Thoughts from Bill Post about recent comments made regarding CFD spare apparatus for Tower Ladder 10 and Squad 1:
One of the great things about Tower Ladder 10’s location, is that they are not more than a mile and a half away from Fleet Management (the shops), so they could easily have work done on their rig whenever they wish. The oldest front line tower ladders though are three, 1996 HME/LTIs that are at Tower Ladders 21, 37, and 39, all of which are 16 years old. The CFD had been trying to replace most of their rigs within 10 to 15 years of frontline service. That said, Tower Ladder 21’s rig looks pretty good and it’s been getting it’s share of extra alarms lately. Tower ladders are listed on the city of Chicago’s official 2012 buying plan issued by the department of Procurement Services. This means that they intend to have bids requested to build them.
My concern is about the spare Snorkel that was running as Squad 1. That’s the only spare 55′ Snorkel left. I understand that it’s twin was gotten rid of over the last few years. Most readers of this site probably know by now that the CFD has been wanting to replace the three Snorkel Squads for the last few years, and that it has even been listed on Chicago’s official buying plan.
The catch, is that American LaFrance (ALF) holds the manufacturing rights to the Snorkel brand that they acquired from the old Snorkel corporation that went out of business (over 10 years ago), and ALF refuses to build any new Snorkels. The alternative is to rehab and remount an old Snorkel on a new chassis and body which several fire departments that still use Snorkels have done already. When there are fewer Snorkels out there, it becomes more difficult to even find Snorkels to rebuild and remount.
I have heard that there may be other manufacturers that would be willing to design their own aerial similar to a "Snorkel", however it would be very expensive. So, it would be much simpler if American LaFrance would just sell the rights to the Snorkel if not just build them again. Even though you see less of them in use, there are still a few major and several smaller fire departments that use Snorkels. The Memphis (TN) fire department had been running with two single-piece Snorkel Squads (which had been been using remounted Snorkels on newer chassis) and the Philadelphia (PA) fire department had been using two remounted full-size Snorkels. Since both Memphis and Chicago make extensive use of the smaller Snorkel Squads, it would be a good idea if they would start a class-action suit against American LaFrance to either manufacture the Snorkel or to at least let another company (who is willing to build the Snorkel) have the specs and rights to build them. The irony about this is that the Chicago Fire Department and our old repair shops is where the idea for the original Snorkel began, and our old repair shops even outfitted the original Snorkel for fire service applications. American LaFrance now owns the original Snorkel (which served as Snorkel 1 and Snorkel Squad 3) as part of their historic collection, even though they never actually built or outfitted the rig. The boom and platform were actually built by the Pitman Corporation. It really seems as if they are holding the fire service (in general) and Chicago Fire Department (in particular) hostage.
#1 by Sebastian on June 5, 2012 - 10:16 PM
what are any one’s thoughts on CFD using O’Hare airport’ 96 pierce ladder in front line op’s especially at tower 34’s house where they are running with their old e-one??? besides isnt’ the 88 e-one stil there also???
#2 by Martin on June 5, 2012 - 1:35 PM
I think that the Bronto skylifts would be better on a Pierce or maybe a Spartan chassis (if they give the city a good price). I dont think the city would get a good price from E-one or HME.
#3 by Bill Post on June 5, 2012 - 12:11 AM
Thanks for the information J. It looks like the deadline is in less then two weeks. I sure hope that they have received some bids and I certainly hope that Pierce is one of the bidders.
They did a nice job on Memphis Rescue 3 in 2007 with a remounted Snorkel on a new cab and chassis.
#4 by "J" on June 4, 2012 - 10:05 PM
Department of procurement has a bid request posting on their web site already spelling out the specs for new 2-rig squads, 55′ articulating platform and box chase rig, the way the specs are written sounds like they have enough feed back from manufactures on the likelihood that these articulating platforms can still be made
#5 by Bill Post on June 4, 2012 - 9:35 PM
I do like the last two ideas. The Sutphen SP-70 (70-foot tower) should be looked into and that just might be possible. Big Mo you definitely make a very good point and even though the boom is telescopic as opposed to articulated, the Sutphen product appears to be more “streamlined and less bulky” then the Aerialscope.
Martin, I too like the idea of utilizing Pierce products and technology. Here is one of the reasons. As some of you may know, Pierce has recently acquired the marketing and servicing rights to the Bronto Skylift platforms. In other words, they are now Bronto’s North American representative. Currently Bronto/Pierce is marketing only three types or heights of platforms which are 100-foot, 114-foot and 134-foot Skylifts. However, the Bronto Corporation, which is based in Finland, actually manufactures aerial platforms that go from 55 to 367 feet. Their shorter models which go from 55 to 91 feet seem to be close to ideal. The Bronto actually is a type of Snorkel as it is an articulating boom with telescopic features (or vice versa). Their shorter model platforms, actually in practice have been mounted on squad-type trucks in the overseas fire service market. So, it can be done, and all that Pierce would need to do is have one of smaller Bronto platforms shipped to them. Then, they mount one on a Pierce chassis. Of course the platform would have to meet American standards, but in the long run, that shouldn’t be a problem.
#6 by Bill Post on June 4, 2012 - 8:08 PM
Well I think that the basic point here is that since we are talking about a public safety issue and not just one of property and manufacturing rights, and that a good case can be made that the Chicago Fire Department would and should have the initial intellectual, conceptual, and design rights [to the Snorkel design for firefighting],then why shouldn’t a fire or a public safety department have the right to have a proven and useful fire and rescue apparatus built for those purposes.
As the subject is ultimately public safety, then a case can be made for it to be in the public domain and not the sole property of a private concern who is keeping the device from it’s intended use.
Specifically the terms of the subject is a particular type and size of apparatus that the Chicago, Memphis, and a few other fire departments find conducive to the effectiveness of its firefighters and the safety of it’s citizens.
In historical and generic terms we are really dealing with the development and the evolution of the elevating platform for fire and rescue purposes. The Chicago Fire Department’s execution and implementation of the articulated firefighting and rescue platform concept ultimately led to the further development and evolution of the aerial platform (whether it is articulated, telescopic or both) as a major type of fire and rescue apparatus.
Now for some history. The real reason that the Chicago Fire Department had gotten away from using full-sized Snorkels as fire companies, is that the regular Snorkels were always specialty companies that were used solely for their elevating platform capabilities. They normally didn’t respond until the fire was escalated to a Still and Box Alarm. Since that was no guarantee they would actually be needed on the scene, and since Chicago’s extra alarm rate had gone down by 1983, Fire Commissioner Louis Galante decided to merge three of our six regular Snorkel companies with three of our six one-piece squad companies. This created three, 2-piece (Snorkel) Squad companies. The three remaining Snorkels became reserve apparatus that were located in stations around the city. These were special called to the scene if needed, and were driven and staffed by the company or companies that they were located with (like our current reserve Snorkel at Engine 35 and Truck 28’s house).
In most cities that used Snorkels, the Snorkels (more often then not) were designated and used as Truck companies. To this day, Philadelphia runs it’s two Snorkels as a ladder or truck company so they don’t have to wait for an extra alarm to occur in order to be made use of.
As for the idea of using an Aerialscope (like New York City) I am afraid that it would be too bulky and heavy to be fit onto a short wheel base squad-type truck.
The Aerialscope was the second type of modern aerial platform that was developed for the fire service in the United States and the main difference between that and a Snorkel is that Aerialscopes are telescopic as opposed to being articulated. They are only built in 75-foot and 95-foot models. The first one was put in service in New York city in 1964. Some people had at one time speculated that New York City had to come up with it’s own version of the Snorkel instead of just buying an articulated unit because of the traditional rivalry between the New York and Chicago Fire Departments. I personally feel think that the practical reason was due to the fact that Chicago’s early full-sized Snorkels had a long front overhang. Due to the severe congestion and narrow streets in New York City, it just made more sense to develop a mid-mounted telescopic version. New York City always used it’s tower ladders as truck companies and they even had tried using a couple of rear mounted 100-foot LTI Tower Ladders (which are true Tower Ladders) in the mid-80’s. They ultimately decided that the 95-foot Aerialscopes worked out better for them. New York runs with 61 tower ladders however all but 14 of them are 75-footers
as most New York City fire stations can’t accommodate 95-foot units. The 75-foot Aerialscope is a shorter wheel-base apparatus by New York City standards, but I have yet to see a squad with an Aerialscope on it.
#7 by Martin on June 4, 2012 - 5:43 PM
I would like to see Chicago use a commercial chassis that’s built here in our state unlike those fords trucks. I really like those Spartan/Crimson units but I also favor Pierce. It’s Chicagos choice for what they want but a lawsuit isn’t the idea. As for ambulances, the International Terrastar is sweet.
#8 by Big Moe on June 4, 2012 - 3:40 PM
The main shortcoming os a snorkel rig is lack of horizotal reach at low and higher ends of its vertical reach, and operators have to watch two points of contact, the elbow and the bucket. How about Chicago using a Sutphen 70 mid-ship tower. It has a short wheel base and lots of compartment space for squad gear. Hmmm.
#9 by Eric on June 3, 2012 - 9:45 PM
Chris (#12),
G-483 did indeed sell. Here’s the link: http://www.publicsurplus.com/sms/auction/view?auc=486600
#10 by Bill Post on June 3, 2012 - 9:31 PM
Sebastian as to the question of Telesqurts used instead of a Snorkel or a platform on a squad rig, that would really depend if you only wanted the capability of having an elevated master stream or would you prefer to have to capability of an elevated rescue platform as well as having the master stream.
Chicago traditionally has opted to have the platform or basket which definitely increases it’s versatility and capability as a rescue and transport platform. One of the earliest uses of Chicago’s Snorkels were at elevated train accidents where they were used to remove passengers in the Snorkel baskets and they have been also used numerous times for removing injured victims on wire mesh litters placed against the railings of the Snorkel basket. The Snorkel basket can also be lowered somewhat below grade to water level as water rescue type platform.
#11 by Sebastian on June 3, 2012 - 1:34 PM
As far as the squads go!!! Aren’t the shorter wheelbase telesqirts a viable option instead of remounting and refitting???
#12 by Sebastian on June 3, 2012 - 1:32 PM
Here is a thought! And just a thought!! When tower 34 pierce was wrecked, why couldn’t it be replaced with the 96 pierce from o’ hare? Instead of the 88 e-one?? When o’hare still has the 88 e-one there also!! I am thinking this because both engine’s 9&10’s reserves are the old e-one’s so why have 2 towers at the airport??? Again just a thought???
#13 by Joel on June 3, 2012 - 1:15 PM
I think the biggest issue no one sees is that the Snorkel line, to my knowledge, has never been updated to the latest NFPA standards. We’d all like to think they can be ignored but not many companies want to accept that kind of legal risk. Lots of expense there for likely little return.
#14 by Tom Foley on June 3, 2012 - 9:51 AM
I think one interesting discussion item would be whether or not some departments have abandoned the Snorkel because it was bought out and it’s future was uncertain. You have to think for some this was a consideration as why would I (as a decision maker in the dept.) want to buy a piece of apparatus that I might have difficultly finding parts for, increased repair costs, etc.?
Though, in fairness, I think many departements that abandoned the Snorkel did so before the rights to the design were sold. But for those it might make sense for and might even be their preference, was the decision to abandon the Snorkel not so much theirs, but a practical one?
#15 by Andy on June 3, 2012 - 9:13 AM
Stickney FD in MABAS Div. 11 also operated a 65ft Snorkel on a 1972 Ford chassis. This unit worked at many extra alarm fires in the Berwyn/Cicero area. I believe it was finally retired in the late 1990s.
#16 by Martin on June 3, 2012 - 1:57 AM
Thanks Keith
#17 by scott on June 2, 2012 - 10:32 PM
Dont forget Rosemont had a Snorkel (up to about 3yrs ago) as did other Dept’s in the northern/northwest Suburbs for many years!
All the opinions are great, but it comes down to what the FD wants, needs and works for them? The Aerial-scopes in FDNY are a mid-ship mount tower ladder, minus a true climbing aerial.
What a town uses for their fleet and needs is up to that community, not the fans or other FD members who don’t work or use them. The only thing I do know about the 55′ snorkel that CFD has used since it’s inception is the short wheel base and manuverability of the 55′ boom really do provide a tactical advantage with positioning and apparatus placement in some areas that a truck or tower ladder can’t get as well as an elevated stream that may provide more water than an aerial pipe (non-tower ladder).
My only comment on the Bronto… two in Division 20, Elmwood Park & Melrose Park. Like all apparatus, they have their advantages and disadvantages. It is very tight & difficult to set up on narrow streets, cars on each side 24/7, mature trees and very tight quarter homes/bldgs side by side. Not saying a Bronto can’t work, but tactically, that would not be my first choice for an aerial apparatus.
#18 by danny on June 2, 2012 - 9:22 PM
if altec had a hand in this i would be excited cause since i moved from chicago to ky years ago altec is like 5 miles from here would be awesome to see a cfd squad have the boom mounted here id be giddy to see it
#19 by Keith Grzadziel on June 2, 2012 - 7:20 PM
Martin:
Summit purchased a 1967 Seagrave/Pierce 85′ Snorkel from McCook. There is a pic of it on:
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/4619411_JTNDbN/11/1203932313_ZgCzi/Large
#20 by Keith Grzadziel on June 2, 2012 - 7:16 PM
Martin:
Summit purchased a 1967 Seagrave/Pierce 85′ Snorkel from McCook. There is a pic of it on: dgfd147 under West Cook Departments, Down Memory Lane.
#21 by chris r on June 2, 2012 - 5:00 PM
Why not look into the baker aerialscope, the NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT and the east coast love them. There must be something to them because they’re all over on the east coast. maybe chicago should look into them. IF american lafrance is holding the rights to snorkel hostage and won’t make any more, maybe look into other options for areial equipment. Ask GLEN ELLYN for theirs, why does a town of 27,000 need two pieces of aerial equipment and i don’t know why they need it anyway, they use their tower first and need clearance to raise the boom and usually there isn’t the clearance with trees, electrical wires, and other things. Their snorkel isn’t on any auto aid cards and pretty much just gathers dust and wastes money for fuel and maintenance. i don’t why they just dont sell it and use the money for other expenses. They should sell both the snorkel and their tower because the tower is a 1990 something and buy a new tower. just an idea?
#22 by chris on June 2, 2012 - 4:31 PM
according to the city website, the snorkel isn’t listed as being sold in past auctions, any chance the city ended the auction early and decided to hold on to the rig for something else or possible remount
#23 by Martin on June 2, 2012 - 1:36 PM
I didn’t know Summit had aerials at a point. Any pictures of that unit?
#24 by Keith Grzadziel on June 2, 2012 - 9:31 AM
Three suburban departments that come to mind who realized the benefits and versatility of the Snorkel and purchased a used one are Evergreen Park, Riverdale and Peotone. Bedford Park has long utilized Snorkels since the very first one was produced and then purchased by them as a result of Chicago’s initial design. They currently operate their third one, though currently in reserve, is on a few box cards in MABAS Divisions 10 &11. Evergreen Park has marketed their Snorkel which is on dozens of box cards in MABAS Divisions 21 & 22 and has definitely seen it’s share of work. Pleasantview, Brookfield, McCook who sold thiers to Summit, Frankfort who sold theirs to Robbins, and Oak Forest all used to have Snorkels at one time.
#25 by Wayne on June 2, 2012 - 3:17 AM
They bought it, they own it, there’s nothing we can do about it. But I agree that it’s rather silly they would buy something there is still some level of demand for, and then refuse to make it. Economies of scale and whatnot might be cited as a reason for it (Less demand = less incentive to make it) but there are a couple of departments I know of that have purchased what are now old Snorkels, and a certain town in MABAS 21 that has a Snorkel on darn near every box card for miles. If ALF didn’t want to make them, why’d they buy the rights to them?
#26 by Drew Smith on June 1, 2012 - 11:17 PM
When we (Prospect Heights FD) had our squad refurbed at RPI in 2008, Orland’s snorkel was there getting work done on the body. I am unsure of whether the aerial portion was worked on.
Altec manufactures aerial platforms used by many utility companies. Altec is also the exclusive supplier of OEM parts for Pitman Snorkels. This model is 55 feet with an 800# tip load and 2000# material handling load. I am sure that with some engineering it could be adapted to the fire service. http://www.altec.com/products/OVERCENTER/AM55_Overcenter%20Material%20Handling%20Aerial%20Device.htm
The Simon Snorkel is alive and well in the UK and perhaps could be imported?
http://www.gbfire.co.uk/simonindex.htm
Regarding the legal stuff, at some point a patent expires and others can then use the design. The pharmaceutical industry is an example of this. According to the U.S. Patent Office a design patent lasts 14 or 17 years depending on when it was originally issued.
#27 by Garrett on June 1, 2012 - 8:33 PM
Love Geneva’s snorkel… So versatile.
#28 by chris on June 1, 2012 - 4:35 PM
is their any reason they cant take the 88 e one or 96 pierce from o hare and use them in the the city iknow the 88 has been stored outside at the training site while the 96 is stored inside the amc with the talk about age of rigs the e one was only front line 8 yrs and the pierce front line 11yrs with the 07 pierce do they really need two spares
#29 by John C on June 1, 2012 - 2:51 PM
And, in regards to your “holding the fire service….hostage” comment, I really don’t believe that to be the case. There is just not a huge demand for this type of apparatus. There never has been. They were a “fad” several decades ago, but have died out.
YES they serve a great, location-specific purpose, but the overall need for this apparatus just isn’t there. I’m not saying they’re bad, I’m just saying that they do have downsides that other pieces of apparatus don’t have (and the opposite is true….TLs and straight sticks don’t have some of the versatility that snorkels do), and the vast majority of departments have found other options to be a better fit.
If the company chooses to build them again, GREAT! But if they don’t, I could hardly accuse them of holding the fire service “hostage.”
#30 by fleet guy on June 1, 2012 - 2:41 PM
hey guys, you are so right with replacements for tower ladders and snorkels. There was a recent big push to change the contract with Crimson to include 4 tower ladders to replace 21,34,37 & 39. Those rigs would become the spares. E-248,250,251 & 252 would be sold off. But two problems came, 1st all of the problems the Crimson trucks are having. 2nd it would not be put out to the correct bidding process. The Pierce Tower Ladders 10, 14, 23 & 54 are holding up very well, there have been no major factory issues with them like the Crimsons. But of course accidents and wear & tear makes these apparatus age quickly. Examples: Tower 34 Pierce as we know was destroyed in an accident a few years ago and will be converted into a replacement apparatus for the lumber truck 522 which is using a 1996 segrave truck. Tower 10 had basket damage 4 years ago when it hit a low hanging tree and was involved in an accident this past weekend. Tower 14 had the front end & basket damage in an accident 3 years ago. Also these rigs were not made for the ambo assists they been pressed into doing as well. the life span is short. Now with the Snorkel, the working idea is to do frame off restoration of each apparatus one at a time. The snorkel that is being rebuilt will run with the spare.
#31 by Keith Grzadziel on June 1, 2012 - 2:35 PM
Bill:
Dead on catch 22. I just don’t understand why the previous brass or fleet management didn’t have the insight to consider salvaging the Snorkel assembly from the disposed twin of the spare squad or of it’s triplet, the remains of the Squad 5 that rolled over in the 90s. FYI, Orland FPD has a 1988 Spartan/Darley 55′ Snorkel sitting and collecting dust at their shops. Maybe the CFD should inquire what Orland’s intentions are with this piece and possibly make an offer to purchase it since it’s a waste of a valuable apparatus. But in the meantime, one could only hope that American LaFrance will have a change of heart and either resume manufacturering the Snorkel again or sell it’s specs and rights to a well reputed fire apparatus manufacturer such as Pierce.
#32 by sam fisher on June 1, 2012 - 2:24 PM
I think that they should use Bronto skylifts on E-one chassis.
#33 by John C on June 1, 2012 - 2:04 PM
Good thoughts….but I really need to question why you want these two departments to SUE them. No matter what you think of ALF’s new leadership and decisions, in the end it’s their business. They bought the rights to this particular brand…and it’s theirs to with what they please. I wouldn’t be too thrilled about essentially having the government try and “bully” the manufacturer into doing what they want….and last time I checked, that’s not how a free society likes to work. Also, the legal fees incurred with this lawsuit would be ASTRONOMICAL….when this money could just be going to having the apparatus built.
And you might want to check the definition and parameters of a “class action” suit.