The Siren Board

mixerbd699 wrote:21k is the same price range that you find whelen's vortex and ASCs T-128 sirens.

H.E.'s recent ASC T-128 install had a $17,500 price tag. But they reused the existing pole, so that probably cut some $$.

For a professional businessman, you sure don't act like it. Slamming everything your competitors do? Not professional at all...

Call it like I see it...

There's a difference between promoting your business and talking down on competition. If you're promoting your own, then great. But what you're doing is not only bad business, it's leaving a negative impression on several members of this board, including myself. This isn't the place for it.

Again another instance of not knowing or not providing the full facts of the deal. There were a number of extra options that the municipality purchasing the sirens asked for. The price is not just for the sirens alone, theres a radio system, poles, and other options involved.


I agree with others here that constantly slamming or talking down about competitors is not the best way to go about things. If you dislike what you see so much then I would say that you should place bids and go after the jobs, otherwise I wouldn't keep talking down about them.

What really gets me is when cities want to make big purchases (like a siren system or city shop), they think the money out there is free, but really it's the taxpayers who pay for that isn't it? Unless of course they got some kind of Federal or state grant. That is the other half of me why I hate seeing old systems being taken down. Not only does it annoy me to see some of the greatest sirens (like the CD era sirens) being taken down, but the sheer cost of putting up a new system is outrageous if you think about it. They don't realize who is paying for the stuff they can't afford. Take the Minneapolis and St. Paul Thunderbolts for example. Each city took great care of them mechanically, even though most of them needed paint jobs pretty bad and they were 45+ years old, but they still worked fine didn't they? I'm not going to down on any manufactures because they all produce a similar product; a loud device to warn residents of a potential disaster. I think going with battery backup isn't worth it because it isn't too often that the power goes out if you think about it. A good number of cities have some backup generators to power areas for a a while. My town of 2,308 people has 5 Fairbanks-Morose diesel to natural gas generators. Even though that is way more than what our town needs, we can power other nearby towns if the main line is down. I would think the generators would get used first, and then not too much longer, the power would be restored. I know not all towns have generators, but you get what I mean. You spend more money replacing battery chargers and batteries every 5 years, when you would really only use it less than once a year. I'd rather see a system of CD era sirens get refurbished rather than replaced and I am sure many of you on here would too. You can still find parts for most of them, you can also repaint them and fit them with newer controls to work with today's technology. You can do that cheaper than buying a brand new system. It may take more time, but it would be a great investment in the long run.
That is just my opinion I guess :think:

Andys Live WX wrote:What really gets me is when cities want to make big purchases (like a siren system or city shop), they think the money out there is free, but really it's the taxpayers who pay for that isn't it? Unless of course they got some kind of Federal or state grant. That is the other half of me why I hate seeing old systems being taken down. Not only does it annoy me to see some of the greatest sirens (like the CD era sirens) being taken down, but the sheer cost of putting up a new system is outrageous if you think about it. They don't realize who is paying for the stuff they can't afford. Take the Minneapolis and St. Paul Thunderbolts for example. Each city took great care of them mechanically, even though most of them needed paint jobs pretty bad and they were 45+ years old, but they still worked fine didn't they? I'm not going to down on any manufactures because they all produce a similar product; a loud device to warn residents of a potential disaster. I think going with battery backup isn't worth it because it isn't too often that the power goes out if you think about it. A good number of cities have some backup generators to power areas for a a while. My town of 2,308 people has 5 Fairbanks-Morose diesel to natural gas generators. Even though that is way more than what our town needs, we can power other nearby towns if the main line is down. I would think the generators would get used first, and then not too much longer, the power would be restored. I know not all towns have generators, but you get what I mean. You spend more money replacing battery chargers and batteries every 5 years, when you would really only use it less than once a year. I'd rather see a system of CD era sirens get refurbished rather than replaced and I am sure many of you on here would too. You can still find parts for most of them, you can also repaint them and fit them with newer controls to work with today's technology. You can do that cheaper than buying a brand new system. It may take more time, but it would be a great investment in the long run.
That is just my opinion I guess :think:

You can't forget Birmingham, Alabama they keep their Thunderbolts maintained but they replaced some of them and they keep them at a site (AHEM the place where I screamed jail-bar Thunderbolt) and use them to maintain the others that's why I like Birmingham.

Huntsville only replaces the sirens if they fail. The EMA here says that it's a pointless waste of money to replace working sirens.

I think there are some administration members in some cities that get an ego that makes them think getting the newest is the best and beats everyone else. They forget that newer is not generally better.