Chicago FD 135 Foot Rear Mount

^^^^Very interesting.....also some good info in the comments section on the FDNY "High Ladders" (some from our own poster Grumpy Grizzly).
 
In the 80's CFD purchased 2 135' aerials from E-One. Aerial Tower 1 was located with E-1 on S Wells St while a second unit, Aerial Tower 3 was at E-42. Chicago designated these units as Aerial Towers because they had a pre-piped waterway, the nozzle can be seen just above the cab in AT-1.
 

Attachments

  • CFD AT-1 135'.jpg
    CFD AT-1 135'.jpg
    954.4 KB · Views: 47
This was AT-3 @ E-42. Unfortunately this unit was involved in a MVA and was written off. Currently CFD has one such unit, a 137' unit designated as AT-8 quartered with E-28.
 

Attachments

  • CFD T-3 E-One.jpg
    CFD T-3 E-One.jpg
    220 KB · Views: 48
So above the increased stream reach range from the higher aerial, is there really that a drastic difference between a 100ft and 137ft in terms of performance at a fire? I would think it just causes further dispersal in high winds.
 
l didn't study the article, but l think the waterway stops at the end of the 4th ladder section.

Also, what is the actual length / working height / reach of a 100' , ... ladder? ls that number nominal like it is with regular extension ladders, several feet are lost at each overlap or is that now factored in with aerial ladders?
 
Last edited:
l didn't study the article, but l think the waterway stops at the end of the 4th ladder section.

Also, what is the actual length / working height of a 100' , ... ladder? ls that number nominal like it is with regular extension ladders, several feet are lost at each overlap or is that now factored in with aerial ladders?
The "functional" length is the length listed. On some newer apparatus you'll actually see ticks on the bed section indicting the extended length.
 
Does anyone know of any incidents where these 137 footers did something a 100 foot aerial couldn't have done?
 
Does anyone know of any incidents where these 137 footers did something a 100 foot aerial couldn't have done?
In NYC, the high ladder was used to put out a fire in a biblical library. They put the ladder pipe to use out of the reach of TL’s. I forget the year but it was I believe 1965-1975, somewhere in that date range. They had an article on it in WNYF
 
So above the increased stream reach range from the higher aerial, is there really that a drastic difference between a 100ft and 137ft in terms of performance at a fire? I would think it just causes further dispersal in high winds.
The waterway stops at the end of the 4th ladder section.
 
Does anyone know of any incidents where these 137 footers did something a 100 foot aerial couldn't have done?
l'm sure there's some, but don't know how common these higher ladders are, other than Chicago l know Syracuse had at least one in the 80's, l think it was Washington DC did too. lf more were in use, we would hear of more a floor or 2 above the norms l'm sure.
 
Was this the truck that had an elevator that rode to the top of the ladder? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.
 
In NYC, the high ladder was used to put out a fire in a biblical library. They put the ladder pipe to use out of the reach of TL’s. I forget the year but it was I believe 1965-1975, somewhere in that date range. They had an article on it in WNYF
April 17, 1966.
My uncle‘s first assignment was L24 back in 1961. At some point L24 had one of them. I don’t remember the year but I do remember seeing it in the FH when we went to visit him in the early to mid 60’s.8B9F2509-EC8E-4CB5-BE21-97F190B016DD.jpeg
 
Last edited:
In NYC, the high ladder was used to put out a fire in a biblical library. They put the ladder pipe to use out of the reach of TL’s. I forget the year but it was I believe 1965-1975, somewhere in that date range. They had an article on it in WNYF
OK, the Jewish Theological Seminary. So we will be using this rig every half century, give or take a decade.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top