drop tank to match the size or exceed the size of your booster tank and you loose the ability to have what you would find on an engine. A lot are out there , but for the most part they are one or the other. One way to do it correct , and what I believe is the limit, is to do a 1500 gallon booster, low side both sides with a porta tank , rear dump And direct tank fill. You can still fit 6 firefighters in the cab , have a 6 wheel chassis , and be able to fit it in driveways and supply water if called as a tanker.

[GoshenFD 0]

At least in Orange it is pretty much up to the department to make their designation of Tanker or Engine. Monroe 537 and Lakeside 535 are good examples of pumper tankers that are called Engines. Both units have 2000GPM pumps and carry 2500+ gallons of water.

On the contrary, Suffern in Rockland runs two seemingly identical 1250 GPM pumpers. I'm not sure of the tank size but looking at them they are probably no more than 1250 or 1500 gallons max. I don't know much about their operations and maybe someone from Rockland can fill us in but I imagine that the two pieces of equipment has different duties.

Engine?

Tanker?

[ajsbear 11]

The reason we use "Tankers" is to get large volumns of water to the scene and to shuttle back and forth. Tankers should have at a minimum 2,500 gallons. If it is used as a pumper it then defeats the tanker term. It needs to shuttle water. Most real tankers can dump quickly, go back to the water source, fill quickly and return. Simple.

[exmrvfc 0]

Having fought fires doing tankers ops in our district with no hydrants, I was more than happy with our 1000 gallong Engine Tankers. The ETA's gave flexibilbity and as Arrow XT pointed out is depends on dump and recovery time. All of our ETAs had direct tank fills to speed the process. Our 1500 gallon taker had 3 dumps and a direct tank fill. If we were called for a Mutual Aid Tanker, the 1500 gallon went first followed by one of the 1000 gallon ETAs if needed. Very few departments ran with the 2000-3000 gallon tanks due to the size of the rigs. Remember that tankers are used in areas mainly without nice wide streets like in the southern westchester. The 1000/1500 tanks are much easier to drive and thus aid in a faster recovery time. It may not "seem like a tanker" but it serves a very valuable purpose. Does anyone question why we have Engine Rescues?? It's more than an engine but less than a Rescue but it too serves a very valuable purpose.

[res6cue 67]

On the contrary, Suffern in Rockland runs two seemingly identical 1250 GPM pumpers. I'm not sure of the tank size but looking at them they are probably no more than 1250 or 1500 gallons max. I don't know much about their operations and maybe someone from Rockland can fill us in but I imagine that the two pieces of equipment has different duties.

Engine?

Tanker?

←

Suffern's 19-Tanker and 19-1250 are identical twin 1993 ALF 1250 GPM pumpers and both carry 1000 gallons of water. It's been a few years since I've peeked inside the compartments, but I'm pretty sure they carry the same equipment and are not setup any differently. A few years ago they ran first and second due with one functioning as the attack engine and the other as the hydrant engine. Their new Seagrave 2000/600 engine runs first due now.

As I posted earlier, the only requirement for naming a truck "Tanker" in Rockland is that it carry at least 1000 gallons of water. That really doesn't mean much though, at least in so far as most people's traditional views of what a "Tanker" is. There are quite a few engines in Rockland with 1000 gallon tanks, and only two that I know of with more (both Tallman's), and they only have 1250 gallons so it's not much more at all. Our dept has four engines, all with 1000 gallons of water and either a 1500 or 1750 GPM pump. One of the 1500/1000 engines is called "6-Tanker" and it's the first due engine out of our north station. All four of those engines can and do function as attack engines, with three of them first due. The fourth is second due from our south station and has more LDH on it so it can function better as a hydrant engine.

[Arrowxt 8]

Having fought fires doing tankers ops in our district with no hydrants, I was more than happy with our 1000 gallong Engine Tankers.  The ETA's gave flexibilbity and as Arrow XT pointed out is depends on dump and recovery time. All of our ETAs had direct tank fills to speed the process.  Our 1500 gallon taker had 3 dumps and a direct tank fill. If we were called for a Mutual Aid Tanker, the 1500 gallon went first followed by one of the 1000 gallon ETAs if needed. Very few departments ran with the 2000-3000 gallon tanks due to the size of the rigs. Remember that tankers are used in areas mainly without nice wide streets like in the southern westchester. The 1000/1500 tanks are much easier to drive and thus aid in a faster recovery time. It may not "seem like a tanker" but it serves a very valuable purpose.  Does anyone question why we have Engine Rescues??  It's more than an engine but less than a Rescue but it too serves a very valuable purpose.

←

Hey,

Engine rescues are also hard to define , but in a way can be a great tool, depending on how they are built. I have seen a few that build them with 500-750 gallon tanks with full depth compartments and full height with the coffin compartments on top. Also the rear mount pump affords a lot of tool storage. I think this can be more of a "mix" unit than an engine/tanker. Although you can design a nice engine/tanker.

Arrow