ADB B5 Table 20 Vehicle weights

[MonkeyBoy]

Can anybody provide advice on the following?
Table 20 of ADB is the "Typical fire & Rescue service vehicle access route specification" and advises that the "minimum carrying capacity of roads" should be either 12.5 Tonnes (pumps) or 17 Tonnes (High Reach).
Note 1 of the Table does give a proviso that not all appliances are standard - consult your Fire Authority - Building Control may adopt other dimensions.

Now I'm sure that the Service I work for is not on its own in this matter but, our latest fleet of appliances weigh 15 Tonnes (pump) and 26 Tonnes (High Reach - its a VEMA appliance).

I have spoken to one of our Driving Instructors who has given his opinion that "if the road is rated at 17 Tonnes and signed as such then 'we' shouldn't be driving down it (unless it is signed as for access only - in which case we can!)"   His analogy was with a 'weak bridge' - "if you drive a big heavy fire engine over it, and the bridge collapses or you have an accident etc, what would you say in Court?"

Now the question - has anybody any ideas on how to provide a response in a Building Regulations Consultation to highlight the fact our appliances are heavier than those detailed in Table 20 ??

[Mr. P]

I would suggest you first push this up your chain of command/line management route. But it is interesting note if other authorities vehicles are significantyl heavier these days. Through you FS unit - try discussing this with BC.

[Tom Sutton]

Surely the note covers that eventuality but what may be needed is for this table to be considered at the next revision.

[facades]

Tom has the answer in nutshell I think !!

[wee brian]

You can't help wondering why anybody would buy an appliance that is too heavy to be used in the majority of incidents (given that these numbers have been in building regs for donkeys years)

Do you think changing ADB will make all the exisiting roads and hardstandings get stronger?

Or maybe you think we should rebuild stuff every time an FRS buys a new toy?

[Phoenix]

I'm with you, wee b.  And I'm curious as to where all this extra weight has come from.  Are the external dimensions of the machines correspondingly greater?  Should road widths be considered?  As a council tax payer, do the machines cost correspondingly more?  And what pros are there from this extra weight?  There are surely cons.

Stu

[wee brian]

I wonder if they have been taking procurement advice from the MOD?

[Midland Retty]

Steady on chaps! Lets not all be too sceptical...

Anyway as Tom Sutton states Note 1 from Table 20 sums it all up - it acknowledges that not all fire appliances are the same and to consult with your local fire brigade for further local information on what appliances they use!

To answer the original posters question - Common sense would dictate where a brigade driver would or wouldn't take a fire appliance. Lots of different roads, bridges, hard-standings and the like have weights restrictions. Never mind weight some roads, places are difficult to access for other reasons too.

It's not a new problem.

Every locale has its challenges for response drivers, and as a driver you consider the risk versus the outcome when answering an emergency call. That has always  been the case. Not saying it's easy but...

So if someone decided to take a 12 tonne truck over a 7.5 tonne weight restricted bridge,and the bridge was damaged as a result then I think its reasonable to assume the driver would face some kind of penalty or reprisal for doing so!

If however the driver can justify why s/he did it - for instance they are a fire crew in an appliance responding to an emergency call and the weak bridge was along the only road that lead to the building that was on fire then clearly thats a different matter.  

But that has always been the case - responsibility for stuff like that rests with the driver and OIC, and if it goes belly up - they have to justify their actions

[Phoenix]

It's not a new problem.

All noted and accepted, MF and it isn't a new problem, it's a very old and troublesome one.  I cannot see that it eases the situation, though, if FRSs move towards larger machines that are less capable of negotiating our streets.  I'm sure there are reasons and it would be good to know what they are.

Stu

[CivvyFSO]

Money.

[Midland Retty]

All noted and accepted, MF and it isn't a new problem, it's a very old and troublesome one.  I cannot see that it eases the situation, though, if FRSs move towards larger machines that are less capable of negotiating our streets.  I'm sure there are reasons and it would be good to know what they are.
Stu

Hi Stu

From what Ive seen I think your average pump rescue ladder has actually got slightly smaller (or atleast stayed a similar size) over the years, whilst some special appliances have been getting bigger.

I believe a lot has to do with  the outcomes of the modernisation of the fire service, and possibly an element of the new dimension role which is being absorbed back into brigades at county level.

To be honest a lot of brigades differ from each other so it is hard to generalise, but as you correctly pointed out you would think brigade fleet managers would be mindful of weight and size restrictions, and Im sure most of them are.

[Dinnertime Dave]

 The Scania appliances in my brigade are 17.5 tonnes.

if i recieve any consultation where i think it might be an issue i tell them