This from Dylan Konchan:
I got a picture of Tower Ladder 34’s new lights all LED’s except the beacons on top that are red
This from Dylan Konchan:
I got a picture of Tower Ladder 34’s new lights all LED’s except the beacons on top that are red
Tags: Chicago Tower Ladder 34, Dylan Konchan, LED lights on fire truck
This entry was posted on May 10, 2013, 1:19 PM and is filed under Fire Service Photos, Fire Truck photos. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
For the finest department portraits and composites contact Tim Olk or Larry Shapiro.
Arclite theme by digitalnature | powered by WordPress
#1 by DMc77 on May 20, 2013 - 9:08 AM
There are a few problems with the CFD buying used apparatus from other depts. For one, CFD rigs are for the most part standardized throughout to carry the same equipment in the same places so members detailed to other companies or working relief don’t have to learn a new rig everywhere they go. This also applies to the folks at fleet. Which leads to another issue. Buying a used apparatus, however lightly it was used, doesn’t come with a new apparatus warranty, which is important because usually flaws in a vehicle are quick to surface given the amount of usage. Also having a shop full of different brands of apparatus means having to stock a lot more parts (more $) for quick fixes.
#2 by Chuck on May 20, 2013 - 12:23 AM
DH, regarding the comment about the CFD not taking on a “used” rig, the current Tower 5 was a demo apparatus WITH a pump, and the pump was replaced with cabinets before being delivered. I think the City is remiss in not looking into good, used apparatus as a stopgap measure. Des Plaines, I think, just picked up Lake Zurich’s tower (which had been GIVEN to them, ) for a significant savings over a new rig. I think there are good, serviceable rigs out there that the City could get 3,5,or more years out of, and stop running these 27 year old spares…world class fire department? Not with those in front line service, they’re not.
#3 by Scott on May 17, 2013 - 9:19 AM
Kevin, you can not convert a straight ladder to a tower ladder. Different weights, ratios & outrigger (jack) spread for a tower vs an aerial.
#4 by nate on May 16, 2013 - 12:39 AM
Im sure rahms plan is to just call in the suburbs for towers lol
#5 by DH on May 15, 2013 - 11:50 PM
John H – You typically see that in reverse, only with new rigs, a suburban department latches onto a larger department’s contract and can get a rig for cheaper…or even a rejected rig. East Chicago’s ALF Eagles come to mind, as they were originally destined for Chicago but rejected for some reason. Chicago beats the crap out of the new rigs enough to consider a used rig. Plus, it would have to be a straight truck/tower with no pump, otherwise the # of engineers would have to be increased.
#6 by John H on May 15, 2013 - 12:14 PM
Bill – thanks for the very comprehensive response back. And appreciated the insights around what LA City/County have done in terms of apparatus purchases…we live just over the county line in Ventura County these days, so I have a lot of exposure to the fire service out here (not as a fire fighter, but just as an interested tax payer & enthusiast!).
Another question – do large city fire departments like Chicago ever purchase ‘pre-driven’ suburban equipment? I ask this because I understand — and very much appreciate — the constraints of purchasing brand new equipment built-to-order. But there are a lot of well-funded fire departments across the US who might buy a tower ladder or some other more specialized piece of equipment that simply doesn’t get anywhere near the use that CFD rigs see week in and week out. Inevitably, there are departments that find themselves in tougher economic times or with new mutual aid or apparatus sharing agreements that might position them to want to sell a lightly used tower ladder, for example. I appreciate wanting to avoid having a fleet composed of every manufacturer under the sun, but would CFD ever consider purchasing discounted, well-condition, used apparatus to help augment their fleet? Less sexy than custom-built orders…but a potentially viable solution (at least from this non-expert’s point of view!).
#7 by Kevin Griffin on May 15, 2013 - 11:13 AM
In my opinion Cfd could take some of the newer and older stick ladders and have the manufacturer change the ladder from a stick to a tower.
#8 by tom sullivan on May 15, 2013 - 7:15 AM
as long as the snorkel subject has come up, a little more info. there were still some fully manned (officer, engr, 1 or 2 ffs.) snorkel companies in the early 80s. the north side one, “snk. 3” after being renumbered from snk. 6 @ e-110 quarters, bounced around from e-112 to e-106 to e-83. when comm. galante came in he immediately recreated the snorkel squads (2 piece companies) as they are today.
“reserve” snorkels were placed in houses around the city. they seemed to bounce around also. one of them was at e-95s quarters when the bulls “victory celebration” in 1992 occured. can’t speak for the condition of other reserve snorkels, but that one was a complete piece of junk. numerous work orders were called in for it, including the lack of working controls in the basket. when the fire at the old madigans store on madison required the use of a snorkel , it was brought to the scene by a change of quarters company. the chiefs were informed that it was unsafe , but it was put to work anyway by a squad company. as the sun came up the next morning it was operating as a “water tower”, no one in the basket. later in the day it could not be brought down, so the shops cut the hydraulic line to lower the basket. it was towed to the shops and never used again.
old reserve apparatus need to be maintained as much (or more) than front line rigs. so far it appears that the reserve snorkel @ e-35 is being well maintained.
#9 by Bill Post on May 15, 2013 - 5:18 AM
John H. I would say that you are pretty much on target when it comes to fire apparatus manufacturers. There are numerous variables when it comes to fire apparatus as well different opinions some of which can even be in the same city or same fire department. A major problem that I have been picking up on are the new electronic and high-tech device problems that some of the new apparatus has been having, regardless of who the manufacturer is. As the fire apparatus industry is indeed very competitive there have been some newer manufacturers that have been making some headway and are worth keeping an eye on. There have also been some mergers and acquisitions as well. A example of that was the acquisition of Luverne and Quality by Spartan motors which became Crimson and now recently they decided that they would rebrand the company as Spartan ERV.
There are also some overseas manufacturers that have gotten into the North American market in recent years such as Rosenbauer and Bronto Sky Lift which recently changed over from having E/One market their platforms to having Pierce do it.
Ferrara is the new (or at least newer) American manufacturer to watch. They had recently broke into the New York City Fire Department market big time by getting a multi-year contract for New York City’s 100-foot rear mounted aerial ladder trucks and had recently delivered 5 heavy rescue squads and some other apparatus as well to New York City.
That said Pierce, has been overall considered in recent years to manufacture the best apparatus but even it has it’s detractors. A number of fire departments that had been buying E/One Products have recently switched to Pierce however.
The Boston Fire Department had been a nearly 100% E/One equipped fire department through the late 80’s and 90’s but in the early and mid 2000’s they purchased some Pierce engines and aerial ladders. It turns out that many of the fire fighters on Boston’s ladder companies had preferred E/One ladders so Boston went back to purchasing new E/One aerial ladders during the last few years and they have been purchasing KME as well as some E/One engines as of late.
Seagrave had been considered to be not only the oldest but the best when it came to aerial ladders as well as engines however it seems that they may have priced themselves out of the market in many instances in recent years. Seagrave was the main supplier of aerial ladders for the Los Angeles City Fire department as well as a large supplier to the Los Angeles County Fire Department however since the mid 1990s, the Los Angeles City fire department has been only buying LTI aerial ladders (first on Simon Duplex chassis and then on American La France chassis) since ALF acquired LTI.
Before 2011 the Los Angeles City Fire Department was purchasing both Seagrave and Pierce engines and for several years they were getting an equal number of both brands delivered simultaneously. In effect a double order.
Beginning in 2011 Los Angeles City started getting custom built KME engines delivered and they recently had put in an order for more of them.
I am sure that they started ordering the KME’s because they must have been given a better price. KME has been considered to be a cheaper rig and the long standing joke has been the KME has stood for Keep the Mechanic’s Employed. There is also a KME service center in Ontario California which isn’t far from Los Angeles. The Los Angeles County Fire Department has been ordering large amounts of KME engines and filleted quints exclusively since the mid to late 1990’s. A tillered quint is a tillered aerial ladder built with a pump behind the cab chassis.
Most of the filleted quints in LA county run with engine companies and are not normally stand alone quints.
San Diego city had leased several KME engines in the early to mid 2000’s but they returned most of them and resumed ordering Pierce engines.
Philadelphia has been purchasing KME engines also however there is a KME plant in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia is another city that is in poor economic shape. Five engines and two trucks were taken out of service within the last few years. Los Angeles City had taken 7 trucks and 10 engines out of service within the last 3 years as well because of a high budget deficit. Most of their trucks run with an engine that serves as a second piece and is known as a ‘Light Force”. That engine only runs with an engineer and is attached to the truck as one company.
Ultimately if the fire apparatus manufacturer can meet the specs and service requirements it becomes a matter of who can give you the best price and the best service.
While Seagrave is known for its engines and aerial ladders it’s rear mounted tower ladder called the Apollo didn’t do well at all however they are now working on revised model called the Apollo 2.
Seagrave does manufacture the Aerialscope however the Aerialscope really wasn’t a Seagrave product until they acquired the rights to build them when Mack stopped building fire engine chassis (C cabs) in the late 1980s.
While Seagrave is still building engines, Aerialscopes and tillered aerial ladders for New York City they have not been building rear mounted aerials for them as of the last couple of years as Ferrara won the bid.
Chicago as you know recently took it’s last Seagrave aerial ladder out of frontline service and now they are strictly used as spare rigs and of course the TV show Chicago Fire.
Besides the price (which is a major factor these days) sometimes it’s just a matter of preference. What some fire departments like others may not.
#10 by Wayne on May 15, 2013 - 12:45 AM
@ Tom
I can’t speak firsthand for CFD as I don’t work there, and truthfully I’ve never been an administrator (or a firefighter) so my experience is entirely as the guy on the streets in an ambulance but there is some merit to both sides. I guess in the end it’s kind of a “risk vs benefit” because I’ve also seen some crappy new rigs purchased in place of the proverbial “Old Reliable.” What Chicago does is a little beyond my scope of experience though. I suppose I should have clarified that. In the end, my personal opinion is that I’d rather just have something that works, end of story. If it’s 20 years old but taken good care of, I’ll take it. That’s just my two cents.
#11 by John H on May 14, 2013 - 8:50 PM
For those who are knowledgeable about different fire apparatus manufacturers, is there some sort of general acceptance across the community that certain manufacturers simply build better rigs (presumably at a price premium)? I understand that each manufacturer may make different lines/models of the same type of equipment…and that there may be a ‘cadillac’ model vs. a ‘buick’ in everyone’s individual line-up…but are there a couple of manufacturers that typically stand out as ‘top quality’ manufacturers? E-one > Pierce > Sutphen > Crimson… OR, is it more appropriate to think about certain manufacturers maintaining a certain competency in building tower ladders, for example, and then there’s a pecking order amongst manufacturers of a specific type of equipment? Just very curious. I know everyone has an opinion, but just wondering if fire apparatus manufacturers are thought of in terms of how many people think about automobile manufacturers…and some are simply regarded as being better than others.
#12 by Tom Foley on May 14, 2013 - 6:46 PM
@Wayne
I appreciate your input as it appears to be first-hand. (Obviously, I’m just a casual observer.)
My concern is some posts saying some of the newer trucks arrived at fire scenes and did not work. If an older rig is more reliable when it’s needed, I certainly think the increased maintenance costs are worth it for public safety.
But that begs my next question. If some of these newer trucks are unreliable, why isn’t CFD working more aggressively with the manufactures to rectify?
Again, a casual observer, so I’m curious to learn more.
#13 by Wayne on May 14, 2013 - 5:16 PM
Older vehicles of any kind inherently need more maintenance unless one sends them out for a total refurbishment. In the end the maintenance costs and out of service time overwhelm the benefit of having an older “more reliable” rig. Working for a few different ambulance services I’ve seen just how “reliable” and “safe” an older rig can be. It’s not pretty. And it’s not fun being in an even more run down reserve rig every other week.
#14 by Dylan on May 14, 2013 - 3:44 PM
The front red round lights, the clear and red light on the front grill, the spot lights, and in the back and sides of the truck are all LED
#15 by NJ on May 14, 2013 - 10:12 AM
So which ones exactly are the LED lights????
#16 by Bill Post on May 13, 2013 - 11:48 PM
Continued.
One reserve Snorkel was on the north side at Engine 112, one was on the west side at Engine 107 and one was on the south side at Engine 72 or 122. Later a reserve Snorkel was moved to Engine 76 and for a while to Engine 101. By the mid 1990’s most of the reserve Snorkels were removed except for the 1982 Seagrave Pierce that is the current reserve Shorkel. If more Snorkels were needed at an extra alarm one of the companies that they were located with would be requested to bring the Snorkel to the extra alarm fire.
As there aren’t that many extra alarm fires any more special companies are rarely manned but are driven to the scene by an engine or truck that they are located with.
#17 by Tom Foley on May 13, 2013 - 11:48 PM
Despite its age, is there any disadvantage to running this rig compared to others? A shiny truck is nice for all of us and makes for nice pics, but safety needs to be the priority. If newer trucks are a constant issue, then an older more reliable rig is in the publics best interest.
#18 by Bill Post on May 13, 2013 - 11:37 PM
Mike Mc if the tower ladders were made into special units, they wouldn’t be manned with three men like the Snorkel companies used to be, rather they would be unmanned and on call like the current reserve Snorkel at Engine 35’s quarters.
The main reason that the Snorkel companies were taken out of service was because they were only dispatched on Still and Box alarms and higher, and as the extra alarm rate went down it was felt that having them as manned companies was a waste of man/hours, as there was no guarantee that the Snorkel would actually be put to use. It was an efficiency move which was why three of the Snorkels were made into the second pieces for three of the squad companies and the remaining three Snorkels became reserve Snorkel companies.
From 1983 until the early 90’s, Chicago had three reserve Snorkels in the field so there would be one available in each section of the city.
#19 by Mike Mc on May 13, 2013 - 10:16 PM
If I could add a follow onto Eric’s comment – what about Aerialscopes? Has the CFD considered them?
Just a lowly fan here, but unless manufacturers start getting purchase and maintenance costs down, I can see the day when tower ladders are special units, with a three member crew, that respond on the still and box. The CFD operated the snorkels this way for decades and Boston operated their tower ladder(s) in the same manner in the 1970’s. The rigs could be stripped of ground ladders and tools in order to reduce weight. I’m not saying this would be a good idea, just that it could happen.
Budgets are only going to get tighter and tighter. I know that fire apparatus manufacturing is a very competetive business that involves a complicated series of specs and bids, but the bottom line is, no one has to purchase a tower ladder. The bigger, better, and higher mentality could find the manufacturers without any takers for their products.
#20 by Bill Post on May 13, 2013 - 9:04 PM
Erik in regards to Sutphen tower ladders, the first thing that you need to remember is that they are a totally different design than has been used in Chicago. For example they are all midmounted. Sutphen has been around for a long time and there are some places that swear by them. They really aren’t true tower ladders in the sense that while some of them have climbing handles and can be climbed, that is really more of a safety feature. They really aren’t a true aerial ladder, but rather a telescopic platform. All three of Detroit’s tower ladders have been Sutphen, and Columbus Ohio uses Sutphens for their tower ladders exclusively. Over half of their 15 trucks are Sutphen towers. Sutphen is built in Ohio and being that they are not far from Columbus obviously helps. Syracuse New York also uses them exclusively for their truck companies.
Quite a few of the major eastern cities had at one time used Sutphen aerial platforms but are no longer using them. Boston used to run with two of them and the same with Washington DC in the 70’s and 80’s. Baltimore had six of them that were purchased in the mid and late 80’s in a quint configuration with pumps and a 95-foot platform. That was done partly as an economic move. Some of the quieter, outlying engine companies with ladder companies were combined and assigned the quints. These only lasted a couple of years. They were very heavy and had a large turning radius which eventually led to them being taken out of service.
New York City purchased two Sutphens in the early 80’s because they wanted to try a telescopic tower ladder that extended more than 75 feet. At the time, the Aerialscopes (that they still use exclusively) weren’t built with booms bigger than 75 feet. New York also tried two rear mounted LTI tower ladders, but they stuck with the Aerialscope after it was offered in a 95-foot model. Due to weight and clearance restrictions in many of their stations, only 14 of their 61 tower ladders are 95-foot models. All though are Aerialscopes. These are not a true tower ladder, but are really telescopic platforms similar to a Snorkel.
Wheeling Illinois has been using a Sutphen platform for a long time. I doubt we will see them in Chicago unless the CFD administration decides to try something else.
#21 by FFEMT on May 13, 2013 - 7:48 PM
Personally, I like Sutphens. A bit expensive, but still a very good, strong manufacturer. But, there are two things that would prevent Chicago from using them … first of all, their ladders are all bolted and not welded, like the majority of manufacturers, so this requires a design that’s completely different than most others. Secondly, they do not make rear mount tower ladders (what Chicago runs). Sutphen would require Chicago to move to an all midmount fleet, like FDNY … and that significantly changes tactical considerations.
#22 by Eric Haak on May 13, 2013 - 4:58 PM
I know absolutely nothing about rigs, manufacturers, who’s no good and who is. I was just wondering what people thought about Sutphen’s for Chicago? Are they no good, too expensive? Once again, I know nothing about this stuff.
#23 by Dennis on May 13, 2013 - 12:02 PM
Okk..first…the 855 E ones are junk…I know this from experience. 2nd…Crimson ladders are junk…all the new trucks in the city have had nothing but problems. 3rd the HMEs should have never been bought. The electronic s on them are all shot. Half the lights don’t work. The ladder gets stuck and there god awful slow. The city has not bid for new towers yet. Any company who.makes them is good but its the amount of runs, the streets we drive and the people who drive them ( not all of them) who destroy them. Its a fact of the job.
#24 by Danny on May 12, 2013 - 7:04 PM
Tower 23 if I’m not mistaken was the last tower ladder to still be using the 85 e-one before they finally got the pierce, before tower 34’s accident and return to the 1988 e-one. tower 34’s pierce still sits gathering dust in the spare yard at fleet last I saw and last I heard they were gonna convert it to b the new 5-2-2
Also while on tower ladders, anyone out there have a picture of truck 62 when they were a tower ladder briefly
#25 by 2 cents on May 12, 2013 - 5:31 PM
I wouldn’t buy another pierce unless that was the last rig left to buy. The HME’s have held up pretty well and maybe, just saying, they should look into E-one or Crimson. Probably Crimson because they build the engines so it would help with maintainence issues. As for taking another company’s rig and giving it to tower 34, I don’t think the captains on any of the other towers would allow that and would probably have choice words to say about it too. Tower 34 is a busy rig and the more busy you are the more prone to accidents.
#26 by KB on May 12, 2013 - 5:08 PM
Ok first off, Pierce is a fine manufacturer for new towers, so there is actually a company willing to make new towers. Also, the 2nd shift did wreck the tower multiple times, and it DOES make sense for them to not get a new tower yet. Why should the city run the risk of giving 34 a new tower if there are just going to be maintenance and repair costs in the near future?
#27 by Drew G on May 12, 2013 - 2:58 PM
I wonder if the CFD ever considered switching Tower 34’s rig with one of the slower Towers up north, like Tower 23 or even Tower 10 now that Cabrini has been torn down.
#28 by Josh on May 12, 2013 - 10:18 AM
Okay, that’s just an opinion. They aren’t making any new tower ladders for at least another year or so. And going back to what you said about TL34 Wont get a new rig because they got in a couple accidents. I think that’s pretty stupid. That’s just them badmouthing the other shift.
#29 by Dylan on May 12, 2013 - 9:45 AM
Josh a firefighter told me this.
#30 by tom sullivan on May 12, 2013 - 7:37 AM
in my opinion , the tower ladders are a maintenance nightmare. many of them are in busy districts and are beat down by the constant running. the original e-one towers have held up surprising well, with a lot of effort, since they were still used as spares, after 25 years ! the newer ones are very complex, like all apparatus, with computer & electrical systems that are prone to failure. one apparatus that i recall was particularly troublesome. it would fail to function at fires causing delays in getting a ladder up to roof.
the tower ladders are accident magnets,,they have had more than their share of them,,a couple of companies even more so.
#31 by Josh on May 12, 2013 - 1:00 AM
Dylan, that doesn’t make sense. They don’t have a manufacturer yet to make the new Towers to my knowledge. And what you said about TL34 wont get a new one because ”2nd shift” keeps wrecking them doesn’t make sense
#32 by Dylan on May 12, 2013 - 12:08 AM
like i said if you wreck a rig they wont get you a new rig until every tower has a new rig
#33 by jacob on May 11, 2013 - 10:40 PM
why has the city not replaced this. i thought they replace rigs every 10 to 15 years.
#34 by Dylan on May 11, 2013 - 10:15 PM
I heard they have a new tower ready to be shipped to Chicago, but Tower 34 wont get it because of 2nd shift wrecking the new tower and reserves they get.
#35 by fleetguy on May 11, 2013 - 8:17 PM
will not see new tower ladders for at least 3 years.
#36 by Sebastian on May 11, 2013 - 5:39 PM
I did mention that they are 25 years old Dennis! And for
The age, THEY DO LOOK GREAT!! That is all i am saying! And
I meant to say fleet!
#37 by FFDT72 on May 11, 2013 - 5:19 PM
Its has seen better days.
#38 by Dennis on May 11, 2013 - 10:47 AM
Sebastian, thr CFD does NOT have their own shops anymore. Everything is taken care of by Fleet. The tower ladders are in horrible shape. They don’t stay running nor are they in great shape as you say.
#39 by Sebastian on May 11, 2013 - 10:13 AM
For a truck that is 25 years old!! It looks great! And runs
Great! Awesome testament to the crews that
Take care of the rigs at the cfd garage!
#40 by Eric Haak on May 11, 2013 - 9:19 AM
Sounds like a tank when it rolls down the apron.
#41 by FFEMT on May 11, 2013 - 12:26 AM
Except for the headlights….anddd the running lights..anddd the turn signals…anddd the oscillating light in the middle.