95 footers question

[londonfireguy]

How reliable are the 95 footers? I would imagine that they are a little more complex than the 75 footers, what with a different chassis set up and extra electronics.

I think i read somewhere that TL 58 spends more time running a 75 ft reserve rig due to thier own 95 ft been a bit of a 'Hanger Queen'.

Thanks

JT

 

[JohnnyBopp]

How reliable are the 95 footers? I would imagine that they are a little more complex than the 75 footers, what with a different chassis set up and extra electronics.

I think i read somewhere that TL 58 spends more time running a 75 ft reserve rig due to thier own 95 ft been a bit of a 'Hanger Queen'.

Thanks

JT

"Hanger Queen", I like that.  There is some truth to the fact that the 95' TL's are O.O.S. a lot.  The aerial device isn't much different, other than being longer.  However, that creates issues for the rest of the rig.  They're extremely heavy, as in almost 100,000lbs heavy.  That's a lot for a frame to take!  That, coupled with many ongoing issues with the TL's built in the mid 2000's, have kept them and even a lot of 75'ers sidelined. 

 

[HCO]

Current tower ladder GVWR is 73,500 pounds, not 100,000.

 

[londonfireguy]

heavy rigs!!! Must be akin to driving an ocean going freighter around the streets of NYC!! heaviest we have in London is the Bronto Aerial ladder Platforms, a kind of combined Ladder and Tower Ladder all in one, at 26 tons.

One can only imagine the issues that will arise when the new Seagrave 95 footers start arriving, or maybe any of the issues would have been ironed out with the currrent batch of new 75 foot towers.

JT

 

[JohnnyBopp]

Current tower ladder GVWR is 73,500 pounds, not 100,000.

I'm aware it's not 100,000, but it's close.  I don't know if you're counting all of the tools and equiptment, and a 3/4's of a tons worth of men.

 

[guitarman314]

  Don't know if it still exists but there were major issues with 95 ft. towers not being able to travel as fast as other aerial rigs.

 

[Bulldog]

  Don't know if it still exists but there were major issues with 95 ft. towers not being able to travel as fast as other aerial rigs.

It certainly makes sense considering how much heavier they are.  Do they still have to have the same times for the hill climb test?

 

[JohnnyBopp]

  Don't know if it still exists but there were major issues with 95 ft. towers not being able to travel as fast as other aerial rigs.

Are you referring to the speed of the apparatus or the aerial device?  If you are speaking of the aerial device, than you are correct about the sluggish nature of the Aerialscope.  I don't know about any difference from 75' to 95', but I can assure you that a rear-mount moves much faster and sets up in a fraction of the time.

 

[69 METS]

heavy rigs!!! Must be akin to driving an ocean going freighter around the streets of NYC!!
JT

Funny you should make that comparison ... I was assigned to a tower ladder for nine years, the last couple of years that I was in the company we got a Mack-Baker-Saulsbury 95' footer. A lieutenant from 'across the floor' used to refer to our rig as "The barge". Subsequently he was promoted to captain and till this day he has been assigned to a 95' tower ladder ...

 

[mikeindabronx]

heavy rigs!!! Must be akin to driving an ocean going freighter around the streets of NYC!!
JT

Funny you should make that comparison ... I was assigned to a tower ladder for nine years, the last couple of years that I was in the company we got a Mack-Baker-Saulsbury 95' footer. A lieutenant from 'across the floor' used to refer to our rig as "The barge". Subsequently he was promoted to captain and till this day he has been assigned to a 95' tower ladder ...

Would that be "The Prince" with over 30 yrs OTJ

 

[turk132]

Gotta be!

 

[69 METS]

Would that be "The Prince" with over 30 yrs OTJ[/quote] Ha-ha-ha ... Did I say that???