AMJ Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 The news article on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13123300 Discusses the An audit of road and railways at possible risk from industrial accidents has been ordered after the scrapyard fire that caused major M1 disruption. Personally I think that this is an incident that has been waiting to happen for far too long. Does Notwork Rail vet the items that are stored in the many railway arches that they let off in towns? I bet that they don't. Many of these are under operational main lines into the said towns. Who will pay for the damage to the M1 bridge? I bet that the business owners insurance doesn't cover that as it's not the property. Might end up being quite a long & complex legal battle between insurance companies. This crippled the M1 at the south end for some time, just imagine what would have happened if it had been under a stretch of say the ECML/WCML/GWML. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium BR60103 Posted April 20, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 20, 2011 We had an incident in Ontario 20-25 years ago where a new bridge at a cloverleaf had an accident under it with a tank truck. After the fire, the bridge had to be removed and totally rebuilt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Ray Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 It happens from time to time - here's a famous one from 2007 where a tank-truck overturned in Oakland, California and the resultant fire ended up melting the highway overpass. Also one from 2004 on I-95 (Interstate ~ Motorway) where a tanker truck explosion partially melted a newly refurbished bridge near Bridgeport, Connecticut And closer to my home, in 1994 there was a tanker truck explosion on the Long Island Expressway (again, like a Motorway) near exit 53/Commack which badly damaged an overpass and requied a massive effort to rebuild and reopen the Expressway. Actually, after looking at various articles on-line, it does seems to happen a fair amount in the US Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Both the Channel Tunnel fires did similar damage to the roof of the tunnel, which wasn't in danger of collapse but needed several months repair work before that part could be used again. The common factor here seems to be concrete structures, where the heat seems to be separating the concrete from the reinforcing bars. Somewhere in the BBC website coverage was a quote from roads minister Mike Penning (formerly a firefighter) saying he'd been to fires under brick arches but they didn't cause as much damage as this. On the other hand the link above has him saying this was much hotter than a typical scrapyard fire. So I hope there is some consideration of the type of business and the type of structure rather than a blanket ban on certain activities, which would just disrupt small business and deny the railway the rental income. Regardless of the damage being off site, the business would be liable to be sued if there was evidence that they were at fault. There is a suggestion the fire was started deliberately but we don't know by who or, if not authorised to be there, how they got in. Insurance would potentially cover this though the maximum might not be enough to pay for all the damage - and one consequence could be a big increase in premiums making business locations underneath roads and railways less attractive. A related problem is the closure of a railway when there is a fire within 100m or so and gas cylinders are suspected to be present. This causes a lot of disruption, but only for the duration of the fire rather than of any repairs afterwards. It is not clear whether the review will cover this, but if it does the impacts could be much greater. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Considering that such businesses have been located in arches under railways probably since the beginning of railways and petrol stations under or very close to road bridges is a fairly common sight I find it incredible that there has been no such review before now. Especially given the H&S and risk assessment culture over the past decades. It will be the tax payer who pays. It seems very likely that the fire was deliberate rather than accidental. Though that doesn't rule out the potential for other situations to have to be covered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caradoc Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 The gas cylinder 100m exclusion zone has caused disruption to rail services on many occasions, however the rail industry has no control over what business are located outside railway property, or what materials are stored there. As far as the issue of businesses located in railway arches is concerned, I would expect Network Rail to take a look at this, certainly where main lines or key locations are involved, at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted April 20, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 20, 2011 I will try to find the item but there was a problem with dangerous substances stored beneath the arches of what was the Shoreditch terminus of the ECR in the 1850's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted April 20, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 20, 2011 I don't know what the situation is nowadays but in the past there used to be codicils in the rental agreements limiting what could be used/stored in arches under railways (e.g no more than xx gallons of motor spirit). At one time a place where I worked had a car repair shop on railway land immediately adjacent to our Up Yard headshunt and fairly close to our loco stabling point and the tenant had a restriction on the amount of cellulose paint he was allowed to keep on the premises and on the way in which it had to be stored. Beyond the boundary there is, alas, no control over either dangerous materials of any sort and rail disruption due to the risk of exploding gas cylinders in fires seems to have become almost commonplace. Mind you far more worrying in my mind is the total lack of control of cranes capable of fouling the railway when they are working at sites by the railway boundary - presumably that one will not get back into the headlines until we have a repeat of a 1950s incident in the Manchester area when the load slung from a crane working in such a position came into violent collision with a local train resulting in a number of injuries (and possibly a fatality??). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 The common factor here seems to be concrete structures, where the heat seems to be separating the concrete from the reinforcing bars. Somewhere in the BBC website coverage was a quote from roads minister Mike Penning (formerly a firefighter) saying he'd been to fires under brick arches but they didn't cause as much damage as this. Concrete and reinforcement steel expands at different rates. Enough such differential expansion (such as in fire conditions) and the bond between the two materials shears. Amongst other issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Concrete and reinforcement steel expands at different rates. Enough such differential expansion (such as in fire conditions) and the bond between the two materials shears. Amongst other issues. 'Spalling' (any connection to Timothy Spall, I wonder?). The effect of heat, followed by rapid cooling, on rock has been known since Roman times, when Hannibal used it as a means of clearing the way through the Alps for his elephants. Concrete is effectively a form of artifical rock, albeit with inclusions such as reinforcing bar and aggregate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Very close to home for Brummies, was this unhappy episode. I think it happened during Reading Festival weekend 1990. An entire new span, or two spans of the A38 had to be constructed. " the closure of the access between Tyburn Road and the Aston Expressway (A38M) at Spaghetti Junction in 1990 because a petrol tanker had exploded underneath it. In both cases the road was closed for about twelve months..." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2mm Andy Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Mind you far more worrying in my mind is the total lack of control of cranes capable of fouling the railway when they are working at sites by the railway boundary - presumably that one will not get back into the headlines until we have a repeat of a 1950s incident in the Manchester area when the load slung from a crane working in such a position came into violent collision with a local train resulting in a number of injuries (and possibly a fatality??). There certainly used to be quite a strict control on cranes (and piling rigs and other construction plant) working alongside the railway a few years ago (when part of my job was to supervise 'outside party' works). I don't know if the systems have changed much since, but in most cases we required slew restrictors to be fitted, risk assessments/method statements being produced, and, if deemed necessary, crane working during engineering possessions only. Plus of course we would quite often put one of our supervisors on site to keep an eye on things. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 You're spot on there, Andy. My experience is that those controls, at least between parties with a formal relationship such as a civils contractor and NR, are even more rigorous. It's probably the fringe contractors operating unbeknown to NR where a problem might lie. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2mm Andy Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 You're spot on there, Andy. My experience is that those controls, at least between parties with a formal relationship such as a civils contractor and NR, are even more rigorous. It's probably the fringe contractors operating unbeknown to NR where a problem might lie. Yes - we were encouraged to report anything we spotted that the office weren't aware of or that didn't look safe. I agree that the biggest problems were the small contractors working on sites close to the railway and who just didn't think about the potential risks. Mind you, I always took the approach that those who didn't try to bluff their way out of the problem were treated with far more courtesy and leniency than those who tried to wriggle out of the responsibilities! Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.