Apparatus Bay Expansions

[CG206 29]

With today's apparatus bigger then older rigs, should departments expand the apparatus bays or should departments custom build apparatus to fit into these smaller bays? I feel that a decision depends on cost of the reconstruction project versus the cost of creating a custom built rig to fit into a smaller bay. Also, are there any departments buying custom built rigs primarliy to fit into smaller bays?

[x635 4,066]

Ardsley had to spend extra $$ for E-164 so it would fit into a very narrow, low bay. If you see the pic on the Ardsley Profile, you will notice a smooth roofline with special lightbar mount. It is VERY difficult and dangerous to manuver this rig in and out of the bay-there is about 1/2 inch clearance in either direction. There have been a couple of mishaps due to the narrow openings, which have cost money to fix. When Ardsley bought Quint-1 (Our first ladder ever) ,they added an extra bay because we had no place for it otherwise.

I guess if you have the chance to modify your facility to accomadate the new apparatus, that would be the best idea.Some cases thats not even an option. Howver, to spend the extra money to modify an apparatus to make it fit when your facility is inadequate, thats throwing money away. I say keep the rig you have alive until you can make the building safe, sound, and a good fit for the apparatus you need, not the other way around.

[Guest DG795]

I agree with 635 on this one, I think it is a very bad decision to build your rig around the firehouse. We all know that older stations were built with smaller trucks in mind. whether height or length is a concern, you cant fit modern apparatus into a bay designed for the apparatus of yesterday. unfortunately, their is little that can be done to remedy this, short of major construction to the house. If you feel that you are "squeezed" in on the apparatus floor, additional storage additions can go a long way in clearing up the floor and at least making a better working environment.

[chris498 31]

I agree that it is optimal to have a facility that is conducive to holding the equipment that your department needs..... further noting that in the perfect world we would not have to design our fire apparatus around older and some times antiquated stations...... but sadly as public servents one of the many issues we must be constantly aware of is the cost to the public. Additions renovations, and new facilities are not always fiscally feasable, especially today when it seems like every municipality is feeling the crunch of the ecconomy..... so sometimes it is the only option to build custom trucks around the fire house your great grandfather run out of when he was your age..... I guess in short, Bigger newer facilites are the more desirable of the two choices.

[Remember585 815]

Bastardized construction is a bad move!!! Our Grand Street firehouse which is home to E118 and TL44 has had more makeovers then Joan Rivers. Back when the 1963 Maxim was replaced with the 1993 HME/Saulsbury pumper, much work was done to "strengthen the floor." All they did was add more support columns to an already crappy floor. In 2002, additions were made to the firehouse to accomodate our new Tower Ladder ('02 Pierce), which is close to double the weight of the old Ladder 44 ('71 Maxim). Overall, the firehouse which originally served as the first Croton Schoolhouse is better suited for storing dust. The men of Chemical Engine and the Hook & Ladder got screwed, and are stuck with a station that I really can't see lasting more then ten years. Over a million dollars basically to add stress to the already crumbling foundation...