Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Glen "Darren" Borror on December 31, 2007 at 12:31pm

I truely agree that training is a must when it comes to tanker shuttles. It is important to learn how to use them in a fashion that will provide the most smoothly and SAFE operation with the flows to meet fire demand. I had the oportunity to work with Insurance agencies to try to meet the criteria of their set ISO ratings. Within that, our department had to prove that we could meet the fire flow demands for 1 hour to increase our rating. The idea of this was to try to reduce insurance rates within our district. The test was set up with 4 tankers and 3 engines. 2 engines (1000 gpm) at the scene and 1 (1500 gpm) at the water supply set up 2 miles away. The test required that the tankers ran a block pattern, time was set at average alotted times of arrival of that tanker to my departments runs (1 year tallied average), dump, cycle then redump. We found that every tanker had different fire flows. Dependant was the design of the tank, size of tank, ventalation of the tank (escapeing air when being filled and intake of air when dumping), size and design of the dump (side, rear, square, round or inches in diameter), the safe speed of the apparatus and most importantly- the experience of the operator. We used all kinds; gravity, vaccum, pto dump and jet assisted tankers (free flow of water with a pipe by the interior of the dump site with pressure on it to help "force" the water out. The results of this test were very surprising. Our departments tanker did best at flow. The tanker again was a 1979 international w/ split 5X2 axle with 2200 gal. tank with 3 - 2 1/2" intakes and a 12" square dump on rear of tank. Now, think about your tanker and how many GPM your tanker should produce in this scenerio before reading on. Well, I tell you, we thought we would be able to flow a lot of water with this tanker, some of our guys thought that our tanker would flow 3000 gpm because we could dump all 2200 gal in 42 seconds!! Well, not so. After cyleing 2 rounds we found that we could not keep up with the engine on the scene. My tanker (I was selected by the Chief to be driver/operator) was only flowing 140 gpms. We had a discussion about what we could do different to help increase that. We ended up doing 2 things different. #1, open the vent hatch on top and tie it in the open position to cure a vent problem we were having due to the holes not being as big as our dump. #2, we did not allow all the water to flow out of the tanker. We found that when we could see the water flowing out was about 1 inch thick, that were were beginning to lose flow effectiveness. We again started the cycle and we were able to maintain a flow of 165 gpm. The next tanker was a 1500 gal w/ jet assist. It flowed 125gpm, the other two were close at 120 gpm. Now, you do some 5th grade math and you only come up with 530 gpm with 4 tankers!! Not near enough to match the required flow. Needless to say, we got to keep our fire rating of 9. This impacted a lot of departments in our state when this was found out. The department I was on never did anything about it and was content on the level 9 rating as other departments did not want to tax their department sending tankers to us at initial call. Our goal at the time was 1500 gpm to raise us to a rating of 6, which would have saved a home owner 33% on their premium per year!! A county north of us got with the program though. They have their county set up so that, like ours - the First in station dumped (2 engines, 1 tanker, 1 rescue, 1 grass truck for supply) with 2 additional tankers and their grass trucks initially dispatched to the call. The rest of the county would start bringing guys to their stations for standby. Once the OIC declares a working fire, they start " THE SHUTTLE". This dumps every tanker in the county to the scene. The outter departments would come in, dump then return to station unless the OIC requested that they cycle again, which would send them to the water source to maintain fire flow.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy Lyons on December 31, 2007 at 7:39pm

For the first 5 years of our departments life we used an old Military Duece and a Half on loan from the State Forestry Dept. We had 2 - 600 gal fuel tanks mounted with Hale 450 gas pump. It worked fine for what it was but being in a 25 sqaure mile rural response area with NO hydrants we were stretched to respond in a timely manner. The truck was slow and the tanks were very high mounted which made off road manuvering extremely dangerous. So in 2004 we applied for and received an AFG grant which we used to by a 2004 Sterling Actera Vacuum Tanker built by Water Master in Hattisburg Mississippi. The truck chassis was built for a Rock Truck with a heavier frame and lower gearing ratio. It has a Mercedes 350 engine which gives it plenty of power and the vacuum system allows us to refill our 2500 gal tanker from ponds,streams,and cisterns in just over 2 minutes. It also can have pressure added to the sealed tank and it can also unload that 2500 gal of water in less than 2 minutes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael DeMasi on February 5, 2008 at 5:15pm

The dept. I was on made our own. Basically, we took a heavy duty truck chassis and put our own tank on it. The tank was made from 1/2" steel welded together. It was the shape like if you took a square box and about half way up the sides angled it toward the middle slightly. It was about 8' at the top and about 4' at the bottom. We even built in baffles. The were 1500 gallons. Amazingly, they were also pretty stable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike wright on February 5, 2008 at 11:10pm

We have an old milk tanker, but it was cut down from 3000 gallons to 1800. This way it is lighter for the chassis and easier to get in and out of the driveways in the area. We left the baffles in the tank for saftey reasons. This set up works for us and we havent had any issues with it yet. knock on wood lol.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Engineco913 on February 6, 2008 at 5:15pm

Since milk weighs more than water, I have a feeling that older milk type trucks wouldn't be so bad. Old fuel trucks (even military surplus) seem to be a heavier hitter for close calls and occurances because fuel weighs less per gallon than water. Routine Maintainance (and I mean 100% regular inspections) has to be done. The reports also showed that most of the tanker conversions that resulted in accidents werefrom the fire department taking away the safety features. (removing baffles etc)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott and his dog, "Tater" on February 12, 2008 at 10:13pm

We have a tractor trailer rig at our FD in Central FL. It is a converted milk hauling 18 wheeler. It hauls 6000 gallons of water and has a dump tank on board. I would say, not to get one. It is VERY difficult to drive ( I guess an automatic would be better than the manual shift that we have) and is even harder to maneuver the thing on scene. We have used it at 3 different fires in the 9 yrs that I have been here. All were rural area nursery fires. Once it got stuck in the dirt, blocking the way for other dept.'s tankers to get to the scene. If we had something smaller, we would have used it more often as only a few people are qualified to drive the tanker that we have. Sure, it hauls a lot of water, but it is not very maneuverable, wasting a lot of time getting to the scene, getting back out and refilling. I think a smaller more maneuverable tanker would be able to deliver as much water as this monstrocity. Nobody WANTS to drive it anyway! I hope this helps. Scott

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Stoltz on February 19, 2008 at 10:22pm

There has to be an optimum size tanker for FD operations. For instance, 1000 gallons is probably an absolute minimum, but you need a bunch of them to keep a decent fire flow. 3000+ gallons in a tank would seem to be preferable but the size of the truck may require a tractor-trailer combination, with the result that few members would be able to drive the rig.

Also, the maneuverability of a tractor-trailer rig on a narrow country road is very limited; the extra time required to turn such a beast around, and the time to refill, are other factors that make me think that these would be too big.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Crockett on May 30, 2008 at 11:18pm

Agreed, Joe.

The size of our tanker (9400 gals.) is a great asset to us & our neighboring districts; the ICs have (many times) been happy to see us pull up as the engines run dry. You are absolutely right, however, when you say that it is tough to man the thing; we are currently training our FFs to get their CDLs, but until then we have to rely on 3 guys- one, a vol who is a FF for one of those neighboring districts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Conant on July 1, 2008 at 6:13pm

We run a 18wheeler converted to haul water. Its has a flat bed build over where the '5th wheele' would be on the back of the big rig.

http://www.turnermaine.com/Turner_Fire_Web_Page/94.JPG

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by roy yoder on July 3, 2008 at 4:19pm

old milk haulers usaually don't have baffles. so they can wash them out between loads. we had a old gas tanker 6000 gal tractor trailer with a detroit, oh what a sound. no front brakes but it was a low profile style. it met the grave yard when the oldest on the dept. rolled it making a quick decision to turn. we only had 3 guys that drove it then. county had another tanker 6000 glue tank, no baffles and a big 250 cummins to pull it. the 75 year tractor give it up with axles, brakes, lights and gauges giving out. they were going to replace it with another one like it but we got a new county fire chief. found a forestry tractor hauler and ga. forestry mounted a 2500 gallon tank and we mounted a 450 gpm pump pto, 12 inch square dump and 2200 dump tank on the side. its a gas job and just blowed a motor. 5000 dollars and the county shop put it in. it works pretty good and better than the semi trailers but still has major issues. in turning you still side the front wheels in gravel and sand which means that there is not enough weight on the front axle. it is an 1980 year and has trouble with dash lights gauges and like the semi lost its head lights on the way to a structure fire, yes at night. thank GOD for the full moon. we have found a six inch rond dump will drop around 950 gpm out of a tank with proper vent and your tank size need not be bigger than the availble room you have to drop at the dump site and still continue to pump. one mentioned before the setting of 4 lines out to fill which is right on. if you make a tanker wait to dump or fill you will lose gpm at the fire site very quickly. if you only have 1 2200 gallon dump tank then having more than a 1500 gallon tanker is useless. multilple tanks and some way to connect them, i like jet siphons the best because i get to control the level in each tank and its hard to dump into the tank you are pumping out of without causing bubbles into the suction. money is a major issue and the lack of money, does it make us stupid? it seems so sometimes. getrdone is the cry but we can't do that and hurt someone. remember this, the lottery is fo those that don't know math. when you see the odds of our actions we might need to change our actions. we just placed a grant for a new tanker. driver training and all the saftey issues were addressed. we are now PRAYING HARD.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by roy yoder on July 3, 2008 at 4:20pm

HEY THAT LOOKS GOOD. LOW PROFILE AND IT LOOKS LIKE ITS BALLANCED WELL.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Oldman on July 3, 2008 at 6:38pm

I'd be willing to bet you needed to replace the foam in the seats too!

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page