Interesting information. Most of the fire trucks near me,
I
think are 750 GPM or 1,000 GPM. At least, back when I was
interested in that field.

I'll admit to knowing more about railroads and steam locos
than fire
engines. My statement on the time it takes a fire company to
fill an
average sized steam tender was based on observations (many).

CY: And, a lot of factors go into determine water flow.

A quick look at Wiki reveals that (in the USA): "Class A
hydrants are
1000-1499gpm, Class B hydrants are 500-999gpm, and Class C
hydrants are
0-499gpm. A fire pumper can't deliver more water than the
hydrant can
provide.

Steam loco rewatering usually takes place in some
out-of-the-way
location, typically a small town. The fire engines
responding are not
the big city pumping engines, but usually much smaller
"volunteer"
department trucks. The capacity of nearby hydrants (the
ultimate
limiting factor) is probably toward the low side those on
the Wiki list.
There's also the issues of how far they have to run the
supply hose to
get to the nearest hydrant, and the condition of the
hydrant, etc.

CY: And also the wisdom of the crew. You get a lot more flow
if you put the pumper at the hydrant, and pump through the
hose. It's nearly impossible to effectively suck through a
hose. Some fire guys keep forgetting this.

Both PRR and AT&SF (and maybe a few others) had tenders that
exceeded
24,000 gallon water capacity. Even at 1000 gpm (unlikely in
the field),
it would still take 24 minutes to fill such a tender. A more
typical
sized tender, say 15,000 gallons capacity, would take at
least a
quarter-hour to fill at best. It would seem a half-hour
would be more
typical under real-world conditions, which is about what I
have observed.

CY: with a good hydrant and truck, and a good crew. Things
go a lot faster.

Anyway, my point was that it usually takes much longer to
fill a steam
tender today than it did when proper RR watering facilities
were
commonplace.

CY: I can easily believe that.

Dan Mitchell
============