Wow!!! I know many love old Seagrave, ALF, Hahn, etc but I love this truck!!! Many of my 1st in my fire service career on this rig and 18 years of a hard life in Dale City but many loved her. I love our Hahn but this one of the toughest rigs I know. Donated to Gulf Park Estates FD in Miss. after they lost many rigs to hurricane Katrina.
They painted it and updated the lights but she is the same tough rig. Assigned to FS10 in Dale City for its entire career front line 92-96 with the Hahn as its back up which was rarley because not many could drive the Hahn well. Went into reserve in 2000 when the Pierces arrived but held her own until she left. I miss this truck.
I do not like the county spec for pumpers. Why can't we keep it simple and learn from someone like arlington who chose to keep it simple. The units so far look like rescue engines when they should just have the minimum space to carry the minimum engine company equipment. Is there really a reason for the "frenched in" ladders on stonewall's and dale city's rigs. Horrid. I would rather bust out the old Hahns or E-Ones and run those up and down the highway. Good luck to Stonewall on their new Pierce, May your luck be way better than what we have had at Belvoir. I'm sure we will have a few units sitting at Atlantic when your pumper is delivered. On a side note- Kudos to Dale City for going with KME and trying something different. I hope those units do well for your department.
Having a county spec would really mess with departments choices in manufacturer. I'm sure some manufacturers can't meet the requirements. So, will the new Lake Jackson pumper have the same set up as the Stonewall rig minus the cab and maker?
Are they trying to add more equipment to the units to give engine companies the ability to act more independently? Not sure how PW runs their assignments
Having a county spec would really mess with departments choices in manufacturer. I'm sure some manufacturers can't meet the requirements. So, will the new Lake Jackson pumper have the same set up as the Stonewall rig minus the cab and maker?
I do not like the county spec for pumpers. Why can't we keep it simple and learn from someone like arlington who chose to keep it simple. The units so far look like rescue engines when they should just have the minimum space to carry the minimum engine company equipment. Is there really a reason for the "frenched in" ladders on stonewall's and dale city's rigs. Horrid. I would rather bust out the old Hahns or E-Ones and run those up and down the highway. Good luck to Stonewall on their new Pierce, May your luck be way better than what we have had at Belvoir. I'm sure we will have a few units sitting at Atlantic when your pumper is delivered. On a side note- Kudos to Dale City for going with KME and trying something different. I hope those units do well for your department.
[/quote] Have you ever asked someone who may know why or just listened to the "chatter". What do you consider simple looks or function?? I'm sure if you asked the right person you would have a much better understanding as well as realize these rigs are very "simple" for PWC standards.
Okay, I'll bite. What exactly is the PWC pumper spec? Is it an idyllic minimum of tank and pump size or an effort to type rigs by capabilities within a class spec? Is it an attempt to standardize drivelines (motor, transmissions) so that maybe, in the (distant, not too distant) future there might be a PWC Apparatus Shop that does repair and maintenance to ALL fire and rescue units used within PWC?
Who "decreed" this PWC pumper spec, PWC alone or was it the volunteer departments?
Having a county spec would really mess with departments choices in manufacturer. I'm sure some manufacturers can't meet the requirements. So, will the new Lake Jackson pumper have the same set up as the Stonewall rig minus the cab and maker?
[/quote]
There is nothing in the PWC specification that I have seen with that would prevent any fire apparatus manufacturer from building a rig to meet the spec. I think that it has already been shown with the rigs currently built or under construction that different manufacturers can build to the PWC spec.
Okay, I'll bite. What exactly is the PWC pumper spec? Is it an idyllic minimum of tank and pump size or an effort to type rigs by capabilities within a class spec? Is it an attempt to standardize drivelines (motor, transmissions) so that maybe, in the (distant, not too distant) future there might be a PWC Apparatus Shop that does repair and maintenance to ALL fire and rescue units used within PWC?
Who "decreed" this PWC pumper spec, PWC alone or was it the volunteer departments?
Just want to know...
[/quote]
From what I've dealt with. The PWC spec calls out for a pre-engineered pump module. All apparatus have the same pump and pump panel layout. The spec also calls for a particular body configuration.
It's pretty much a standardized pumper spec that allows for common familiarization between all pumpers / engines in PWC.
Individual companies can customize the paint and lettering, but the basic "meat and potatoes" are the same across the board.
It may not make the fire apparatus buff happy.... but from the operational standpoint it makes prefect sense to have a standardized layout that everyone can be familiar with and work off of.
From what I've dealt with. The PWC spec calls out for a pre-engineered pump module. All apparatus have the same pump and pump panel layout. The spec also calls for a particular body configuration.
It's pretty much a standardized pumper spec that allows for common familiarization between all pumpers / engines in PWC.
Individual companies can customize the paint and lettering, but the basic "meat and potatoes" are the same across the board.
It may not make the fire apparatus buff happy.... but from the operational standpoint it makes prefect sense to have a standardized layout that everyone can be familiar with and work off of.
Tim W.
[/quote] Tim you hit the nail on the head. Also the departments can choose their own MFG to build it. Currently 4 can build it and others are starting to come around. It may not be pretty but it met the intent.
I would have to say that standardization is a good way to go. We are still struggling with it in Frederick County, Maryland right now. We started with Seagrave apparatus in the early 90's and then moved to KME., never had any big orders, just a few units here and there. When more and more companies began requesting apparatus, Frederick County began ordering Pierce apparatus, which remains our current provider of fire apparatus. We have attempted to at least standardize the pump and tank sizes in addition to ladders, hose beds etc. As far as body configurations, that is based on the units assignment, either as a rescue-engine or an engine/engine-tanker.
We have Dash, Velocity and Arrow XT chassis, and a few commerical chassis for our tankers. The amount and type of equipment carried is determined by the counties Apparatus Standards Committee and the documentation they provide. We have engine companies that do not carry ventilation fans, saws, etc relying solely on the support of special services. However, there are engine companies in outlying areas that carry more than required to enable them to act independently.
Order Hale pump module model #122046-P if you want the PWC custom-built pump that they'll all be running. <img src='http://www.firepics.net/groupboards/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
Taylor Goodman Captain - Henrico County (VA) Division of Fire Fire Chief - Huguenot VFD, Powhatan, VA
' />
Facebook
Google
Reddit
Twitter