APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT.
两种不同的观点正确的e的主题quipment of fire departments are presented in this issue. A quotation from the late State Fire Marshal G. Chal. Port of Pennsylvania, who passed away on October 6, appears on our first page, on the most suitable apparatus for various localities and conditions of service, particularly as applicable to his own state. There is no doubt that his point is well taken when he says that the chemical apparatus should be the main reliance for the smaller fires. This point has been repeatedly emphasized in the various papers of the New York Fire College Course. The avoidance of the use of water, where a chemical stream can effect the same result, is one of the cardinal principles taught, as is also the use of judgment as to the amount of water used, so as to cause the minimum of damage in extinguishing a blaze at its incipiency. Fire Marshal Part, in referring to the matter of apparatus, says: “In cities of 30,000 population, it is advisable to have about one-third of the companies provided with engines, to furnish more powerful streams. Frequently some of the residential sections will be at considerably higher elevations than the business district, and companies in those sections must be equipped with pumping engines. In recent practice the motor combinataion chemical and hose car has been found to be an exceedingly valuable apparatus, and is, in this state, superseding both the horse-drawn combination and the straight chemical.” He goes on to say that the application of the gasoline motor to fire service offers such advantages as regards speed and reliability that it is fast superseding all other forms of propulsion. The ideal equipment for an engine company in a city able to afford it, the fire marshal thinks, should consist of two pieces, a motor pumping engine and a combination chemical and hose car. A good arrangement in small or medium-sized cities is to have half the companies equipped in this manner, which will provide adequate chemical service and the other half equipped with combined pumping engine and hose cars. The second viewpoint on this subject is contained in a communication from our Cincinnati correspondent. He advocates the smaller pumping engine, of less than 750gallons capacity, on the ground of its flexibility, resiliency, ease of operation and greater safety in running. Mr. Mears argues that the larger unit, if incapacitated for service by an accident, puts four streams out of service, whereas the smaller one, in case of trouble, only withdraws two streams. He also claims that the large machine is much more expensive in operation, but he loses sight of the fact that it will require two of the smallar apparatus to equal the work of the large one. Of course this is a matter that must be governed largely by the size and locality of the city, the condition of the streets to be traversed by the apparatus, and many other matters. Each type of apparatus has its place and its uses. In a large city, especially with well-paved streets, and large areas to be covered, the larger machine, with its power and stability, would seem to possess features that commend it. On the other hand, the smaller engine undoubtedly had the advantages that our correspondent claims for it, as far as lightness and resiliency are concerned. But so many things enter into this question that it would seem to be a matter largely of individual judgment, according to local conditions.
