Here are some photos from Cicero Fire Department Asst. Chief Rick Moravecek of their new Pierce Dash CF pumper being built.
Pierce Dash CF PUC being built for the Cicero Fire Department. Rick Moravecek photo
Pierce Dash CF PUC being built for the Cicero Fire Department. Rick Moravecek photo
Fire engine being built for the Cicero Fire Department. Rick Moravecek photo
Pingback: New engine for Cicero (more) « chicagoareafire.com
#1 by Ryan on April 6, 2014 - 8:26 PM
@Sam…we were the first deparments in the area to spec and purchase the top mount PUC in 2007/2008. I cant specify how many fires it has pumped at. I can say that no matter what type of fire it pumped at, it always worked flawlessly. We purchased it because it worked for us, especially the length restriction and amount of space (combining 2 apparatus in to 1). I do see your point about the pump shaft spinning at all times, which means more maintenance issues. We did realize that when we spec’d it. The only real issue we’ve had with it was due to a CAT motor issue.
#2 by Sam on April 6, 2014 - 7:43 PM
Sure….perhaps after you take delivery of the unit and have had it for awhile….we’ll talk then. Good luck anyway. Thanks for listening, please take my comments as constructive and we’ll wait and see. I’ll sign off this discussion.
#3 by Ricco Fitzwell on April 6, 2014 - 7:10 PM
RJ its both they told me its a fold down back step and also there is a compartment behind the door. There is no full back step on this rig. As for Seagrave great product high cost no service center or dealers in Illinois.. Its factory direct. Cicero Pierce engine 3 sold to a broker for some good money, and was sold almost immediately to another department who knew the rig was truck worthy. Sam why don’t you stop by Cicero and talk to some of the guys or chiefs about apparatus
#4 by Sam on April 6, 2014 - 6:32 PM
That old Seagrave is way older than the Pierce…yet still in service. Maybe you should have looked at another Seagrave??? BTW….the E-One are about 7-8 years old now so one should expect some out of service time on any rig in a department as busy as Cicero. My point though all of this is let’s wait and see a year or two or more down the line when that PUC starts acting up.
#5 by JB on April 6, 2014 - 6:23 PM
Because the Seagrave is (Engine 3) which is on the Southside of Cicero. The pierce was sold many months ago. It just so happens, most of the fires in Cicero are on the northside. So it’s always Engine 1 and Engine 2 first in. You would be surprised how often the E-One Pumpers are out for service.
#6 by DG on April 6, 2014 - 6:18 PM
@ Sam, if a FD decides that they have appropriate funds for a new rig to replace a rig that served them well for close 14 years, then why shouldn’t they get a new one? Cicero is a busy department with many smart guys who no doubt know what they’re doing. You’re argument would make sense if Cicero got rid of a newer Pierce rig and still decided to go back, but thats not the case. Old Engine 3 served plenty long enough to justify a new purchase.
#7 by Sam on April 6, 2014 - 5:55 PM
Really JB? …then why at recent fires do we see photos of the E-One apparatus on scene and pumping and the reserve Seagrave pumper on the fire scene in place of the Pierce……Someone like you fibbing here? Photos don’t lie.
#8 by JB on April 6, 2014 - 5:44 PM
For you to say they didn’t do their homework……your far from it. The man who spec’d this rig is a very knowledgeable guy that has many years on the job and has also spec’d out many fire trucks from various manufacturers in the past. He knows exactly what he is doing and made a good decision. The E-One pumpers Cicero has are also out of service. Many problems. Cicero had no problems with their old engine 3, since they are going back to pierce. Which in the near future, I see Cicero getting another engine just like this one and we’ll as a truck from pierce. So before you throw a comment out here saying they didn’t do their homework, your wrong because this rig has been years in the making.
#9 by RJ on April 6, 2014 - 3:46 PM
Is the diamond plated protrusion in the back a step, door or both? There seems to be a roll up above it too and maybe part of a latch mechanism in the left side. Anybody from Cicero here that knows? Thanks.
#10 by Sam on April 6, 2014 - 2:11 PM
No…..the E-One parts are not “poor products” buried. Pierce “buries” their parts as much as any other manufacturer. Most of the manufacturers use the same parts. There are a limited number of manufacturers and choices. All fire apparatus share the same parts or the same type of parts.
My guess Rico is that you are a representative of Pierce in some form or another. But you and I do agree…..time will tell if these units hold up in a busy department. That sir is the chance I will not be willing to take. Like Pierce….then buy Pierce, my issue is with the PUC design….
#11 by Ricco Fitzwell on April 6, 2014 - 1:50 PM
Sam I do not know your back ground in the fire service nor what experience you have using pumpers, but my guess you work for a fire apparatus company. Pierce so far has produced over 1000 PUC pumpers from small to major cities, and from talking to PUC owners, they are all satisfied with their unit. Many are repeated PUC customers buying more PUC apparatus. Why is that E-One had to come out with the E Max , so they can stay in the competition or do they see what the PUC has done, boy does the E Max look alot like a PUC. I who has many years in the fire service who has drove and operated many different fire apparatus have a real good sense with what is good and what is a money pit. Time will tell I guess if Cicero has bad luck with the PUC and the money pits they do have is not from being busy, its the poor products of the rigs and for burying parts all over the place. See ya at the big one
#12 by Sam on April 6, 2014 - 1:27 PM
Ryan….how long has your department had thee PUC and define “many fires”
#13 by Ryan on April 6, 2014 - 12:07 PM
Sam, does your department have a PUC? Coming from a person who operates one, I have to say it works very nice and have had zero issues with the pump. It has pumped many fires and has held up great. A big advantage of why departments are using the PUC design is that it eliminates the large pumphouse and allows for more equipment space, with a short wheelbase.
#14 by Sam on April 6, 2014 - 12:02 PM
fmddc: Yes I have done my “homework” on the PUC. First off, I don’t care what make or model of apparatus a department buys, they all are going to need warranty work and maintenance work. As all fire apparatus ages they are going to need more and more repairs. They are machines and will eventually break down. Yes even your beloved Pierce unit. So the other blogger that made a comment as to the E-One’s being money pits is an uninformed and uneducated comment. As to being there when warranty and service is needed again ALL manufacturers will be there – at least till the warranty runs out. So your comment about the Pierce people always being there and sweet as apple pie can be used as a blanket statement about all manufactuers – not just Pierce.
The problem I see with the PUC is this. What you call “inovative” I see as “experimental” There is a difference. Not one PUC has been time tested as of yet. The design just too new and the pump design is the most experimental of all.
First, the driveshaft that turns the pump runs off a PTO opening on the enigne, and thus turns all the time – yes even when the unit is not in pump. The wear and tear this caiuses is yet to be seen in the long term, but rest assured there is wear and tear on a daily basis when the truck is running.
Second. The switch that places the unit in pump is an electro-mechanical switch and there is no associated mechanical over-ride. So if that switch fails on scene, you are simply out of luck.
Third, The Pierce pump which is in this unit is not really a Pierce pump at all. It was manufactured by Darley for Pierce. Now don ‘t get me wrong, Darley makes one damn good pump. The issue here is that since it is sold as a Pierce pump it is quite proprietary and thus the purchasing department will be buying almost all of the parts for repair and maintenance of this pump strictly from Pierce. As this truck ages combined with the high cost of proprietary parts you will soon see this truck turn into the proverbial “money pit” that the other blogger described.
There are other issues also. Since the pump is driven off of the engine PTO opening, the torque required to turn the pump is at best marginally maintained. Once again, as this truck ages…well we will see.
There are other problems I see, and we could have a three hour discussion as to what may or may not turn into future problems.
As far as I am concerned, I will stay with the tried and true, especially on the fire ground. Though there is is indeed “inovation” in this design, the inovation really accomplishes nothing, but rather presents more possible problems than it solves. Time will tell. For the four hundred thousand plus dollars that this unit will cost, I would stay with the proven and not gamble on innovations, there simply is no reason for it.
#15 by fmddc1 on April 6, 2014 - 6:37 AM
Sam, Not to “argue” but have you really done your homework on the puc? How can you say it won’t hold up? I’m just curious as the PUC has become one of Pierces most innovative lines. I must admit I love Pierce and have gotten to tour the factory both in late 80’s and in early 2000’s. This rig will last them quite awhile and be most dependable, rest assured. I will admit that e-one, although I never really cared for them, have come along way in recent years. I have to say that the folk’s at Pierce are some of the nicest most helpful folk’s you’ll ever meet. Plus in the event that there is a problem with the rig, they back up what they build in a very timely and professional manner. BTW I’m also a big fan of Spartan but Pierce rigs have always been MY Faves.
#16 by Sam on April 5, 2014 - 10:24 PM
This truck will be a disaster for a department like Cicero. The PUC design will not hold up. The pump design for a busy department is terrible. With a busy department like Cicero all engines will need alot of maintenance, thus the E-One units are not money pits just high normal wear and tear.
Someone in Cicero just did not do their homework before buying this Pierce PUC.
#17 by Ricco Fitzwell on April 5, 2014 - 6:17 PM
The tiller is excellent,, the others MONEY PITS time for a change Cicero had a Pierce engine since 1999 and ran and pumped great turning ratio was terrible.. But with the new PUC drives and turns like a SUV
#18 by Rich on April 5, 2014 - 12:25 PM
I thought Cicero. Was sold on e-one?