If there's a fire in Ware, a vehicle from 1954 may come rumbling to the rescue. In Shrewsbury, it could be from 1962. In Sturbridge, 1963.

They are vehicles older than some of the people who operate them — problems patched up, often refurbished, doing duty long past their prime. But survivors like this are not kept around for sentimental reasons. With little money available for fire departments to update their vehicles, and with fire vehicles costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, departments have little choice but to live in the past.

Aged vehicles are common. Of 44 Central Massachusetts fire departments surveyed by the Telegram & Gazette, 30 have at least one major apparatus made before 1979. Trucks of that age run afoul of National Fire Protection Association standards. The standards are not enforceable, but encourage departments to own reliable vehicles built to modern safety standards. Chiefs say they agree with the sentiment, but that the goals do not always gel with their financial abilities.

"It's kind of like a utopian type of standard," Gardner Fire Chief Ronald P. Therrien said. "Unfortunately, we have to live in the real world, and we can't do the things we say we should do."

The elderly units are often a saving grace for cash-strapped departments, but they pose numerous challenges, as well. They lack up-to-date safety designs, putting at risk the firefighters and the residents they're helping. The vehicles are also more prone to costly maintenance problems, draining already tight budgets.

"I lose sleep over the condition of these trucks, and it's nothing that's happened overnight," said Townsend Deputy Fire Chief Brian L. Borneman. "It's just budgets and people with other priorities."

Many communities have capital improvement plans with scheduled vehicle upgrades, but plans change when budgets get tight. Some communities have simply stopped asking residents for money at all, instead relying on unpredictable federal and local grants to keep their fleets modern. Winchendon, for example, has not used town money to buy a firetruck since 1984.

Other departments seek a quick injection of money when they consider it necessary, often by requesting a temporary tax increase. That method does not always win residents' approval, though. Ashby tried it this year, hoping to raise $300,000 to replace a 1971 pumper. The proposal was approved at town meeting in May, but failed by four votes in a June ballot.

As chiefs juggle their budgets, departments cope as best they can. Most have developed mutual aid partnerships with nearby communities, so that the most reliable trucks from multiple towns will respond to an emergency. Some departments also compensate by changing their spending habits: They buy used vehicles from other departments instead of new ones, or spend money on extending truck lifetimes through refurbishments and maintenance.

Used-vehicle sales provide a second life to some trucks, which may seem old to their original owner but are a necessary addition for their new owner. Barre, for example, has a 1968 ladder truck, which was the first of its kind in town when Barre bought it from Auburn 10 years ago. This summer, when Townsend's 1985 engine failed its inspection test, the town replaced it by buying a 1973 engine from Fitchburg.

These are not perfect solutions, fire officials said. Multiple emergencies can overwhelm communities that rely on mutual aid; used vehicles may only last a few years; and departments pouring money into old vehicles may be wasting savings that could be spent on longer-lasting new vehicles.

"It's not a good situation," said Carl E. Peterson, assistant director of the Public Fire Protection Division of the National Fire Protection Association. "And as I say, the problem is when communities start relying on apparatus that's getting up in age, then it's almost a false sense of security."

Vehicle costs have risen sharply in the last few decades. A new truck can run between $100,000 and $1 million, depending on the complexity, customization and number of features, according to Jeffry G. Resch, president of the Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association. He could not say how much costs have risen over time, but some chiefs said they have seen a near doubling in price over the last 20 to 30 years.

Vehicles are now built to conform to stricter safety regulations, and that has made them more complex and expensive to produce, Mr. Resch said. They also include new technology that meets the increasing demands placed upon fire departments for services such as medical and rescue calls.

"Are they expensive? Yes," Mr. Resch said. "But are they necessary? I obviously believe so. And the fact of the matter is, today's trucks have a lot more safety features, are a lot more reliable, dependable, have a lot more technology that helps the firefighters do their job."

But as fire departments respond to more calls with their expensive, better-equipped trucks, the increased usage wears the trucks down more quickly. That forces departments to buy trucks more often, or continue to use older trucks that are not as safe or effective.

Leominster's department, for example, responds to about 8,000 incidents a year — more than triple the 2,500 incidents it went to 25 years ago, according to Chief Alfred LeBlanc. It is operating with fewer staff than it had back then, and with the same number of vehicles. In a few cases, the department is even using the same trucks it did 25 years ago, he said.

Every year, Chief LeBlanc said, his vehicles are moved 21,000 times. The toll is noticeable: Trucks that once lasted 20 years now start having trouble after 10, he said.

Other departments reported similar changes. It is even more pronounced in urban areas, because a city environment is particularly rough on trucks, officials said.

Each department also has different philosophies on purchasing and use, and that may impact a fleet's longevity.

Some departments send large trucks out to every call — many of which will turn out to be false alarms — while others will send smaller, more durable vehicles to check the situation first. Over time, simple decisions like that can affect a vehicle's lifespan by years, chiefs said.

To save money, many departments, including Gardner's, are now buying duel-use vehicles called quints. They combine the standard rescue vehicle, called a tower or ladder, with the standard water-pumping vehicle, called an engine or pumper. That way, departments can get all the functionality they need without buying two new trucks.

"It's a more economical, more efficient way of doing things, so to speak," Gardner's Chief Therrien said.

Rural communities often also require a third type of major apparatus: a tanker to carry water to areas without fire hydrants. Some manufacturers have begun building duel tankers and pumpers.

While departments wait for enough funding to buy a new vehicle, they often must pour cash into maintaining their older, malfunctioning ones.

West Boylston Fire Chief John Chandler III knows that problem well. His department is three years behind a scheduled vehicle replacement. To keep the fleet functioning, he had the brakes rebuilt on a 1985 engine and significant maintenance performed on a 1982 engine.

This year, West Boylston residents approved a tax increase to replace the 1982 truck. Chief Chandler said he is pleased about that, but is dismayed at the money used to fix the old engines. Had the town acted earlier, he said, it would have saved that cash.

"You're spending so much time and money fixing stuff that you can't keep up with all the normal things you're doing," he said.

And sometimes, despite the maintenance, vehicles simply run out of life. When that happens, as it did two years ago with Leominster's 1953 tanker, fire departments are left with an even larger burden.

A tanker is necessary in Leominster, because it carries much-needed water to the roughly 400 homes outside the fire hydrant zone. When there's a fire in that area, Chief LeBlanc's staff is at a disadvantage.

"We're still responding with an apparatus that has water, but we need water with a larger quantity to be effective," he said.

Although most area departments have aging vehicles, the situation is not typically dire enough to put communities at significant risk. These departments own multiple engines or ladders, and they use the oldest ones only when necessary.

Sometimes, a department's lack of vehicles has nothing to do with price at all. For example, Hubbardston lacks a ladder truck — not because it has been unable to afford one, but because that kind of truck is too big to fit inside its station.

But Mendon's lack of a ladder truck is entirely because of cost. The department has been looking at funding options for a while, but has yet to secure the vehicle it needs, according to Deputy Chief Mark N. Poirier. In an emergency situation that requires a ladder truck for rescues, Mendon must rely on ladders from other communities.

Deputy Chief Poirier said that makes him nervous.

"If that ladder truck from anywhere else is not available, that alone does pose a potential problem," he said.

Mr. Peterson of the NFPA sees another problem with such mutual aid agreements. If one department is leaning too heavily on another one, he said, resentment could spread: "Pretty soon, if I'm not willing to fund my own fire department as a taxpayer and expecting my neighbor to provide me fire protection, they're going to say, 'Wait a minute.'"

Mr. Peterson suggested that if departments cannot find the money to pay for a truck upfront, they should pursue financing plans instead. That way, he said, they can afford to be self-reliant.

Deputy Chief Poirier in Mendon agrees, and his department is considering those sorts of options now. He said it is a comfort to know that other communities can help out in an emergency, but his town needs its own ladder truck.

"It's just a way of life. We need this piece of equipment, and we're going to have to go for it eventually," he said. "It's not going to get any cheaper."