Assembly Innovation Park | 5 Middlesex Ave | Somerville

[SeamusMcFly]

The view from the top.

 

[Dr. Rosen Rosen]

From Somerville highs school

 

[DZH22]

7/13

IMG_0049 by David Z, on Flickr

IMG_0070 by David Z, on Flickr

 

[Javier]

 

[BeeLine]

As of 8/20/23

 

[SeamusMcFly]

9/21

 

[Javier]

 

[#bancars]

View attachment 43554View attachment 43554View attachment 43555

Pretty cool--I've never seen this angle of Assembly before!

 

[steaksandwich]

Renderings for the Fire Station on the ground floor of the garage can be found on the City of Somerville website

Assembly Fire Station

www.somervillema.gov

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

That's cute the architects think the city will be buying any Euro-style apparatus any time soon.

 

[chrisbrat]

That's cute the architects think the city will be buying any Euro-style apparatus any time soon.

I'm not following re: the "Euro-style aparatus" comment. Explain please?

Do you mean the firetruck/engine in the renders?

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

Yes.

Sorry - "apparatus" is fire nerd-speak for "fire truck." American urban fire departments tend to think they need big, beefy monster trucks instead of things designed for tight corners and narrow streets.

 

[chrisbrat]

thanks! my bad. (and here i was, fairly confident in my "nerd status.")

 

[Stlin]

Yes.

Sorry - "apparatus" is fire nerd-speak for "fire truck." American urban fire departments tend to think they need big, beefy monster trucks instead of things designed for tight corners and narrow streets.

View attachment 44158

I mean, even if you *wanted* to, half the problem is that we don't tend to build trucks in general the same way. Start truck nerdery here:

All else being equal, the truck with a shorter wheelbase will turn sharper and be more maneuverable than one with a longer wheelbase, and can be shorter overall or provide more space for cargo load. In something like a Freightliner M2, a "conventional truck" one of the most common trucks on US roads, you ride behind the front wheels and engine. That amount of both overall length and wheel base is effectively wasted, which combined with a large rear overhang leads to not great urban maneuverability. Compare that to something like the Isuzu N series, which is a cabover (Cab Over Engine, COE) design where you ride ahead of / on top of the front wheels and engine leading to an overall shorter wheelbase and increased maneuverability. Its why its most common in urban environs like Boston where that matters - In general, European trucks, including semi trailers, are all cabovers, and American trucks are typically "conventional tractors."

The following paragraphs contains detailed regulatory nerdery, which can be ignored: Notably, this is a relatively recent change dating to ~1974 - 1982. Up to that point, we had largely Cabover trucks in the US until the introduction of the Federal Bridge Formula and the enactment of the STAA (Surface Transportation Assistance Act). The Federal Bridge Formula was enshrined into law in 1974, which principally standardized how truck weights are calculated for loading of highways and, as the name suggests, bridges. This is unique to the US, and it specifically uses axle spacing as one of its key computational inputs, leading to additional length being incentivized to achieve maximal loading. Ever wonder why some dump trucks have extra wheels, sometimes up or on an arm that trails down behind? This is why. However, different states had different regulations on maximum length, with trailers being regulated to anything between 48' and 60', with 48 and 53' being most common, usually combined with overall length limits for the combination of tractor and trailer(s). American trucks in the 70s largely looked like their Europeans counterparts. But in 1982 the STAA was passed which implemented a minimum legal length for semi trucks in the US, with minimum trailer lengths of 48ft. More importantly however, it eliminated the right of states to regulate maximum overall semi truck length as a single tractor trailer combination at all, or even axle spacing. Legally, the length limit of a tractor and single trailer combination is unlimited, with some caveats. Note that 53ft trailers built to certain standards are permitted to operate without permits, leading that to become the default standard in trucking today. Also as a consequence, because a sleeper isn't considered a load, massively long tractors like these were made legal in the US, since that aspect of vehicle length is specifically unregulated. Prior to the effective date of the STAA, we had an environment where overall truck length was restricted in much the same way as Europe, leading to an robust Cabover market and supply. Conventional tractors are widely reputed to be more comfortable for drivers, and by very nature of their shape more aerodynamic and fuel efficient on highways. Both of these are very important in the US where much of the OTR market is Owner-Operator, and given the vast distances often travelled, leading to pretty much wholesale change in the span of a decade or two. All that said, straight (non-semi) trucks are still regulated by length by the individual states, most commonly 40 or 45ft. I believe the legal limit in Massachusetts is 40' which is the same as an MBTA bus, but most commonly, you'll see something like a 26' box on a truck that maybe measures 35-38' overall driving around most US neighborhoods as furniture delivery, moving trucks, etc.

In Europe, while they have the same 12m (40ft) length limit for straight trucks, articulated trucks (semi-tractors) are overall limited to 16.5m (54ft) with some exceptions in some countries. That's barely a foot longer than US trailers, and once you account for necessary slack, doesn't necessarily give you a proportional increase in capacity over a straight truck. As a result, combined with differing road loading regimes, European truck builders are incentivized to offer trucks that "waste" as little of that total length as possible. In shorter haul European applications, the smaller sleeper accommodations, worse aerodynamics etc. are considered worthwhile trade offs, and as to maximize the potential in a 12m form, they almost all offer an entire series of heavily maximized 12m / 40ft long chassis for all applications, MAN, for example, builds a 8x8 twin steer axle severe duty chassis primarily used for dump trucks and military applications, and which can form the basis for the heaviest of European fire apparatus. Plus, using what are fundamentally commercially available trucks means you have fire engines that look much more modern, since somebody like Iveco or Mercedes still has an industrial design team making their trucks look stylish and modern for the commercial market. Thats not something that really exists in the US. Also note, while we have longer, less maneuverable trucks generally, they aren't actually wider. (European trucks are regulated to a max width of 2.55 to 2.6m, which is basically equal to the US 102 in). Fundamentally, a 12m long 2.6m wide vehicle can be just as maneuverable as one that is 40ft long and 8.5 ft wide - it just all depends on how you set up the chassis for success with shorter wheelbases, increased turn in angle, etc..

As a result, when the US had a robust industry of cabover commercial and vocational trucks, trucks like the Ford C series and similar were common both as trucks and as a basis for modification into fire engines through the 80s. Once regulatory change took root, most cabover designs were functionally dead in the market by about 1990. What's left today are limited, relatively low volume sellers for urban users and vocational purposes like garbage trucks. Since a fire engine by its nature is meant to be relatively maneuverable - so if you're building to a ~35ft overall length, you'd want a cabover chassis with as short of a wheelbase as you can manage. But the paucity in available cabover commercial chassis means that there's just nothing to build on, leading to most (I'd say 60-70%) of American fire apparatus built today to be "Custom Cab/ Chassis," which all are cabovers. I can think of a single equivalent to that Iveco pictured being available for sale in the US today, the Kenworth K370 (The Isuzu N series and peers are much lighter duty trucks) - but it isn't available in a crew cab. Google suggests that a singular fire apparatus was based on that chassis in the past decade. The closest thing you actually see in service are brush / high water trucks, like Boston's, which are based on "reset" surplus US Military FMTV chassis... which were length restricted by the need to fit a lot of them into military transport aircraft and ships, and thus were based on an Austrian design, but which are being replaced by trucks with a more conventional layout. You certainly can still build apparatus on something similar to the aforementioned Freightliner M2... It'll just typically be much longer and less maneuverable compared to an custom chassis cabover vehicle. And once you've made that decision, you have lots of options.

/end part 1

 

[Stlin]

/start part 2

This pretty directly leads to the traditional looking design, and capability (and thus size) creep of most American fire apparatus. If you're already building a custom chassis, you can do Custom. (at usually quite the expense - smaller towns, where the chief and a few guys make those decisions, buy one truck every 4-5 years, tend to way overspec in a way big cities tend not to. Boston's equipment, for example, is much more barebones than Belmont's.) High Roof, flat roof, 5 seats, 6? What sort of hose or pump arrangement would you like? Some pumpers are designed to have an EMS compartment to work as an ambulance in a pinch. You want a pumper and a tower ladder in one truck? Sure! That Raleigh one pictured is a quint/tower, which is admittedly distinctly American. That process can easily lead to a lot of huge trucks. They build relatively few "in stock / demo" units, with almost every fire truck you've ever seen having been a custom order from a builder. Consequently, the apparatus builders are not keen on retooling their body making capabilities, since they tend to work to an order size of 1 truck. This also means apparatus builders favor easily formed straight lines, flat panels, slab sides and other standardized off the shelf parts that are easy to work with. Frankly, Boston's apparatus are actually relatively heavily customized for purpose and need around the small streets. A standard Type 1 pumper by the book is ~ 30-35' long, Boston's are 28.25" and an inch narrower than standard, and while they have an EMS section, equipment wise they're pretty basic since they ordered 23 of the things at one go. Likewise, their ladders are 38.5 ft when those can get up to 45-50ft. (Here's good articles from 2017-19 about their customizations for our narrow streets, Ladder Trucks & Pumpers - through 2023 they're still buying the exact same trucks today. Overall, Boston's are actually roughly about the same size as European trucks - they just don't look it thanks to the traditional look. Something like this is frankly about the same size as this. That's not to say some departments, especially suburban ones, don't have huge trucks - they definitely do - Somerville has a pair of tiller ladders that defies almost all reason other than the "rule of cool," but I know next to nothing about how they specify equipment.

But because the Europeans on the other hand have a robust industry of cabover commercial trucks to build on top of, they're also less prone to over customization - the chassis is the chassis and it can only do so much. A commercial truck chassis is only built to be so long, carry so much weight, be so stable and take off so much power for pumps and aerials and the like so they tend to be more minimal in their specifications, be lighter and reserve what they do have for complexity in their mechanical systems. Without discussing firefighting tactics, which I'm not qualified to speak on, they simply use aerials in a different way than we do - both in philosophy and execution, and that carries through other decisions too. I'm told American firefighters generally have their SCBA (air bottles) in every seatback, leading to increased demands on cabin space that isn't well met by commercial chassis built for civilian purposes that don't have that requirement. European firefighters on the other hand, apparently don their breathing gear once they get there from an outside cabinet - that general practice evolved from the fact that their cab simply didn't have the space to. Seemingly, they tailor their load to their chassis, and size everything and the firefighting around it to fit, whereas American departments tend to start the other way around - they start with an idea of how they want to fight fires and build a truck to accomplish exactly that.

/rant - this got much longer and detailed than I'm prepared to admit.

 

[#bancars]

/start part 2

This indirectly leads to their traditional looking design, and capability (and thus size) creep. The apparatus builders are not keen on retooling their body making capabilities, there are relatively few "in stock / demo" units, and if you're already building a custom chassis, you can do Custom. (at usually quite the expense - smaller towns, where the chief and a few guys make those decisions, buy one truck every 4-5 years, tend to way overspec in a way big cities tend not to. Boston's equipment, for example, is much more barebones than Belmont's.) High Roof, flat roof, 5 seats, 6? What sort of hose or pump arrangement would you like? Some pumpers are designed to have an EMS compartment to work as an ambulance in a pinch. You want a pumper and a tower ladder in one truck? Sure! That Raleigh one pictured is a quint/tower, which is admittedly distinctly American. That leads to a lot of huge trucks, and also means apparatus builders favor straight lines and panels, and other standardized off the shelf parts that are easy to work with at a volume of 1 vehicle per order. Boston's apparatus are actually relatively heavily customized for purpose and need around the small streets. A standard Type 1 pumper by the book is ~ 30-35' long, Boston's are 28.25" and an inch narrower than standard, and while have an EMS section, but equipment wise are pretty basic since they ordered 23 of the things at one go. Likewise, their ladders are 38.5 ft when those can get up to 45-50ft. (Here's good articles from 2017-19 about their customizations for our narrow streets, Ladder Trucks & Pumpers - they're still buying these today. but overall are actually roughly about the same size as European ones - they just don't look it. Something like this is frankly about the same size as this. That's not to say some departments, especially suburban ones, don't have huge trucks - they definitely do - Somerville has a pair of tiller ladders that defies almost all reason other than the "rule of cool."

But because the Europeans on the other hand have a robust industry of cabover commercial trucks to build on top of, they're also less prone to over customization - the chassis is the chassis and it can only do so much. A commercial truck chassis is only built to be so long, carry so much weight, be so stable and take off so much power for pumps and aerials and the like so they tend to be more minimal in their specifications, be lighter and reserve what they do have for complexity in their mechanical systems. Without discussing firefighting tactics, which I'm not qualified to speak on, they simply use aerials in a different way than we do - both in philosophy and execution, and that carries through other decisions too. I'm told American firefighters generally have their SCBA (air bottles) in every seatback, leading to increased demands on cabin space that isn't well met by commercial chassis built for civilian's that don't have that requirment. European firefighters on the other hand, apparently don their breathing gear once they get there from an outside cabinet - that general practice evolved from the fact that their cab simply didn't have the space to. Seemingly, they tailor their load to their chassis, and size everything and the firefighting around it to fit, and it looks like American departments tend to start the other way around - they start with an idea of how they want to fight fires and build a truck to accomplish exactly that.

/rant - this got much longer and detailed than I'm prepared to admit.

thank you for this detailed insight into the world of truck design--very interesting!

 

[Treviot]

Thanks Stlin, great write up and I really enjoyed it. I wonder if 35-40' city bus chassis would be feasible to convert. Or if they are more maneuverable than the equivalent length Boston truck you mentioned. I suspect the rear engine would be problematic?

 

[Stlin]

Thanks Stlin, great write up and I really enjoyed it. I wonder if 35-40' city bus chassis would be feasible to convert. Or if they are more maneuverable than the equivalent length Boston truck you mentioned. I suspect the rear engine would be problematic?

Lol, - I'm probably the only person on AB who has been involved in the purchase of a fire engine or 2. The issue with transit buses is more that the chassis are designed for relatively light loads, low floors, and passenger comfort - fire engines are necessarily heavy thanks to all the stuff and water they carry. Also, Bostons ladders have a 220in wheelbase, and Google suggests a 40ft NF Xcelsior a 284in one.

Frankly, the closest thing you can probably find is a chassis meant for garbage trucks - relatively heavy load, already goes down most every street weekly. In fact, Mack Trucks used to do exactly that before they got out of the fire apparatus business in 1990 as the Mack MR/MC. The thing is, while chassis for garbage trucks are still in production by multiple manufacturers, they're not exactly your everyday commercial truck. They're very much a specialty chassis, designed to often be low so that they're easy to step in and out of, available with bifold doors, optionally be driven from the right seat, etc. It doesn't mean you can't do other trucky things with them - they're apparently reasonably common as concrete pump trucks - but they're very much something you have to know exists and special order to be upfit. That makes them relatively expensive and the province of knowledgeable fleet managers with the capital resources. A quick Google suggests that the us postal service is the only entity that has gone and put a box on on them (and the only about 80) probably for the same urban turning issues. In terms of fire trucks, Google also suggests only the FDNY did it, but only for a run of 6 very specialized vehicles that are basically giant water cannons on wheels. (See earlier note about having a firefighting ideology and building a truck to then do it - that would sum up FDNYs superpumper system.)

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

thank you for this detailed insight into the world of truck design--very interesting!

Hear, hear!

 

[chrisbrat]

Thanks Stlin, great write up and I really enjoyed it. I wonder if 35-40' city bus chassis would be feasible to convert. Or if they are more maneuverable than the equivalent length Boston truck you mentioned. I suspect the rear engine would be problematic?

Yes! Really appreciate all the time and thought that went into the post -- and all the super-fascinating info contained within. One of the better aspects of aB is stumbing on these tangential (to architecture) topics that certain posters know a shit-ton about.