Talk:Fire apparatus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to trucks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of High-importance within truck articles.
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Fire Portal

Fire apparatus is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which collaborates on fire service-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

[edit] general text

Dear fellows, I added few general sentences on water tenders, airport crash tenders, and mentioned some other special type of vehicles. I also added some text on vehicles used on rough terrains, snow - and mentioned other solutions to carry special materials like hookloaders, and even trailers. The trailers, however, are not quite fire apparata, but are low-cost solutions in some parts of the world. Please comment (or even edit!) if you find this kind of information as inappropriate under the headline "Fire apparatus". I'd like to hear your opinion how we could shortly describe various kind of vehicle solutions in fire brigades all over the world - without rambling or expanding this article too much. I'm not quite sure whether I succeeded in my previous edition; I'll be just happy if someone shortens my (typically) wide text to include only the most useful part of it... Pöllö 17:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tiller truck

Anybody in the know want to talk about a "tiller truck"?

What would you like to know? A tiller truck is a tractor-trailer, aerial ladder with a separately steerable set of rear wheels, which are steered at a tiller position by a tillerman. This permits the truck to more easily make sharp turns (as exiting the firehouse, or in narrow city streets with traffic). See the article on Turntable ladder and its external ref. Lupinelawyer 22:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What about merging that article into this one? Badger151 19:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Tractor drawn areials are not on a decline (of use or new vehicle deliveries) Most major cities and urban areas in the USA have them.

There should be seperate links and articles on each type of truck, to give a better explnation of the vehicles purpose. Ladder trucks, Tractor drawn aerials have a distingiushed history. The for runners to these vehicles was the city service truck. These vehicles were equipped with portable ladders and equipment that todays fire apparatus still have. information provided by a firefighter 20yrs experence. Nov-2007

[edit] Images

I'm sorry, but there are WAY too many images on this page. I don't mind alot of visual information, but as they are now they're really causing problems with formatting (Look at the table of contents for a good example). What are the recommended actions when this happens? Thanx 68.39.174.150 00:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the images are good and the only issues is formatting it may be time to create a page on the wikimedia commons and place uneeded pictures there. Some articles, like USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) have links like this. TomStar81 04:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Commons:Fire engine? --Saperaud 14:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned up the start by leaving only one photo there. The others are now in a <gallery> at the bottom of the article. I've come across these kind of arrangements in some articles occasionally, and it seems pretty practical to me. Certainly a lot better than the original cluttered mess. --Jonik 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If even more images are added, it should be nice to use the gallery that Jonik has created. I guess that there are many people willing to add "MY VERY OWN FIRETRUCK" to page just to see it on this page. Therefore, would be nice, if the images added contain some special and useful features, these features can be seen in the images, and there is some additional information. Otherwise, Fire Engines and Trucks & various other equipment should get pages of their own, Trucks at one page, Engines at another. Just to avoid a mess and hundress of images with no further reason. --Pöllö 13:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Transferred new poor pictures in the text to the gallery. -- the bird 11:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airport

Anyone got any info on the specialized apparatus used at airports? I don't have any questions myself, but it seems to me that the equipment is different enough to warrant discussion; it's just beyond my area of expertise. Badger151 18:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The short answer is that airports use crashtenders - which basically is a large water tender with lots of foam and a very powerful water cannon. Furthermore the requirements for acceleration and manoeuvrability are more strict than for non-airport use. Try to imagine a plane with 200 passengers and filled to the brink with jet fuel crashing.. Usually the vehicles must not use more than about 5 minutes to reach the crash site - therefore airports often have more than fire station. --|EPO| 21:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Airport crash tenders must be self contained, and carry water and foam concentrate to be able to fight a fast moving air craft fire on the move. These vehicles can have multible engines to perform this task, one engine is the drive power plant, the other is used to power the water pump. these trucks must often be able to drive off road, to cover areas of the airport not covered by roadways. Because of this the vehicle may have more than 4 tires/wheels, and may be all wheel drive.

[edit] Format, images

I've reformatted the page to make it easier to read, but there are too many images to really do a good job. I think that it's time for some of the extra images to be moved to a page on the commons. Then, we can post as many images as we want, since we're all fond of our equipment (and rightly so). Unless anyone comes up with a reason not to do so, I'd like to move some of the darker/less clear images, particularly those of departments with more than one piece of equipment pictured. Specifically, I'm thinking of moving Truck 5 from Chico, CA (Chico's Engine 4 is a good photo, but Engine 5 is dark) Hong Kong's ALP (which looks similar to their Jackless Snorkel, though is a bit dim) and their Dennis Sabre, which shows a lot of windshield and front end, but very litle of the personality of the truck (or is it an engine? the angle of the photo makes this unclear).

Also, the picture of the apparatus from Lausanne (now in the top right of the page) looks to me to be a truck, not an engine. Since the page specifically indicates that the two terms have different meanings, this is a bit confusing. Is the terminology different in Switzerland? If no one objects, I'll be changing the caption over in a week or so. Badger151 04:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll add a picture and some information on a airport fire engine. Pöllö 17:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All over the world

The sections on equipment from various places, currently only Germany and Hong Kong, needs to get merged to articles about those departments and this section renamed. Each section is as long as the rest of the article and you're inviting hundreds of other sections for every unique fire jurisdiction "around the world". SchmuckyTheCat 15:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. How do we go about doing that? Badger151 19:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fire truck design

Anybody know anything about fire truck design? I know a little about the difference between cab-over and conventional cabs, but not much. A discussion on the issues of open cabs, crew cabs, and why firefighters are no longer (in the US, at least) allowed to ride on the back of the truck could be interesting. Also, the values of placing the mount for an aerial in the middle of the truck or at its end could be discussed, as could a comparison of the valuse of ladder vs snorkel vs tower.

I miss a discussion about the differences between American and European fire engines, they often look completly different. To europeans US vehicles look like they come from the seventies or so, is there any reason for the US to have such "old-fashiond" engines? If someone knew this, it would be interesting to read.

Not sure about the real reason, but I'd like to give a guess. A European vehicle is normally built on a standard truck chassis. I believe it's partly tradition (not an explanation) and partly due to the cause that these are already available from the factory. So when the first motorized fire trucks were to be built they simply chosen an existing chassis. --|EPO| 21:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire tender?

Fire tender redirects here but it is not mentioned in the text... is a fire engine, fire truck, water tender or something else? Pretzelpaws 19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Links to Military Fire Truck and Brush Truck do not work, articles don't exist? Would be reasonable to write the articles first, then add the links? Or another kind of problem with the links? I will remove the non-working links.

[edit] Images (again)

Once again, the page is out of control with a ton of images being placed in and among the article itself. It seems there is no happy medium, and some are determined to keep adding more and more images to the main body of the article. Therefore, I've moved EVERY image to the gallery and I'll move any new ones that are placed in the main article from now on. Chris 05:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO1: you did bad work. Now the article is just plain and dry text. Images helped the reader to get an idea on what apparatus is a telescopic aerial etc. Now the link between the text and pictures are disconnected. It's ok to destroy new pictures additioned between the text, but some pictures contained relevant and good information. Somebody has spent some time collecting and writing it... Now this information is messed and hidden somewhere in the gallery.

IMHO2: we could destroy the picture gallery and most of the pictures, because they don't give any further information. Somebody just wants to see his truck or engine in wikipedia. Instead of a wild gallery there could be a wish, that pictures of their own equipment can be added to other internet sites than wikipedia. The idea of this wikipedia article is to be an ARTICLE. Not a wild gallery of thousands of i-want-my-picture-to-the-net -pictures. - the bird

Changed the place of pictures originally in the article to be the first ones in the gallery. Yeah, it's childish to change the places of the pics, but I guess that the article was written by persons who added those pictures. Sad that other persons added a lot of pics and messed the article. - me myself and i, 11th November 2006

[edit] vandalism

The page was destroyed on January 23rd, 2007 by an IP-address 63.110.146.129, which is registered to Calvert Hall College High School and may be shared by multiple users. (Notice: Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.) I restored the page. Pöllö 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Felines

Hello are there any firetrucks that are specificlly meant for cats, I mean in place of a fire dalmation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.170.75 (talk)

In regards to your ridiculous question, the answer is no. The only place for cats in the fire service is up a tree. --Daysleeper47 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes to this article

Looking at a number of articles related to fire apparatus, there are many problems which are apparant to me. I would like some discussion to occur so maybe we can obtain concensus on what, if anything, we can do.

First, I propose a merger of all fire apparatus articles into one article, Fire apparatus. Sections in this article related to apparatus types would be left as is, but the seperate articles for Fire chief's vehicle, Heavy rescue vehicle, Airport crash tender, Water tender, and Wildland fire engine would be added to this article. The current section on history would be spun off into its own article. If one particular section was large enough, it could be spun off, but I don't think any of these are large enough.

Also, there is naming problems where US naming conventions take precedent over UK naming conventions. For instance, Water tender is, I imagine, a UK term, while in the US we use Tanker. Any ideas on how we can work this out?

Please leave your comments here! --Daysleeper47 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I do not support the gathering of the various articles into this one. I would prefer this article to shortly describe units and then let the reader continue his/her reading in a main article on the subject.

I am afraid this article will become too big and perhaps leading to somewhat difficulty in getting a clear overview on selected topics. --|EPO| 18:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is fine, but this article should be retooled to perhaps include small paragraphs and a {{main|***}} tag to lead to another article. I do think the topic of article titles remains a concern. --Daysleeper47 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the articles on units could perhaps be included in a larger article describing the concept/idea behind. This would make a main article larger and leave smaller stubs behind. E.g. on "my" Danish ladder article I have choosen to describe the turntable ladder in the first part and further down explain the differences regarding similar vehicles.

As for the title of this article it indicates a describtion of the different kind of tools used by fire departmens in carrying out their jobs. This should include vehicles, techniques, personal equipment etc. --|EPO| 19:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The article will be too large, if all fire units are under one title. In my opinion, the aerials should have an article of their own, an engine an article of their own. If there are various kind of units "mixtured", then mention them under an existing article or write a new one...

If there are various names in the UK and in the USA for fire apparata, I suggest that let the first name be. If there exist an article for a water tender, then simple let it be a water tender. In the water tender article it can be shortly described that in the States a water tender is called as a tanker. If somebody searches for a tanker, redirect the tanker page to the water tender page. It's total madness to translate all the terms to US ones or to UK ones. Simply because there are a lot of other countries than the US or the UK. Whoever was the first, was the first. Respect it, accept it. It's really childish to convert European names to US ones or opposite, just because "I don't understand that there is a world outside my country" -attitude. -- the bird 11:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion request

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (April 2007)

It would be useful to have some more details about the changes from manual to horse-drawn to steam-powered to internal combustion engine technology. Quantitative information about response time, maximum height of spray, etc., would be ideal, and any qualitative differences would also be interesting. Also, why did New York firefighters sabotage the steam-powered fire engine? -- Beland 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no dates in the sections "Early pumpers" and "Early aerials"; ideally, these would be integrated into the general history section in a chronological fashion. -- Beland 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hydraulic platforms

There are two types of aerials with platforms. One kind is built like a heavy-duty turntable ladder, with a platform at the end of the ladder; I'm used to calling that a tower ladder. Another kind has a long fixed-length arm with a joint in the middle and a platform on the end; I'm used to calling that a snorkel. This section of the article seems to confuse these two kinds. For example, the picture is of a tower ladder, but the sentence "They have a number of advantages over the turntable ladder such as the ability to go 'up and over' an obstacle (such as a building roof), which is facilitated by jointed areas of the arm." applies to a snorkel.

To complicate matters further, I've seen a web page for an E-One product that seems to be a mixture of both; I wouldn't know what to call that beast.

Another problem is I have no idea what these aerials would be called in English-speaking countries other than the U.S.

Is anyone in a position to clean up this section? --Gerry Ashton 21:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I can give it a go. I suspect the easiest thing is just to mention that some units are articulated, and some are not. That should be pretty easy to achieve. However, i would be tempted to say that the 'tower ladder' is a type of turntable ladder, not a hydraulic platform (if it has a ladder) - so we could add a section on that to the TL section. Which would you prefer? Owain.davies 21:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it would be cleaner to include tower ladders with the other turntable ladders. --Gerry Ashton 21:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done! - Hope I haven't missed out anything important! Owain.davies 21:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In Australia (Melbourne at least), Turntable/Tower ladders are called Turntable ladders, Snorkels are called Hydraulic Platforms, and Brontos such as the appliance in the link you posted are called Ladder Platforms (i.e. a hydraulic platform with a ladder.) --Richmeister_talk 00:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Done! - I've cleared that up as well in the article. Owain.davies 08:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Owain.davies added this statement: "There are non-articulated platforms, based on standard aerial work platforms, although the most common type is the tower ladder (mentioned above in the Turntable ladder section)." I'm afraid I have no mental picture of what kind of aerial is being referred to in this statement. What is a non-articulated aerial with a platform that isn't a tower ladder? Do you have a picture of one?

One possibility is confusion over the term tower ladder. My concept of a tower ladder is shown in

this picture

. Perhaps Owain.davies had a more primitive, unpowered, platform in mind? --Gerry Ashton 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In Denmark we got "drejestige" (turntable ladder) and "redningslift" (rescue lift) to distinguish. Due to safety regulations the lift must have a ladder all way along the arms. This way the basket can be evacuated if the lift for any reason should stop. --|EPO| 15:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some units (especially in countries with smaller fire service budgets) which are simply hydraulic work platforms without an articulation in them. I have seen them on holiday, but didn't think to take a picture... They have the normal hydraulic telescoping section (not a ladder) with a basket on the end. Kind of more like a power company van. It's not all about fire departments with big budgets... Owain.davies 15:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can picture that now. It would be great if someone could find a picture of one for the article. --Gerry Ashton 15:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the ones Owain.davies is thinking about would the one like Hamburg uses. --|EPO| 15:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truck vs. Engine

From my conversations with FDNY firefighters, and listening to their radio frequencies, I got the impression that an engine is the same thing as a pumper, and a truck is the same thing as an aerial. The first paragraph of the article says essentially the same thing. However, the volunteer departments I've been in (one about 60 miles north of New York City, the other about 250 miles north of NYC) didn't take it for granted that a truck was always an aerial, nor did they take it for granted that a truck could never be an engine. I would like to know if the first paragraph is really accurate throughout the English-speaking world, and if there is any need to rewrite it. --Gerry Ashton 02:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think confusion here arises since most 'trucks' now have pumping facilities, and the rise of the multi-purpose (quad/quint in the US) engines. I spent quite some time overhauling this article, and i've never quite been happy with that paragraph. I'd be happy for it to be reworded, to be more along the gist of they 'may' be called different things. In the UK for instance, fire truck just isn't used, they are always 'fire appliance' or 'fire engine' or more often called by their functional name (Pump ladder, Hydraulic Platform etc.)

Please feel free to reword! Owain.davies 08:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I know in my county, Fire Truck is a general term describing all the equipment we have. Our designations are depending what the piece is exactly. i.e. Tower 1 Truck 2 Rescue 3 Engine Tanker 4 Chief 5 Quint 6 Engine 71 hopefully that helps

In my professional opinion the paragraph above is for the most part correct. Most things referred to as an engine have the sole purpose of flowing water. However I've noticed some neighboring departments who have taken delivery of Quints opt to call their new Quint's an "Engine" one in particular comes to mind that just took delivery of a new Smeal Quint with a 75' aerial ladder named "Engine 3". In fire school we refer to different fire ground operations as: Engine, Truck, Rescue, Wildland, and the new WUI (Wildland-Urban Interface) Operations. Engine responsibilities out of a text book are your nozzlemen putting the fire out. Truck companies out of the text book are companies who perform ventilation, overhaul, and search and rescue. Rescue companies can also be search and rescue, vehicle extrication, building collapse, etc. Wildland is pretty self explanatory, and the new WUI is to help cut off wildland fire's spread into an urban environment. With all that said anyone in the fire service will tell you that nothing ever goes by the text book, and many departments around the country are trying to utilize their ladder's more effectively with less men staffing and less funding/cutbacks to the department. Many of your aerials are coming with 2000gpm pumps, supply hose, and pre-connected attack lines making them able to make an initial attack on their own. So all in all it pretty much comes down to what the department wants to call their "trucks" and what job is given to them. Some places call their aerials ladders, towers, trucks etc. Tankers I've heard called tankers, tenders, and wagons. So to say one paragraph is more correct than another is really left up to interpretation as I'm sure there will be some firefighter some where who reads this and totally disagrees because their trucks are named one thing and another firefighter who's trucks are named exactly according to this. Hope this helps out a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bchap61101 (talk • contribs) 08:01, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Also worth remembering that this distinction really only exists in the US. In the UK, the public call all of them "fire engines" and the professionals call them all "fire appliances", so we should avoid being too US-centric. Owain.davies 06:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Another point of interest is the fact that from a US stand point it is difficult to not be too US-centric as per the description above our "Fire Appliances" are our gated wyes, siamese, hydrant/intake valves, the water thief, and other items of the same nature. So in the US at a station if you told someone you wanted to drive the "fire appliances" you would probably get made fun of pretty heavily. I do understand where the above comment is coming from though. Bchap61101 (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bchap61101 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content from Turntable ladder

Anybody have any thoughts about merging this into the fire engine page? Badger151 19:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if it would be appropriate to merge it into the fire engine page, since there is a distinct difference in US firefighting terminology. A "fire engine" is usually a pumper, where its primary duties are fire attack and supression. A "ladder truck" is usually a dedicated ladder company, where its primary duties are search/rescue and ventilation. Many departments utilize both of these in concert with each other. The "truck company" opens the building up for the "engine company" to bring the hose in and put out the fire, then they go up and look for victims as well as makes ventilation openings to support the engine company's progress.

Maybe a "Ladder Truck" heading may be more appropriate? Just a suggestion ... Firerescuelieut 02:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manning

I would like to know how many firefighters man a US ladder - and is it different from the tiller? --|EPO| 21:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I will address this as it is concerned with career departments only, as volunteer departments usually staff these units on an "as needed" basis.

This is strictly from my own personal experiences as I have ridden with friends who have worked for departments that utilize ladder companies. Ladder trucks, commonly called "truck companies" (which is what I am going to refer to these), are staffed routinely in the larger cities and metropolitan areas. As examples, FDNY (New York City), Austin (TX), Chicago, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Boston all have dedicated "truck companies". Most of the time, these are staffed with a crew od between 4 and 7 people, usually comprised of an officer (Captain or Lieutenant), Driver, and 2 to 5 firefighters.

I have actually ridden with FDNY Ladder 34, which is a "tiller" ladder (see below for explanation), and Austin (TX) Ladder 18. The link to FDNY Ladder 34 is [1], where you can find a picture of a "tiller" ladder. At FDNY Ladder 148's site, [2], you can find some pictures of a "regular" ladder truck.

The "truck companies" usually do not perform fire attack functions, but rather focus on search and rescue, forcable entry, ventilation, high-angle victim rescue, vehicular extrication, and salvage/overhaul. At a large fire, the engine companies perform the fire attack while the truck companies look for victims and ventilate the building. There are other functions that both companies perform, but these are the basic ones.

A "tiller" is a term describing a tractor-trailer type ladder truck, where a firefighter sits on the back of the "trailer", and is able to steer the trailer to manuever the vehicle into tight spots. This firefighter is usually called the "tiller-man". These are commonly found in larger cities.

In our department, we used to have ladder trucks staffed with 2 firefighters, but they have since been replaced by Quint companies (see Quint). Many medium- and small-sized departments are doing this in an attempt to combine resources.

I hope this helps.

Lt. Craig Prusansky Palm Beach County (FL) Fire-Rescue Firerescuelieut 01:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It did help actually. It's interesting to see how it functions in the US. In Denmark a ladder is only manned by two firefighters and functions both as a fire engine and rescue vehicle: If no need for the ladder they help extinguish the fire and work along with the engine company. But if the ladder is needed they will of course raise it upon arrival on the scene. --|EPO| 09:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lift photo

Currently the article has a fair use image of some hydraulic platforms. But as there exists free alternatives on Wikimedia Commons I have listed it for deletion. I believe the article could use either the image from Finland, Germany or Denmark.

I would like some opinions on, which image could illustrate the principles the best. --|EPO| ^da: 18:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Danish example is best, as you can see some good detail on the hydraulic mechanisms etc. Owain.davies (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Been bold and changed the image to the Danish example. As it's my photo I like it best too :P --|EPO| ^da: 19:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images again

There has never been concise talk on the number of images on this page. Currently there are 49 images of fire apparatus for an article which is roughly 40,000 bytes. That is so excessive in my mind as to reach the limits of being ludacris. Most, if not all of those images are also in Commons in this Category, which is a lovely gallery in and of itself. I would propose scaling the image back to 5-10 images, each within a relavant section and keeping in mind that fire apparatus may look different in across the world, but in general that a pumper (engine, wagon, etc) has hose and pumps water and that a ladder (truck, aerial, snorkle, tower) has a large stick for aerial fire operations. I believe that most other apparatus are just as different as a Chrysler and a Fiat, but that the reader will understand the basic difference between a crash truck in the U.S. and one in Russia without having to see pictures of both.

I welcome thoughts on how to scale this back. This gallery also doesn't quite live up to WP:Galleries and I think that is what in part motivates me. I welcome your comments. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In case of fire

I found the following sentence in the section on the history of the fire apparatus:

Colonial laws in America required each house to have a bucket of water on the front stoop (especially at night) in case of fire, for the initial "bucket brigade" that would throw the water at fires.

I wonder whether that text is correct.

I can imagine that the colonial laws would hold one of the following rules:

... to have a bucket of water on the front stoop at all times, especially at night, to be used in case of fire.
... to put a bucket of water on the front stoop in case of fire.

The first option seems the most likely.

The words "especially at night" are very unlikely to be found in a text of law, even in old times. It creates ambiguity about the requirement to have a bucket of water in case of fire on the front stoop during the daytime.

I will change the sentence to the following

Colonial laws in America required each house to have a bucket of water on the front stoop during fires at night. These buckets were intended for use by the initial "bucket brigade" that would throw the water at fires.

That is the minimum interpretation of the current text. If anybody knows anything about a requirement to have a bucket of water on the front stoop in case there was no fire (yet), or during daytime fires, please enhance the text. Johan Lont (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence that I replaced was entered in this edit in March 2005. Johan Lont (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Engine/Ladder

"A modern fire engine is usually a multi-purpose vehicle carrying professionals and equipment for a wide range of fire-fighting and rescue tasks. Therefore, most fire engines carry equipment such as ladders, pike poles, axes, Halligans, fire extinguishers, and ventilating equipment." -Engine Section Isn't this the role of the Hook and Ladder truck? Mazeau (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can gather, this is a distinction that exists only in the US - most countries have engines which fulfil all the purposes, with a few specialist units such as turntable ladders or heavy rescue in support. It would seem that the US is also going down this route with quad and quint engines. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 06:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks.Mazeau (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories: Articles to be expanded since April 2007 | All articles to be expanded