Fort Worth firefighters want smaller trucks

[x635 4,066]

Very interesting article.

Fort Worth firefighters want smaller trucks

FORT WORTH — The Fort Worth Fire Department is looking for the funds it needs to purchase a series of Ford F-550 "attack" rigs.

The city currently has one such truck stationed out of Fire Station No. 29.

On Tuesday, officials will request an additional $200,000 in funding to buy a second unit. In May, they are expected to request money for a third.

The smaller, more versatile units would let crews respond more quickly — especially in cases where a full engine truck isn't needed.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/tarrant/FW-Fire-wants-more-F-550-trucks-202041881.html

[FireMedic049 597]

Very interesting article.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/tarrant/FW-Fire-wants-more-F-550-trucks-202041881.html

I wouldn't classify it as being "very interesting". I'd say it's more of a same old story, different department kind of thing.

[osufire90 18]

would the whole crew take the attack piece for the call? What would happen if a fire call came in and they were forced to respond first due in the attack piece?

[antiquefirelt 994]

I guess I don't see the point? This article claims that the new units cost about $200k and a full engine about $600k, the smaller units could extend the life of teh full engine by 2-3 years? Is the annual cost of a full sized engine $75-100K? What about housing and maintining the new units? What does that cost? More space is required to house another peice, more training, more equipment, more maintenance and it takes the same crew off a more functional peice reducing their effectiveness while their between calls. Maybe I'm totally off base as it seems the midwest and southwest have trended this way for a while, but I can't see how it can be chearper or more effective.

Oh and my original thought: The firefighters want this? Or does the adminstration/beancounters want this? Amazing how sometimes spending more money to make it look like your cutting expenses appeases City Hall.

Edited April 12, 2013 by antiquefirelt

[x635 4,066]

Has anyone looked at the cost of diesel fuel lately or the comparison in maintainence costs between a Ford F-Chasis unit and a Spartan Gladiator? Or driven and operated the two extensively? And these trucks are very capable of initial attack, especially with CAFS and other units being so close by. It's not just a beancounter thing, it's a tactical thing as well.

Here is the purchasing agenda approval:

http://www.fortworthgov.org/council_packet/mc_review.asp?ID=18214&councildate=4/9/2013

[SageVigiles 1,194]

A pickup truck does not an engine company make.

-Yoda

I know the pickup truck thing is becoming the hot new way for bean counters to lower fire department budgets, but lets not pretend its anything tactical. I think someone invented a smaller vehicle designed to respond to medical emergencies and related incidents. If I'm not mistaken its called an ambulance. But departments don't want to hire additional staff to cover those ambulances or, worse, start a third service with the sole mission of providing EMS response.

[x635 4,066]

To note, Fort Worth has a PHENOMANAL, well staffed and covered EMS service:

http://www.medstar911.org/

but lets not pretend its anything tactical..

When you have a severe risk of wildland fires that are continuing to get worse, and quick response in tight areas is neccesary, it is tatical. It is also not a pickup truck, it is a Ford F-Series chasis that is similar to those used for pickup trucks. Since brush trucks are also being bought for these stations, it makes sense to combine these two vehicles.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Has anyone looked at the cost of diesel fuel lately

When you buy on government contract and do not have to pay the 35-45% sales tax its not that bad.

or the comparison in maintainence costs between a Ford F-Chasis unit and a Spartan Gladiator?

But it is not a comparison, since now they have to maintain both.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Has anyone looked at the cost of diesel fuel lately or the comparison in maintainence costs between a Ford F-Chasis unit and a Spartan Gladiator? Or driven and operated the two extensively? And these trucks are very capable of initial attack, especially with CAFS and other units being so close by. It's not just a beancounter thing, it's a tactical thing as well.

Here is the purchasing agenda approval:

http://www.fortworthgov.org/council_packet/mc_review.asp?ID=18214&councildate=4/9/2013

If their functionally "very capable" why not replace the larger engines with these smaller units? The same reason that cannot be done, is why these units reduce the company's overall effeciveness when they're in the Ford and not the Spartan.

[Bnechis 3,961]

When you have a severe risk of wildland fires that are continuing to get worse, and quick response in tight areas is neccesary, it is tatical. It is also not a pickup truck, it is a Ford F-Series chasis that is similar to those used for pickup trucks. Since brush trucks are also being bought for these stations, it makes sense to combine these two vehicles.

If the risk is so severe and it keeps getting worst, why do they keep buying mini attacks instead of a unit that can actually go kick wildland butt?

[x635 4,066]

When you buy on government contract and do not have to pay the 35-45% sales tax its not that bad.

But it is not a comparison, since now they have to maintain both.

Any savings on fuel is a savings on fuel. Having a Spartan go on 250 runs a year as opposed to 1,500 is a big difference. The difference is the cost of parts is tremendous. Plus, they'd have to maintain both anyways, since the minis would be assigned as brush units anyway.

If their functionally "very capable" why not replace the larger engines with these smaller units? The same reason that cannot be done, is why these units reduce the company's overall effeciveness when they're in the Ford and not the Spartan.

These aren't going to replace engines in all of the city. "Second dues" are usually less then 3-5 minutes away. And for those that are pro-CAFS and have used it PROPERLY at several fires, you should know it's effectiveness.

Firefighters were given extensive input on how this works, and they really liked how it worked.

If the risk is so severe and it keeps getting worst, why do they keep buying mini attacks instead of a unit that can actually go kick wildland butt?

Expense. Plus they won't fit in a lot of areas they need to go. And the Texas Commision on Wildfire Protection prescribes what is needed for a brush truck, and how it should basically be set up, so that all trucks are similar and that makes it easier when responding mutual aid as a task force.

I have photos of both the engines and mini attacks for when the photo system comes back up.

Additonally, let me say Fort Worth and most Texas cities really purchase only what they need and will use. Many departments here in the Hudson Valley spend millions on equipment that they will rarely used and is often duplicated several times, and sit around for most of their service life.

[engine968 8]

The mini-pumper re-invented 40 years later. Like everything else this concept has advantages and disadvantages. Every FD needs to evaluate their particular run patterns and usage and decide which of several alternatives is the most cost and tactical effective.

Here's my alternative: Instead of a huge engine and a mini-pumper why not make the big engine a little smaller so it would be more practical and cost effective for all types of runs. A slightly smaller, more maneuverable engine could carry say 800 ft. instead of 1000 or 1200 ft. of 5-inch hose. Could have a 500 gallon tank instead of 750. A shorter wheelbase, etc. In my opinion, a more practical solution to the whole issue.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Here's my alternative: Instead of a huge engine and a mini-pumper why not make the big engine a little smaller so it would be more practical and cost effective for all types of runs. A slightly smaller, more maneuverable engine could carry say 800 ft. instead of 1000 or 1200 ft. of 5-inch hose. Could have a 500 gallon tank instead of 750. A shorter wheelbase, etc. In my opinion, a more practical solution to the whole issue.

Didn't Syracuse do this years ago with their "Midi's"?

The key is that the company must remain as functional at all of it's primary tasks, when this can be accomplished, I see the added value, but I don't buy make "small sacrifices" in effectiveness as the results can cost firefighters or civilian lives and property.

Less hose means a chance at slower continuous water supply or chances of stretching short. Less water on board means less time before the sustained water must available or loss of water. Shorter ladders? Fewer tools? All equal less capability while the crew is on a "lesser" apparatus. Unless other apparatus are added to the area, others are forced to cover new functionality gaps, causing a ripple effect when just one company is reduced in capability. Sure we do this many times a day when crews are on an assignment and unavailable, but that doesn't go away, it just gets piled on to.

Edited April 14, 2013 by antiquefirelt

[Bnechis 3,961]

Every FD needs to evaluate their particular run patterns and usage and decide which of several alternatives is the most cost and tactical effective.

A slightly smaller, more maneuverable engine could carry say 800 ft. instead of 1000 or 1200 ft. of 5-inch hose.

Excellent, they should evaluate it.

We have full size engines and we carry 500 gal and 800ft of 5" as most urban units do.

You need to be carefull with dropping from 1,000 to 800 ft, based on hydrant spacing and driveway lengths. If they may be more than 800 feet. ISO will drop the rating to 9 for all properties that fall in that increased spacing. This could cost your taxpayers millions.

[engine968 8]

Question re: Fort Worth's practice. Unlike Syracuse where the company would split their personnnel and be able to roll both units, Ft. Worth seems to be either/or. They take one unit or the other. So what happens when a structure fire comes in and all the first-due engine companies are already on the road returning from minor calls with their mini-pumper. Do they lose time going back to quarters to get the "big rig" or do 3 mini-pumpers come in to a working structure fire. On a house fire, it might still work out. Each of those units can probably pump 2 atttack lines, but they won't have much booster tank capacity, which could be a problem. And on a major structure fire, the lack of sufficient pumping capacity could be an issue.

Edited April 14, 2013 by engine968

[x635 4,066]

Let me just say bigger isn't always better.

I should reiterate, Fort Worth is not placing these in every station or adjoining districts, right now only the ones that could benefit from a truck like this.

There are so many departments around here that have specialized apparatus with no truly defined purpose sitting around collecting dust, that they basically have "just in case". And they have a hard time getting it out.

One of the main points also being missed is 30 gallons CAFS and 300 gallons water. Fort Worth has has excellent experience and results with CAFS.

And lol, firefighters knees take less of a beating getting out of a F-550 then a Spartan.

I'm interested to see how this works out for an urban, progressive department.