Author Topic: MFS Take Over  (Read 25751 times)

Toast

  • Guest
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #50 on: July 16, 2006, 01:48:34 AM »
Ah very good, just going on what incorrect information I have.

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #51 on: July 16, 2006, 08:06:01 PM »
thanks SK :mrgreen:

Offline Scania_1

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 443
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #52 on: July 18, 2006, 05:24:35 PM »
Well Gawler MFS go well out of their city limits to MVA`s. So why couldnt any new MFS stations like MB do the same??

Offline medevac

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,659
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #53 on: July 18, 2006, 05:35:34 PM »
the differance is that Gawler is a rescue resource... im sure if MB were too, then they would cover a certain area to assist also.

the main differance is that its not too bad to send a COQ to gawler, whereas its a 25min drive for COQ to barker from any other MFS station...

Toast

  • Guest
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #54 on: July 18, 2006, 06:17:04 PM »
You could still COQ Barker with Pumpers from Bridgewater/Stirling. Both of which have rapid intervention gear on board. Not sure if Hahndorf has and RCR gear.

Offline medevac

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,659
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #55 on: July 18, 2006, 06:34:19 PM »
hahndorf dont have any RCR...

COQ everytime they got a call would greatly increase call rates for nearby CFS though...

Offline CFS_Firey

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #56 on: July 18, 2006, 07:28:12 PM »
You wouldn't COQ every time they got a call, only when they were out of their district for an RCR... remember they would still have Mt Barker CFS for fire cover...

Offline medevac

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,659
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #57 on: July 18, 2006, 07:43:49 PM »
well then, why not MT barker cfs for rescue coverage?

Offline CFS_Firey

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #58 on: July 18, 2006, 07:47:08 PM »
I think the suggestion was that they won't need rescue and Hazmat because MFS will cover that - but they will still be a fire service...  So not CFS for rescue because they wouldn't be a rescue brigade...

Offline medevac

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,659
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #59 on: July 18, 2006, 08:10:05 PM »
meh... why bother taking it away from them then...

there's an MFS station in kadina, and yet Kadina CFS are still the rescue resource for that area  :wink:
« Last Edit: July 19, 2006, 09:00:47 AM by medevac »

Offline Camo

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 776
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Compton CFS Website
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #60 on: July 18, 2006, 08:36:34 PM »
yeah but both kadina cfs and mfs are responded by pager....MT Barker would be full time there fore respond within the minute i guess.

Which would mean it would be silly to have the CFS still do rescue (at least for the city) as they couldnt respond as fast.

Not knowing what the RCR directory states but i would imagine the quickest responding service would be primary rescue.
Compton CFS Website
http://www.compton.sacfs.org

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #61 on: July 18, 2006, 08:40:26 PM »
I say wait and see if MFS move there at all they may be looking for the land,but its up to SAFECOM.Me think the union is playong a scare campaine like they did years ago in Victoria and if you look there the MFB is now over run by CFA paid metro station with full Volunteer back up :evil:

Offline TillerMan

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #62 on: July 26, 2006, 07:52:52 PM »
I would reckon that Mt Barker CFS will shut down completely and Mt Barker MFS would have 1 x full time pump/rescue, 1 x retained pump, 1 x retained 4x4 pump and maybe a 14 if they are lucky. They would cover a reasonable area for rescue but something else may have to be done, the retained pump would have RIV as well so that would cover the area until another rescue brigade got there.

I also heard the other day that MFS won't put a station at Mt Barker until they have a station in the Stirling/Bridgewater area so that they can back each other up. Maybe the MFS have changed their priorities to cover the areas that have crewing issues before covering the areas that don't.

I'm sure we will find out in the next 10 years.

Manuel

  • Guest
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #63 on: July 26, 2006, 07:57:04 PM »
look at the posts from "a tough day for stirling" well maybe put one in Crafers 8-)

Offline medevac

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,659
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #64 on: July 26, 2006, 08:04:13 PM »
not too sure about that tillerman - i believe they have mroe than enough isues arising in pt pirie, where there is a combination of full time and retained... just doesnt seem to work well.

the comment re; an MFS in the stirling/bridgie area makes sense though - would be much easier forthem to step up appliances for COQ

Toast

  • Guest
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #65 on: July 26, 2006, 08:15:30 PM »
Yes, a MFS station in Lofty Group would certainly be a viable and good option. The group does around about 1100 jobs a year. I'm not sure on the primary/support numbers but if a MFS crew was responded to most jobs we had they would be doing around 400-500 calls I believe. A central location with freeway access like Crafers/Stirling/Bridgewater would no doubt be the way to go.

Offline TillerMan

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #66 on: July 26, 2006, 08:23:07 PM »
Ahh yes saw that now, i am sure that by the time they think about MFS in either area both Stirling and Mt Barker will be doing about 500-600 jobs a year and with the sourrounding brigades to those areas to back up an MFS station in both areas would find enough work to do.

Toast

  • Guest
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #67 on: July 27, 2006, 03:18:45 AM »
I also heard the other day that MFS won't put a station at Mt Barker until they have a station in the Stirling/Bridgewater area so that they can back each other up. Maybe the MFS have changed their priorities to cover the areas that have crewing issues before covering the areas that don't.

Its still a good 20 minute drive up to Mount Barker from Stirling in a truck, plus I'd think that Heysen group or Lofty group could easily COQ an MFS station, in their own groups, as both groups have atleast ONE pumper that could go and sit in an MFS station.

Offline fire03rescue

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #68 on: July 27, 2006, 10:05:24 AM »
I have been in the service for over 20 years and the same comments about MFS going into these plus other area was around then.
I will believe it when i see it.

Offline firetruck

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 206
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #69 on: July 27, 2006, 10:51:49 AM »
has anyone considered the option of placing an MFS station DIRECTLY ON THE FREEWAY? It could sit on the side of the freeway btween bridgewater and hahndorf. have 2 appliances, 1 rescue/pumper, 1 pumper.

here is my plan:

on both the uptrack and downtrack, have warning lights on both sides that illuminate about 1 km each direction from the station. These can be auto activated when the alarm goes. Even further back, place standard road signs warning drivers of an approaching fire station. place a crossover section opposite the station so the trucks can get on both sides of the freeway quickly.

I believe if you did this it would keep everyone happy because you now havea central resource for both rescue on the freeway and pumper back up for domestics that would service the WHOLE mt barker/hahndorf/bridgewater/stirling area. a brigade sitting directly on the freeway would make sense.

anyone else like this idea or should i just return to my hole? :-D
« Last Edit: July 28, 2006, 10:48:02 AM by firetruck »
"East side love is living on the West end"

proud inventor of the nickname "manny","manny the man whore" and "mandogga"

Offline CFS_Firey

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #70 on: July 27, 2006, 11:00:03 AM »
I think boom gates on the freeway would be much too dangerous, although I like your idea. Maybe have it next to the freeway on an overpass, like bridgewater. That way there is the quick access, without the danger of trying to pull out onto the freeway.

Offline medevac

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,659
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #71 on: July 27, 2006, 11:02:25 AM »
the station would need to be at an actual properly set up exit... your plan of boomgates and warning lights wouldnt really work, and many an accident would occur, becasue as we all know, people in general are stupid and disregard warnings...

 much better place would be somewhere like crafers, where there is easy acess to uptrack and downtrack...

Offline firetruck

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 206
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #72 on: July 27, 2006, 11:10:54 AM »
You two are right, an overpass would be more suitable. I would go with bridgewater, purely because it is more central to barker, hahndorf, stirling etc.

however, a station at bridgey would eliminate the need for bridgewater CFS, not that thats a bad thing! :evil: :-D KIDDING KIDDING KIDDING!
"East side love is living on the West end"

proud inventor of the nickname "manny","manny the man whore" and "mandogga"

Offline TillerMan

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #73 on: July 27, 2006, 12:25:59 PM »
I guess you would have to do alot of testing of times etc. You would still need to meet the 8 minute arrival to a house fire which wouldn't work because from bridgewater to mt barker springs would have to be more like 20 minutes. I think if you are going to pay 2 crews 2 seperate stations would be better, that way both areas have at least 1 truck to a house fire quickly followed up by the other station and retained crews or local CFS brigades.

Offline standpipe

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 36
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MFS Take Over
« Reply #74 on: July 27, 2006, 01:09:41 PM »
on both the uptrack and downtrack, have warning lights on both sides that illuminate about 1 km each direction from the station. These can be auto activated when the alarm goes. Even further back, place standard road signs warning drivers of an approaching fire station. place a crossover section opposite the station so the trucks can get on both sides of the freeway quickly. Sitting about 50-100 metres from the station place eithe boom gates or traffic lights that will stop traffic so both trucks can roll.
quote]
 :? :? :?
Gee can't imagine that being too hard to get. If the pedestrian boom gates at a level crossing cost $400,000 this would only cost about a gazillion dollars........  :roll: :roll:
find 'em hot leave 'em wet !