incident response modelling project documents...incident response simulator could be used to look at...

CFRS : Incident Response Modelling Project

Tel: 07782 170337 Fax: 08701 709887 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.processevolution.co.uk Process Evolution Limited, 6 Fordbank Court, 218 Henwick Road, Worcester. WR2 5PF

Registered in England No. 4983030, VAT 823-9689-84

Incident Response Modelling Project

Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service (CFRS).

Richard Smart

Process Evolution Limited

Version 1.3

17th November 2006


Version : 1.3 of 35 Print Date : 17/11/2006

Executive Summary

This document forms the Interim Report for Cheshire Fire & Rescue Service (CFRS) as part of the Incident Response Modelling Project being conducted by Process Evolution on their behalf.

This report is a key deliverable for the “Diagnose” phase of the project. It contains the results of initial analysis of data captured from CFRS operational systems and has two main purposes:

1) To ensure an analytical understanding of CFRS operations and data prior to commencing the “Evaluate” phase of the project.

2) To provide CFRS with detailed analytical insight into a range of proposed modelling scenarios prior to evaluation.

The report provides a high level analysis of Incident Volumes and Operational Performance of CFRS based on Incident and Deployment data between 1st January 2003 and 30th September 2006.

It also provides initial insight into 5 CFRS specified modelling scenarios which will be the subject of further simulation assessment in subsequent stages of this project:

- Birchwood Fire Station - Wilmslow Fire Station - Northwich / Winsford / Middlewich Fire Station Reconfiguration - Targetted Response Vehicles (TRVs) Deployment - Aerial / Hydraulic Lift Platform Deployment

Summary conclusions to be drawn from this analysis are:

1 High volume of incidents requiring attendance are false alarms (over 40%). The Incident Response Simulator could be used to look at the effects of investigative attendance strategies on resource loading.

2 No clear trend in overall incident numbers, although they appear to be reducing. 3 There is clear seasonality in incident volumes. The Incident Response Simulator

could be used to investigate a range of appliance rostering solutions. 4 Significant variance in overall daily incident workload (Small Fires in particular).

This suggests greater use could be made of TRV’s during peak periods. 5 Emergency Response Performance

CFRS are achieving a 98% (3½ year average) Emergency Response performance against the 2006/07 Emergency Response standards at Brigade level.

6 No discernable difference between 8 vs 9 Rider attendances on Incident Times. These conclusions are discussed in greater detail in the body of the report.

The next steps are to complete the ‘Evaluate’ Phase as follows: - Configure the Incident Response Simulator to use CFRS Incident Data. - Calibrate the Simulator against known CFRS performance. - Design an experimentation plan to evaluate the five scenarios identified above.



Table of Contents

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 3 Document History................................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 4 2 Background................................................................................................................. 5 3 Approach..................................................................................................................... 7 4 Analysis – Overall Incident Volumes ........................................................................ 8 4.1 Incidents by Type.................................................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Incidents by Year .................................................................................................................................. 10 4.3 Incidents by Month................................................................................................................................ 12 4.4 Incidents by Day of Week ..................................................................................................................... 13 4.5 Incidents by Hour of Day....................................................................................................................... 14 4.6 Incidents by Station .............................................................................................................................. 15 5 Analysis – Overall Performance.............................................................................. 16 5.1 Response Times................................................................................................................................... 17 5.2 Response Delivery................................................................................................................................ 18 5.3 Resource Deployment .......................................................................................................................... 20 5.4 Casualties............................................................................................................................................. 21 6 Analysis - Scenario Assessment............................................................................. 22 7 Analysis – Abstraction Data .................................................................................... 32 8 Analysis – 8 Riders vs 9 Riders............................................................................... 33 9 Conclusions and Next Steps ................................................................................... 34 9.1 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 34 9.2 Next Steps. ........................................................................................................................................... 34 Appendix 1 – Glossary of Terms.................................................................................... 35

Document History

Version Release Date 0.1 Initial Draft Interim Report 10th October 2006

1.0 Final Release Candidate (Post completion of IAT & Risk Planes) 2nd November 2006

1.1 Final Release Candidate 5th November 2006

1.2 Final Release 14th November 2006

1.3 Final Release 17th November 2006



1 Introduction This document forms the Interim Report for Cheshire Fire & Rescue Service (CFRS) as part of the Incident Response Modelling Project being conducted by Process Evolution on their behalf.

This report is a key deliverable for the “Diagnose” phase of the project. It contains the results of initial analysis of data captured from CFRS’s operational systems and has two main purposes:

1) To ensure an analytical understanding of CFRS operations and data prior to commencing the “Evaluate” phase of the project.

2) To provide CFRS with detailed analytical insight into a range of proposed modelling scenarios prior to evaluation.



2 Background The Government’s National Framework Strategy challenges fire services to review the deployment of their resources in order to provide targeted response in a more cost effective manner. Previous incident response standards and corresponding deployment strategies are based on historical guidelines and risks.

As part of its response to these challenges CFRS is considering a number of changes to its deployment strategy for emergency response, such as the:

• Mix between whole time (WT), retained (RT) and day-crewed (DC) appliances. • Identifying optimal station bases for specialist appliances. • Crewing/use of appropriate response vehicles such as Targeted Response Vehicles.

Process Evolution specialises in the design, analysis and continuous improvement of business processes. A key feature of our work is the use of quantitative techniques which enable the impact of proposed changes to be quantified prior to implementation.

CFRS have therefore commissioned Process Evolution to undertake initial evaluations of specific proposed changes, and to help the service establish an ‘in house’ capability to evaluate such changes in the future.

The specific proposed changes to be evaluated are:

Birchwood Fire Station

Quantify the impact of providing cover to the Birchwood area from Warrington at certain times of day or changing availability from Whole Time to Day-crewed, or other appropriate response options.

Wilmslow Fire Station

Evaluate the effect of changing availability from Whole Time to Day Crewing / Retained, or other appropriate response options.

Northwich / Winsford / Middlewich Fire Station Reconfiguration

Evaluate the effects of changing appliance availability mix across these stations. In particular, it may be possible to provide a reduced level of immediately available cover at certain times, with a 1 hour response say for additional appliances in the event of a major incident, or other appropriate response options.

Targetted Response Vehicles (TRVs) Deployment

Identify the station bases and operating model for TRV’s and corresponding hours worked that will deliver optimal response times across CFRS.

Aerial / Hydraulic Lift Platform Deployment

Identify the station bases for HP’s that will deliver optimal response times across CFRS. Look at effect of reducing availability of one HP to retained.

For performance purposes CFRS is structured into 8 Performance Delivery Groups (PDGs) one for each of its Local Government Districts and Unitary Authorities. These are individually colour coded on the map on the following page.



CFRS Station Map

Figure 2.1

PDG

Perf

orm

ance

Del

iver

y G

roup

s

War

ringt

on

Vale

Roy

al

Mac

cles

field

Hal

ton

Elle

smer

e Po

rt a

nd N

esto

n

Cre

we

and

Nan

twic

h

Con

glet

on

Che

ster

PDG

Perf

orm

ance

Del

iver

y G

roup

s

War

ringt

on

Vale

Roy

al

Mac

cles

field

Hal

ton

Elle

smer

e Po

rt a

nd N

esto

n

Cre

we

and

Nan

twic

h

Con

glet

on

Che

ster



3 Approach The diagram below shows the main steps in the project.

Consulting Approach

Deliverables

Terms of Reference

Agree Project Scope Diagnose Evaluate Plan

Model Runs ReportInterim Report Final Report

Monitor performance

Analysis Toolkit

HandoverAgree Proposal

Provide Support

Figure 3.1

The “Scoping” phase resulted in the identification of the five scenarios detailed for initial evaluation and summarised in the previous section.

This document reports on the ‘Diagnose’ phase of the project. During this phase, we extracted information from CFRS’s command and control system relating to incidents occurring in the calendar years 2003 – 2006, providing 3 ½ years of historical information referred to as the analysis period throughout this document. This forms a statistically robust and representative sample of data on which to undertake the analysis for this project.

We have configured our Incident Analysis Toolkit (IAT) to import this data and have used it to provide the analysis contained in Section 4.

Additional discussions have been held with CFRS staff in order to further understand the deployment process. This has been incorporated in the Simulator.

Work has already begun on configuring our Incident Response Simulator to reflect the infrastructure of CFRS in terms of the number and location of fire stations and the respective appliances based at each one.

During the ‘Evaluate’ phase, we shall use this model to test the proposed changes and quantify the impact on response performance against CFRS’s response standards for first attendance at incidents. These will be based on the 2006/07 Response Standards published by CFRS for each Risk Plane associated with a Station.



4 Analysis – Overall Incident Volumes This section contains results from analysis of CFRS incident data using the Incident Analyser Tool (IAT). Unless otherwise stated, the graphs relate to incidents occurring in the period 1st January 2003 – 30th August 2006 which is referred to as the analysis period.

4.1 Incidents by Type

The chart shows the total number of incidents of each specific type by PDG Area that occurred during the analysis period:

Incident Volumes By Specific Incident For All Years

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

147

- Sm

all

Fire

s

144

- FA

GI

142

- FD

R1

146

- SS

C

143

- FA

M

149

- Chi

mne

yFi

res

Specific Incident

Inci

dent

Vol

um

Warrington

Vale Royal

Macclesfield

Halton

Ellesmere Port and Neston

Crewe and Nantwich

Congleton

Chester

Figure 4.1.1

It can be seen that the largest category is Small Fires (147) closely followed by False Alarms Good Intent (144).

Incident Volumes By PDG For All Years

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

War

ringt

on

Hal

ton

Mac

cles

field

Che

ster

Elle

smer

eP

ort a

ndN

esto

n

Val

e R

oyal

Cre

we

and

Nan

twic

h

Con

glet

on

PDG

Inci

dent

Vol

um

149 - Chimney Fires

147 - Small Fires

146 - SSC

144 - FAGI

143 - FAM

142 - FDR1

Figure 4.1.2

Volumes by PDG vary considerably with Warrington and Halton being almost 60% higher than other districts. Types of incident (by %) also vary considerably by PDG as can be seen in the following chart.




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

War

ringt

on

Hal

ton

Mac

cles

field

Che

ster

Elle

smer

eP

ort a

ndN

esto

n

Val

e R

oyal

Cre

we

and

Nan

twic

h

Con

glet

on

PDG

Inci

dent

Vol

um

149 - Chimney Fires

147 - Small Fires

146 - SSC

144 - FAGI

143 - FAM

142 - FDR1

Figure 4.1.3

Small Fires pre-occupy the urban areas of Halton, Warrington, Ellesmere Port and Vale Royal, where as the more rural areas deal with more False Alarm Good Intents (144) and Special Services (146). The greater proportion of “Over the Border” incidents tend to be Special Services (146)



4.2 Incidents by Year

The next chart shows the number of incidents by PDG over the analysis period:

Incident Volumes By PDG

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

2003

2004

2005

2006

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

um

Warrington

Vale Royal

Macclesfield

Halton


Crewe and Nantwich

Congleton

Chester

Figure 4.2.1

There is no clear trend in incident volumes over time however there is a suggestion from the 2003/04/05 that volumes are decreasing. This cannot be determined until a complete set of incident statistics are available for 2006.

Incident Volumes By PDG

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2003

2004

2005

2006

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

um

Warrington

Vale Royal

Macclesfield

Halton


Crewe and Nantwich

Congleton

Chester

Figure 4.2.2



If we examine this data by incident type, we can see from the chart below (Figure 4.2.3) that most of the decrease from 2003 to 2004/05 is accounted for by a drop in Small Fires (147).

Incident Volumes By Specific Incident

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

2000020

03

2004

2005

2006

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

umes

149 - Chimney Fires

147 - Small Fires

146 - SSC

144 - FAGI

143 - FAM

142 - FDR1

Figure 4.2.3



4.3 Incidents by Month

The next chart suggests there is some seasonality in the number of incidents – however with an incomplete 2006 data set this is difficult to conclude. The busiest months are July and August, with Small Fires (147), SSC’s (146) and False Alarm Good Intents (144) being the main contributors to these rises in activity levels..


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June

July

Aug

ust

Sep

tem

ber

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

umes

149 - Chimney Fires

147 - Small Fires

146 - SSC

144 - FAGI

143 - FAM

142 - FDR1

Figure 4.3.1

Incident types vary considerably by month. Chimney Fires (149) only show during the winter months (Nov-Apr) and False Alarms Malicious Intent (143) appear to be proportionately higher during those months. Incident volumes appear to be around 40% higher during the summer months, though there is some volatility around holiday periods.


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June

July

Aug

ust

Sep

tem

ber

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

umes

149 - Chimney Fires

147 - Small Fires

146 - SSC

144 - FAGI

143 - FAM

142 - FDR1

Figure 4.3.2

It is no surprise that Chimney fires occur primarily in the winter months (Nov-Apr) December to March whereas Small Fires (147) tend to be more frequent in the summer months.

Comment [PL1]: Suggest that the effect of incomplete 2006 is removed by pro-rata or eliminating 2006 data – do this throughout



4.4 Incidents by Day of Week

Weekends appear marginally busier than other days of the week:


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000M

onda

y

Tues

day

Wed

nesd

ay

Thur

sday

Frid

ay

Sat

urda

y

Sun

day

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

um

Warrington

Vale Royal

Macclesfield

Halton


Crewe and Nantwich

Congleton

Chester

Figure 4.4.1

However, volumes on the busiest day (Saturday) are less than 10% more than on the quietest day, which does not in itself suggest the need for a widely different deployment capability on different days of the week.

Looking at the proportions of Incident Type by day reveals a subtly different pattern of behaviour. There appears to be a 1/3rds reduction in the proportion of False Alarms Good Intent (144) at weekends, whereas there is a 20% increase in Small Fires (147) over the same period.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mon

day

Tues

day

Wed

nesd

ay

Thur

sday

Frid

ay

Sat

urda

y

Sun

day

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

um

149 - Chimney Fires

147 - Small Fires

146 - SSC

144 - FAGI

143 - FAM

142 - FDR1

Figure 4.4.2

This suggests a need to hold greater Small Fire capacity for weekend cover.



4.5 Incidents by Hour of Day

The next chart shows when incidents occur through the day over the analysis period:

Incident Volumes By Generic Incident For All Years

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

500000

:00

to 0

1:00

01:0

0 to

02:

00

02:0

0 to

03:

00

03:0

0 to

04:

00

04:0

0 to

05:

00

05:0

0 to

06:

00

06:0

0 to

07:

00

07:0

0 to

08:

00

08:0

0 to

09:

00

09:0

0 to

10:

00

10:0

0 to

11:

00

11:0

0 to

12:

00

12:0

0 to

13:

00

13:0

0 to

14:

00

14:0

0 to

15:

00

15:0

0 to

16:

00

16:0

0 to

17:

00

17:0

0 to

18:

00

18:0

0 to

19:

00

19:0

0 to

20:

00

20:0

0 to

21:

00

21:0

0 to

22:

00

22:0

0 to

23:

00

23:0

0 to

24:

00

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

um

149 - Chimney Fires

147 - Small Fires

146 - SSC

144 - FAGI

143 - FAM

142 - FDR1

Figure 4.5.1

Here the variance over time is much more striking, with peak demand between 17:00 and 21:00 over six times that between 05:00-06:00.

It can also be seen that different incident types have different peak periods. False Alarms Good Intent (144) primarily occur from 08:00-22:00 and make up over 2/3rds of incidents between 09:00-10:00, whereas False Alarms Malicious Intent (143) peak between 18:00 and 23:00.

Small Fires grow progressively between 12:00 and 24:00 peaking around 19:00-21:00 and account for over 50% of calls at that time of day.


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

01:0

0 to

02:

00

02:0

0 to

03:

00

03:0

0 to

04:

00

04:0

0 to

05:

00

05:0

0 to

06:

00

06:0

0 to

07:

00

07:0

0 to

08:

00

08:0

0 to

09:

00

09:0

0 to

10:

00

10:0

0 to

11:

00

11:0

0 to

12:

00

12:0

0 to

13:

00

13:0

0 to

14:

00

14:0

0 to

15:

00

15:0

0 to

16:

00

16:0

0 to

17:

00

17:0

0 to

18:

00

18:0

0 to

19:

00

19:0

0 to

20:

00

20:0

0 to

21:

00

21:0

0 to

22:

00

22:0

0 to

23:

00

23:0

0 to

24:

00

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

umes 142 - FDR1

Figure 4.5.2

This chart shows that Primary Fires FDR1 (142) peak between 20:00 and 23:00 at around 3½ times that of the lowest demand between 05:00-08:00.

This variation in incident demand suggests that some benefit may be derived from looking at appliance shift patterns and matching them more closely to the daily demand profiles illustrated in these two charts.



4.6 Incidents by Station

The next chart shows the proportion of incidents that occur at each station, together with colour coding to indicate the crewing status of each station.

Whole-time Stations cover the highest volume of incidents, though Birchwood and Wilmslow experience lower demand than the Day-crewed Northwich and Winsford Stations.

Incident Volumes By Station Ground For All Years

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

War

ringt

on

Elle

smer

e P

ort

Che

ster

Run

corn

Cre

we

Wid

nes

Mac

cles

field

Nor

thw

ich

Win

sfor

d

Birc

hwoo

d

Wilm

slow

Knu

tsfo

rd

Sto

ckto

n H

eath

Con

glet

on

Nan

twic

h

Frod

sham

San

dbac

h

Tarp

orle

y

Poy

nton

Mid

dlew

ich

Bol

lingt

on

Hol

mes

Cha

pel

Mal

pas

Aud

lem

Ove

r the

Bor

der

Unk

now

n

Station Ground

Inci

dent

Vol

umes

WarringtonEllesmere PortChesterRuncornCrew eWidnesMacclesf ieldNorthw ichWinsfordBirchw oodWilmslowKnutsfordStockton HeathCongletonNantw ichFrodshamSandbachTarporleyPoyntonMiddlew ichBollingtonHolmes ChapelMalpasAudlemOver the BorderUnknow n

Figure 4.6.1

Station Key

Whole-timeDay-crewedRetained



5 Analysis – Overall Performance This section contains results from analysis of CFRS incident and deployment data using the Incident Analyser Tool (IAT) from a performance perspective. Unless otherwise stated, the graphs relate to deployments occurring in the period 1st January 2003 – 30th August 2006, referred to as the analysis period.

The CFRS Emergency Standards are sophisticated. They consider the overall risk for any given station from the perspectives of inherent incident risk and location risk. These are combined to produce bespoke Risk Planes or sets of variable standards for each Station in the form of a Risk Matrix. This report is based on performance against the 2006/07 Risk Planes published in the latest CFRS IRMP Brochure and summarised below.

2006/07 Risk Planes

Station Code Station

Residential Property

Business Property

Small Fires

SSC (Life Risk)

SSC(Non-urgent)

Road Traffic Collisions

Spillages Leaks UwFDS

01 WARRINGTON 02 BIRCHWOOD 03 STOCKTON HEATH04 WIDNES 05 RUNCORN06 FRODSHAM 08 ELLESMERE PORT09 CHESTER10 TARPORLEY 11 MALPAS 12 NANTWICH 13 AUDLEM 15 CREWE 16 SANDBACH 17 HOLMES CHAPEL18 CONGLETON 19 MACCLESFIELD 20 BOLLINGTON 22 POYNTON23 WILMSLOW 24 KNUTSFORD 25 NORTHWICH 26 MIDDLEWICH 27 WINSFORD

KeyVery High It is certain or very likely that there will be multiple deaths or a single death.

High It is certain that there will be a major injury, very likely that there will be a single death and likely that there may be multiple deaths.Medium It is certain that there will be a major injury, very likely that there will be an injury and there may be a single death.

Low There will be some disruption with a moderate chance of an injury or loss occurring.Very Low There is a reduced chance of disruption with a moderate chance of an injury or loss.

Very High Arrive 1 - 5 minutes of turnout on 90% of occasions.High Arrive 6 - 10 minutes of turnout on 90% of occasions.

Medium Arrive 11 - 15 minutes of turnout on 90% of occasions.Low Arrive 16 - 20 minutes of turnout on 90% of occasions.

Very Low Arrive within 21 minutes of turnout on 90% of occasions. Figure 5.0

Performance against standard at station level in this report is on a ‘Yes’/’No’ basis against the nominated standard. This allows us to aggregate performance at the higher Risk Category, PDG and CFRS levels for comparison purposes.



5.1 Response Times

Mobilisation times have in general marginally improved over the analysis period and stand at an average of around 1.9 minutes for CFRS as a whole. Whole Time stations have improved in general over the period and stand at an average of 1.5 minutes. Retained have deteriorated slightly and now stand at an average of 3.8 minutes, but still within target and at a good standard.

Summary Mobilisation Times For All Years

0

1

2

3

4

5

Ent

ireS

ervi

ce

Ent

ireS

ervi

ce(W

T)

Ent

ireS

ervi

ce (R

T)

Ent

ireS

ervi

ce(D

M)

Tim

e (M

inut

es

2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 5.1.1

Arrival times have in general deteriorated year on year over the equivalent period and now stand at an average of around 6.7 minutes across CFRS as a whole. Whole Time stations achieve an average of 6.1 minutes over the period with Retained and Day-Crewed achieving averages of 9.5 and 8.3 minutes respectively. This said overall performance against the Cheshire Standards remains very good.

Summary Arrival Times For All Years

0123456789

1011

Ent

ireS

ervi

ce

Ent

ireS

ervi

ce(W

T)

Ent

ireS

ervi

ce(R

T)

Ent

ireS

ervi

ce(D

M)

Tim

e (M

inut

es

2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 5.1.2

There is significant variation across Stations by PDG but this is most likely due to the respective mixes of WT, RT and DC stations in each PDG.



5.2 Response Delivery

CFRS performance against their chosen standards is impressive averaging 98% across the Brigade. There appears to have been a marginal year on year decline in performance when compared against the current 2006/07 standards, however previous years performance should really be compared against the standards in force at the time. Retained Stations as a group are currently the best performers overall and they also show a year on year improvement against the 2006/07 standards over the analysis period.

Summary Arrival Delivery For All Years

80.0%

100.0%

Ent

ireS

ervi

ce

Ent

ireS

ervi

ce(W

T)

Ent

ireS

ervi

ce (R

T)

Ent

ireS

ervi

ce(D

M)

With

in T

arge

2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 5.2.1

Analysis at the PDG level shows consistency across the brigade.

2003 2004 2005 2006 Average99.3% 98.6% 98.3% 98.1% 98.6%98.9% 98.0% 97.9% 100.0% 98.6%96.9% 97.1% 97.5% 95.7% 96.9%97.3% 96.4% 95.7% 95.1% 96.3%99.1% 98.6% 98.8% 98.4% 98.8%97.5% 97.7% 95.7% 96.3% 96.9%98.2% 97.4% 98.2% 96.7% 97.7%98.6% 99.4% 99.4% 98.2% 99.0%Warrington

Ellesmere Port and NestonHaltonMacclesfieldVale Royal

PDGChesterCongletonCrewe and Nantwich

Figure 5.2.2

Overall performance during the study period against the 2006/07 standards at a station level (Figure 5.2.3) are equally impressive, with only a small number of cases of under achievement. In this respect you have to be mindful that where activity levels are low this can have a large impact against the % achievement – these cases require further in-depth analysis



RISK PLANE - All Years Residential Business Small Fires SSC - Life Risk

SSC - Non Urgent RTC Spillages

and Leaks UFDS Average

Warrington 97.5% 96.8% 99.0% 97.5% 98.9% 89.6% 100.0% 99.9% 98.8%Birchwood 100.0% 98.2% 99.3% 100.0% 100.0% 98.2% 100.0% 99.7% 99.4%Stockton Heath 97.1% 100.0% 99.1% 91.9% 100.0% 90.8% 100.0% 100.0% 98.2%Widnes 98.2% 100.0% 99.0% 100.0% 99.1% 99.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.1%Runcorn 96.2% 100.0% 99.2% 89.9% 100.0% 76.6% 97.9% 100.0% 98.2%Frodsham 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 83.3% 90.2% 94.6% 100.0% 100.0% 97.9%Ellesmere Port 93.0% 94.9% 96.4% 96.4% 98.3% 84.2% 100.0% 99.4% 96.2%Chester 96.2% 100.0% 99.7% 98.1% 98.9% 86.8% 100.0% 99.9% 98.7%Tarporley 100.0% 100.0% 97.4% 100.0% 92.3% 84.8% 100.0% 97.7% 94.9%Malpas 100.0% 100.0% 97.0% 100.0% 81.8% 100.0% 80.0% 95.0% 96.7%Nantwich 100.0% 100.0% 97.0% 100.0% 94.8% 93.2% 100.0% 99.7% 98.1%Audlem 100.0% 100.0% 92.6% 100.0% 88.9% 95.8% 100.0% 97.7%Crewe 89.4% 99.1% 97.5% 97.3% 98.9% 73.3% 96.8% 99.8% 96.1%Sandbach 100.0% 100.0% 96.3% 100.0% 100.0% 95.6% 100.0% 100.0% 98.3%Holmes Chapel 100.0% 92.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 92.7% 100.0% 98.7% 97.1%Congleton 95.2% 100.0% 99.6% 100.0% 100.0% 93.7% 100.0% 99.3% 98.4%Macclesfield 94.4% 98.6% 98.0% 96.1% 98.1% 69.6% 100.0% 99.8% 96.6%Bollington 100.0% 100.0% 96.2% 100.0% 96.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.1%Poynton 97.1% 100.0% 97.8% 100.0% 100.0% 97.2% 100.0% 100.0% 99.1%Wilmslow 99.2% 98.7% 98.5% 92.1% 96.1% 95.3% 100.0% 99.5% 98.7%Knutsford 95.8% 100.0% 97.3% 94.4% 94.9% 51.8% 91.7% 99.7% 91.5%Northwich 97.1% 100.0% 98.9% 96.4% 97.2% 74.8% 96.4% 99.6% 97.3%Middlewich 100.0% 100.0% 97.8% 100.0% 94.1% 98.1% 100.0% 100.0% 98.8%Winsford 92.6% 94.5% 99.9% 90.6% 96.6% 83.3% 100.0% 100.0% 98.7%Average 96.0% 98.4% 98.5% 96.2% 98.1% 84.1% 99.0% 99.8%

Figure 5.2.3 (Blanks represent no data)



5.3 Resource Deployment

This section considers resource deployment over the analysis period:

Resource Deployment By Station Ground

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Audl

em

Birc

hwoo

d

Bolli

ngto

n

Che

ster

Con

glet

on

Cre

we

Elle

smer

e Po

rt

Frod

sham

Hol

mes

Cha

pel

Knut

sfor

d

Mac

cles

field

Mal

pas

Mid

dlew

ich

Nan

twic

h

Nor

thw

ich

Poyn

ton

Run

corn

Sand

bach

Stoc

kton

Hea

th

Tarp

orle

y

War

ringt

on

Wid

nes

Wilm

slow

Win

sfor

d

Res

ourc

es D

eplo

y

Figure 5.3.1

On average 1.6 appliances are deployed from a station to any one particular incident across CFRS, varying from 1.3 for Winsford to 2.2 for Holmes Chapel. The latter statistic can be verified as there is a high level of response to the motorway (M6) which requires a pre-determined response of 3 appliances and therefore provides a reasoned argument for the higher average deployment.

Resource Deployment By Generic Incident

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

142

- FD

R1

143

- FA

M

144

- FA

GI

146

- SS

C

147

- Sm

all F

ires

149

- Chi

mne

y Fi

res

197

- Der

bysh

ire In

cide

nt

199

- Der

bysh

ire S

tand

by

194

- GM

C In

cide

nt

192

- GM

C S

tand

by

161

- Mer

seys

ide

Inci

dent

191

- Mer

seys

ide

Sta

ndby

195

- Nor

th W

ales

Inci

dent

196

- Nor

th W

ales

Sta

ndby

151

- Shr

opsh

ire In

cide

nt

198

- Shr

opsh

ire S

tand

by

162

- Sta

fford

shire

Inci

dent

190

- Sta

fford

shire

Sta

ndby

Res

ourc

es D

eplo

y

Figure 5.3.2

There is considerable variation by generic incident type. The highest deployment of 2.1 appliances (on average) for “144 – False Alarm Good Intent” incidents contrasts with 1.2 for “147 – Small Fires” incidents. 144 Incidents generally relate to premises with AFA systems such as Commercial / Industrial / Care premises, and these require a deployment of 3 appliances on initial call in appropriate cases.



5.4 Casualties

This section considers casualties during the analysis period:

Figure 5.4.1

Fire Deaths across CFRS over the analysis period were comparatively low and all civilian. 77% of these deaths were Special Services incidents, and the relatively high number of FDR1 deaths includes those also involving Vehicle fires.

Figure 5.4.2

Non-fatal Brigade injuries (19) represent approximately 0.9% of total injuries over the analysis period.



6 Analysis - Scenario Assessment This section contains results from analysis of CFRS incident and deployment data for specific stations defined in the Modelling Scenarios described in Section 2. Unless otherwise stated, the graphs relate to incidents occurring in the period 1st January 2003 – 30th August 2006, referred to as the analysis period.

A report used frequently in this analysis is the ‘Heat Map’ and it is used to show the geographic distribution of incidents by 1km square across the CFRS geographic area. The following ‘Heat Map’ shows all incidents during the analysis period.

Inci

dent

sC

ount

Split

14

57

23.7

%2

22

611

.7%

53

71

19.2

%1

02

68

13.9

%5

03

45

17.9

%1

00

10

65.

5%2

50

10

15.

2%5

00

46

2.4%

75

07

0.4%

15

00

20.

1%

Inci

dent

sC

ount

Split

14

57

23.7

%2

22

611

.7%

53

71

19.2

%1

02

68

13.9

%5

03

45

17.9

%1

00

10

65.

5%2

50

10

15.

2%5

00

46

2.4%

75

07

0.4%

15

00

20.

1%

Figure 6.0



6.1 Birchwood Incident Analysis

The following ‘heat map’ shows the total number of incidents occurring per square kilometre over the four year period in the Birchwood area. The BOLD highlighted squares contain the respective Stations Birchwood (345), Warrington (328) and Stockton Heath (126), which will be used in part within this section as comparators.

15 1

3 1 1 17 10 5

1 1 1 16 3 24 134 35 9

4 13 2 7 4 4 8 27 9 3 1 2

41 42 14 9 16 11 68 36 38 7 3 1 1

53 14 26 191 73 9 15 24 87 117 61 2 22 4

16 65 134 85 196 213 191 136 94 345 14 2 10 1

8 31 102 233 359 267 459 127 141 31 3 1 12 23

30 23 99 259 431 406 129 84 172 145 51 3 6 4

90 78 167 415 619 328 62 32 20 9 12 11 9

101 48 55 85 283 297 236 154 36 44 43 83 61 35 6

13 4 2 80 161 126 98 16 34 21 8 14 18 7

1 3 9 10 31 75 53 9 1 2 28 3 2 9 19

27 17 8 15 6 11 14 9 21 2 73 5 8 3 7

23 24 7 9 8 14 92 20 12 4 1 8 7

7 17 12 12 26 61 2 3 2 2 7 3 1 Figure 6.1.1 (Key as for Figure 6.0)

The profile of Incidents by Hour of Day shows that Birchwood is fairly active between 08:00 and 24:00. Any reconfiguration will have to cater for high demand between 16:00 and 23:00 hours.


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

01:0

0 to

02:

00

02:0

0 to

03:

00

03:0

0 to

04:

00

04:0

0 to

05:

00

05:0

0 to

06:

00

06:0

0 to

07:

00

07:0

0 to

08:

00

08:0

0 to

09:

00

09:0

0 to

10:

00

10:0

0 to

11:

00

11:0

0 to

12:

00

12:0

0 to

13:

00

13:0

0 to

14:

00

14:0

0 to

15:

00

15:0

0 to

16:

00

16:0

0 to

17:

00

17:0

0 to

18:

00

18:0

0 to

19:

00

19:0

0 to

20:

00

20:0

0 to

21:

00

21:0

0 to

22:

00

22:0

0 to

23:

00

23:0

0 to

24:

00

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

umes

Warrington

Stockton Heath

Birchw ood

Figure 6.1.2



The chart below shows the incident volumes by year for the three stations (2006 is not a complete year). The levels at Birchwood are largely flat (if not showing a marginal increase), whereas the levels at Warrington appear to be reducing overall.

Incident Volumes By Station Ground

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2003

2004

2005

2006

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

umes

Birchw ood

Stockton Heath

Warrington

Figure 6.1.3

The chart below shows the relative proportions (by %) of incident types over this period. Warrington and Birchwood are very similar, with Birchwood experiencing a marginally lower proportion of Small Fires (147) and False Alarm Malicious Intent (143) and marginally higher proportion of FDR1 (142).

Incident Volumes (%) By Station Ground For All Years

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Birc

hwoo

d

Sto

ckto

nH

eath

War

ringt

on

Station Ground

Inci

dent

Vol

um

149 - Chimney Fires

147 - Small Fires

146 - SSC

144 - FAGI

143 - FAM

142 - FDR1

Figure 6.1.4




0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000W

arrin

gton

Elle

smer

e P

ort

Che

ster

Run

corn

Cre

we

Wid

nes

Mac

cles

field

Nor

thw

ich

Win

sfor

d

Birc

hwoo

d

Wilm

slow

Knu

tsfo

rd

Sto

ckto

n H

eath

Con

glet

on

Nan

twic

h

Frod

sham

San

dbac

h

Tarp

orle

y

Poy

nton

Mid

dlew

ich

Bol

lingt

on

Hol

mes

Cha

pel

Mal

pas

Aud

lem

Ove

r the

Bor

der

Unk

now

n

Station Ground

Inci

dent

Vol

umes

WarringtonEllesmere PortChesterRuncornCrew eWidnesMacclesfieldNorthw ichWinsfordBirchw oodWilmslowKnutsfordStockton HeathCongletonNantw ichFrodshamSandbachTarporleyPoyntonMiddlew ichBollingtonHolmes ChapelMalpasAudlemOver the BorderUnknow n

Figure 6.1.5

The activity level at Birchwood, whilst moderately higher than Stockton Heath, is lower than the two other Day-crewed stations (Winsford and Northwich). This therefore warrants a review of its status which is more akin to that of Day-crewing.



6.2 Wilmslow Incident Analysis

The profile of Incidents by Hour of Day show that the bulk of demand on Wilmslow resources is between 08:00 and 24:00 at more than twice the levels experienced outside of these times. The peak loading is between 17:00 and 21:00 and is on average 3 times that of the 00:00 to 08:00 period.


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

01:0

0 to

02:

0002

:00

to 0

3:00

03:0

0 to

04:

0004

:00

to 0

5:00

05:0

0 to

06:

0006

:00

to 0

7:00

07:0

0 to

08:

0008

:00

to 0

9:00

09:0

0 to

10:

0010

:00

to 1

1:00

11:0

0 to

12:

0012

:00

to 1

3:00

13:0

0 to

14:

0014

:00

to 1

5:00

15:0

0 to

16:

0016

:00

to 1

7:00

17:0

0 to

18:

0018

:00

to 1

9:00

19:0

0 to

20:

0020

:00

to 2

1:00

21:0

0 to

22:

0022

:00

to 2

3:00

23:0

0 to

24:

00

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

umes

149 - Chimney Fires

147 - Small Fires

146 - SSC

144 - FAGI

143 - FAM

142 - FDR1

Figure 6.2.1

It is also interesting to note that primary fires FDR1s (142) are at their highest between 09:00 and 24:00, and are proportionately higher between 18:00 and 24:00, however the overall number of incidents of this nature is relatively low.

Small Fires (147) also peak between 12:00 and 24:00 with a proportionately higher share of incidents during this time.


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

00:0

0 to

01:

0001

:00

to 0

2:00

02:0

0 to

03:

0003

:00

to 0

4:00

04:0

0 to

05:

0005

:00

to 0

6:00

06:0

0 to

07:

0007

:00

to 0

8:00

08:0

0 to

09:

0009

:00

to 1

0:00

10:0

0 to

11:

0011

:00

to 1

2:00

12:0

0 to

13:

0013

:00

to 1

4:00

14:0

0 to

15:

0015

:00

to 1

6:00

16:0

0 to

17:

0017

:00

to 1

8:00

18:0

0 to

19:

0019

:00

to 2

0:00

20:0

0 to

21:

0021

:00

to 2

2:00

22:0

0 to

23:

0023

:00

to 2

4:00

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

umes

149 - Chimney Fires

147 - Small Fires

146 - SSC

144 - FAGI

143 - FAM

142 - FDR1

Figure 6.2.2

On the face of this initial analysis moving from Wholetime to Day-Crewing/Retained or other response options will expose a volume of incidents to Retained Response times. Therefore further investigation and analysis needs to be undertaken to define the appropriate service delivery mechanism through the incident response simulator.



6.3 Northwich / Winsford / Middlewich Incident Analysis

The following ‘heat map’ shows the total number of incidents occurring per square kilometre over the study period in the Northwich / Winsford / Middlewich area. The BOLD highlighted squares contain the respective Stations Northwich (35), Middlewich (89) and Winsford (42).

10 5 2 6 6 10 15 5 6 14 2 1

9 1 12 80 17 6 41 10 34 6 5 5 7

6 92 16 63 36 94 78 36 28 55 1 3 15 1

69 56 3 72 237 159 135 12 7 5 2 3 20

17 2 3 33 114 76 90 151 162 5 3 5 26 1

28 3 9 11 10 56 35 2 1 3 1 3 9 2

42 51 2 15 31 6 3 1 5 10 5

6 3 3 21 56 10 3 1 5 8 5

1 3 3 1 3 35 7 6 6 18 11 2 16

3 5 8 5 59 49 197 3 3 2 5 1 1 25

1 2 24 213 283 197 385 116 6 24 147 49 3 8 18

1 16 453 173 42 32 9 3 15 89 27 2 13 5

2 193 1 4 1 38 26 1 2

6 2 3 2 2 3 4 1 1

1 1 2 5 1 2 2 11 1

4 1 3 2 4 4 5 44 43 Figure 6.3.1

The following charts show total Incident Volume by Station by time of day and Incident Type by time of day respectively. Small Fires (147) account for over 50% of incidents between 16:00 & 22:00. The use of TRV’s may have a significant impact on the mix of appliances required.


0

50

100

150

200

250

01:0

0 to

02:

0002

:00

to 0

3:00

03:0

0 to

04:

0004

:00

to 0

5:00

05:0

0 to

06:

0006

:00

to 0

7:00

07:0

0 to

08:

0008

:00

to 0

9:00

09:0

0 to

10:

0010

:00

to 1

1:00

11:0

0 to

12:

0012

:00

to 1

3:00

13:0

0 to

14:

0014

:00

to 1

5:00

15:0

0 to

16:

0016

:00

to 1

7:00

17:0

0 to

18:

0018

:00

to 1

9:00

19:0

0 to

20:

0020

:00

to 2

1:00

21:0

0 to

22:

0022

:00

to 2

3:00

23:0

0 to

24:

00

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

umes

Middlew ich

Northw ich

Winsford

Figure 6.3.2




050

100150200250300350400450

01:0

0 to

02:

0002

:00

to 0

3:00

03:0

0 to

04:

0004

:00

to 0

5:00

05:0

0 to

06:

0006

:00

to 0

7:00

07:0

0 to

08:

0008

:00

to 0

9:00

09:0

0 to

10:

0010

:00

to 1

1:00

11:0

0 to

12:

0012

:00

to 1

3:00

13:0

0 to

14:

0014

:00

to 1

5:00

15:0

0 to

16:

0016

:00

to 1

7:00

17:0

0 to

18:

0018

:00

to 1

9:00

19:0

0 to

20:

0020

:00

to 2

1:00

21:0

0 to

22:

0022

:00

to 2

3:00

23:0

0 to

24:

00

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

umes

149 -ChimneyFires

147 - SmallFires

146 - SSC

144 - FAGI

143 - FAM

142 - FDR1

Figure 6.3.3

It will only be possible to analytically evaluate the impact against Response Standards using the Incident Response Simulator.



6.4 Targeted Response Vehicles Analysis

The TRV Response strategy will ultimately be driven by the profile of Small Fire (147) incident demand. It is the response to this demand that needs to be managed effectively to minimise the impact on existing response strategies for other types of incident.

Looking at Small Fires (147) by Performance Delivery Group provides a compelling picture of the challenge facing CFRS.

Small Fires (147) by PDGChester, 8%

Congleton, 3%

Crewe and Nantwich, 8%

Ellesmere Port and Neston, 16%

Halton, 25%

Macclesfield, 6%

Vale Royal, 13%

Warrington, 21%

Figure 6.4.1

Combined incident volumes for Vale Royal, Ellesmere Port & Neston, Warrington and Halton PDGs account for 75% of all Small Fires. This suggests that the greatest return from TRV response options would be obtained by focussing on these four PDG’s.

The daily profile of Small Fires (147) incident volumes show demand progressively increasing from 12:00 to a peak at 21:00 before progressively decreasing to 01:00 during a typical day. This represents the outline daily demand profile that a TRV based response option needs to address.

Incident Volumes By Generic Incident For All Years

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

00:0

0 to

01:

00

01:0

0 to

02:

00

02:0

0 to

03:

00

03:0

0 to

04:

00

04:0

0 to

05:

00

05:0

0 to

06:

00

06:0

0 to

07:

00

07:0

0 to

08:

00

08:0

0 to

09:

00

09:0

0 to

10:

00

10:0

0 to

11:

00

11:0

0 to

12:

00

12:0

0 to

13:

00

13:0

0 to

14:

00

14:0

0 to

15:

00

15:0

0 to

16:

00

16:0

0 to

17:

00

17:0

0 to

18:

00

18:0

0 to

19:

00

19:0

0 to

20:

00

20:0

0 to

21:

00

21:0

0 to

22:

00

22:0

0 to

23:

00

23:0

0 to

24:

00

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

um

147 - Small Fires

Figure 6.4.2



6.5 Aerial / Hydraulic Lift Platform Deployment

The following ‘Heat Map’ shows the geographic dispersion of all incidents for the analysis period across CFRS. In particular it highlights the Unitary Authority’s and heavy industrialised areas in the North / North West of the area and the more rural nature of the South / South East.

Figure 6.5.1 (Included for geographic reference)

Figure 6.5.2 (Heat Map of all incidents - Key as Figure 6.0)



If the distribution of HP demand is proportionately distributed across CFRS in a similar manner to all incidents then this suggests an initial 3 base solution as:-

1) One based in the North West conurbations (Chester or Ellesmere Port)

2) One based in the Northern conurbations (Warrington or Halton)

3) One based in the South East (Crewe or Congleton)

Further in depth study of their actual use over the analysis period needs to be undertaken and analysed.

Assuming that HP attendance is more closely aligned to FDR1 incidents and knowing that Chester City incidents require a mandatory HP response the following typical daily profile of Primary Fire FDR1 (142) incidents reinforces the above.


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

00:0

0 to

01:

00

01:0

0 to

02:

00

02:0

0 to

03:

00

03:0

0 to

04:

00

04:0

0 to

05:

00

05:0

0 to

06:

00

06:0

0 to

07:

00

07:0

0 to

08:

00

08:0

0 to

09:

00

09:0

0 to

10:

00

10:0

0 to

11:

00

11:0

0 to

12:

00

12:0

0 to

13:

00

13:0

0 to

14:

00

14:0

0 to

15:

00

15:0

0 to

16:

00

16:0

0 to

17:

00

17:0

0 to

18:

00

18:0

0 to

19:

00

19:0

0 to

20:

00

20:0

0 to

21:

00

21:0

0 to

22:

00

22:0

0 to

23:

00

23:0

0 to

24:

00

Period

Inci

dent

Vol

um

Warrington

Vale Royal

Macclesfield

Halton


Crewe and Nantwich

Congleton

Chester

Figure 6.5.3

The overall hourly demand profile also suggests that a 2 base solution between the hours of 04:00 to 12:00 may be possible.

Once again the viability of any combination of locations and number of aerials will be evaluated by the Incident Response Simulator against CFRS Emergency Standards.

Comment [PL2]: Is this all incidents and if so should it just be for incidents requiring a HLP appliance?



7 Analysis – Abstraction Data At present CFRS maintain paper based records for mechanical downtime, however they are in the process of transferring this information into MS Excel based records to assist in analysing this information. At present electronic records exist from the 1st January 2006 to 30th September 2006. Unfortunately appliances going off the run for a few minutes while the mechanic takes a quick look at it may not get notified to Control and hence are not recorded on the sheet.

Data on non-mechanical downtime primarily related to retained appliance availability is more difficult to provide. Currently this information (Stations telephone control to notify the time and date the appliance will be available / not available for the coming day or couple of days) is entered onto the Remsdaq mobilising system and recorded into an 'Events’ file. This records the time and date the appliance is on/off the run. This then automatically updates the required appliances status to available or not available at the required time.

This ensures that for mobilisation purposes Control always know the status of that appliance. Unfortunately once the event is actioned by the system it is automatically deleted from the record.

In order to provide statistical data CFRS currently collate retained appliance availability data in an Excel spreadsheet. This records non-availability during the day or night period but does not specify the exact times of the day. It will merely record for example, that between the hours of 09:00-18:00 an appliance was not available for 4 hours – it will not state which 4 hours of that period.

The Service will be introducing within the next month or so, a more advanced electronic availability system for the retained stations - this will record for statistical purposes the exact time of the day when the appliance is available / not available.

A brief addendum report will be produced on abstractions if sufficient data is available before the simulation phase is completed. This will look at :-

- Notification of ‘Off the Run’

- Failure to Respond

- Timing of Abstraction

- Abstractions by day of week



8 Analysis – 8 Riders vs 9 Riders This section covers a brief analysis undertaken to look at the difference in Incident Times for 2 Pump attendances between 8 and 9 Rider attendances. This analysis is based on 13,478 incidents observed in the period from 1st January 2003 to 30th September 2006.

Incident times have been calculated from the “tstn” (Incident start time) and the “tmrav” (Time appliance mobile returning from incident) fields from the CFRS deployment data. The incident time has been defined as the tstn for the first appliance to be notified to the tmrav for the last appliance to leave the incident. 8 or 9 riders have been calculated by combining the Riders for each appliance. Only 8 or 9 rider incidents have been considered.

The following charts show the distributions of 8, 9 and combined 8 & 9 Rider incident distributions. The first displays the raw distributions, whilst the second shows a scale-less version based on dividing by the total number of observations in each population.

Raw Distributions

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1 17 33 49 65 81 97 113 129 145 161 177 193

8 Rider 9 Rider 8 & 9 Rider

Scale-less Distributions

0.0000

0.0050

0.0100

0.0150

0.0200

0.0250

0.0300

0.0350

0.0400

1 17 33 49 65 81 97 113 129 145 161 177 193

8 Rider 9 Rider 8 or 9 Rider

Figure 8.1

The following descriptive statistics provide some insight into these incident time distributions and the average incident times for each population:

This information was used to undertake a statistical t-test into the difference between the means of the 8 & 9 rider distributions using a two tailed independent test.

P value and statistical significance:

The two-tailed P value equals 0.9536. By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Figure 8.2

The conclusion of this analysis is that based on average incident times alone there is no difference between 8 Rider attended incidents and 9 rider attended incidents.

Comment [PL3]: Can we reduce the number of decimal places in the table please!



9 Conclusions and Next Steps This section contains the conclusions that we have drawn from the initial analysis and details the next steps.

9.1 Conclusions

1 : High volume of false alarms

Around 40% of overall incidents requiring response turn out to be false alarms. It may therefore be possible make a significant impact on overall demand through initiatives designed to reduce the occurrence of false alarms.

2 : No discernible trend in incident numbers

There is no discernible trend in overall incident numbers, although last year saw a rise in Special Service Calls.

3 : Seasonality in incident volumes

There is seasonality in incident volumes. The simulator will be able to show whether there is either a need for greater resources in busier months or spare capacity that can safely be reduced in quieter months through expansion of the current strategic reserve. Alternatively, the model may show that it is not possible to reduce capacity in the quieter months due to the need to maintain coverage at all times.

4 : Significant variance in overall incident workload (Small Fires Peak)

There is a significant variance in overall incident workload through the day. The Total volume of Incidents per hour is flat between 09:00 and 23:00, however Small Fires (147) can more than double this volume between 17:00 and 22:00 hours. The active use of TRV’s during these periods should be evaluated and encouraged.

5 : Emergency Response Performance

CFRS Emergency Response performance against the 2006/07 Emergency Response standards is impressive. At a Brigade level an average of 98% attendance within standard has been achieved over the study period.

6 : 8 vs 9 Rider attendances

The conclusion of this analysis is that based on average incident times alone there is no discernable difference between 8 Rider attended incidents and 9 rider attended incidents.

9.2 Next Steps.

The next steps are as follows:

o Configure the Incident Response Simulator to use CFRS Incident Data.

o Calibrate the Simulator against known CFRS performance.

o Design an experimentation plan to evaluate the five scenarios identified above.



Appendix 1 – Glossary of Terms This section covers basic definitions and terminology relevant to this report.

Fire Incident Types

Incident Code Type Description142 Cheshire Incident FDR1 (Structural Property Fires)143 Cheshire Incident FAM (False Alarm Malicious)144 Cheshire Incident FAGI (False Alarm Good Intent)146 Cheshire Incident SSC (Special Service Calls)147 Cheshire Incident Small Fires149 Cheshire Incident Chimney Fires151 Over the Border Incident Shropshire Incident161 Over the Border Incident Merseyside Incident162 Over the Border Incident Staffordshire Incident190 Over the Border Incident Staffordshire Standby191 Over the Border Incident Merseyside Standby192 Over the Border Incident GMC Standby194 Over the Border Incident GMC Incident195 Over the Border Incident Northwales Incident196 Over the Border Incident Northwales Standby197 Over the Border Incident Derbyshire Incident198 Over the Border Incident Shropshire Standby199 Over the Border Incident Derbyshire Standby

incident response modelling project documents...incident response simulator could be used to look at...

Documents