1

Trail Buster: Portable PoweredFireline Builder

Vince Welbaum, Helitack Supervisor; and Keith Windell, Project Leader

Fire, Recreation United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Technology &Development ProgramApril 2000

5100/2300 0051-2319-MTDC

T

For additional Information contact: Keith Windell, Project Leader; Missoula Technology & Development Center; 5785 Hwy. 10West; Missoula, MT 59808-9361. Phone: (406) 329-3956; Fax: (406) 329-3719; OpenMail: kwindell/wo,mtdc; E-mail: kwindell/wo_mtdc@fs.fed.us; Lotus Notes: Keith Windell/WO/USDAFS

T he Trail Buster (Figure 1) is a gas-powered portable line digging machine. The tool

can build fireline and recreationaltrails. It is powered by a HusqvarnaModel 36 chain saw powerhead andis made by Ponsness/Warren ofRathdrum, ID. The machine costsabout $1,275, including the powerhead.

The Missoula Technology andDevelopment Center (MTDC)organized a field evaluation of thismachine based on a positive reviewby the Montana Department ofNatural Resources andConservation (DNRC). The DNRC

used the Trail Buster for firelineconstruction. In addition, they saidthe machine was very effective forhelping mop up fires when it wasused in conjunction with water fromfire trucks. The manufacturer hasreceived positive testimonials fromloggers who used the machine tobuild firelines around logging units.

Field Evaluation

The field evaluation was conductedby fire crews from the PayetteNational Forest, New Meadows

Ranger District (ID); the ChugachNational Forest, Seward RangerDistrict (AK); the Wallowa-WhitmanNational Forest, LaGrande RangerDistrict (OR); and the UmatillaNational Forest, North Fork JohnDay Ranger District (OR). The TrailBuster was used throughout the1999 season on firelines forprescribed fires (Figure 2), forrecreational trail projects (Figure3), and for fireline constructionduring wildfire suppression.

The evaluating crews were trainedin maintenance, safety, and use ofthe Trail Buster by the factoryrepresentative and MTDC. Crewswere encouraged to practice withthe machine before time and motiondata were collected. They wereinstructed to keep track of:

• Productivity.• Safety concerns.• Machine breakdowns or stoppages.• Problems encountered.• Operator’s comments.• Overall impressions.• Special niches the machine may fill.• Improvements needed.

All crews were given an evaluationform to document their findings andsuggestions. This Tech Tipsummarizes their findings.

Figure 1—The Trail Buster being used to construct fireline for a prescribed fire.

2

Figure 3—Dust will fly when the Trail Buster is used in dry soils.

Results

Productivity

Tables 1 and 2 summarize theproductivity of the Trail Busterduring the 1999 field evaluations.

Safety Concerns

The need to “pull back” on themachine in a raking motion was aconcern for most operatorsbecause the machine would comeclose to the forward foot. Rocksand large buried material (such asroots) would make the machine acterratically, affecting operatorcontrol. The amount of materialthrown behind the machine couldbe dangerous. No one should beallowed within 50 feet of theoperator. One evaluator noted thatheat from the muffler wasbeginning to melt the shoulderharness.

Machine Breakdownsor Stoppages

Machine breakdowns were minimal.When the machine was first used,a couple of screws began backingout. After the screws weretightened, no further problems wereencountered. In heavier fuels andtall or green grass the headclogged with material, stopping it(Figure 4).

Figure 2—Fireline constructed with the Trail Buster.

3

Reporting unit North Fork John Day Ranger District

Machine task Wildfire line construction Prescribed fireline Prescribed fireline Prescribed fireline

No. of operators 1 5 4 7

Percent slope 5 to 15% 0 to 5% 0 to 60% 0%

Aspect — — — —

Vegetation present Ponderosa pine with some Douglas-fir, Fir, pine, thick grass Lodgepole pineDouglas-fir, pine grass, ponderosa pine, with some timber litter. regeneration,needle mat. light grass. huckleberry.

Site conditions Few surface rocks. Rocks with Thick grass, brush roots, Scab flats, rocks,2 to 4 inches of light grass and timber litter, rocks. brush, and grass.soil/grass/needle mat. timber litter. Ground was damp.

Average width of line cleared 12 inches 10 to 12 inches 6 to 12 inches 12 inches

Average depth of line cleared 4 inches 0 to 4 inches 2 to 6 inches 6 inches

Length of line constructed 260 feet 2000 feet 2000 feet 150 feet

Average line production per hour 780 feet/hour [machine only 400 feet/hour [5 hours 286 feet/hour [7 hours 50 feet/hour [3 hours(includes operator rest breaks operated for 20 minutes] on work site—excluding on work site—excluding on work site—and machine downtime—excludes lunch break] lunch break—broken down excluding lunchlunch break) for 1 hour during that period] break]

Percent machine downtime 0% 0% 14.3% 0%

Quality of line Excellent Acceptable Acceptable to unacceptable. Excellent

Table 1—Productivity of the Trail Buster when used to construct fireline on prescribed fires and a wildfire during 1999 on the North Fork John DayRanger District (OR).

Table 2—Productivity of the Trail Buster when used to construct prescribed firelines and trails during 1999 on the La Grande (OR), Seward (AK),and New Meadows (ID) Ranger Districts.

LaGrande Seward New Meadows New Meadows New MeadowsReporting unit Ranger District Ranger District Ranger District Ranger District Ranger District

Machine task Prescribed fireline Prescribed fireline Prescribed fireline Recreation trail Walkway to heliport

No. of operators 2 4 2 4 10

Percent slope 0 to 20% 5 to 10% 20% 0 to 10% 0%

Aspect South West East South Flat

Vegetation present Douglas-fir, grassy Calamagrostis grass, Ninebark, grass, Tall grass, Grassbrush understory, fireweed, alder, ponderosa pine, bunchgrassheavy duff, mixed hemlock, and ceanothus.kinnikinick. and spruce.

Site conditions Dense brush, Thick roots, grassy, Primarily green Existing trail with Helibase sitedecayed wood and a few rocks. brush. some rockand roughconcentrations. uneven ground

Average width of 12 inches 16 inches 30 inches 30 inches 40 inchesline cleared

Average depth of 6 inches 2 to 3 inches 2 inches 2 inches 5 inchesline cleared

Length of line 500 feet 1200 feet 200 feet 400 feet 300 feetconstructed

Average line 330 feet/hour 150 feet/hour 80 feet/hour 100 feet/hour 30 feet/hour,production per hour [8 hours on work [21/2 hours on work operators switched(includes operator site—excluding site—excluding off every 10 minutes.rest breaks and lunch break—broken lunch break—machine downtime— down for 3 hours broken downexcludes lunch break) during that period] for 20 minutes]

Percent machine 10 minutes of machine 38% 13% 5% each hour stop- No downtimedowntime downtime [percent page to clean out

could not be calculated head due to cloggingbecause rest break from grass.data not recorded]

Quality of line Acceptable to Unacceptable Unaccepable Acceptable Acceptableunaccepable

4

Figure 4—Tall grasses occasionally get tangled up in the Trail Buster head and must beremoved. Inset: grass roots wrapped around digging head.

Problems Encountered

Vibration was discussed in many ofthe evaluations. Vibration limitedthe time that operators were able touse the Trail Buster. Back fatiguewas a major factor—especially fortaller operators—because of themachine’s weight, its length, and

the techniques used to operate it.Operators had best results whenstanding downslope of the TrailBuster and pulling the debristoward them. Working the TrailBuster on flat ground was harder onthe back. Standing upslope of the

machine during operation was verydifficult. Especially in hard-packedsoils, the machine would tend toride on top of the ground. The TrailBuster did not dig in until it wasturned on an angle to “cut” the topfew inches of ground litter.Controlling the machine was aproblem, especially on slopes.

5

Operator’s Comments

Hard-packed ground and slightslopes affect the operator’s abilityto control the Trail Buster.

An unusual amount of energy isrequired to operate the unit onsloped, rocky areas or on hard-packed ground.

Interesting idea, but human outputwith handtools is far moreproductive than the Trail Buster.

Machine works well but requiresthat operator is above-averagesize, strength, and conditioning.

I’d like to be 24 years old again if Ihad to operate it daily.

It worked well in open areas andlight slash; it did have a lot ofvibration.

When digging fireline you have tobe sideways of the line so you’realways working in brush and not inthe fireline.

Takes three to four passes over thesame stretch of line.

This equipment would be difficult topack long distances.

Overall Impressions

The general consensus was thatthis machine is very heavy (45pounds—as tested, full of gas),awkward, takes numerous passesto dig adequate line, and is verystrenuous to operate, especially onthe operator’s back. Vibrationlimited the time that an operatorcould use the Trail Buster. Manybreaks were needed to rest theoperator’s arms and back.Downtime due to breakdowns wasminimal.

Special Niches theMachine May Fill

The Trail Buster seemed to workbetter on existing trails that neededto be leveled or have materialscraped from the surface. Themachine works well on flattersurfaces and would beadvantageous in recreational areassuch as campgrounds or forestablished trails that need a“facelift.” Another possible use maybe for scalping tree planting sites.

Improvements Needed

The digging head may need somesort of tooth configuration fordigging through the topsoil. Themachine seemed to ride on top ofthe compacted ground, requiringoperators to tip the machine at anangle so the edges of the cutterscould dig in. Another suggestionwas to lengthen the machine byabout 10 inches and to make thehandle adjustable so that it couldbe positioned on either side of thebelt/chain housing. Personsworking on a slope could place thehandle in a position that increasedtheir comfort. An adjustable handlewould also allow operators toswitch hands, reducing fatigue. Thestrap system used to carry thismachine needs to be improved. TheTrail Buster is very heavy andawkward to carry long distances. Arubber flap along the bottom ofdebris guard could help protect theleading foot. If possible, themachine needs to be lightened.

Discussion

Most of the comments compiledduring this field evaluation werenegative, although a few operatorspraised the machine for its ability tomove a lot of dirt. One evaluatorcommented that the machineworked well in open areas and lightslash, but that it had a hard timecutting through thick grass andshort brush. Another evaluator whoused the Trail Buster for 20 minuteson a wildfire claimed that it was twoto four times faster than a 3-personcrew. This evaluator was the onlyone who recommended the TrailBuster (for use on fires smallerthan 5 acres and for mopup). Allother evaluators had less thanenthusiastic views of the TrailBuster as a fireline constructiontool. Some evaluators wereconcerned that the machinepredisposed the operator to lowerback or foot injuries.

Conclusions andRecommendations

Most evaluators opposed addingthis machine (as currentlydesigned) to their arsenal of firesuppression equipment. If most orall of the equipment modificationssuggested by the field areincorporated, the Trail Buster mayhave a future on the fireline. Untilthat time, the Trail Buster is notrecommended for general firelineconstruction.

6

About the Authors…

Vince Welbaum is the helitacksupervisor for the Price ValleyHelitack on the New MeadowsRanger District of the PayetteNational Forest. He has a forestrydegree from Kings RiverCommunity College and hasworked in fire control for the ForestService for the past two decades.

Keith Windell is a Project Leaderfor reforestation, fire and residuesprojects. He has a bachelor ofscience degree in mechanicalengineering from Montana StateUniversity, as well as an extensivefield background. He has workedfor the California Department ofForestry, Bureau of LandManagement, and the ForestService.

Additional single copies of thisdocument may be ordered from:

USDA Forest ServiceMissoula Technology andDevelopment Center5785 Hwy. 10 WestMissoula, MT 59808-9361Phone: (406) 329-3978Fax: (406) 329-3719OpenMail: pubs/wo_mtdcInternet: pubs/wo,mtdc @fs.fed.us

For more information on the TrailBuster contact:

Ponsness/WarrenS 763 Highway 41, P.O. Box 8Rathdrum, Idaho 83858Phone (208) 687-2231Fax: (208) 687-2233

For additional technicalinformation, contact KeithWindell at the address above.

Phone: (406) 329-3956Fax: (406) 329-3719OpenMail: kwindell/wo,mtdcInternet: kwindell/ wo_mtdc@fs.fed.usLotus Notes: Keith N Windell/ WO/USDAFS

An electronic copy of thisdocument is available on theForest Service’s FSWeb Intranetat:

http://fsweb.mtdc.wo.fs.fed.us

The Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture,has developed this information for the guidance of itsemployees, its contractors, and its cooperating Federal andState agencies, and is not responsible for the interpretationor use of this information by anyone except its ownemployees. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names inthis publication is for the information and convenience of thereader, and does not constitute an endorsement by the

Department of any product or service to the exclusion ofothers that may be suitable. The United States Department ofAgriculture (USDA), prohibits discrimination in all its programsand activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexualorientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibitedbases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of programinformation (Braille, large print, audiotape, and so forth)should phone USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600(voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write:USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, WhittenBuilding, 14th and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA isan equal opportunity provider and employer.