gut;1566488 wrote:One modern truck should be able to contain it. I'm just going off the fact a high-rise fire in Chicago would see 5-8 engines, generally. A big part of what dictates additional engines is the chance of the fire to spread to proximity houses - not the case here.
I'm no expert, either, but I don't think that fire is a total loss if a single engine gets there in reasonable time. And that's why a total loss is always heightened suspicion.
Not necessarly. Most Engines carry only 1000 to 1500 gallons of water and have pumps that can empty the tank within minutes. (usually at least a 1500 GPM pump on the front line engines)
sportchampps;1566529 wrote:I think the lack of nearby water really caused it to be a total loss. It's hard to fight a fire without water
This right here is what makes the difference. Not hitting a hydrant where there is unlimited water and some water pressure going to the pumper makes a huge difference. They had to set up tanks and have tankers from other departments shuttle water from the closest hydrant or water tower. It's not as fast to fill a 2000-3000 gallon tanker as you would think. Not even including the drive time between the water source and the dump sight. (I've done this years ago)
Also take into consideration that not hitting a hydrant means you have to draft water from these water tanks and pump them to the front line engine. This takes a little skill and if not practiced enough can be difficult do. Sometimes this could takes minutes which just adds to the fire spreading.
