New tower ladders for Chicago « chicagoareafire.com

New tower ladders for Chicago

As a follow up to the post about Chicago ordering new tower ladders from E-ONE, here are a few photos of the cabs in production for so#139729 & so#139730

E-ONE photo

Tags: Chicago Fire Department, Chicago orders E-ONE tower ladders, fire truck being built, photos of fire truck being built

This entry was posted on October 13, 2015, 8:56 PM and is filed under Fire Department News. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

30 Comments (and one trackback)

#1 by Chuck on October 30, 2015 - 6:57 PM

If they are looking to more centrally locate that Tower, why not E-122? Move the Van over to E-72, Ambulance goes out the back door, rapid access to the expressway to go North or South….problem solved.
#2 by bill on October 30, 2015 - 11:04 AM

Move TL39 to Truck 40 or 41.
#3 by mike mc on October 30, 2015 - 9:40 AM

Would a tower ladder fit in Truck 42’s house? Better central location than Engine 72.
#4 by Matt on October 30, 2015 - 9:25 AM

I am assuming that many on this line of comments are not native South Siders but TL 34 has a long run (7-8 miles in heavy traffic) to the still districts for E93, E120, E121, E92, E15 etc due to how far east TL34 is located versus how far west these companies are in the City. Lastly, going east is sometimes easier traffic wise than going west.
#5 by Bill Post on October 30, 2015 - 5:02 AM

Correction Engine 104 is at 11659 avenue 0 and not 11641.
#6 by Bill Post on October 30, 2015 - 4:50 AM

Marty and CFD 1979 in around 1986 the CFD did an in house study and the study had found that the far south side (south of 95th street could use better Truck and Engine coverage. So the in house study had recommended that several new stations be built on the Far south side and several Trucks would either be created or relocated into those new stations along with a few Engine companies. That study had recommended that a new station be built for Engine 93 and a Truck company at 103rd and State street amongst other recommendations. As you can figure out most of the recommendations weren’t followed and of course that proposed new station for Engine 93 and a Truck company was never built. If the fire department had gone by the recommendations of it’s own study 103rd and State street would have been a good location for a Tower Ladder. Of course as the recommendation was never followed it doesn’t mean a thing.
For your information just about the only thing that the fire department did that was recommended was to move an Engine company in with Truck 61 as Truck 61 was initially a single Truck house with no Engine company assigned to it . Truck 61’s current station didn’t run with an Engine company regularly assigned to it from the time the Station was opened on December 30th 1971 until November 1st 1986 when Engine 104 was relocated there. That was just a little short of 15 years that they had run without an Engine company assigned to the house. There were 3 other new stations that had been recommended to built on the far south side which all of them were to house both an Engine and a Truck company which were never built of course. The study had also recommended that Truck 16 be relocated to Engine 81’s house at the time. That’s where Truck 61 was originally put in service in 1961 before they had built them the newer house at 11641 Avenue O in 1971.
#7 by Bill Post on October 30, 2015 - 3:52 AM

CFD 1979, when you say that if a Tower Ladder was assigned to Truck 40 that it would go to the west , is that what you had really meant to say as Truck 40 only goes as far as Western avenue as the Still (first due) truck as Western is the city limits in that area?. Yes it would goe west to Mount Greenwood on a Still and Box ( Engine 92’s district) and it would probably go into Engine 15’s district on a Still and Box alarm however most of it’s running on Still and Box’s would be to south and east into the 22nd Battalion as well as going north into the 20th Battalion.They would still be closer to the 22nd Battalion then where Tower Ladder 34 currently is.
#8 by CFD 1979 on October 29, 2015 - 10:22 PM

There’s no way that Truck 27 would get the tower again. They got rid of it in the first place because they didn’t have enough room to make a left turn onto the street in front of the firehouse (114th Street).

Additionally, putting the tower at Truck 40’s quarters wouldn’t be the best option. Every still and box which that specific tower would be assigned to would be to the west. It would be a hike for that tower.
#9 by Marty Coyne on October 29, 2015 - 8:47 PM

All very true Bill. I just don’t see the city organizing another Tower Co.
#10 by Bill Post on October 29, 2015 - 4:20 AM

Marty those are very good points that you make. As to who gets the new E-One Towers we will so far have to just wait and see.
As far as the locations of the Tower Ladders go I personally think that Tower Ladder 34 can stay where they are at as they basically cover both the southeast side as well as the far south side. It would make more sense to me if they would just put a new Tower Ladder company in service on the far south side. In my opinion, the most logical place to put a Tower Ladder on the far south side would be at Truck 40 as they are in newer (large station) that would have the room and the clearance space for a Tower Ladder and they are far enough south to cover most of the far south side.
I presume that you are aware of the fact the Truck 27 was one of the 6 original Tower Ladder locations when the Chicago Fire Department had first put it’s 6 original Tower Ladders in service in early 1986. The six original Tower Ladders were Tower Ladders 23,21,10,14,39 and 27. Truck 27 was only a Tower Ladder for 8 months however.They went in service as Tower Ladder 27 on March 17 1986 and they were relocated to become Tower Ladder 62 on November 16th 1986. They remained Tower Ladder 62 for just over 6 years and were taken out of service as Tower Ladder 62 on December 31st 1992. They didn’t go back in service until March 17, 1993 as Tower Ladder 37.
A little over two years after the 6 Original Tower Ladders had gone in service , three additional Tower Ladder were purchased and in late October and November of 1988 Tower Ladders 63, 34 and 5 were put in service. Those 3 new Tower Ladder companies had filled some obvious gaps in Tower Ladder coverage for the city. The reason why Tower Ladder 62 had become Tower Ladder 37 is because there was a heavier fire load on the near south east side at the time in the 17th Battalion. Tower Ladder 34 was a little too far south and Tower Ladder 39 was a little to far west and there was enough space in Truck 37 and Engine 60’s quarters to accommodate a Tower Ladder.
Truck 54 didn’t become a Tower Ladder until December of 1996 and that is when Tower Ladder 39 received it currents HME/LTi Tower Ladder so they had given Truck 54 , Tower Ladder 39’s 1985 E-One Tower Ladder. Since then Tower Ladder 54 had received a new Pierce Tower Ladder in December of 2005.
The largest gap in Tower Ladder coverage is on the far south side and since then Truck 40 has a new station that can accommodate a Tower Ladder so it would make a lot of sense to put one in service there. While Truck 62 can accommodate a Tower Ladder as it was one for 6 years previously Truck 62 seems to be a little too far south as compared to Truck 40 but either way it does make sense to put a Tower Ladder in service in at least one of those two stations.
As for Tower Ladder 34, I would either leave it where it’s at or I would see if Truck 17 could accommodate the Tower Ladder, which may be possible as while Engine 46 and Truck 17 is only a two bay Station both of the bays are long as their station had been the quarters of the Original Snorkel 6 from 1961 to 1972 and in those years Truck 17 had run with a Tillered Aerial Ladder until early 1967 when they were given a Mack/PIrsch 100 foot mid mounted Aerial Ladder which had a very long rear overhang. I had visited Engine 46 in early 67 and they were able to fit Snorkel 6 (which had a 70 foot Snorkel) as well an Old Chicago Civil Defense fire rescue squad in the station along with Engine 46, Truck 17 and Ambulance 9 without any problem.
The point is that the 23rd Battalion could still make use of a Tower Ladder.
#11 by Marty Coyne on October 28, 2015 - 9:43 PM

Typo meant 27 not 37.
#12 by Marty Coyne on October 28, 2015 - 9:42 PM

There was also some talk of turning 34 back into a regular truck co and making 40 or 37 a tower co. Either one would be a better location for a tower given the distribution of them in the city
#13 by Marty Coyne on October 28, 2015 - 9:35 PM

Question is will the three HME’s get free new ones or will they do a swap passing the Pierces down for the HME’S and replacing them with the E-Ones? Time will tell.
#14 by Michael M on October 28, 2015 - 4:25 PM

I thought there was a plan at some point to replace the 3 1996 HME’s and give one of the HME’s to Tower ladder 34?
#15 by Brian on October 27, 2015 - 1:36 PM

A mid mount for TL 34 would make a lot of sense or an 85 foot snorkel haha
#16 by Bill Post on October 27, 2015 - 12:38 PM

Chicago while I can’t tell you if it’s officially “written” like you mentioned, it is known that Tower Ladder 34’s current rig (1988/E-One) is overdue for replacement as well as Tower Ladders 21, 37, and 39, (1996 HME/LTIs). So the new tower ladders will be replacements. The only real question is which one of the 1996 HME units will remain in service since they are only getting 3 new units while 4 of them need to be replaced as mentioned.
#17 by Bill Post on October 27, 2015 - 12:29 PM

On the subject of tower ladder accidents for Tower Ladder 34. Considering that there are many underpasses in their still district along South Chicago Avenue, I was wondering if the CFD ever considered trying out a mid-mount tower as opposed to the rear mounts that they’ve been using since 1985/86. The mid-mount towers have a lower height clearance and that could be advantageous when clearing a tight underpass (low railroad viaducts). Most apparatus manufacturers offer mid-mounts and that may be something worth considering for future purchases at least for companies that have many low clearance areas in their district.
Pingback: New tower ladders for Chicago | chicagoareafire.com
#18 by Chuck on October 17, 2015 - 6:31 PM

If they plan on giving one to Tower 34 they’d better have a super heavy duty basket on that one, since they like running into things. Frequently.
- #19 by the animal on October 20, 2015 - 2:50 AM
  
  Chuck you do know the officer almst got decapitated during that crash that destroyed the perice rig. If he was a few inches taller, the outcome would have been horrible. Lets not joke about that brother. Tl 34 is not the only tower ladder thats been totaled . 14, 10, 21 all have had accidents over the years. Tl 34 wasn’t repaired simply cause the city didnt want to pay the bill…..
#20 by Chicago on October 17, 2015 - 5:55 PM

Is there somewhere written what they will replace or if they will be added to existing fleet? Thanks
#21 by David on October 16, 2015 - 5:48 AM

Shaan, check out the “in process” site, they added a few pics of the baskets being built.
Not sure if the link will work:

http://www.e-oneinprocess.com/index.php/AERIALS-01/139729/Stage-13/Picture-059
#22 by Brian on October 15, 2015 - 10:34 PM

You will have to ask E-One for those pics Shaan
#23 by shaan smith on October 15, 2015 - 7:51 PM

can we get some more pictures of the tower ladders
#24 by David on October 15, 2015 - 2:38 PM

Dennis, thanks a lot for the info, sounds great, didn’t know the pics are already a coupla months old.
#25 by Dennis on October 15, 2015 - 12:36 PM

David, fire service was awarded the contract mid April/2015 300 is 9 months. that would make it December. Remember there are no pumps on these so that cuts a lot of time down in the build.
#26 by Dennis on October 15, 2015 - 12:17 PM

I’m just going by what the dealer who sold them to the city told me last week. The pictures that are posted are a few months old.
#27 by Brian on October 15, 2015 - 10:55 AM

The fact that proof of new towers on the way is awesome. Hopefully the first of many more to upgrade the TL fleet.
#28 by Michael M on October 15, 2015 - 9:33 AM

From the way they look right now I agree with David, I think March or April 2016 delivery date is more likely.
#29 by David on October 14, 2015 - 11:13 AM

Dennis are you sure, from what I’ve seen in the previous post on the rigs, they should be delivered in about 300-330 days since the day E-One got the contract, which would be march or april 2016.
#30 by Dennis on October 13, 2015 - 9:05 PM

They’re due to be delivered in December.