Author Topic: Size of BWC's (Read 16557 times)

Zippy · « **on:** January 30, 2009, 09:33:18 AM »

Also, give your preference, PTO or NON-PTO pump?

Alan (Big Al) · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2009, 09:42:08 AM »

Big is great as long as it can get where it needs to and....
PTO of course

Pipster · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2009, 11:11:22 AM »

Is there an ideal size for a BWC?

I'd suggest it all depends on where in the state you are.

Take areas of the Mt Lofty Ranges. Narrow winding roads (and thats's the main roads!) Finding a person with a semi licence is difficult. Having a 17,000 litre vehicle (eg old milk tanker) is not particularly practical. Anyone travelling in a semi on the main roads around my area cannot travel the length of the road, and keep the vehicle fully on the correct side of the road, due to the winding roads, sharp bends etc. Not good coming around a blind corner to find a semi half way onto your side of the road!

Go out to the flat lands. Winding roads not a issue. Every second person has an existing semi licence. Far more practical to have a larger volume Tanker

Another case of "one size doesn't fit all"

Pip

Shiner · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2009, 11:24:12 AM »

Also needs some swanky mathematical formula as it also depends on how far away the nearest water supply is for the tanker to how many appliances and of what type it will need to fill (whether it has a dam or not) etc etc

And for me, they should be equipped with both PTO and non-pto (either a floating pump and or a trash-type pump) but I am in an area where you never know where you will have to get water from to fill the tank. Not so important if the tanker is only used where there is guaranteed reticulated water.....

Not such an easy question to answer me-thinks!

Bagyassfirey · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2009, 11:30:13 AM »

when we went to Proper Bay Fire They ahd Eastern Eyre BW7 there and the driver from cleve said its ridiculous. He said ya get two fills out of it and have to go fill and if ur along way from water point its just not practical. So my feeling is similar to Pip's it would go on a case by case basis but yea a semi ie BW17 would be great on teh flat lands (especially now SA Water are getting thingy bout us touching their mains!)

Zippy · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2009, 11:40:51 AM »

i find the thought of 7000L BWC's just too small...since they build 3000L new appliances quite commonly...9000L or Three Fills should be the objective.

bittenyakka · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2009, 11:43:24 AM »

I chose 13k since this means you get a fair decent amount of water and in todays environment of 34s 7000 isn't enough.
And i think PTO as the primary pump

But
I think tankers could have more uses as a semi logistics vehicle where their standard stowage is the large tank 1 or two portable dams, a portable pump, and Lots of 64 for setting up substantial relay pumping operations. this means that the tankers role becomes securing the water source but not necessarily shuttling water.

And at the same time it should possibly be complemented by other cheepo tankers which are just a tank and pump.

Bagyassfirey · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2009, 11:49:21 AM »

it hink u will find the reason behind BW7's is because they are all on old apliances witht he body taken off hence makes the end $ figure much cheaper. And can only be 7000l as anymore will exceed the GCM

Zippy · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2009, 12:38:39 PM »

Money Money Money

Toilet paper....

misterteddy · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2009, 05:12:38 PM »

Mawson and Sturt Tankers are great operational tankers for close support.

A big Arse Milk tanker is fine as a staging tanker

Anything under 9000l aint too useful supporting multiple appliances, unless they are 14s

rescue5271 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2009, 05:19:35 PM »

We use council tankers in my group,But I would like to see the group have its own tanker 9000lt would be good as this would help refill 3 x 34's before the council BWC arrive. Pump well non PTO would be good just in case the appliance motor fails ....

Pixie · « **Reply #11 on:** January 30, 2009, 05:30:09 PM »

Quote from: Bill Corcoran on January 30, 2009, 05:19:35 PM

Pump well non PTO would be good just in case the appliance motor fails ....

Sorry Bill, but if my appliance motor fails on the fire ground, i think i will be radioing the I.C. and telling them to get me and my crew the filtered out of there!

There is always the option of hard suction and draughting out of the tanker.

I have seen a lot more pump engines blow than i have appliance engines/PTO's

SA Firey · « **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2009, 06:44:50 PM »

The Mawson and Belair Tankers are the best build ive seen and yet practical.

They also have a floating collar dam onboard which makes sneaking off to a fillup point while crews use the dam to fill up a good mix.

Belair's also has the luxury of a monitor if required.

firegun · « **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2009, 06:56:47 PM »

i would go for the 7000lt units as you can get 3 fills for 34 units from them (with the reserve left), no semi licence required and if put on ex appliances the cost would allow more units to be supplied. In the hills they would be maneuverable and in the "sticks" if you had say 4 of these at an incident, managed properly it would be much better than having 1 large milk type tanker that could be off the fire ground for a while filling up thus leaving the incident without a mobile water resource.

6739264 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 30, 2009, 07:08:15 PM »

Quote from: firegun on January 30, 2009, 06:56:47 PM

i would go for the 7000lt units as you can get 3 fills for 34 units from them (with the reserve left).

I would go for you going back to school to fill up on Maths.

Quote from: Bill Corcoran on January 30, 2009, 05:19:35 PM

Pump well non PTO would be good just in case the appliance motor fails ....

Wow. Ladies and Gentlemen, here is a live display of why the CFS can't move forward. If you don't want a high volume PTO pump on the Tanker because YOU'RE WORRIED THE APPLIANCE MOTOR MIGHT BREAK, I think worrying about the style of pump on a tanker is the least of your worries. For the record, PTO/Aux pump are the way to go.

I think Pip has hit the anil on the head, when relating adequate size to the area you're working in.

Here is a question, in areas with difficult access eg: Adelaide Hills, is it worth having more tankers on the ground? Is there anything wrong with having a tanker per brigade for example? The number of fills a single tanking appliance can provide matters less when you have more tankers. Perhaps its even better, being about to fill double the trucks in the same time? I'd rather 2x7000L than 1x14000L.

chook · « **Reply #15 on:** January 30, 2009, 07:17:07 PM »

yeah I thought the same thing & you can get really big rigid tankers ask the army! And they will go almost anywhere just need a over weight permit to be legal. Thats right the fire services don't like permits

Out of interest they were pto driven pumps with a hand priming pump and two side reels - to assist the civilian fire services during emergencies.
cheers

Pipster · « **Reply #16 on:** January 30, 2009, 07:37:20 PM »

Sorry Chook, but it's not CFS that has the problem with overweight permits....it is up to Transport SA to issue permits for oversized vehicles...something they appear not to do very often for vehicles built oversize. (I understand MFS have a brand new truck they can't get registered, due to it being overweight, and some issues over getting it registered).

Besides, if you need an permit, as the vehicle is oversized, it's not going to be very useful in parts of the Adelaide Hills....the current 34's & 34P's have issues getting into parts of my area, so anything higher or wider is really going to struggle.....

Pip

chook · « **Reply #17 on:** January 30, 2009, 07:50:29 PM »

Nah excessive weight 22 tonnes gross with full compartments, when we drove them on civilian roads had to leave the centre compartment empty to drive without a permit (tried to find a photo but it was onlyfrom the front - not much point in that) built on a 6x6 Mack chassis - needs a real truck driver to operate though

crash box high low range. Rough as guts empty (and no airconditioning either)
They have been used before as BWC's in Vic & NSW, never had problems.
But understand what you are saying Pip

misterteddy · « **Reply #18 on:** January 30, 2009, 10:27:34 PM »

Quote from: SA Firey on January 30, 2009, 06:44:50 PM

The Mawson and Belair Tankers are the best build ive seen and yet practical.

They also have a floating collar dam onboard which makes sneaking off to a fillup point while crews use the dam to fill up a good mix.

Belair's also has the luxury of a monitor if required.

yep agree....10,000l of the good stuff, 6x4 wheeel drive, goes most places u can get a 34P into....and its lower, even has a couple of hose lines to make it the longest ontask blackening out appliance around. Here's a thought....lets make more!

These Group designed and specc'd appliances are around 10 years old now......and what have we gotten on the fireground since then courtesy of the vehicle working party ?.....a bunck of old beat up has been cab chassis with tacked on tanks, including a 20+ year old Ford Louisvelle with no exhaust brake and axles thinner than pencils and just enough water for two 34s. Hmm...progress is a bitch

jaff · « **Reply #19 on:** January 30, 2009, 11:27:33 PM »

This debate in one form or another has been going on since the dawn of time!

Does size matter? or is it what you do with it that counts!

Large and capable, thats the trick

firegun · « **Reply #20 on:** January 31, 2009, 07:51:59 AM »

i would go for the 7000lt units as you can get 3 fills for 34 units from them (with the reserve left).

I would go for you going back to school to fill up on Maths.

I know numbers that i am short by 200lt with the comments re the 3 fills but unless the tank level indicators have changed over night to say a 5 sensor unit with a controller that will average the water in the tank to allow for the angle of the tank, then it is up to the pump opperator to make a educated call on the amount of water they have left before they fill up.
All good opperators should then be calling for a fill up before they actually get to the 20% level. (eg if one appliance filled up with 22.2% water left, then the others would have enough water to get a complete fill).

When writing this a couple of other thoughts have cropped up.

the COSO 12 (appliance and crew protection at bushfires) talks about fire fighting appliances need to maintain a minimum 0f 20% water for crew protection.
My question is as the CFS lists BWC as appliances then should these BWC also comply with the 20% crew protection water.I would have thought so especially when they are on the fire ground filling up units that are deployed.
I know this effects my comments re 3 fills from a 7000lt unit but it a point to ponder.

The other point is not in regard to size of BWC but on the 20% figure.
20% water in a
34 is 600lt for crew protection of up to 6 people
24 is 400lt for up to the same number of crew
14 is 200lt for up to the same number of crew

With the tankers say a 7000lt unit 20% is 1400lt for probably 2 crew protection.
another area to review?

re the type of pump used, i don't care either way as long as what ever is used is reliable and easy to use.

Alan (Big Al) · « **Reply #21 on:** January 31, 2009, 09:42:52 AM »

Quote from: Pipster on January 30, 2009, 07:37:20 PM

Sorry Chook, but it's not CFS that has the problem with overweight permits....it is up to Transport SA to issue permits for oversized vehicles...something they appear not to do very often for vehicles built oversize. (I understand MFS have a brand new truck they can't get registered, due to it being overweight, and some issues over getting it registered).

Besides, if you need an permit, as the vehicle is oversized, it's not going to be very useful in parts of the Adelaide Hills....the current 34's & 34P's have issues getting into parts of my area, so anything higher or wider is really going to struggle.....

Pip

Supposedly our new BWC 9 that has been built cant get registered because it is overweight.

Bit silly really one would think they would check these things before they are built.

rescue5271 · « **Reply #22 on:** January 31, 2009, 09:47:07 AM »

We each have our own idea of what we would like but at the end of teh day it's up to CFS what we are given,I agree 100% Mawson and Belait BWC are great and are well suited for the area. our big council tankers which are 17,000 lts would not fit into the hills area and that is why i have said a 9000lt BWC is what would be good in each group so as to take on strike teams.

I am not a big fan of the refit 7500lt BWC they are old and CFS has just filled the gap rather fork out the money for a good BWC that would last alot longer than the refit's. As for teh pump,well I have my reason's about a PTO or NON PTO and that is all based on the past. Hey happy to take anything that CFs wants to hand out as long as it works.

Bagyassfirey · « **Reply #23 on:** January 31, 2009, 09:50:49 AM »

and the new BW7's ya cant fill out of the standpipe and fill trucks at same time..so fill 2 34's and than fill the BW tank than repeat process how stupid

Zippy · « **Reply #24 on:** January 31, 2009, 10:02:05 AM »

how can you fill 9000L of appliances...with a 7000L Tank, Fire Gun???

sure 7000L would be good for "Top ups"...but hey...we should be assuming they will run DRY.

Poll

What size of BWC's should be the standard?

Author Topic: Size of BWC's (Read 16557 times)

misterteddy

rescue5271

misterteddy

rescue5271