Channel Tunnel Fire?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:01:28 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

>>Time lorries had to travel in enclosed rolling stock?
>
>
> No, but perhaps it is time to consider banning lorries that are carrying
> flammable and/or toxic materials.

I'm surprised that the alleged chemical the press are reporting was
allowed on the freight train. Highly flammable AND highly toxic.

I think they will now seriously have to consider making the freight
trains like the car passenger service, all enclosed train units to give a
better chance of extinguishing a fire and not get fanned by the wind of
the moving train.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:39:42 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

>>Time lorries had to travel in enclosed rolling stock?
>
> IIRC the plans for enclosed vehicles were abandoned due to the
> additional weight.

Then loose a freight carriage to balance the weight gain of the
additional skin.

On 11 Sep 2008 17:14:06 GMT, Ar <Ar@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:01:28 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
>
>>>Time lorries had to travel in enclosed rolling stock?
>>
>>
>> No, but perhaps it is time to consider banning lorries that are carrying
>> flammable and/or toxic materials.
>
>I'm surprised that the alleged chemical the press are reporting was
>allowed on the freight train. Highly flammable AND highly toxic.
>
That depends on precisely which version of the alleged "phenol" was
being carried. Some are non-combustible but will form harmful products
if involved in a fire. The fuel and tyres on the vehicles being
carried aren't entirely harmless by themselves once something starts
burning.

>I think they will now seriously have to consider making the freight
>trains like the car passenger service, all enclosed train units to give a
>better chance of extinguishing a fire and not get fanned by the wind of
>the moving train.

> >>Time lorries had to travel in enclosed rolling stock?

And any other similar comments.

Should you not all at least wait until the cause of the fire is
established FROM FORMAL INVESTIGATION before you make comment - and
NOT rely on off the cuff media reports that may be inaccurate or from
unreliable witnesses or second hand sources ?


--
Nick

"Ar" <Ar@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:48c9552f$0$2921$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:39:42 +0100, David Hansen wrote:
>
> >>Time lorries had to travel in enclosed rolling stock?
> >
> > IIRC the plans for enclosed vehicles were abandoned due to the
> > additional weight.
>
> Then loose a freight carriage to balance the weight gain of the
> additional skin.

It's not just the total weight of the train, but the axle weight of each
wagon. Though AIUI the objection to enclosed vehicles is more along the
lines that it would give any fire a greater chance to build up before it is
detected.

Though I am surprised, if the reports are true, that phenol was carried, at
least in appreciable quantities.

Peter

"Michael Bell" <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote

> But it might be worthwhile to scan them all for heat and
> smouldering by looking with thermal imaging

AIUI that is done

Peter

D7666 wrote:
>>>> Time lorries had to travel in enclosed rolling stock?
>
> And any other similar comments.
>
> Should you not all at least wait until the cause of the fire is
> established FROM FORMAL INVESTIGATION before you make comment - and
> NOT rely on off the cuff media reports that may be inaccurate or from
> unreliable witnesses or second hand sources ?

You can make perfectly informed comments about this sort of situation
based upon reports from previous fires on Freight Shuttles.

On 11 Sep, 18:40, D7666 <d7...@m> wrote:

> > >>Time lorries had to travel in enclosed rolling stock?
>
> And any other similar comments.
>
> Should you not all at least wait until the cause of the fire is
> established FROM FORMAL INVESTIGATION before you make comment - and
> NOT rely on off the cuff media reports that may be inaccurate or from
> unreliable witnesses or second hand sources ?
>

That's a fairly ridiculous thing to say on a discussion forum!

The truth will out in time, regardless of what is said here.

"Peter Masson" <peter.masson1@> writes:

> However, Eurotunnel are transferring their passengers to ferries,
> while E* are merely offering to transfer bookings to a later date or
> refund fares.

It is a pity that Eurostar removed the 3rd rail capability. Otherwise
they could have run from St. Pancras to Ashford International on the
high speed line and then by conventional lines to Dover or Folkstone,
put the passengers on a ferry to Calais and provide E*/TGV connections
from there to Paris and Brussels. With the reverse for passenger from
the Continent. There would (or should) be no problems with having to
provide separation between international and domestic passengers at
Dover/Folkstone/Calais as the immigration/customs etc formalities would
be handled at the ferry terminals.

On 12 Sep, 07:05, Michael Bell <mich...@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> Among other things, the BBC 6 00 news said that the tunnel "is a
> commercial success". That just shows how spin doctors will get their
> spin in even on the back of a potentially dangerous story and with a
> current story the BBC does not have time to check. As we all know the
> Tunnel is a financial disaster.
>

I very much doubt that the "commercial success" comment is based on
spin emanating from Eurotunnel's PR people yesterday - it's more
likely to be the result of all the years of Eurotunnel's general PR
operation which has managed to create a favourable impression on some
journalists. That and a general muddle headedness and lack of
knowledge of the facts in the mind of the specific journalist
concerned.