This is an archive of past discussions about Fire engine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have just modified one external link on Fire engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 3 external links on Fire engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Fire Engines are different than Fire Trucks and perform very different tasks during an attack on a fire, but that is not commonly known. In my update to this article I tried to define the Engine and Truck, and the hybrid Quint, but wonder if they should be broken off into their own articles, or are they similar enough in design and function?
I think "engine" and "truck" could use their own articles, where an "engine" is any apparatus that has a pump (i.e., the "engine") and "fire truck" is anything else. Lupinelawyer 22:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
this article needs to be retitle maybe you fire apparatus. Then a section for US vs Euro apparatus and tactics. Then quote more of NFPA 1901 as the definitive source in regards to US apparatus. Fire trucks are not fire engines. This should be stated vigorously. Also sub sets in regards to tanker wagons, quints, rescue engines, squads, and brush engines. Then lay mention to NYCs super pumpers and Philly's "pipe wagons." Also a mention of miscellaneous equipment like boat support, paramedic chase cars, chief cars, and brush trucks, etc. Point being the fire service has many vehicles that hold multiple roles, and this article currently is so vague that it's inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbegosh (talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Famous fires
How about including a list of famous fires in the 'see also' section? Since fire trucks/engines do put out fires, it seems like a good idea to include the fires make make the men and equpment legendary. TomStar81 02:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
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... Pöllö17:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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
"The hook-and-ladder concept started when taller skyscrapers and more city streets became a problem for fire departments." The 'hook-and-ladder' goes back to the days of horse (or man) drawn firefighting apparatus, when one type of such hauled ladders and hooks, versus the steam pumpers. Multi-story structures (still far from being 'skyscrapers') required ladders and the hooks were necessary for overhauling. It wasn't until longer ladders resulted in development of the articulated hook-and-ladder truck, that the narrowness of city streets became an issue.Irish Melkite (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Images Limits per department
I'm starting to run a limit on how many pictures and images per department can have in the article.
I started this limit in the firefighter article and it is working well.
This limit is to let no one department to have "fame" over another departments.
Each department will have the limits stated below.
One personnel image on the article.
Two equipment and vehicle images limited on the article.
Two rare objects or history images limited on the article.
"If" there are too many from one nation. It would be scaled back or replaced by another nation.
This is a fair system for a worldwide view.
If you a person happens to take a lot images of a department. Why don't you make your own article of that department?
I hope others understand my idea and kindly enforce it on the article. One department is not the star.
British Fire Departments need to defend why we need some pictures on the article or it will be replaced or deleted. USA Fire departments are crowding in one area. A picture might be deleted if not fix. Rasseru (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
History pictures are too many on the article. In the future... I or someone will make a History of fire apparatus. This will move all but one picture to this new article.Rasseru (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
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. TomStar8104:51, 22 July 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. --Jonik18:47, 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. --Pöllö13:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Transferred new poor pictures in the text to the gallery. -- the bird 11:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
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. Chris05:57, 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
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)
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. Badger15118:04, 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.
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. Badger15104:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
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". SchmuckyTheCat15:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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? Pretzelpaws19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
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. Pöllö20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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?
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. --Daysleeper4719:07, 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)
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? -- Beland18:22, 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. -- Beland18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
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.davies21:34, 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.) --Richmeistertalk00:10, 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 Ashton14:55, 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.davies15:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
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 Ashton02:36, 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.)
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.davies06:49, 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)
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.
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.
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)
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 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)
"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)
There seems to be an over-abundance of West Palm Beach County FD pictures. One or two is fine, but 5? Plus another 7 in the gallery? It just seems to me like someone is just too proud of their dept. and wants to show it off or something. I would like to cut a lot of those pictures out and replace them with pictures from other areas in order to get a broader view of apparatus. Cheers, Mazeau (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
This problem won't happen again. I'm watching and using "Images Limits per department" System. To limit too many picture from one department in a Article. Rasseru (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Additions 10/10/08
I've added some information on the usage of fire apparatus' as emergency medical response units. Much of the info is from my local dpt. (santa clara county; California). Almost all of their trucks are staffed as paramedic units (including ladders and aerials which is quite rare). Feel free to edit this section and move it around...i tried to fit it in as best i could. also their website has some good pictures SCCFD.ORG
First of all thank you for your expansion. Second, please do not change words in British spelling into American spelling in a regionally neutral article, such as this. Its not necessary. This is English Wikipedia, not American or British Wikipedia and anyone can contribute wherever they are from, as long as they can write English in any dialect. Third, new sections in talk pages go at the bottom. You posted this right in the middle of someone's old topic and are imposing on their topic's space making the talk page confusing. (The only reason I'm posting here as well is to let you know for sure.) Please keep these in mind for the future. --Cheers, Mazeau (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Expansion in article topics of 2010 Goals
I like expansions in each sub-topic in the article too have 5 to 10 more lines of text about that type of vehicle. This will fix crowding of picture in some areas. I like everyone to look for expansions. Rasseru (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Worldwide view
Somebody has tagged the article as not representing a worldwide view which I agree with. Although I understand that firefighting is a very popular subject in the US and Canada, the vehicles and equipment there are usually unique to North America such as quints, tillers and tower ladders whereas the vehicles used in the UK, Ireland, Australia etc. are usually based on a standard truck chassis with a completely different design and format to the vehicles used in North America. I would like to see the article divided into geographic locations (North America, Europe, Oceania etc.) where vehicles like quints and tillers are placed within the North America section and Water Ladder and Aerial Ladder Platform are placed in areas where they are used. Any other suggestions welcome. Heggyhomolit (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting point but I'm inclined to initially disagree. I believe the current format works pretty well, and is easy to navigate. Additionally, articles about fire apparatus in specific countries/regions are already available, such as: Fire appliances in the United Kingdom. I'd support some refinement to the existing format, outlining where each apparatus is common or uncommon, but re-working the entire article into one divided into geographic locations would take a lot of time and may result in some information being duplicated... Tbmurray10:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. The articles split by country are always disjointed and make a poor read. I'm not sure it detracts from the article to have types that you don't happen to have in your country, it just points out variants that exist. To me that's informative rather than sticking only to the ones that everyone has. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 18:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Having reviewed again, I have redone the title hierarchy so that items like quad/quint and tiller are subheadings of Turntable ladder, showing that they are a sub type in specific applications. That should help address any inate bias, whilst still demonstrating the different types OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 18:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that I spent a considerable amount of time and effort improving this article (mainly my edit of 23:43, 21 November 2010) and that I personally feel it is significantly improved in terms of readability and navigation compared to a few months ago. I re-iterate my opposition to an entire re-work of it by geographical splits. Thanks, Tom. Tbmurray11:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Cropping of lead image
Owain.davies has modified/cropped the lead image for this article (Cambridgeshire fire engine.jpg).
However, I sort-of think the original was "better" in a way... it's more of an "action shot", showing the vehicle bursting through a yellow-box junction. The slight blurryness adds to the action shot feel of the original image. The cropped image, I agree while straighter, now just looks like a low-quality blurry photo of a fire engine.
No disrepect to Owain.davies's efforts, but does he or anyone else feel the same?
Tbmurray19:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The primary reason was that it included quite a lot of external clutter, such as a traffic light and a van behind. This meant that on small picture sizes (including the WP default) the fire engine was a bit far away to actually see properly. This is clearly still an action shot, but now focuses more on the primary subject. At some point i'd quite like to get a better action shot, but there wasn't an obvious candidate in Commons, so i'm going to shoot some when i get a chance. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 20:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair play, I don't dislike the cropped image but was just a thought that the original might've been a better action shot. That said, I'm no photography expert and see your points! And yes, there's definitely a better image out there that we can use as the lead image for this article... someone's just got to shoot it..!! Tbmurray20:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Additional Types of Apparatus
I was wondering why the pumper tanker concept and Air & Light type of apparatus are not mentioned in this article? Are they not worthy of mention or are they already on here somewhere? I would put something on the article, but I would hardly call myself an expert on the subjects. II Ross II (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
and what are they? you might have to give us more of a clue, maybe even a link... OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 20:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The pumper tanker just seems to be a normal appliance, or covered under the tanker section. I can't see anything that makes it particularly notable. The Air & Light unit might be ditinct, but really it's just logistical support carrying SCBA. I don't think the 'light' part of it is notable, as most appliances tend to have light towers on them. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 06:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from, but I don't agree with you lol. If the Rescue Pumper concept is noteworthy enough to be on the article, I can't see why the the Pumper Tanker concept isn't. I believe that the Air unit is also distinct enough. I would bet that most departments in the United States use it (some notables I can think of are FDNY, BCFD, and Pittsburgh) and probably much more than a command type unit. II Ross II (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The TITLE
"Fire apparatus" is the LAST thing I would type into a search engine if I was looking for a FIRE TRUCK or FIRE ENGINE. Maybe it's some kind of technical term but I have never heard it used by regular people. Is there any justification for this particular choice of words? BadaBoom (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, its a compromise. To some editors and users of the article, it seems that a fire truck and a fire engine are different things (as seen in the article), so it doesn't make sense to them to have them both described at one article. Personally, I would call them fire appliances, as that is the generally used technical term round here, but apparatus works as a descriptor. Both fire engine and fire truck redirect here, so there should be no problem finding the article. This is analogous to fixed wing aircraft, whereas you are more likely to call it an airplane or aeroplane depending on your country/language variant/preference. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 13:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
There's one fundamental difference between "fixed wing aircraft" and "fire apparatus". The former is a set term used all over the English-speaking world, while the latter is anything but that. BadaBoom (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I've really got to agree with BadaBoom here. People not being able to agree is not a good enough reason for an encyclopedia to start creating names for things or elevating some highly regional or technical terminology for something. The article title should be the most common way people refer to it. Wikipedia is here to present, not to create.
Think on a few decades down the line when a generation or so has grown up with this article titled like it is. That will have an effect on language.
There seem to be at this point three sensible courses of action that don't require we be stuck with this horrible title:
1)We go with the popularity contest. A brief google search will show you that "fire truck" will net you around 157 million hits, and "fire engine" will net you around 31 million hits. While nice and easy this is unsatisfactory because there are differences between the two.
2)Split the article and make sure that they are cross-referenced with a mention of how there are differences between the two in both introductions. This is unsatisfactory to my mind because it seems like a lot of work and duplicating information in many places--althrough, truth be told, this is a bit of a longish article anyway so this might be the best route.
3)Name it something remotely sensible like, "Firefighting Vehicles". Seriously, Fire Apparatus is only slightly more specific to a layman than "fire thing". Moreover, like in your example of "fixed-wing aircraft" a title like "firefighting vehicles" or something to that effect is immediately understandable by most all who read it.
I just seriously cannot believe that we can sit pat on this serious of a disjunction between language as is used by millions in the English speaking world, and this wiki because of a spat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.234.100.92 (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, looking at this further, fire apparatus appears to be the preferred term in academic literature (try google scholar for a primer if you're not convinced) on the subject, and it is often forgotten that this is in line with WP:COMMONNAME which says the WP "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" (emphasis mine) - so not just common name of the masses, but common name of the academic sources is equally valid. So the reliable sources (and peer-reviewed academic work is considered some of the most reliable) seem to back the current name. As the anon editor above notes - presenting, not creating. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 19:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Umm, are we looking at the same Google Scholar? I ask because "fire engine" is a clear winner there, especially when you read the results and see how about half of the hits on the 'first' page are not remotely related to vehicles, much less ones that are intended for use as emergency response vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.64.144 (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Completely agree with BadaBoom, I have never in my life heard the term "fire apparatus" and would not even have been able to guess its meaning. It seems absurd for this to be the title of the article. Isn't a fireplace a "fire apparatus" too?
If there is debate on the proper region-independent nomenclature, it seems to me that a much better solution would be to go with a generic but meaningful term like "firefighting vehicles".--Xiaphias (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree with the above. The title is just plain silly. It needs to be changed eventually. We should call it either a fire engine or a fire truck, both acceptable WP:COMMONNAMEs and then explain thoroughly in the article the precise differences between the terms. ThemFromSpace23:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The present title is frankly absurd. The fire box at the bottom of the article lists "Fire equipment" and I recognize hoses, nozzles, extinguishers, and then there's this sweepingly general "Fire apparatus" WTF is that? Let's call it Fire engine because we seem to agree that we know what that is, and split out things unrelated to the wheeled land vehicle used by firemen to put out fires. Fire is not my field, else I might take on this change now - it seems to have generated little controversy. -- ke4roh (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
How is the world's most advanced fire truck not mentioned here?
This is not the forum for product placement, or for that matter, wildly exaggerated claims. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 13:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Cleanup Ideas & Help requested.
I am doing some article cleanup. One of the major issues I see with this page is there is too much going on. There is no clear list of the different types of engines/truck/apparatuses. I personally think it would be great to clean this up and try and create separate articles for a lot of the types. Take Quints for example. They are listed on this page, but also have a page of their own (Quint (fire apparatus)). I think this is the real way to go. Have a list on this page that has a few sentences about each type, then link out to longer articles that are more detailed and contain more pictures, stats, etc. I would really love some feedback and assistance with this. :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I think there is a fairly clear list of apparatus, and most of them have daughter articles. The big problem with this article is the very wide variation between countries. Terms like quint are generally a bit unhelpful, as they are US specific. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 11:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
When I just read fire monitors would be abused for crowd control I could not beleive my eyes. Most fire brigades definitely have the order NOT offer their vehicles to the police for that. This has two reasons:
The fire brigade has the image of helping. Even between poice and people it must be neutral.
Fire engines have no armour. In a violent scene it could be seriously damaged and the crew is not safe.
Sometimes even a third reason:
Foaming agents are automatically mixed to the water to reduce its surface tension. You DEFINITELY do not want foaming agents in your eyes, not even in a 0.1 percent concentration...
At least in germany it is like that in the whole republic. Many other fire brigades of the world gave a similar statement when asked. I don't know any case when they did it in a different way.--JR natural scientist (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment You can't add a comment to a disjointed discussion that began almost three years ago and then talk about consensus. If this is to be discussed start again from scratch without trying to game the system with dubious claims of consensus. Personally, I would be happy with Fire engine or Fire truck. I may be British but, like most British people who watch TV, I would know what a fire truck is. However, would most North Americans know what a fire engine is? Richerman(talk)19:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
My personal preference is "fire truck", but I don't know how to justify that preference over "fire engine" in terms of WP policy and convention. --В²C☎23:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Google's Ngram barely favors fire engine over fire truck, but the current title is far behind either of late. "Truck" surpassed "apparatus" around 1912.[3] -- ke4roh (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Support either engine or truck. Both are reasonable as a far more common name. I don't think there would be any issue with US readers recognizing the term fire engine - both terms are used interchangeably in the states.--Yaksar(let's chat)19:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Responding to Richerman and supporting Yaksar's remark – yes, I think "fire engine" would be a perfectly familiar term to North Americans. To me, "fire engine" sounds more like formal phrasing, while "fire truck" sounds a bit like the vocabulary of a four-year-old child. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
support As fire engine is recognisable on both sides of the pond I'm happy to go with that. I actually spoke to a fireman today and they do call it a "fire appliance" but that seems to peculiar to the UK and it is a rather vague term as has been pointed out above. Richerman(talk)21:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Qualified Oppose - the previous discussion which got us to this title was because fire engine and fire truck, to many users, represented different types of vehicle. It was decided to favour WP:COMMONALITY over WP:COMMONNAME, in the same way as we have fixed wing aircraft. Fire apparatus wasn't my favoured title last time, but was the consensus. If still think that both 'engine' and 'truck' have specific meanings to some users, so would favour a different option to those two, as we had a problem with content forking, with 'fire truck' getting its own article. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 11:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
UK vs US vs everyone else.
Face it, the terminology varies ... and it often varies by department. Here in the US "fire engine" or "fire truck" are sometimes generic terms but not the correct ones. In the industry, in the US, an engine is universally understood to be a type of fire apparatus that pumps water ... but they may be called pumps or pumpers. Initially, all they did was move water, but once departments motorized water tanks and hoses were added making them "triple combination engines" or "triples" (Quads added enough ground ladders to meet NFPA's definition of a truck and a Quint adds to all that an aerial device). But I digress.
A truck, in some places, is called a ladder, ladder truck, aerial, or aerial ladder. The important thing is that it has a mechanically raised, extensible ladder (by hand in the old days, universally hydraulic for the last 40-50 years). In smaller departments, it may have a pump and even a water tank. If there is a basket it's a tower ladder or an elevating platform or just a tower. And it might be a boom and not a ladder. If the boom bends, it could be a Snorkel (a brand name) or a Bronto (another brand) or an elevating platform (again) or even a cherry picker.
And on and on and on (rescues are worse!).
So, somehow, we need to make this page much more generic. In fact, instead of smashing all the regional pages together, this page should be made very generic with links to the regional pages where more local detail can be added. As it is, this is a mess. --plaws (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Cleaning up the page!!!
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
So I think we all know this page needs some help. It is way to big and confusing. Here is an idea I had. Anyone with actual knowledge of the fire service knows that the terms "fire engine" and "fire truck" are NOT interchangeable! A truck has some sort of aerial ladder or platform. What do people think about pulling all of the aerial apparatus out to their own page (fire truck). This page would still have an "Aerial apparatus" section but it would just have 2-3 sentences saying this is what distinguishes a TRUCK from an ENGINE, then directing you to the fire truck page. For example, look at the section on Aircraft. One sentence and a 'Main Article:' link, or Fireboat. Thoughts? --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I have not gotten any feedback from anyone about this so I am moving forward with my plans to clean up this page. If anyone has any suggestions, please let me know. I am by no means trying to take WP:OWNERship of this article, I am however trying to step up and take charge of cleaning up an article in much need of repair.--Zackmann08 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's good that you're putting in the attention to it. At first I was concerned about not losing sight of the fact that there was, once upon a time, an era when the term "fire engine" covered all fire apparatus, that is, any machine, hand-powered or otherwise, that helped to fight fires, which back then pretty much always meant that it pumped water onto a fire (18th and 19th centuries). It was only with the development of cars and trucks as we know them now that "fire engine" narrowed in meaning to only certain kinds of vehicular fire apparatus. However, then it (re-)occurred to me that Wikipedia pagenaming usually covers the meanings of terms according to present-day consensus, and the older meanings are covered by such things as hatnotes ("for semantically related topic X, see Y") and history sections that say "foo used to mean bar, but nowadays it usually means blah." So my concern blew over. Anyway, thanks for putting in the effort. — ¾-1001:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Started the clean up. There are a TON of redirects that need to be fixed. I will slowly start working on those too. --Zackmann08 (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Somewhat opposed Called by the RFC 'bot. The article could explain the differences and organize the sections better, however splitting out might not be such a good idea. People come to Wikipedia to learn things, and clicking "fire truck" or "fire engine" to bring up a single page that explains what they are, how they work, what the differences are seems a better research answer than ifsomeone sees "for fire truck click on fire truck." Damotclese (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Neutral. I was also summoned here by the bot, and I'm also not so sure this is a good idea. However, I'm also not convinced that it really matters all that much. If Zackmann08 feels this is a necessary action, I guess I wouldn't oppose it. It seems like splitting hairs, but when I tried to find an example of two things that I thought would be impractical to split, they were always split. So, I guess maybe Wikipedia is more amenable to splitting hairs than I thought. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Response:@NinjaRobotPirate: & @Damotclese: first let me thank you for commenting! Great to have feedback on this. Damotclese you make a good point about people coming here to learn. I did include a section on both fire truck & fire engine explaining the differences between the two. Perhaps this section could be expanded upon? NinjaRobotPirate I respect your view that it seems like splitting hairs but I would argue that to not distinguish the two is just factually incorrect. For example, someone who doesn't know much about cars might call any "large car" a "truck", but to people who care about cars and know about them, Trucks and SUVs are not the same. Does that make sense? It isn't a great example but I'm trying to come up with something comparable. The issue is that while people colloquially call fire trucks/fire engines and vise-versa, anyone in the fire service knows they are two very different apparatus. This is also why I created firefighting apparatus as the parent if you will. So back to my previous example both SUVs and Trucks would fall under the parent category of being motor vehicles. Again, it isn't a perfect analogy but hopefully it helps to explain what I am looking for here. I should also mention that the main reason for this cleanup was that the page was just a mess. There was so much unreferenced material, blatant Plagiarism among other issues. My goal here really is to make this a better article, ideally a good article. Anyway, once again, thanks so much for commenting! --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, with the consensus at the time that fire truck and engine seems to be primarily a North American distinction, so instead, the sections were created for different types within the one article. There is also little in the way of reliable citation for the difference, if I remember correctly - and that means that wikipedia doesn't make it (especially as WP:GLOBAL applies. Keep to one article. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 19:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Now on inspection, I can see you've made the split - I can't agree with this. this was part of the reason that the page was until recently 'fire apparatus'. Splitting it over multiple articles is not appropriate, especially for generalists. And looking at the citations, it has confirmed my suspicions that this is purely a North American distinction, so fails WP:GLOBAL. I'm going to revert to stable version, and we can work on cleanup from there. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 19:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Owain.davies: I must strongly disagree with you and ask that you please not revert these edits until we discuss this further. I have no interest in warring but ask that we please discuss before reverting. To say that fire truck and fire engine are one and the same is just wrong. If you do not feel that the multiple sources I have included are enough to demonstrate that, that would be fair and I will gladly further support this statement. I would ask that you explain and discuss why you are so adamant that they are one and the same? You say that this is purely a North American distinction. I respectfully ask, based on what have you reached that conclusion? Please let us discuss this matter before simply reverting the changes. IF the conclusion of this discussion is that these pages should not be separated, then I will personally be glad to merge them back. Please also be aware that there are multiple templates that link to the subheadings on these two pages, so just reverting the changes will break these templates. Again, if the consensus is to merge them back to one page, and I am out voted, I will gladly do the required work to merge them back together, while keeping all the links working. Thanks --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: (@Owain.davies:, @NinjaRobotPirate:, @Damotclese:, @Three-quarter-ten: and others) When I set out to clean up this page, the goal was to do just that... CLEAN it up. In the process, I also split it up. This probably should have been done on its own. Here is what I would like to propose, I have tagged both pages with {{merge}} and am starting a new heading below. Let us discuss merging the pages back, separate of the clean up which also dealt with removing a lot of plagiarism and unreferenced material. -Zackmann08 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you find non-US sources that make a distinction between the two? I think that would help. I would suggest a series of Google searches: "fire truck" "fire engine" difference site:.uk, "fire truck" "fire engine" difference site:.ie, and "fire truck" "fire engine" difference site:.au – that'd probably do for a start. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that the stable version should be where it rests per WP:BRD. I think the key problem is that the article is about fire vehicles, and was previously called fire apparatus to reflect this. A recent discussion concluded that the more common 'fire engine' should be used (I disagreed, but there we go). The thing is that the title should reflect the article, not the article reflect the title, which appears to be what you've set out to do here. In fact, you've then created a new fire apparatus page, which starts to recreate what was here. This is basically a cut and paste move, and against policy - if the consensus is for your methodology, this page should be moved there, and a new one created for engine. I still think this problem revolves around the article naming (and then the quality of some of the sections within)
In terms of sources, I think the citations provided don't really meet WP:RS, especially around an engine/truck distinction, and doesn't really meet WP:V, so whilst we can anecdotally 'prove' the distinction, i don't think we can prove it to policy standards even for the US. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 22:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Er, you proposed a merge on the 17th of March and then carried it without input from anyone on the 18th of March. Don't you think that was just a tad pre-emptive? Richerman(talk)10:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Merge discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It has been suggested by multiple people that fire engine and fire truck be re-merged to one page. Please discuss any thoughts you may have on the matter here.
Oppose. I firmly believe that the two are very distinct apparatus and do not belong under the same roof. To me, it would be like saying that an SUV and a Van are the same thing. They are not. Both are types of Motor vehicles but serve very different purposes. To members of the fire community, this is also true about fire engines and fire trucks. Both are firefighting apparatus but not the same thing. This is why in the {{Infobox fire department}} there are separate listings for engines and truck. I would also like to add that I think the addition of firefighting apparatus is essential for surely we can all agree that a fire boat is not a fire engine/fire truck, but it is certainly an apparatus used for the fighting of fires. Finally, there are already articles for things like quints, airport crash tenders and wildland fire engines. Does this not set a precedent to be followed? Or how about the different pages for Armoured personnel carrier and tank? My thoughts. (Full disclosure I have made significant contributions and changes to the infobox template mentioned, but engines and trucks were separated long before I started editing. I am also the one who split fire engine and fire truck in the first place.) --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Somewhat subsumed above discussion - This page was about all types of fire apparatus, and problem seems to have been created by the page naming. If this (pre-existing) page needs moving by consensus then so be it, but so far its created a cut and paste move, some non-global articles, and a narrative which is difficult to follow for a lay user, in order to appease professionals in one country. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 22:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep the page title as is. While I disagree, I must bow to consensus. It is fair to say that fire engine is a common term describing a fire engine/fire truck. But, lets add new a section that discusses the difference between the two and emphasize that this difference is primarily in the United States.
Create 2 sub-sections (Heading 3s), one for engines and trucks. These would essentially be comprised of the bulk of what I had placed on my re-make of the 2 pages. I.E. the subsections.
Pull out things that do not fall under the category of fire engine (or truck). No matter where you go in the world, a fire boat is not a fire engine, nor is fire plane, a water tender or ambulance. This is not just a U.S. thing. These should either have their own page, or be mentioned on firefighting apparatus. As part of this, the fire engine page should also say 'for other types of firefighting apparatus, see firefighting apparatus.
A fire engine (also known in some territories as a fire apparatus, fire truck, or fire appliance) is a vehicle designed primarily for firefighting operations. This is the common (WP:common name) understanding. Note that definition says nothing about what that vehicle carries (tanks, pumps, hoses or ladders, or some combination thereof). We can debate whether "truck" or "engine" is the primary topic term. I'm OK with either. I'm less keen on using the more generic terms "apparatus" or "appliance". Heck, you can think of a simple garden hose, or squirt gun as an "appliance" or "apparatus". If there is not sufficient space in a single article to cover all firefighting vehicles (I'm OK with that as a primary topic title too), then, per WP:summary style create more specific sub-articles on fire ladder truck and fire tanker engine, or whatever, but the title of the sub-article should clearly indicate the nature of the firefighting equipment that the "truck" or "engine" carries. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Sorry I didn't have time to closely analyze everything in this discussion. I would like to at least offer the following. Number one, take heart that no matter which setup gets implemented, even if it's not the one you'd prefer, Wikipedia's coverage won't inevitably "suck" because of it. Wikipedia will still end up pretty good either way. Things like hatnotes, and sentences à la "sometimes X is called Y, but also blah blah", can make it feel OK overall. Next idea: One of the things bumped up against here is an aspect of natural language that is explained at the article on jargon: it is not uncommon for words to have broader senses among the general public and narrower senses within an industry among its practitioners. Wikipedia ends up acknowledging both, upholding the epistemologic validity of the former within a generalist context (against the latter's tendency to scream that it's "wrong" in an absolute/contextless way), but also making space for explaining the latter to laypeople as well (not just discounting it as "some made-up rule that no one follows"—because it's not true that no one follows it). I'm failing to come up with a lot of examples off the top of my head, but one I can think of at the moment is the pistol-versus-handgun debacle. The fact is that most of the world considers pistol and handgunsynonymous, with revolver being hyponymous. But among many members of the gun industry and hobby in the U.S., you're "ignorant" if you don't understand the "fact" that pistol and revolver are mutually exclusive sibling hyponyms beneath handgun as a hypernym. The rancor mostly comes from the fact that the proponents of the latter taxonomy traditionally haven't even been aware that a legitimate (non-"idiot") alternate taxonomy existed. And in the decade or so since Wikipedia brought it to their attention, a few have dug in their heels and screamed louder than anyone else, so Wikipedia's pagenaming and redirect taxonomy, as of this writing, reflects their insistence. The topic has periodically generated a lot of edit warring and talk page rehashing, but that's probably inevitable—whichever taxonomy is currently in place, someone from the other camp will come complain about it, but it does help if the hatnotes and explanations and links can defuse 80% of that before it happens. In this firefighting apparatus instance, it's not horrible to have one article that covers both fire trucks and fire engines, acknowledging their synonymy in many human minds (although many a firefighter, in some countries at least, will carefully differentiate them), but then it's also not horrible to have separate articles, as long as they adequately cross-reference each other with links and duly express their hyponymous relationship to a parent-level article called firefighting apparatus or something similar ("firefighting equipment" could also work). A key takeaway, either way, is, "Well, OK, I'm reading the result and finding that it doesn't suck, and the competing (alternative) taxonomy is mentioned and explained." Anyway, out of time for now, but optimistic that the end result in this case won' suck either way. Best, — ¾-1002:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, some great points made here, which i think we should consider one at a time.
The first point is whether there should be a master article about fire apparatus/vehicles, and then a separate article or articles about engines and trucks
The second point is about how to address the terminology within such an article
The third point is how to get from here to there in terms of creation, merging, etc.
It seems to me that nobody disagrees with the principle of there being a master article on firefighting vehicles/apparatus. Now that is what THIS article is, or was, or is supposed to be, and at the time of creation, there didn't seem like enough content to fill a separate article, as well as a master article. @Zackmann08: has also created a new article at Fire apparatus to address this. I have no objection to there being an article on the overall picture, and one on engines and trucks together, so long as there is enough unique material that would appear to make each article a reasonable length (i.e. not a stub) without repetition. I don't support a separate engine and truck article, per WP:GLOBAL and WP:COMMONNAME.
As regards the second point, I positively encourage having a section explaining the terminology (by convention in a "nomenclature" section, rather than "engine vs truck"). Addressing the point about subheadings about 'engine' and 'truck' I would contend that the article already has this structure, except that the sections are called "conventional apparatus" and "aerial apparatus". I don't have a particular view on 'conventional' vs 'engine' except that it shouldn't repeat the article title to avoid confusion. I DO vastly prefer the descriptive 'aerial apparatus' to the somewhat colloquial 'truck'.
Now, how to get to there from here? My real bone of contention in this whole thing is that this article IS one that was written about ALL firefighting vehicles/apparatus, and as per WP:TITLE, the title is supposed to reflect the article - NOT the article reflect the title. As nobody seems to disagree about the idea that there should be a master article, as per the rules of WP:MOVE THIS article should be the one that fulfils that purpose - cut and paste moving information out of this article in to the new fire apparatus loses the history, and breaks the process.
I therefore suggest that THIS article is renamed (again) to 'Fire apparatus' or possibly the less controversial 'Firefighting vehicles', and any content within the new 'fire apparatus' is merged in before that page is deleted. I would make that page the primary redirect from 'fire engine', 'fire truck' and similar pages.
then we need to decide if there is enough unique material for a separate engine/truck page. Personally, i don't see that there is, but happy to be proved wrong in that respect. if we then DO create it, I suggest that it lives as a daughter page at 'Fire engine (vehicle)' or something similar (engine/truck, pistol/six-shooter) which is primarily accessed through navigating from the master (this) article.
That will avoid the situation where someone naviagates to 'fire engine' and learns only about pumper units, where they actually wanted a overview, because they are a normal civilian who calls everything red and noisy a fire engine.
I like the points raised here by @Owain.davies: and support almost 100% what you have said. I have come to appreciate that while I (and those in the U.S. firefighting community) see trucks and engines as very different things, we must target those who come to Wikipedia calling everything red and noisy a fire engine. (Again Owain, this cracked me up! WELL SAID!!!) I REALLY liked your point about IF fire engines get their own page, calling it something like Fire engine (vehicle) so that fire engine still takes people to firefighting apparatus. At first I disagreed, but as I was writing this response, I kept thinking about "everything red and noisy..." And well, you totally changed my mind!
I would strongly advocate the need of firefighting apparatus as being separate from the final page for fire engines/pumpers/trucks/aerials for the simple reason that a firefighting apparatus includes everything from planes & helicopters, to engines & trucks, from airport crash tenders to hazardous materials apparatus. I believe there is enough information about the design of apparatus as a whole, things like active/passive warnings as well as the color fire engine red, that will describe all apparatus, not just engines/trucks. I will again state that I think the notion of having fire engine redirect to the page for apparatus as a whole is a fantastic idea!
To your excellent point about moving pages and maintaining history I would counter with the following. Assuming that the decision is made to split this page into two, one for firefighting apparatus and one for fire engines/trucks, it seems that there are two ways forward both of which will result in some loss of history so to speak.
1) Rename this page to firefighting apparatus, keeping the full history. Then creating a second page for fire engine (vehicle) (actual name TDB) which would include information specific to engines/pumpers/conventional as well as trucks/aerials, but would NOT include information on things like fire boats, planes, etc. The creation of this second page for the new fire engine (vehicle) would include a lot of copying and pasting and thus a loss of history.
2) Move this page to fire engine (vehicle), maintaining history. Then redirect Fire engine to firefighting apparatus as per above. Firefighting apparatus would then include a lot of copying and pasting and thus a loss of history.
Basically my point is that it seems to be 6 of one, half dozen of the other which approach we take in terms of moving the pages (again this is assuming that we split apparatus from engines/trucks). Whichever route we choose, we lose some of the history. Surely there must be some sort of precedent for this sort of issue. Perhaps we can include a detailed summary at the top of the discussion pages as to why actions have been taken? (Something I think we should do once this discussion has reached a conclusion.) Anxious to hear more input! --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I would just say that if we do split, i wouldn't expect the overarching article to be significantly shorter, as the description of each type is only generally one paragraph block long - which is what you'd expect under the parent/daughter article scenario. For instance, our information on 'engines' isn't really any longer than the bit on airfield or wildland appliances which do have their own articles. And I would reiterate that having the daughter articles is only worth it if we can fill a full article with the content. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 08:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Are we at least all in agreement that we can remove things like Firefighting aircraft from this page? I am hesitant to make changes to the page while we are still discussing things but my understanding is that at this point the discussion centers around whether or not to separate out fire engine, fire truck and firefighting apparatus (the last one being the parent). I really do not think it is necessary to have fire PLANES on a page about fire engines. Going back to the example ¾-10 gave when (s)he was talking about firearms, this would be analogous to having a section about artillery on a page about pistols/handguns. I.E. the discussion we are currently having is whether pistols and handguns deserve one page or two, but can we all agree that artillery doesn't belong on either of these pages?
I would really like to start working on getting this page cleaned up. Whether the page is left as just a single page, split into two pages or split into three, this page needs to be cleaned up. Better headings, more sources, less (ideally no) plagiarism, etc. --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Conversation seems to have stalled. Does anyone have any additional comments? Can we get a good recap of where we stand and form a consensus on how to move forward? --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Fire Service
Is there anyone here that is passionate about the fire service and has an interest in helping out with the WikiProject Fire Service? There have been a number of people commenting on the modifications to this page (which has been awesome!). I am curious if any of those people have an interest in taking a more active role in the WikiProject. If so, please comment below or ping me! :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Edits
Regarding the edits you reverted -
the items in the list of standard apparatus were removed because they're not standard outside the US
deluge guns are a rarity in most places
quads and quints are again a US specific term for a variant on a turntable ladder. There's no evidence that they're different - departments in other places would just assume that they could do some of these things. So it is given the weight it deserves.
same for tiller ladder - it's just a specific sub-type, and then only just
I can't see any evidence that wildland-urban interface trucks are really a specific type, and if they are, then they definately live underneath wildland
in all cases, any US specific stuff like NFPA isn't relevant here. You can put it in firefighting vehicles in the United States if you like, but not on a global article
So, let's discuss if you have any answers to the points above.
This page man... This page is a PAIN!!! -_- @Owain.davies: you make a number of great points. I disagree with a couple of them but must admit you make some good points on others. I think that part of the issue being faced here is that I am trying to make this page work with {{Infobox fire department}}. That is to say that each of the apparatus types listed in that infobox link to a separate section or page. Up until a few weeks ago, that infobox was used almost exclusively for departments in the United States. That coupled with the fact that I am from the US... Well I'm not so great with the whole WP:WORLDVIEW. Couple of points I would raise...
Deluge guns are pretty universal in my experience. I have never seen a 'standard' fire engine without one. But then again, I have only seen engines in the US...
Quints (not quads) are mostly a US specific term, yes, but there are some cases of them being used elsewhere. I found a few articles, but they all also said something like "this U.S. type of apparatus was also recently introduced in London for one of their stations...". I would argue that the fact that it has its own page on Wikipedia (Quint (fire apparatus)) speaks to the fact that it gets a little bit more attention here...
Tiller ladders... These are super unique trucks. I mean just look at them! It is worth having a separate section about them to explain the benefits of having this type of apparatus versus a 'standard' truck.
As a passer-by, I endorse Owain's views here. The article consistently drives too close to a narrow US-centric view that makes no sense at all to anyone else. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, some discussion -
the deluge guns must be a US thing, don't find them elsewhere that i've seen.
someone creating an article doesn't make it specifically notable. I'm not disputing that the term is used, but it's not really special.
Tiller ladders - not really unique. turning ladder mounted on a different truck. some of the UK fixed chassis trucks have rear axle steer too, but I don't think that's particularly notable. In either case, i didn't remove it, just made it a subsection of turntable ladder. Would you not agree that it is a type of turntable ladder?
For infoboxes, I'm not sure it needs separate templates. People can always leave fields blank.
Attempted edit to fix of numeric list spacing,added on edit summary requested help for better coding. The help is more needed due to error from preview showing issue fixed when saved, the problem reappeared.
The preview function shows the text aligned in the section 'Turntable ladder" as 1, 2, 3, all even in a row but when the edit page is saved, the bad spacing is back again.2602:306:CE27:DC90:510A:3006:4CFA:47DE (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
It may be "fire truck" in some countries, e.g. US & Canada, but in many other English speaking countries it is "fire engine". Furthermore, if you read the definition you will see that the general definition of fire engine is one that pumps water, whereas "truck" can refer to a non-pumping fire apparatus such as a ladder truck. You might also want to look at what Wikipedia calls "original research" (WP:OR) as that's what "i have talked to many fireman" is. You need to provide reliable and verifiable sources for any additions / changes to Wikipedia article content (WP:VERIFY and WP:RS) --10mmsocket (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Just to add a bit more weight to the retention of "fire engine". Take a look at a typical US city fire department such as Chicago Fire Department. They have both engine companies and truck companies depending on which appliances they use. --10mmsocket (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I strongly believe that the page should say fire TRUCK and not engine I have never seen anyone say "fire engine"
and as we all should know we use the metric as a standard due to the annoying americans system
this includes fire engine which in other countries is fire TRUCK the majority of countries
use fire truck so If nobody replies to this discussion in 10 mins (thats how long it takes a car to go 41.425 miles for the people that throw tea in the ocean and start revoloutions against non corrupt countries.) I will change it back to fire truck.
-cheese editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheese editor (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Please stop issuing threats and being disruptive. It's a quick way to getting yourself blocked. Look back at the other sections on this talk page. There is clear consensus for keeping things the same. --10mmsocket (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
im not issuing threats i asked what country your in because different countries say fire truck or fire engine and also i got a notification from wikipedia telling me to stop being disruptive and to talk on the talk page instead.
im not being disruptive im talking on the talk page about a dispute which is what wikipedia tells you to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheese editor (talk • contribs) 23:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
To stop any further move warring, the article has now been move protected, meaning that it can only be renamed through a formal page move discussion. --10mmsocket (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
the truck/engine dispute needs to stop
Fire truck/engine dispute needs to stop so I thought of a simple solution, coin flip. Before I do it does anybody have any objections? if there is no response in 10 minutes I will flip the coin and whatever it lands on I will do (heads = engine tails = truck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Your usernameeeee (talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps it is just in an attempt to be as generic as possible to cover as wide a geographical area as possible, but the article ends up missing the the entire point of a fire engine in most of the US. As it makes clear in the water tender article, the fundamental difference between a water tender and a fire engine is that a fire engine has a much more powerful pump to maintain hose pressure in multiple hose lines (and I believe a manifold system for controlling water flow to various pipes), while a water tender has a smaller pump meant only to take up water from a water source. But both carry water onboard (typically less on an engine), and both have pumps onboard. Both usually carry equipment and firefighters, both carry water onboard, but they are completely different and unique vehicles. This article is trying to take too many different usages into account and failing to actually define most of the different classes of vehicle. I see nothing at all about onboard pumping capacity here. I see no definition of a quad or quint. It ought to be renamed to Firefighting Apparatus, and then break the equipment down by class, giving the various regional names for each type. Or break it up into regional sections instead. As it is, a person from America who wants to know what the actual definition of "fire engine" is is going to leave here with a very poor idea of the actual definition as use in North America. They are going leave thinking it is a generic catchall term for firefighting equipment. This article should be about educating people against such common mistakes, not reinforcing it just because it is widespread.64.223.122.39 (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Question on my added pic of an MAN with winch and shackles
I wrote in the caption that the winch on the front of the fire engine is used "e.g. for towing damaged cars." Not being a native speaker, I wonder if this is the correct formulation. Isn't "to tow" describing a movement with fixed rope length? Here, it is rather pulling the damaged car away from an accident site by reducing the rope length. Advice welcome. Pittigrilli (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Nee-Naw?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why does the article say that "Nee-Naw" is another name for a Fire Engine? We all know that that is the sound that a Fire Engine makes. I don't know if this is Vandalism or not, but it is unsourced so it might be. Can someone offer an explanation? Quinnerwinner12 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
