Author Topic: New 24 prototype  (Read 33800 times)

Offline Pipster

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,269
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2011, 06:27:28 PM »
So we get a crew deck, but have nowhere to put our BA, salvage sheets and other urban type gear that we carry........?

We need to build appliances that suit the area they are stationed - I personally think there should be rural 44 appliances in places like the West coast / Eyre Peninsula, and 24's, minus the crew deck, in places like the Adelaide Hills.

I am all for standardisation - BUT standardisation should not mean one size fits all (cos it can't, and it doesn't!)

Pip
There are three types of people in the world.  Those that watch things happen, those who make things happen, and those who wonder what happened.

Offline kiwifirefighter

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2011, 07:22:35 PM »
i do agree with building appliances that suit areas, but the cfs is goning to do so unless brigades build their own.  The lockers and crew deck can be modified to have greater locker area as has been stated by me before, but also the design doesn't include lockers that can be placed under the deck, perhaps we can wait for the appliance to be buiot and while testing it, see how much can be fitted in

Offline safireservice

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2011, 08:15:07 PM »
So we get a crew deck, but have nowhere to put our BA, salvage sheets and other urban type gear that we carry........?

We need to build appliances that suit the area they are stationed - I personally think there should be rural 44 appliances in places like the West coast / Eyre Peninsula, and 24's, minus the crew deck, in places like the Adelaide Hills.

I am all for standardisation - BUT standardisation should not mean one size fits all (cos it can't, and it doesn't!)

Pip
Wasnt there something like a 44 appliance considered some time ago? Seem to remember it being discussed but obvioulsy nothing came of it. Maybe something like this?
http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/news/heavy-concept-tanker-hq.html
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 08:18:54 PM by safireservice »
Treat everyone as if they are an idiot, until they prove you otherwise.

Offline Ashes

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.fire-brigade.asn.au
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2011, 09:31:24 PM »
I think they would be the DENR 34 appliances, 3600L and were to be called 44 appliances.
Cleland 34 is one of those from Moores I think.
http://www.fire-brigade.asn.au/Station_Display.asp?Service_Code=NPWSA&Station_Code=NPCL

Ashes

Offline Alan J

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Certified Flamin' Nuisance
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2011, 03:55:09 AM »
I think the heavy concept tanker photos that were kicking around were only ever a CFA idea float.
NSW RFS have implemented one or more extra heavy tankers out on the Hay Plain.
Can't remember their designation for it but it is a 6,000L fire fighting rural appliance,
as distinct from a 6,000BWC.

We probably ought to offer 5 or more standard heavy appliances:
  • Rural 24 - as per this thread's sketches - crew deck & limited locker space
       Hills  brigade's second appliance to complement their 34P or 34U/R
  • Rural 44 - with limited locker space acceptable - big tank & crew deck, but no CABA or RCR
  • Rural/Urban 34 - smaller crew deck & tankage with slightly increased locker space for CABA / RCR
  • Urban/Rural 34 - no crew deck, even more locker space
  • 34P - as per current Skilled build
Plus light appliances for access - 14's & QA's

My 2 bob's worth anyway.
Alan J.
Cherry Gdns CFS

Data isn't information.  Information isn't knowledge. 
Knowledge isn't wisdom.

Offline Alan (Big Al)

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,609
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • CRUMPETS
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2011, 06:31:37 AM »
The current SEM build of 34p is a step back in time with the missing full length drivers side locker and most if not all RCR brigades would struggle to fit an RCR kit and 4 BA sets on that appliance, and i think you could forget any RCR equipment on an U/R 34
Lt. Goolwa CFS

Offline CFS_Firey

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2011, 07:56:21 AM »
I think the heavy concept tanker photos that were kicking around were only ever a CFA idea float.
NSW RFS have implemented one or more extra heavy tankers out on the Hay Plain.
Can't remember their designation for it but it is a 6,000L fire fighting rural appliance,
as distinct from a 6,000BWC.

We probably ought to offer 5 or more standard heavy appliances:
  • Rural 24 - as per this thread's sketches - crew deck & limited locker space
       Hills  brigade's second appliance to complement their 34P or 34U/R
  • Rural 44 - with limited locker space acceptable - big tank & crew deck, but no CABA or RCR
  • Rural/Urban 34 - smaller crew deck & tankage with slightly increased locker space for CABA / RCR
  • Urban/Rural 34 - no crew deck, even more locker space
  • 34P - as per current Skilled build
Plus light appliances for access - 14's & QA's

My 2 bob's worth anyway.

I'd add an Urban Pumper to that list.

Also I wonder what you propose to be the difference between the 34P and Urban/Rural 34 given the difference between current 34 and 34Ps is locker setup?

misterteddy

  • Guest
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2011, 09:39:43 AM »
heaven forbid we could have a rescue appliance that carried more than lightweight Road Crash gear

Offline CFS_Firey

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2011, 10:04:09 PM »
heaven forbid we could have a rescue appliance that carried more than lightweight Road Crash gear

Not to mention a Rescue Appliance as opposed to a Road Crash Rescue appliance.  (or is that supposed to be rescue tanker?)

Offline Alan J

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Certified Flamin' Nuisance
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #34 on: December 05, 2011, 12:48:06 AM »
I'd add an Urban Pumper to that list.
Also I wonder what you propose to be the difference between the 34P and Urban/Rural 34 given the difference between current 34 and 34Ps is locker setup?

OK....
can't speak to the current builds - our 34 urban stowage is Moores 2009/10

Was thinking 34P = Skilled build like Belair 34P,  or our ex-NSWRFS PTO 34P
(which we look like hanging onto for an extra year or so YAY!!!)

A 34 urban/rural being more like our Moores 34 minus crew deck (no use to us)
plus extra locker/stowage space. Maybe unstrangle the pump with revised plumbing.

34 rural/urban - pretty much what our Moores 34 is. (With a few mods including
unstrangling the pump plumbing)

Pumper & RCR are good additions, but not "tankers" in the Eastern States sense
of the word, which (officially) we have adopted.

It seems we are slowly drifting towards what the NSW RFS have had for years.
Would probably make some sense to simply buy their designs.
NOT perfect, but certainly functional, and cover most of the bases being
discussed here, including recognising different areas have different needs.
http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/dsp_content.cfm?cat_id=1118
There is/was also a Cat.2 - similar to our 24 specs but not listed here.
food for thought?
Alan J.
Cherry Gdns CFS

Data isn't information.  Information isn't knowledge. 
Knowledge isn't wisdom.

Offline DaveP

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #35 on: December 05, 2011, 09:35:23 AM »
I agree that we (CFS) seem to spend too much effort re-inventing the wheel. But when we have people saying that they do not need the crew deck in their area I wonder if they have caught the vision of a statewide (at least) fire service. I am sure that I saw Cherry Gardens on the side of an appliance at One Tree Hill on Saturday and if there had been a flare up they would have been keen to have a crew deck for the running grass fire. The alternative to a crew deck is a remote controlled monitor like the CFA prototype, but I suspect that they are expensive and not as responsive as a branck in an operators hands.

Offline CFS_Firey

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2011, 10:34:00 AM »
I agree that we (CFS) seem to spend too much effort re-inventing the wheel. But when we have people saying that they do not need the crew deck in their area I wonder if they have caught the vision of a statewide (at least) fire service. I am sure that I saw Cherry Gardens on the side of an appliance at One Tree Hill on Saturday and if there had been a flare up they would have been keen to have a crew deck for the running grass fire. The alternative to a crew deck is a remote controlled monitor like the CFA prototype, but I suspect that they are expensive and not as responsive as a branck in an operators hands.

Isn't another alternative to a crew deck running a hoseline to the cab and sitting in the back seat spraying water out the window?

I'm sure I saw Cudlee Creek 24 sitting in Stirling station during the Mt Osmond fire, but I don't see a vision to fit out the entire state with 750 GPM pumps and rescue stowage...

We can't build an appliance that'll make everyone happy...

Offline Alan J

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Certified Flamin' Nuisance
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #37 on: December 07, 2011, 10:17:43 AM »
And that's the point - we can't build one appliance that will make everyone happy.
Or even two.
Since our SFECs are based purely on our own local hazards, and
since 99% of jobs most appliances will ever attend are in their home area,
it makes sense to build most suitable for that area.

This more readily achieved with 4 standard heavy 4WD appliances than just two.
As with the original plastic fantastics, their workings can be made so nearly
the same that any competent operator could work any appliance without brain strain.

Oh, and Dave P - you didn't see Cherry Gardens at OTH.  Would have been Cherryville.
Cherry Gardens was initially paged in error, but stopped before they could join
the strike team...  ;-).

Alan J.
Cherry Gdns CFS

Data isn't information.  Information isn't knowledge. 
Knowledge isn't wisdom.

Offline kiwifirefighter

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #38 on: August 04, 2012, 04:30:26 AM »
Hs anyone seen the new prototype 24 in the flesh yet.  From the picture in infralog, there looks to be a lot of wasted space on the rear of the appliance by other positioning of the pump

Offline Shiner

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #39 on: August 04, 2012, 09:31:39 AM »
But the east-west pump mounting means the truck is 300mm shorter which should make it better off road?
Jason
Swanport Group DGO - Region 3
Jervois CFS Brigade - "Home of the Original Hooker!"

Offline Pipster

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,269
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #40 on: August 04, 2012, 08:38:29 PM »
or fits better into some existing stations...... ?

Pip
There are three types of people in the world.  Those that watch things happen, those who make things happen, and those who wonder what happened.

Offline BundyBear

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #41 on: October 06, 2012, 05:17:30 PM »
I think the CFS needs to have a standardised fleet, brigades going out and doing their own thing should be pulled in. What CFS brigades respond to if you looked at the frequency and severity are not unique or special incidents in the main, if you sat down put a decent case study together and risk assessed their claims I feel most would fall over.

You could simply achieve a good fleet by building the appliances listed below or similar and have solid review systems in place before each build contract is put into place to ensure continuous improvement.

QAV - 4wd ute
Light Rural - 1000L 4wd crew deck
Heavy Rural - 3000L 4wd crew deck 2 x CABA
Urban/Rural - 2000L 4wd no crew deck larger pump, 4 x CABA and RCR if required.
Pumper - 2wd larger pump again, longer hose reels, 4 x CABA, and RCR if required and strategically placed at large rural centres and the urban fringe.

Then you could look at strategically placing purpose built HAZMAT and Heavy Rescue tenders across the state to provide coverage to country SA.
Just an idea!


Offline Pipster

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,269
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #42 on: October 06, 2012, 09:47:39 PM »
And how about adding a 44 to that mix... lots of water, bugger all equipment - which is all a large number of single appliances stations across the state could do with...

Add to that a number of smaller stations in the Adelaide Hills (like mine!) that need something small enough to get around the area, but large enough to carry say 2 BA (currently rural - urban classification, as opposed to urban - rural!)

And again, many areas need Bulk Water carriers,

The list you have there BundyBear is pretty close to the fleet that CFS builds now (although one could argue the numbers of each type being allocated could be changed!)

Pip
There are three types of people in the world.  Those that watch things happen, those who make things happen, and those who wonder what happened.

Offline BundyBear

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New 24 prototype
« Reply #43 on: October 14, 2012, 09:02:55 PM »
Yeah agree with a 44 would be benefical to remote brigades and agree the types are close to what we see but I'd look at alterations to locker layout,pump sizes, engine sizes, the overall quality of the fleet being built considering fire appliances stay in service for some time. Also dont get into that whole rural/urban - urban/rural thing kind of like CFS SFEC's a very old joke!

Tankers or BWC sorry left them off the list but pretty much required without saying.

An example is the 34P, most I've seen are located on the urban fringe and larger rural centres (probably could have pumpers, but I'll leave that alone). On those you could question the crew deck, the locker layout is apalling, pumps could be bigger and soon as they need to climb a decent hill they're embarrassing. Plus look at the build quality some are put together badly!

Also definately agree with your statement of overhaulling the system into where, what and why appliances are located. Plus a better fllet roation system, does a new appliance need to go to a brigade that turns out bugger all?