Auction #1534758 – 1975 MACK TRUCK
Year: 1975Make: MACKModel: TRUCKMileage: 1,423 HOURSVIN: MB607T4151Running Condition: UNKNOWNEngine: DIESEL STICK SHIFTNOTE: DASH MISSING; CAB CEILING INSULATION IS DAMAGED (Operational condition of pumping equipment not verified – may be missing parts. Other unidentified issues may be present).
thanks Callum
#1 by Marty Coyne on February 17, 2016 - 11:41 AM
Often times the fire boat can’t hit the fire due to distance or intervening obstacles. That just happened a couple of months ago. That’s where being able to feed 6-7-1 is the difference between massive water flow to the fire and not having it at all.
#2 by KNWster on February 17, 2016 - 10:38 AM
That’s certainly an interesting use of 671, Chicagofirealarmstation. I wonder if today the CFD would have used the new Christopher Wheatly differently in that situation. With 6,000 GPM from the front Stange or 3,000 from the 30-foot aerial monitor, could they accomplish reasonably-well the same thing? As long as they are using the lake or the river as a water source, it would make sense to use the fireboat itself if they can.
That would then leave even fewer cases, further away from ample lake/river water, where 671 can get enough water to really make use of its unique monitors and differentiate itself.
Maybe a huge water supply, but limited to being delivered from a ground-based spot also cut down on the times it could be useful. The CFD seems to be very fond nowadays on being able to look down at a fire and spray.
Also, I just wonder how many Chiefs out there still actively kept 671 in mind when planning fireground operations. I guess the tale of the tape was how rarely it was called out in its last few years in service, and when called how often it was used.
It’s sad to see a unique apparatus go away, but I’m feeling like maybe the CFD has 99% of the use cases for 671 covered, and with today’s vicious budget scenarios, it just wasn’t worth keeping around even if it only cost a few thousand dollars (?) a year. But what do I know?
#3 by Chicagofirealarmstation on February 15, 2016 - 5:09 PM
I personally saw 671 being used At a fire on the lower leval near the old sun times building it was a 411 the fireboat was a block away in the river and effectively supplied 671 which threw water to the fourth floor of the fire when no other streams could reach it because it was on a lower level Street Once again the city makes an incredibly silly decision to eliminate 16,000 gallons of water What its current units can provide at 4000 gallons per minute furthermore the reach of that stream at just 2000 gallons a minute or three quarters of a block I am sure the 4000 gallon per minute units cannot achieve the distance
#4 by KNWster on February 15, 2016 - 1:19 PM
If there are any engineers or chiefs out these with first-hand knowledge… Practically speaking, how often would the full 20k GPM flow capacity on 671 be able to be utilized? How many GPM were flowing the last few times it was put into use?
I don’t know much about engine pumping and flow calculations and all that good stuff, but there are a finite number of hydrants near a fire scene and many of those are already tagged for hand lines, multiversals, aerials, etc. at most large fires. Not to mention the engines, hoses, manpower etc. required. Add in the hectic, fast-paced, confusing nature of most big fires’ logistics. One would think this would all limit how many real-world GPMs would flow.
So is it realistic that 671 could be supplied with enough water to outclass what 673 or 676 already deliver?
I’ve always wondered about this.
#5 by Marty Coyne on February 14, 2016 - 5:31 PM
6-7-3 and 6-7-6 have 4000 GPM flow capacity. 6-7-1 has/had a 20,000 GPM flow capacity. Bill is right, it was a minimal to no cost option to at least store and save it, or even just the piping and guns. They’ll never be able to replace this capacity.
#6 by Tom Foley on February 14, 2016 - 5:28 PM
Chicago still maintains turret wagons that were just recently re-mounted.
Since these are seldom called anyway, would there really be a benefit to re-mouting what was on 671?
#7 by Bill Post on February 14, 2016 - 5:09 PM
Here we have a fire apparatus that might not be used or called for very often however when it was called for it was put to good use. As it was dispatched with the engine that it was located with (Engine 23) in recent years, it wasn’t as is they were paying a crew whose sole job was to run the deluge wagon. It really didn’t cost that much to keep it on call except for the basic maintenance costs.
It’s ironic that it had to be special called to a few extra alarm fires shortly after it was officially taken out of service. So why not have a super deluge unit on hand for those fires where it may be needed every year or so. In New York City they run with 6 Satellite Hose Wagons which have a single large turret mounted on the body comparable to the turrets that were on 671. I am surprised that an effort wasn’t made to at least remount 671’s turrets on a new chassis.
#8 by LFD 543 on February 13, 2016 - 10:17 PM
Not a question related to 6-7-1. But, what is the rig on the left seen in the link here? Is that the Tactical Op.’s Intelligence Center 2-7-0? It appears that there are two different numbers on it, and it appears not to be the numbers 2-7-0, but I’m asking what it is anyway. http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/progs/safety.html
#9 by danny on February 13, 2016 - 6:26 PM
Its been saved guys i have it on good authority and its staying in the chicago area buyer wants to remain anonymous for now … and someone stole the nozzle tips off the guns from the fire yard at fleet or the salvage yard where it was auctioned
#10 by John on February 13, 2016 - 5:33 PM
I hope a scrap dealer didn’t buy it. From what I understand,the were several bidding. These guys destroy any of value,historical or not.Kinda like ISIS.
#11 by Eugene Beard on February 12, 2016 - 4:33 PM
Checked auction sight and appears to have sold for $3900.00. Bargain for someone in my opinion.
#12 by Crabby Milton on February 12, 2016 - 11:34 AM
I see it now Marty so I stand corrected. You didn’t mention that SEAGRAVE but that rig too surprised me being a stick. Most rigs of 1980’s vintage had automatic. That rig looks nice. Just miss a SEAGRAVE.
Proof that you do learn something new every day thanks to the internet.
#13 by Marty Coyne on February 12, 2016 - 10:03 AM
Crabby. That’s 6-1-1 the hose wagon in your link. I said 6-6-1, the 82′ reserve snorkel.
#14 by Crabby Milton on February 12, 2016 - 9:12 AM
That’s interesting Marty. So this rig has stick? http://chi-townfirephotos.smugmug.com/Chicago-Fire-Apparatus/Chicago-Special-Duty-Rigs/i-WpFcmKW/A
Looks too new for that.
#15 by Marty Coyne on February 12, 2016 - 9:00 AM
This was a special call rig rarely used. They would never spend the money to upgrade like that. 6-6-1 which is still used still has the manual tranny.
#16 by Crabby Milton on February 12, 2016 - 5:53 AM
Certainly a historical piece. Milwaukee had several rigs using that MACK chassis back in the 1970’s and they served well into the 90’s.
I’m a bit surprised that this one had stick shift. I guess they never bothered to upgrade to ALLISON at some point.
#17 by David on February 12, 2016 - 2:46 AM
I thought the same with the guns, at least they could strip them off. Any rumors if they plan to replace the rig or not?!
#18 by 9 man squad on February 11, 2016 - 8:25 PM
Loved that unit wish I could buy it and restore it
#19 by Marty Coyne on February 11, 2016 - 8:12 PM
Short sighted. An asset they’ll never replace that they needed only three years ago. At least they should have pulled the guns and piping and put into storage for future remount if needed.