By Bill Adams
The Raisin Squad continued voicing narrow-minded opinions about midi-pumpers. It didn’t matter if they were operated by career or volunteer departments. There was no real discussion; no in-between, no changing minds or listening to reason. Old people are like that.
In Part 1, I defined a midi-pumper as any National Fire Protection Association NFPA 1901 Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus Chapter 5 or Chapter 6 compliant fire apparatus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 26,000-lbs and 35,000-lbs. Chapter 5 describes a Pumper Fire Apparatus having a minimum 750-gpm pump and Chapter 6 describes an Initial Attack Fire Apparatus with a minimum 250-gpm pump.
Cantankerous Wisdom: The Midi-Pumper | Part 1
Neither chapter addresses GVWR. The 26,000 to 35,000-lb GVWR is my own choosing because I believe a midi-pumper should have minimum seating for four firefighters. To confuse matters, you can have a Chapter 6 compliant “initial attack” that weighs over 35,000 pounds just as you can have a Chapter 5 compliant full-size pumper that weighs much less than that. There are no weight rules. The white hairs at morning coffee summed it up by saying a midi-pumper is “halfway between a mini-pumper and a real pumper.”
Some career as well as combination and volunteer departments that implemented the mini-pumper or midi-pumper concept later returned to purchasing full-size pumpers. Why some fire departments adopted the concept and eventually discontinued it is a story worth telling. There is no intent to disparage departments that successfully operate mini-pumpers and midi-pumpers.
It’s not practical to question current fire service members about their departments’ choices of five decades past. Nor is it appropriate to criticize people that purchased them in the 1970’s. Most have retired or passed.
The following comments are from two firefighters who were active when their respective departments purchased midi-pumpers. Their statements are not reflective of the official views of either department.
North Greece, New York
Steve Howcraft started as a volunteer in 1973, later becoming a career firefighter. He retired from the North Greece Fire District with the rank of Captain in 2010. Duties, besides line firefighting included writing fire apparatus specifications; apparatus maintenance/repair and training.
How did North Greece get started with midi-pumpers? “The district experienced tremendous housing and commercial growth in the mid-70s, which meant more calls for service. At the time, the mini-pumper concept was taking hold in the fire industry. In 1977, the board saw the need to put a small quick-attack type vehicle at each of the two (at the time) stations to get out the door quickly with a small crew to handle bread and butter, one pumper type calls – EMS, automobile fires, alarms and so on. These trucks were always backed by a full-sized engine or two on full assignment calls. We were very fortunate in having a large and completely dedicated volunteer staff. Many of the young active guys lived right around the corners from the two stations so trucks got on the road quickly. That concept filled a need for quick response for well over 20 years, until the district’s population density and calls for service grew, necessitating more staff and more equipment to be carried.”
What were the original midi-pumpers? “They were 1978 two-door medium duty commercial chassis with 427 cubic-inch gasoline engines, automatic transmissions, steel bodies, 250-gpm single stage PTO driven pumps and 300-gallon steel tanks. (We) weren’t sure of their actual gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) – I thought it was 7,000 pounds front and 18,000 pounds rear; 25,000 pounds total.” He said: “Most likely it was 12,000 pounds front and 23,000 pounds rear. That 35,000-pound suspension package was used on the next two generations of midis.”
According to the district’s website, in 1981 it hired its first four career firefighters. Howcraft: “Our third station opened in 1984 and the board wanted a similar type attack vehicle at that station. One manufacturer was building program apparatus on medium-duty chassis, similar to the current attacks, but with only two compartments on either side. The pump house took the place of the traditional L1/R1 compartment. This truck, as the other two was equipped with a 250/300 pump/tank package. The suspension package on this short wheelbase truck was likely maxed out when it left the factory. With three plus-sized firefighters on the rear step it became ‘scary’ to drive because the weight ratio shifted tremendously toward the rear of the truck. The solution was to have one of our local truck shops mount a large brick of steel under the front bumper extension, between the frame rails, though fortunately times changed shortly after and firefighters no longer rode the back step.”
What was the next evolution of midi-pumpers? “The district purchased two in 1986 and one in 1989 with 750-gpm single-stage split-shaft pumps, 400-gallon steel tanks and the 35,000-pound GVWR package. They were planned to be 10-year trucks and were re-chassied one per year from 1995 to 1997.”
Did the GVWR change? “No. At the time, the original manufacturer and the apparatus manufacturer that re-chassied them felt that because their aluminum bodies they were good candidates for re-chassis, so the same chassis spec was used with the exception of a drivetrain change to a different diesel engine and a heaver automatic transmission. The diesel engines in the original 1986 and 1989 apparatus were problematic. The chassis and engine manufacturer paid for the engine work (head gaskets) on two trucks, but told us we were on our own if they went again or if the third went. This was a major concern that pushed the project along. Actually, our original intent was to re-chassis with a different manufacture chassis, however, because its engine/transmission sat back it would have caused a severe driveline angularity problem if we had used it.”
Any other changes? “We removed the old diesel generator from the rear compartment and replaced it with a new one mounted above the pump house where the booster reel was located. The booster reel was retired. We added a front discharge to the front bumper. The exterior of the body was stripped and repainted. The compartment interiors and doors were not. The rear step and floor in the rear compartment were replaced. The water tanks were inspected at time of re-chassis and showed little or no signs of problems. In hindsight, they should have been replaced with poly tanks as the steel tanks started to have issues as the trucks aged.”
Were they NFPA 1901 Chapter 5 compliant as a full-size pumper? Although the purchasing specifications mentioned NFPA compliance, Howcrat said: “Strictly speaking, probably not, due to the inability to carry the full equipment complement that NFPA required under the standard at the time such as hard suction, deluge set, etc. More importantly, we likely lost ISO points due to the small 750 gpm pumps.”
Did the District ever weigh them? “Yes, one commissioner was pretty hot on having everything officially weighed and the weight slips kept in each truck’s file. They were likely only weighed with one individual though, but that would most likely have been pretty close to their fighting weight, because the trucks could only seat two people after firefighters were taken off the rear step. The original two were probably close to being overloaded; and the third one most definitely. The second versions were under due to their aluminum bodies and the re-chassied versions especially so with deleting the booster reel.”
Have any comments about their operational pros and cons on the foreground? “Of course, nothing beats a full-sized pumper with a large pump/tank combination. The original 1978 trucks were treated operationally as stand-alone, first-in units designed for quick knockdown, not for a well-involved, sustained firefighting operation. For example, the original trucks were never allowed to reverse out and supply a full-size pumper, due to their small pump size. The 750-gpm versions were treated more like full-sized pumpers and could perform as well as one, but they were handicapped slightly by their 400-gallon tank size. The rule was that a second handline would never be charged until a water supply was established. But given some minor limitations, they did the job they were intended to. All three versions of the trucks were sold surplus with true odometer readings in the 100,000-mile range and engine hours in the 4,000-hour range.”
The midi-pumpers were phased out with full-size pumpers starting in the early to mid-2000s. Today, the district operates two full-size pumpers and a quint out of the three stations. Career staffing is an officer and three firefighters per rig and a duty battalion chief – 24/7/365.
Pittsford, New York
Larry Cooper, a past commissioner of the Pittsford Fire District, joined the volunteer fire department in Pittsford, New York in 1975. The following views expressed are solely those of Cooper.”
What were your experiences with the midi-pumpers? “As a rookie when I joined, we ran a fleet of mostly custom apparatus from two fire stations. Whatever your assignment was for either truck company or engine operations you had a full complement of equipment, tools and seating capacity for a crew of 6 to tackle any assignment.
“Then the board (fire commissioners) adopted the ‘Quint & Midi’ concept that was popular with the city department nearby. Except we actually purchased a ‘mini’ and we didn’t have a quint! The ‘mini’ which we called the ‘attack’ only had a 250-gpm rated pump – although it would actually do over 400-gpm. The philosophy was it was to be first due, smaller in size and more maneuverable through traffic to arrive quicker and perform the initial knock down thus preventing fire spread. But it didn’t work out that way.
“Once we could no longer ride the back step, it only carried three people – driver, firefighter and an officer (or second firefighter). With the driver at the pump it left only two people to find a water source, perform an initial 360-degree size-up and initiate an initial attack – assuming that search and rescue is not on the agenda! And you had to do these feats with a reduced tool set due the limited compartment space available. The cab was very cramped making it difficult for a crew of three to ride with turnout gear on. With a standard bench seat, there was no provision to mount air packs. So instead of arriving ‘mission ready’ wearing SCBA, you had to factor in the delay of packing-up on-scene before any action could be taken. Meanwhile, the firefighters you left back at the station had to wait for others to arrive to fill out the crew for the next piece of apparatus. They were not there to help.
“Additionally, responding from two stations and depending upon the location of the call, the attack rig wasn’t always the first piece of apparatus to arrive at the scene. So what role does the ‘attack’ play when the engine arrives first and becomes the base pumper? Supply the water source by hitting the hydrant of course! That’s right, the 250-gpm attack rig is sitting on the hydrant feeding the 1,250-gpm pumper.
“An audit revealed our attack truck didn’t qualify as a pumper for ISO ratings since the pump was smaller than 750-gpm. That would have been a perfect time to abandon the makeshift Quint & Midi concept and return to full-size engines. However, the board purchased a midi-pumper with a 750-gpm pump. But all the same issues still remained as before. This rig had a new wrinkle because of a high ratio differential, which gave great fuel economy for highway driving but took forever to reach even 30-mph. Eventually it was declared unsafe on expressway calls because the acceleration lane ended before it approached 40-mph thereby making it dangerous to merge into traffic. But that was a deficiency in our chosen drivetrain and not a characteristic of the Quint & Midi concept.”
Have any comments about their operational pros and cons on the fireground? “For a career department with limited budgets, reduced staffing, numerous small nuisance calls and a consistent sequence of arrival, the Quint & Midi concept may have some merit. When the base pumper responds with the midi and follows right behind with a full crew and complement of tools many of the drawbacks are negated. But for a volunteer force with unpredictable crew sizes and arrival times it poses a serious detriment to efficient operation. Given the choice, there is no function a midi can do better than a full-size engine. Throughout the duration of running the attack rig as first due, it didn’t penetrate traffic better, no time was saved, it complicated fireground operations and demoralized morale. It was retired with great jubilation and sold in the next round of full-size apparatus replacements when I joined the Board.”
***
Again, the views expressed are solely those of Past Commissioner Cooper and retired Captain Howcraft and do not necessarily represent those of their respective fire districts. The next part will address how two large career departments adopted variations of the midi-pumper concept and eventually discontinued using them.
