Re: Germany railways is planning to run to London St P!!!!!

In message <6dadnX7_68hyr7HanZ2dnUVZ8q6onZ2d@xxxxxx>
"Peter Fox" <peterfoxdore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"The Good Doctor" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9cdni35nv3q94qf9m1bcpoi97lgibh5h5t@xxxxxxxxxx
John B <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2 Nov, 17:21, "Lüko Willms" <l.wil...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There is no doubt that the IGC requirements saved lives on board the
train that caught fire in the Tunnel and minimised risk to passengers
aboard other trains that were in the Tunnel at that time.

Has the train in question been split in two parts, leaving the
burning part in the tunnel?

What else had been done?

When did that fire happen?

Tony's being disingenous here:

<hansen>

Excellent. Personal abuse.

</hansen>

the train which caught fire was a
freight shuttle, not a E*.

So what? It caused a hazard that affected other trains in the tunnel.
Evacuation of a Eurostar to avoid a fire hazard is not only a safety
issue when that particular Eurostar catches fire. It is a safety
issue when any train (Shuttle, freight transit or Eurostar) is in the
Tunnel and it or any other train (Shuttle, freight transit or
Eurostar) catches fire.

The safety procedures for all trains, including Eurostar, were
reviewed in the light of what happened in the November 1996 fire and
revised. Lessons needed to be learned and revisions made. Serious
loss of life was only very narrowly avoided, and only because
Eurotunnel staff members used their own initiative to override
existing standard safety procedures. Had those standard procedures
been followed to the letter, there can be no doubt that people would
have died.

The IGC's requirements for the trains, structures, equipment etc. were
reviewed in the light of the November 1996 fire and found to be
generally sound. However what the fire proved was that the IGC
requirements were certainly neither unreasonably onerous nor
over-specified given the nature of the hazards.


While it's true that the fire safety requirements imposed by the IGC
on the design of freight shuttles saved lives on that occasion, it is
of no relevance to the train-splitting functionality, which has never
been (and almost certainly will never be) used.


However, the ability to walk through the train is an important feature
when it comes to evacuating the train. What the fire demonstrated is
the need to get passengers into the service tunnel by using a train
door that is very close indeed to an access door into the cross
passage and as far from fire or smoke as possible. That could involve
evacuating a train from a door near one end and people walking through
the train before emerging into the running tunnel. So while I agree
that the ability to split the train is unlikely to be used, the
ability to walk through is vital.

I have to disagree with you on the necessity for having to walk through the
whole train. One can always go in the other direction. And I resent your
snide comments about "ignorant commentators who have not the faintest idea
about the unique
hazards faced in the Channel Tunnel". The fact is that the Channel Tunnel is
just a railway tunnel like any other, except that it is longer than most. It
has special safety features, like the centre access tunnel, and it is this
that needs to be used in the event of a fire. I do not believe that it is
necessary to be able to walk right through the whole long train. If there is
a fire then one evacuates the passengers ASAP and gets them off the train.
And why is it that we are so worried about fires in the Channel Tunnel? Why
not have the same rules for all tunnels? Surely there is no more likelihood
of a fire in the Channel Tunnel than any other. The fact is that there is a
whole bureaucracy of people thinking up new safety regulations which prevent
the railways from operating economically or passengers from sitting
comfortably. Perhaps you are part of it "Good Doctor"?

Peter Fox

Well said! But what about a more fundamental question: What flammables
are there on board a passenger train?

The seating, obviously. Most of the rest of the train ought to be made
of non-flammable materials. Not to have flammables is by far the most
effective fire precaution. Why can't this be done?

Passengers don't burn, but their clothing does, in that dreadful fire
in a tunnel of a funicular railway in an Austrian or Swiss ski resort
a few years ago, it was the nylon ski jackets that burned. There's no
need to plan for that in the Channel Tunnel!

And fires on goods vehicles? There are also regular fires on channel
ferries, sometimes caused by overheated engines and suchlike.
Sometimes caused by uncaught smoldering in flammable cargoes. Maybe
all ought to be inspected using infra-red cameras (widely available
for electrical inspection) BEFORE they're allowed to board.

Michael Bell

--
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Germany railways is planning to run to London St P!!!!!
    ... The interior modifications to an ICE3 to comply are minimal. ... train, not feasable with the current ICE sets. ... It is far more likely that passengers ... train that caught fire in the Tunnel and minimised risk to passengers ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Germany railways is planning to run to London St P!!!!!
    ... train that caught fire in the Tunnel and minimised risk to passengers ... aboard other trains that were in the Tunnel at that time. ... Has the train in question been split in two parts, ... When did that fire happen? ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Fire at Liverpool St?
    ... There was disruption on HS1 yesterday, too, after a reported fire in the Thames Tunnel. ... Thousands of rail passengers stranded as 'fire' report closes high speed rail link ... Eurostar services were delayed due to reports of a fire in a tunnel in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Derailment in Summit Tunnel
    ... "A carriage of the 12.38am Manchester Airport to York train, ... the tunnel at Walsden and hit the tunnel wall, ... "No-one was hurt in the incident and the passengers and driver were ... Train derails in Pennine tunnel near Littleborough ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Germany railways is planning to run to London St P!!!!!
    ... when a freight or shuttle train catches a fire in the other tube, ... should not continue its journey out of the tunnel but stop right there ... I suggest that you read the report into the 2006 freight shuttle fire to ...
    (uk.railway)