River Forest quint damaged in accident « Page 1

River Forest quint damaged in accident

This photo was submitted by a reader

River Forest Fire Department new aerial ladder truck

Tags: fire truck damaged in accident, fire truck hits overhead bridge, new fire truck hits overpass in River Forest, River Forest Fire Department

This entry was posted on November 30, 2013, 7:30 AM and is filed under Fire Department News, Fire Truck photos. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

53 Comments

#1 by john connlly on December 2, 2013 - 1:58 PM

I had a friend who was new on the job years ago. They received a new rear mount. He inquired would the truck make it down a certain street with a R.R. bridge. They all said yes but the Lt. raised an eyebrow and had everyone get on the truck to take a ride. They got down there and found the bridge site. They eased the truck towards it…..surprise! the only way the truck would now make it under the bridge was if you straddled the yellow lane markings and had them directly under the middle of the truck. Everyone said the prior truck fit and the Lt looked at the new guy and asked how he knew. The new guy responded that everytime they repaved that street they just paved over the existing road thus everytime they paved the road the height became different. See it not just the old timers who know.
#2 by Jim on December 2, 2013 - 1:25 PM

Watch your height
#3 by Rj on December 2, 2013 - 12:41 PM

This is not the spec for this exact rig, but it is for a 105′ Heavy duty ladder on a sirius chassis, which is the same or very similiar to this rig. http://www.smeal.com/uploads/apparatus/Demo122_File2.pdf

Dealer installed options and other spec’s will affect the overall vehicle height, but with trucks the overall height is generally consistent unless you spec a low pro cab or a midmount. This demo drawing lists the overall vehicle height as 11′ 10″, there doesn’t appear to be any new delivery info for the River Forest rig that is readily accessable.
#4 by Bill Dwyer on December 2, 2013 - 10:34 AM

All you people prattling on about firing personnel for this obvious mistake need to take a deep breath. Did anyone DIE? Was the equipment irreparably damaged? I’ve no doubt some sort of discipline will be imposed for what appears to be negligence on someone’s part. But termination and loss of pension? Only a total jerk would even think of that as an option.
#5 by NJ on December 2, 2013 - 8:51 AM

Accidents do happen and that’s why speculation before investigation is useless at best.

The only thing I will say, without assigning blame is that based on them pic, the rig needed 4 to 6 inches more clearance to make it through. That suggests more than just a bump in road etc. It may well be a combination of factors that led to this.

Also, count me in with those who say destroying a persons life and livelihood for an accident that hurt no one is stupid and asinine.
#6 by Jim in NM on December 2, 2013 - 8:12 AM

It can’t all be blamed on the driver, although there is some blame there, he was the driver, he was in “command” of the truck. The real blame needs to be put un the administration for not insisting on an adequate training program before ANYONE drove this truck very far. Every new piece of equipment has it’s own set of ‘rules’, and there should have been adequate verification of overhead heights of evey underpass this truck might possibly encounter, before this truck ever was alolowed out on the streets. A little extra time before the ‘eager beavers’, (both driver and administration), would have saved taking an important piece of equipment out of service, bad PR, a lot of embarassment, and a job. The driver shouldn’t be fired unless the Chief goes with him. This is ultimately his responsibility.
#7 by Tom Foley on December 1, 2013 - 10:11 PM

I actually have a problem calling this an accident unless the rig and viaduct were measured and these measurements suggested adequate clearance (including a margin of error). Based on what the picture shows, this is more likely a mistake rather than an accident. Termination may not be the best course of action, but costly mistakes do lead to termination in other industries. I’m sorry, unless there is some new information that comes to light, this is totally preventable. The only positive is that no one was reported injured (except maybe pride).
#8 by Tom on December 1, 2013 - 8:55 PM

You all need to grow up and stop speculating on what happened, what didn’t happen and what should happen. It was an accident… No driver anywhere is immune, professional driver or not. It’s a new truck? How long do you think he was using that same response route for before this?? 10, 20yrs? It was an ACCIDENT! I’m sure nobody feels worse about this than the driver that did this.. How about you use your pent up anger on the politicians of our fine state rather than scrutinize something that most of you on her know nothing about.. Now, good day to you!
#9 by tom sullivan on December 1, 2013 - 7:17 PM

a long time ago a very experienced fireman said, “where you have trains , you have will have wrecks”. the point being that things will go wrong despite all the rules, regulations, procedures, systems, etc. . when humans are part of the situation we can only hope that the wrecks are few and far between and we all learn from them.
#10 by Martin Nowak on December 1, 2013 - 4:48 PM

Armand obviously didnt read the other comments or thought outside of the box as how this could have happened. More than 1 factor could have caused this. Dont call someone a dumb ass for a mistake. Accidents happen.
#11 by armand on December 1, 2013 - 4:21 PM

dumb ass didnt read the sign
#12 by rusty on December 1, 2013 - 12:31 PM

I agree with John. Firing the guy for this is stupid. Mistakes happen. Plus its a firetruck as long as no one got hurt, the truck can be replaced. They should have bought a mid-mount anyways with a ride height of 9ft 10 inches. Especially with a viaduct like this. But to ruin a career over this and to ruin a family is non sense.
#13 by John on December 1, 2013 - 11:56 AM

Hey Michael, You’re a real jagoff. They should be fired and stripped of all pension benefits?? You must be pretty close to Jesus if you have never made a costly mistake to yourself, your parents, friends, or an employer. Everyone makes mistakes at some point, some bigger than others. I imagine they will get time off for this and possibly punished in other ways. But to say their lives and the lives of their family members should be totally and utterly destroyed for crashing a fire truck into a bridge is insane. You obviously don’t have a good perspective on life. I really hope you are not employed as a firefighter either, because you could damage a rig possibly every time you leave the firehouse. Nobody on this board is above making a mistake and we should all wait till the facts are revealed, or better yet mind our own business. I am a full – time firefighter in another community, and am responsible for driving fire apparatus on any given day.
#14 by Donald on December 1, 2013 - 10:36 AM

I am a truck driver your told if clearance reads like it be close then you don’t go through for road resurfacing reasons lot of towns don’t replace the signs that’s the first thing you learn when you get cdl if Chicago don’t teach that then fire department needs to rethink the training then to make sure they know that simple rule
#15 by John H on December 1, 2013 - 10:31 AM

If an inch or two is the difference between your rig crashing or not while routinely going under an underpass, then the fire department is to blame. Even if the bridge is physically mismarked…the fire department is responsible for validating those measurements and ensuring safe passage. Accidents do happen, but a moving object crashing directly into a stationary object at fixed height tends to indicate significant operator error.
#16 by Larry Casserly on December 1, 2013 - 10:09 AM

Let’s not put all the blame on the fire dept. As a lot of citizens and firefighters alike know that when you go under a viaduct the street is still the bricks and they hardly ever cover with new blacktop cause then they would have to change the height on the sign. Possibly a paving contractor paved over the bricks thus changing the distance. Even if they paved up to the viaduct that height changes the front makes it but the angle doesn’t allow back end to make it. maybe the tires are over inflated. Maybe the rig hit a bump and caused the rig to bounce just enough to hit.
I’m a retired battalion chief from Chicago and I remember when Trk 10 got their new tower ladder they had an accident with the ladder hitting the door going out. To make a long story short the heater above the ladder caused the hydraulic fluid to heat up and caused the ladder to raise just enough to hit the door going out. A lot of different factors could come into play. Make a through investigation before we start pointing fingers.
#17 by John G. Ludwig, III on December 1, 2013 - 7:55 AM

A quint is a combination of an engine and a truck – standard term for this type of apparatus. Standard fire department protocols say you should know the height of the bridges (and weight limits) in your district before you purchase a vehicle. I’ve been a firefighter for 40 years, currently an instructor with U of MD MFRI. And no tree branch tears off sign – the driver got too close to the tree.
#18 by Rich on December 1, 2013 - 6:55 AM

Sounds like some of the personal on the department should of never trouch this rig. Anyone that drivers knows there area and the size rigs before even leaving the house.
#19 by DMc77 on December 1, 2013 - 2:26 AM

River Forest purchased this truck with a FIRE grant. The chief originally wanted a 75′ quint, but was “persuaded” to change his mind to an aerial with a longer ladder. I believe the intent was to run a 75′ quint first out on everything. Due to the time constraints involving the FIRE grant a custom spec’d rig was not possible, hence the Smeal demo rig.

Also, earlier in the week, a tree branch tore off the officer’s side “River Forest” sign from the ladder.
#20 by Drew Smith on December 1, 2013 - 12:06 AM

From NFPA 1901Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus

12.1.5 The fire apparatus manufacturer shall permanently affix a high-visibility label in a location visible to the driver while seated.
12.1.5.1* The label shall show the height of the completed fire apparatus in feet and inches or in meters, the length of the completed fire apparatus in feet and inches or in meters, and the GVWR in tons or metric tons.
A.12.1.5.1 It is important for fire apparatus drivers to understand the height, length, and weight of the vehicle compared to their personally owned vehicles. It is also important that this information be accurate. Because the height of the apparatus could change after delivery, depending on what equipment might be added, the fire department must note such changes on the plate. Suggested wording for the plate is shown in Figure A.12.1.5.1.
FIGURE A.12.1.5.1 Suggested Plate Showing Dimensions of Fire Apparatus. (formatting would not copy to blog)
When manufactured, this vehicle was:
XX ft YY in. High
XX ft YY in. Long
ZZZZ lb GVWR
Changes in height since the apparatus was manufactured shall be noted on this plate by the fire department.
#21 by FFEMT on November 30, 2013 - 11:21 PM

Gary Norton…read this page before sounding like an idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quint_(fire_apparatus)
#22 by flarenut on November 30, 2013 - 11:16 PM

Whoa – WOW – I would think that they would have known what underpasses they could get under
#23 by jeffery redman on November 30, 2013 - 10:59 PM

this is a shame you would have thought that the manufacture would have put a sign inside the cab that would have had the height of the vehicle on it there are still a lot of those bridges that need to be raised Chicago is famous for its low bridges if that is a major route they would have been better off specking it lower so this wouldn’t happen! should have been going slow enough to stop and make sure it was going to fit!
#24 by jn on November 30, 2013 - 10:55 PM

I live like 6 blocks from there its keystone and central but they should do research on it bc those tracks cut river forest almost in half.
#25 by GaryNorton on November 30, 2013 - 10:41 PM

How does quint relate to this? no definition close to fire truck or bridge, not even the urban dictionary, is this writer the same “person” who coined hash tag for the pound sign?
#26 by Chris Wolf on November 30, 2013 - 10:37 PM

Scott, I was thinking of the Seagrave, it’s been 20 plus years since I had worked up that way. That is a shame, and you know the two members riding the front seat are off work pending the investigation / discipline are crapping bricks right now. We all make mistakes and feel sorry for them in that regards, but hopefully the department had it insured. I just can’t see the cost benefit of repairing that rig, knowing how much possible damage there might be, including the chassis. Part out the entire rig of usable items and get a new one.

Plus, I think you can request the train overpasses be laser measured by calling in a request to the train line. But realistically, 2-3 repaving times and now your 6-8 inches less in overall clearance. Plus any bumps in the road and prior to the viaduct and traveling at 30 mph could give you the same 6-8 inches of suspension travel causing it to hit also. Many factors then just 11 foot viaduct and a 10 foot 10 inch rig.
#27 by ffpm571 on November 30, 2013 - 9:59 PM

The truck wasn’t spec’d it was a demo truck..https://chicagoareafire.com/blog/tag/river-forest-fd-buys-smeal-demo/
#28 by Scott on November 30, 2013 - 9:43 PM

Chris, the truck before the Smeal was the hand me down Seagrave from Oak Park- quite lower clearance then the Smeal. The truck before the Seagrave was the Mack Pirsch (North Riverside FD had a twin), just about similar height to the Smeal. For all the critics, I have been told the truck was spec’d to fit under all the viaducts in River Forest. So, either the road has changed causing the viaduct height to be incorrect, or some other problem occurred. Yes, this makes a great picture and lot’s of discussion, most bad, but as the few have said who are in the fire service, it is a really bad incident, unfornuate and quite a shame.
#29 by Chris Wolf on November 30, 2013 - 9:18 PM

That really sucks. I know it’s been a long time, but I use to work in North Riverside, and I think they had a real old LaFrance. That older rig may have fit under that viaduct and mental lapse of routine equals one destroyed quint. I think it’s safe to say that between the aerial, turntable and torque box, it would probably cost more to fix it then it would be to scrap it and buy a demo unit. Not completely sure how Smeal mounts their torque box to the chassis, but you could have potential chassis damage in bent or warped frame rails and axles.

Regardless, anyone who has been in the fire service for a career (20+ years), we have all made mistakes. Some just cost more than others.
#30 by james on November 30, 2013 - 8:11 PM

well thats why operators need to know how high their trucks are and then look at the signs? This really could have been prevented.
#31 by grumpy grizzly on November 30, 2013 - 7:33 PM

This is just dumb, not like they have a large response area, the viaduct I think is at the ass end of their response area on the south area. You live there, I hope, this never entered your mind? Blue Cab in Forest Park might wanna hire you, after all you know almost the problem areas, except for this one!
#32 by Brian on November 30, 2013 - 7:14 PM

Looks like they have made their quint a quad. Anyone know if their is damage under the ladder?
#33 by Bob on November 30, 2013 - 6:59 PM

Whoops.
#34 by DH on November 30, 2013 - 6:54 PM

It appears that is the underpass around the corner from their station, Keystone and the tracks, the stairs going up are going up to the River Forest Metra station on the UP-W line. And if you Google Map Streetview Keystone Ave at Central Ave, it looks very similar.
#35 by FFEMT on November 30, 2013 - 6:43 PM

Henry I think he was making a joke…
#36 by Larry on November 30, 2013 - 6:28 PM

Can you say photoshop.
#37 by Drew G. on November 30, 2013 - 5:39 PM

They were responding into Maywood for a Still to answer the question about circumstances regarding the incident.
#38 by Michael on November 30, 2013 - 3:54 PM

Really just a couple of dumb asses. should have been looking ahead. Both driver and officer should be fired and stripped of all pension benefits for such a stupid F U.
#39 by Brian on November 30, 2013 - 3:34 PM

Check out the site http://www.11foot8.com , it’s a site that the guy apparently records 24/7 because he catches crashes all the time. After you watch all these drivers drive there regular everyday truck into the bridge, you can really sympathize with the chauffeur of the quint. If it was fairly new, they hadn’t made some action plans about routes to avoid and he only drive a big rigs once in a while, you can really feel bad. This stuff happens all the time like one of the other commentators said. This may not even be in their own community. Really, I feel badly for these guys. Pro truck drivers hit bridges all the time.
#40 by Rich on November 30, 2013 - 3:31 PM

I didnt know they make mid mount ladders like that.
- #41 by Henry Conoly on November 30, 2013 - 4:40 PM
  
  Thats not a mid mount
#42 by Steve on November 30, 2013 - 3:16 PM

They should post a clearance placard on the viaduct…..oh wait a minute..they did. Now I see it! It’s right in the center directly above the ladder!
#43 by Felipe Hemming on November 30, 2013 - 2:48 PM

Hopefully no was injured nor suffered as a result of this valuable piece of equipment being rendered out of service. Now unless a spare is readily available and the unit is 100% insured and not Self Insured as many are, lives are now at risk as gaining access for rescue and or ventilation is that much further away or not available at all. Some would say “That is the Price of Doing Business” heads up and stay alert as you life depends on it.
#44 by Jerry Favid Rediger on November 30, 2013 - 1:42 PM

It is so easy for this to happen. It happens to CMV operators far more often than you are probably aware of. As an OTR instructor, I pounded into the students’ skulls they as captain of their ship are completely responsible for the dimensions and capabilities of your vehicle. If do not know the height of your vehicle, you face the high potential of causing damage to both your truck and the property you have struck with a low clearance.
- #45 by Eric on November 30, 2013 - 3:08 PM
  
  Usually the driver should know the height of his truck… It’s part of the job!!!! And I think that was clearly well indicated on the bridge… Big mistake
#46 by Robert on November 30, 2013 - 1:34 PM

That sucks. Driver and officer are probably in big trouble.
#47 by chris r on November 30, 2013 - 11:15 AM

common sense should hnve have told you were to high and how fast would you have to be going to cause that amount of damage .
#48 by Mitch Hartman on November 30, 2013 - 11:05 AM

This is why that most mfg’s have a placard on the dash with the given height of a truck. This could very well total this truck out given possible damage to the torque box and frame depending on the speed.
#49 by rusty on November 30, 2013 - 11:04 AM

Yep they should of bought a mid-mount. It fits under 11′ 10 viaducts. Now it looks like a mid-mount with the ladder going off the back.
- #50 by Chris on November 30, 2013 - 1:26 PM
  
  Maybe he is just like you, thought it was a 11″ 10 when it is only 11″ 0. He would make it was 11″ 10 lol
#51 by fmddc1 on November 30, 2013 - 10:50 AM

Yeah “So much for new quint”. Do they not have any knowledge as far as the height on that rig? It is obvious in the photo that the rig is way too high! Not that my former Dept didn’t take out a couple of trucks and tower ladders, that was obviously driver error. Rule of thumb….when in doubt get out and look. Maybe it wasn’t in their still district but still sort of inexcusable. I drove on a truck company for years and that was kinda driver 101. Most ladders, i.e quints and towers are around 12’1 or so. Seems pretty silly to me but we where there and don’t know the circumstances. Shame they just got that didn’t thry?
#52 by Rich on November 30, 2013 - 9:02 AM

So much for a new quint.
#53 by Turk_WLF on November 30, 2013 - 8:27 AM

Does anyone have any farther details on what happened? Was the Quint on a run or was it just being transported from point A to point B?