Pump Panels- Rear, Mid, Or Top Mount?

[Guest Rogue Rescue]

I was wondering peoples opinion on what they prefer and why?

In Australia alot of our pumps are going to rear mount due to Noise levels and ease of use.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Here in the U.S. I'm willing to bet the majority are top and mid mounted pumps. Although in some areas rear pumps are becoming popular. For a while I did like the top mount a little better than mid, because you could see 2 sides of the truck and could get to either side quickly. The draw back is it adds a little length to the apparatus and can also shorten the cab making taller guy like myself knee to knee with a person if they are opposite you. Mostly know I deal with all mid mount pumps and that's just as fine to me as well.

[IzzyEng4 427]

I've always favored the mid-mount pump placement with a side panel. I like being down on the ground if I have to get equipment off the truck I don't have to keep climbing up and down the truck constantly. No matter where you walk you'll still have to watch for hose all around you. Also since we are first due to a limited access highway, having the pump in the midship of the truck is far better than the rear of the pumper especially in this age of other drivers not paying attention and crashing into the rear of fire trucks.

[abaduck 123]

I don't think I've ever seen a British engine with anything other than a rear-mount. British stuff is *very* standardised throughout the entire country, so they must have some good reason for it (perhaps typical narrow British streets, plus British hydrants are often in the middle of the street) but I'm unconvinced; mid-mount seems fine to me.

Mike

[antiquefirelt 994]

I've had considerable experience with both top and side pump panels on midship pumps, but our next engien will be of the rearmount design with a sidemount panel. Never used a front mount which seems to have largely fallen out of favor. Here's some observations of the three I'm familiar with:

Midship Pump-Top mount panel:

1.Nice warm place to stand in the winter as the heat usaully comes up between the cab and walkway.

2.Best for allowing the MPO to observe the scene and operations. Depending on staffing,this could be a large factor. I know a neighbor FD that puts the initial IC on the panel until adequate staff allows a better position.

3. A real pain in hte a$$ when slippery. We've had more injuries due to slipping getting up and down on the top mounts than any other single injury cause. From bruised knees slipping well ascending to a reconstructive knee surgery due to "straight legging it" off the walkway steps. Our MPO's are up and down a lot with our limited staffing, so we have vowed to buy no more of these.

4. Not as easy to align with hydrants as front or rearmounts. An unfamiiar operator often has to stretch extra hydrant line to ensure no kinks if the park too close or too far from the hydrant.

Mid-ship Side Mount:

1. They're the FD standard, almost everyone has used them and can.

2. The operator can lean on the feeder line to feel changes in supply (that's what some like I guess)

3. Not as easy to align with hydrants as front or rearmounts. An unfamiliar operator often has to stretch extra hydrant line to ensure no kinks if the park too close or too far from the hydrant.

4. Generally set up for hydrant on one side and draft on the other, slowing either operation when "off sides".

Rearmount Pump Side Mount Panel:

1. All discharges and intakes away from the operator.

2. For hydrants you need only pull past, no getting the line caught between the truck and the curb or hydrant itself.

3. No issues with "off sides" when selecting draft vs. positive supply.

4. Exposes the expensive parts to traffic. This can be the same for the operator depneding on FD SOP on road control.

5. More expensive for engineering reasons only, there are less linear feet of pipe and better manifolds which decreases friction loss in piping.

Probably many more on each, but I'm being called away.

[mfc2257 464]

The benefits to front or bumper mounted pumps are limited on a first due rig. However, they work great on the following rigs:

Commercial mini pumpers & commercial tankers because they eliminate the pump housing midship and usually cut the length

Supply engines because the allow you to pull directly into the water source

Combination brush truck/mini pumper because it allows a driveline operated pump (front mount) and a seperate high pressure brush pump to be mounted on the same rig... Basically a 1000gpm front mount with a seperate high pressure diesel fired brush pump.... This makes a great mini pumper/source pumper/brush truck on a standard p/u chassis. See link below to an example for Harney MD Brush 115 which acts as a source pumper for lake drafting in the Gettysburg, PA - Emmitsburg, MD area.

http://www.pawebworld.com/sgt11/hvfc/hvfc004.htm

Edited August 8, 2008 by mfc2257

[antiquefirelt 994]

The benefits to front or bumper mounted pumps are limited on a first due rig. However, they work great on the following rigs:

Commercial mini pumpers & commercial tankers because they eliminate the pump housing midship and usually cut the length

Supply engines because the allow you to pull directly into the water source

We're considering a front mount for the replacement of our supply engine for the reasons you've listed:

Shorter OAL, nose into the supply, keep the engine small while carrying a large amount of LDH. We may consider another rearmount as well as we rarely draft. This coupled with putting th expensive part out in front where we can bang it up brings them both to the table.

[Guest]

I've never liked the front mount design. Seems to me the whole point of a bumper is to "bump" into things and absorb impact from the rest of the vehicle. Without a working pump, the whole truck becomes one very expensive hose wagon/personnel carrier.

[mfc2257 464]

Bumper is useless b/c most are custom fab with compartments, intakes, discharges in them... if you bump something the bumper still needs to be fixed. I'd argue that an above-the-bumper front mount is less of a repair concern than an infront-of-the-bumper $3000 Federal Q2...

[antiquefirelt 994]

Bumper is useless b/c most are custom fab with compartments, intakes, discharges in them... if you bump something the bumper still needs to be fixed. I'd argue that an above-the-bumper front mount is less of a repair concern than an infront-of-the-bumper $3000 Federal Q2...

The set up we have talked about for the supply engine would be a dual suction front mount where the bumper is still leading and has the recessed connections or above (and behind) connections for the suction. The downside is that this would likely be on a commerical chassis and that would limit the discharge piping size running to the main hosebed/ tailboard area.

[tdc202 0]

I've never used a top mount or rear mount so I can't really say. I always thoguth top mounts would be better for highway use gets your MPO off the ground makes it safer for them and they could see a little more (hopefully) of the scene.

[Future Fireman 4]

If taking too much LDH for the hydrant is an issue, put a rear intake on it. My own opinion is that this is much easier than trying to estimate how much LDH to pull to connect from hydrant to steamer port.

Mike

[ny10570 745]

Future Fire got it. Front and rear intakes are a simple solution to several of the problems that have been posted here. Rear intake on 91 for that same reason.

Edited August 9, 2008 by ny10570

[Bnechis 3,961]

Future Fire got it. Front and rear intakes are a simple solution to several of the problems that have been posted here.

Many depts. go with front suction because its easy to hook up or because the rig its replacing had it. But in general the front hook up is not a great idea.

It adds a lot of cost (aprox $40,000), it reduces the officers leg room, it increases maintenance (the last 4 we bought [1988 7 1996] all cracked and had to be removed/replaced), Also I've seen too many MPO's nose in to make the hook up, kicking out the rear of the rig and blocking out other units, particularly the truck from the front of the building and lastly if you do the flow calculations you find that front suctions lose 10 - 30% compared to the side intake. To travel the 10-15 feet from the pump the friction loss with all the twist and turns to clear the front axle and engine is the equvilant of about 100' of hose.

[Danger 160]

and lastly if you do the flow calculations you find that front suctions lose 10 - 30% compared to the side intake. To travel the 10-15 feet from the pump the friction loss with all the twist and turns to clear the front axle and engine is the equvilant of about 100' of hose.

We've found the same with the twists and turns and also the narrowing diameter of the pipe as opposed to going off the side ball valve (and thus 5 inches of water directly in to the pump.) However, I've also seen a lot of older rigs have their 5" discharge off a 2.5" adapter on the officer's side which has to restrict flow.

[ny10570 745]

Many depts. go with front suction because its easy to hook up or because the rig its replacing had it. But in general the front hook up is not a great idea.

It adds a lot of cost (aprox $40,000), it reduces the officers leg room, it increases maintenance (the last 4 we bought [1988 7 1996] all cracked and had to be removed/replaced), Also I've seen too many MPO's nose in to make the hook up, kicking out the rear of the rig and blocking out other units, particularly the truck from the front of the building and lastly if you do the flow calculations you find that front suctions lose 10 - 30% compared to the side intake. To travel the 10-15 feet from the pump the friction loss with all the twist and turns to clear the front axle and engine is the equvilant of about 100' of hose.

And thats why we went with just the rear intake. The hump over the rear axle requires a second prime when drafting that takes some practice to get use to but the friction loss is far less severe. But if a front intake is so important to a depts operation, I'd think it'd be a better option rather than placing the whole pump pannel out front.

[Guest Rogue Rescue]

I will post some photos of our pumper when i get home but basically it has 4 intakes at the rear and 4 outlets on the side ( 2 each side ). The rear also has a 5" suction inlet and a 1" booster reel. works well for where we are although i agree with the problem on the highway where a car could hit the rear so we have to be careful to part at a good angle.

Also either side of the pump panel in lockers there is 300feet of 1 1/2" hose with nozzle and 800feet of 2 1/2" hose.

All of our hydrants except for a few in the city and at malls, schools etc are in the ground in the middle of the road so we drive past the hydrant and run hose back.

[abaduck 123]

FYI, here's a typical British setup in use:

Mike

[Guest Rogue Rescue]

Not a very good shot but will get more soon.

[Guest Loud412]

As far as the estimating of LDH length for side mount intakes... what my department does is we carry 1000' of 5" in the hose bed, as well as carying a pony length of ldh in a tray under the ball valve that is the exact length from the ball valve to the back of the truck. So the engine stops at the hydrant, the probie jumps out of the truck, grabs the hydrant bag and the statr of the 5" off the back of the truck, wraps the hydrant and signals the driver to procede to the fireground, engine stops at the fireground...now if there is still some fo the last length left in the bed then that gets pulled down and usualy reaches the ball valve. If the coupling is exactly at the back of the truck, another 100' feet of hose need not be pulled of the bed. Just grab the pony length under the ball valve and it reaches the coupling fo the standard length hose.

[Guest]

Thanks for the spaghetti shot Adnrew !

[FFPCogs 863]

Stateside I've always worked side mount pumps, in Iraq it was top mount. For me I prefer the side pump panel..but that has more to do with familiarirty than anything else..it's just what I'm more used to and comfortable with.

As an MPO it doesn't really matter to me..I can read guages and pull levers no matter where I stand....

Cogs

[Guest]

Chester (CT) Fire Dept just took delivery of a rear mount tanker. I think that a rear mount would be pretty effective as a tanker, but I'm still a fan of mid mount for engines. New Tanker

Edited September 27, 2008 by Slayer61

[Bnechis 3,961]

Chester (CT) Fire Dept just took delivery of a rear mount tanker. I think that a rear mount would be pretty effective as a tanker, but I'm still a fan of mid mount for engines.

Its not a tanker, its a rescue pumper.

Can you get a taller hosebed? The truckies will be needed to get up there to pack it.

[milan fire dept probie 2]

I was wondering peoples opinion on what they prefer and why?

In Australia alot of our pumps are going to rear mount due to Noise levels and ease of use.

in my fire dept we have top mounted pumps and it seems to work really well when you can have all your gauges in front of you and be able to see off both sides of the truck there fore ( since we are a rural volunteer dept) the pump operator can see the draft on one side and his discharges off the other .. personaly i like the top mounts b/c it works best for our department. and the noise level isnt to bad with the top mounts and we are equiping our trucks with head sets so the operators can hear a little better but i figure whatever your department is like and what it does its whatever best fits their needs

[gamewell45 258]

I prefer a top mounted pump; you have complete visibility 360 degrees. Plus the engine noise tends to be less so you can hear better.

[Dondestro 9]

our engine is a mid-side mount, we also have a front suction on a swivle on the front bumper which is necessary since we have a few dry hydrants where the only way to get to them is pulling nose in. our tanker has a pump panel mounted in the foward most lower compartment on the driverside, the down side to this is in order tog et the panel in there we were forced to go with an oiled primer and it is also tufdf to see the gauges unless you kneel down in front of it while using it