Fire damaged train removed from Channel Tunnel - BBC News

In message
<f270fc22-2c10-40b0-8085-0c7a1efe3d8b@m3g2000hsc..com>, at
14:12:48 on Wed, 1 Oct 2008, TimB <timburford@onetel.net> remarked:
>It's been there all this time??

Apparently most of the rain is still inside the tunnel. And what were
those trucks in front of what appeared to be the shunter pulling it out?
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JMJzGRMP0+4IFALh@perry.co.uk...
> In message
> <f270fc22-2c10-40b0-8085-0c7a1efe3d8b@m3g2000hsc..com>, at
> 14:12:48 on Wed, 1 Oct 2008, TimB <timburford@onetel.net> remarked:
>>It's been there all this time??
>
> Apparently most of the rain is still inside the tunnel.

It rains in the tunnel?

Regards

Jonathan

Jonathan Morton wrote:
> "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:JMJzGRMP0+4IFALh@perry.co.uk...
>> In message
>> <f270fc22-2c10-40b0-8085-0c7a1efe3d8b@m3g2000hsc..com>, at
>> 14:12:48 on Wed, 1 Oct 2008, TimB <timburford@onetel.net> remarked:
>>> It's been there all this time??
>> Apparently most of the rain is still inside the tunnel.
>
> It rains in the tunnel?

Rising (or descending) damp?
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney UK
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and
wrong"

In message
<683bf2b3-95d5-4e6b-b9bb-e4114be086ed@j22g2000hsf..com>, at
07:39:48 on Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Boltar <boltar2003.uk> remarked:
>Considering the supposed intensity of the fire , the rail stock looks
>remarkably undamaged. There doesn't appear to be any distortion in the
>wagons and the loco just looks like it needs a wash.

Isn't it just the part of the train that "survived" more or less? The
majority is still in the tunnel.
--
Roland Perry

jeffworsnop <jeffworsnop@> wrote:
> Like many news broadcasts from, say, in front of the High Court to
> tell us the verdict in a trial it is pointless having someone on site.
> Seems like an excuse for a camera crew and reporter jolly.

In that case presumably the reporter has been attending the trial, which is
quite difficult to do from his desk given the ban on recording devices in
court. And they're not allowed to film inside, so they have to do it
outside on the street.

But here there seems to be a public road nearby, or they could just as
easily buy the footage from Reuters et al. Or maybe the point is they're
got a scoop and are going to /sell/ the footage to Reuters/Sky/whoever, and
in the process might as well have a bit of live commentary.

Theo

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gEQ5UTosdP5IFA2K@perry.co.uk...
> In message
> <683bf2b3-95d5-4e6b-b9bb-e4114be086ed@j22g2000hsf..com>, at
> 07:39:48 on Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Boltar <boltar2003.uk> remarked:
>>Considering the supposed intensity of the fire , the rail stock looks
>>remarkably undamaged. There doesn't appear to be any distortion in the
>>wagons and the loco just looks like it needs a wash.
>
> Isn't it just the part of the train that "survived" more or less? The
> majority is still in the tunnel.
> --
> Roland Perry
You surmise correctly, Roland. This end of the train was less damaged as the
Secondary Ventilation System would have been configured to blow the smoke
away from the 'Club Car'. Two more vehicles came out this morning, and
another two were being prepared to come out later. That is more-or-less all
the first rake accounted for.
Brian

On Oct 2, 10:20 pm, "BH Williams" <bhwilli...@letra.co.uk> wrote:
> You surmise correctly, Roland. This end of the train was less damaged as the
> Secondary Ventilation System would have been configured to blow the smoke
> away from the 'Club Car'. Two more vehicles came out this morning, and

The club car where the doors couldn't be opened yet again , just like
in the last fire. I wonder if people will have to die trapped inside
one of these things before they decide to change the door opening
mechanism.

B2003

On 3 Oct, 00:12, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:
> m...@nildram.co.uk wrote:
> >On 02 Oct 2008 18:33:38 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
> ><theom+n...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >>jeffworsnop <jeffwors...@> wrote:
> >>> Like many news broadcasts from, say, in front of the High Court to
> >>> tell us the verdict in a trial it is pointless having someone on site..
> >>> Seems like an excuse for a camera crew and reporter jolly.
>
> >>In that case presumably the reporter has been attending the trial, which is
> >>quite difficult to do from his desk given the ban on recording devices in
> >>court.  And they're not allowed to film inside, so they have to do it
> >>outside on the street.
>
> >That's what they want you to think.  Quite often the reporter and
> >camera crew just turn up outside, film a report based on agency copy
> >and leave without ever entering the building.
>
> I think very few people realise just how much of their news is
> actually provided by these agencies.  
>
> Taking the BBC web site as an example, if you removed all the articles
> that came from the newswires of Reuters, PA News, AP and AFP, I doubt
> there would be much original BBC reporting left.

The BBC's a bad example, they've got one of the largest newsgathering
operations in the world, but even then you're right, a lot of it is
repasted press releases which filter through from the wires.

Compared to ITN or Sky though, the BBC actually does attempt to do a
few stories.