Talk:King's Cross fire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:


Investigators said the most probable cause of the fire was a discarded match.

Smoking on the Underground had been banned in 1985 after a fire at Oxford Circus station but smokers often lit cigarettes on the escalators on their way out.

Contents

[edit] Inappropriate re-distribution of Content

I think this website of a law firm uses the text from this entry without naming Wikipedia at the source, which is required according to the Users' rights and obligations section. It might also be the case that someone has copied the text from the website of the law firm and has placed it on wikipedia. Someone might want to look into this. yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

[edit] Changes on 26 June 2004

Ecb 10:58, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Changed cigarette to match. In January 1988, HSE tried to set the unburnt part of the escalator alight in a controlled test. Three glowing cigarettes failed to ignite the grease, but the first match succeeded.

Deleted the paragraph on how train movements fanned the flames. Although this is true, it's not as relevant to the fire development as the trench effect. Simcox et al modelled the fire with and without train-induced airflows and found no significant difference in the fire development. Fennell only refers to train-induced airflows in passing (page 110).

Smoking was banned on the Underground after the Oxford Circus fire; Fennell states this in the first chapter of his report.

Added various references for posterity and a link to the identity of the 31st victim.

[edit] How much destruction?

The article says, "It destroyed much of King's Cross St. Pancras London Underground station, a huge interchange station which has platforms on the Victoria, Piccadilly, Northern, Circle, Hammersmith & City, and Metropolitan lines."

So the claim is that it destroyed much of that. Is that correct? - "destroy" is a very serious word - if a tube station was destroyed, say by a bomb, I would imagine that the tunnels and so on would no longer be there - you'd actually have to dig it out again - you'd need to rebuild it. How severe, actually, was the damage there, and might some other form of wording be appropriate if, say less than 50% of the entire Underground station was actually destroyed? I don't mean to nitpick here and I would be delighted to hear evidence one way or the other - I just think it's important that the article about this horrendous event does state accurately what happened. My worry is that "destroyed much of ..." might be a slight case of hyperbole compared to, say "caused severe damage to much of ...". I'd be very interested to know what others think, snd even more interested to be able to read some evidence. Please tell me if you think I am being unreasonable in raising this. --Nevilley 19:30, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's a valid point, and the phrase is excessive. According to Moodie's damage assessment paper, the damaged areas consisted of the following:

  • The upper half of the escalator tunnel from the Piccadilly Line to the ticket hall;
  • The entire ticket hall;
  • The perimeter subway around the ticket hall & the Khyber pass;
  • The passages to street exits and to the BR stations.

The Fire Brigade "Stop" message describes these areas as "100% damaged by fire".

This leaves the following undamaged areas:

  • the three deep-level tube line platforms & their concourses
  • the cut & cover line platforms;
  • the Victoria & Northern line escalator/stair tunnels.

Basically, all the secondary structure above the fire was burned out, while everything below it was undamaged. Note that the primary structure (e.g. the loadbearing roof of the ticket hall) didn't have to be rebuilt, so perhaps "destroyed" is a mite too strong.

I propose changing the text from "destroyed much of..." to "burnt out the top level of..."

Ecb 11:48, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] External link?

What's the point of the external link, with no explanatory text, to the Swedish site? The site gives some numbers and comments on ambulance and hospital responses (which could with care be incorporated in the article) but is basically, as far as I can see, is an order form for a publication about the fire and responses to it. Do we need it? --Nevilley 19:36, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Personally I think it should stay (with some explanatory text added) because:

  • The Swedish site is probably one of the few places on the web that had something that isn't detailed in the Fennell report. I suspect the article's original author linked to it because s/he couldn't find any websites to refer to that didn't just restate the things in the wiki article.
  • Most of the sources I've listed are unavailable to the casual browser (they're either printed materials or on paid technical index websites). This is one that we can all look at.

We could incorporate the data from the site into the article, but then surely the link becomes a reference?

Ecb 19:09, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Not happy

Erm, Im not happy with this article's facts at the moment -- However, I'm not happy to edit it without more research -- maybe somebody else could take a look at the causes of the fire section -- from my understanding (I have done a little research on this in the past) The fire was caused by a match or similar falling between the slats in the steps and igniting the rubbish underneath -- once sufficent heat had built up and maybe the escalator was starting to catch fire there was then a flashback... Which is not quite what the article says -- also similar fires -- my understanding was there had been other minor fires on the tube, not at this or any escalator which is what the article now says! The whole concept of this needs more explanation in terms of understanding risk... --Davelane 21:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article does say 'probably ignited by a match', which is true. Dan100 13:19, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

It does now because I edited it (although wikipedia conveniently forgot :( ) before i realised how bad this is... i started editing again and realised i either revert till the article was better or change many parts so they are correct -- The fire stared below not on the escalator the rubbish caused the flashback not the steps - the flames not going above the escalator was not a direct cause -- other fires on the network had been ignored -- theres too much for me to correct without reading all the reports again...

[edit] Cheer up, it's not as bad as all that

The article is less inaccurate than you think, and I'd like to present some of the evidence that made me write it in the way that I did. I've split up your two paragraphs above at the places where (I think) one of your subjects ends and the next begins. These are repeated below, with extracts from the references and some explanation following them. All the references quoted below are cited in full at the bottom of the Wiki article.

from my understanding (I have done a little research on this in the
past) The fire was caused by a match or similar falling between
the slats in the steps and igniting the rubbish underneath.

The following is an extract from Moodie's solo paper:

  • an ignition source developed beneath escalator no. 4 some 21m down from the top and on the right hand side when looking up. This was probably an extraneous heat source such as a lighted match falling onto the grease/fluff layer on the running track.

This was turned into the following sentence for the wiki article:

The fire was caused by rubbish and grease beneath wooden escalators being ignited, probably by a discarded match.

This seems to be a reasonable abbreviation of Moodie's text describing how it started.

Once sufficent heat had built up and maybe the escalator was starting to
catch fire there was then a flashback...which is not quite what the
article says.

Moodie goes on in further bullet points:

  • The fire on the haulage mechanism developed to ignite the vertical plywood skirting board and the fire spread from beneath to above the escalator via the skirting board.
  • Once above the escalator the fire developed more rapidly and began to involve the plywood balustrades and the stair treads and risers.
  • The fire spread up the escalator on both balustrades and encompassed the plywood facia and advertisement boards on the left hand side wall of the escalator tunnel. It also involved the deckboards and hand rails.
  • Flame and hot gases from the escalator shaft passed into the ticket hall and ignited flammable materials therein.

These quotes show that the source of fuel for the jet of flame that entered the ticket hall was the wooden components of the escalator. The escalator was not "starting to catch fire" at the time of the flashover: it was burning like crazy.

The fire stared below not on the escalator

Which is what the Wiki article states. Perhaps you're referring to the third sentence in the second paragraph, which reads The fire started on the escalator, then flashed over and filled the ticket hall with flames and smoke.

I'm guessing that you've interpreted this as a statement that the fire started on the upper surface of the escalator: is this guess right? This interpretation would indeed contradict the earlier sentence that stated that the fire started on the rubbish and grease beneath it.

When I wrote that sentence, I intended to put the location of the fire into the context of the rest of King's Cross tube station complex, not to define (for a second time) precisely where the ignition took place.

If you did interpret it as defining precisely where the ignition took place then other readers may do so too. So, we should amend it to make clear that it refers to the location of the fire within the station, not the position of the fire on the escalator.

my understanding was there had been other minor fires on the tube, not
at this or any escalator which is what the article now says!

A part I didn't write, but it is definitely true that fires had previously occurred here. Another quote from Moodie, from the section where he describes the fire investigators' examination of the escalators:

Damage marks similar to those recorded [at the seat of the fire on escalator No 4] were also found on both sides of escalator No 5, there were a number of these and they seemed to indicate that there had been previous fire starts.

This makes it clear that similar fires had started, then gone out of their own accord, on other escalators in the same shaft.

the rubbish caused the flashback not the steps

This claim is not supported by the evidence in the technical papers, nor by anything in Chapter 12 of the Fennell report.

Fennell (Chapter 12, clause 28) gives a summary of the fire load burnt in the Picc line escalator shaft: of a total of 64,457 MJ burnt, about 8% was grease/rubbish. He went on to describe (Chapter 12, clause 55 (v)) the cause of the jet of flame:

At first people in the ticket hall saw a few flickers of flames or detached flames, but this quickly developed into a continuous jet of flame. As these flames were produced by the combustion of the wood components of the escalator, there would have been little smoke in that portion of the flow.

The bulk of the wooden components on the escalator (about one-third of the MJ) were the wooden treads (Fennell, Chapter 12, clause 28), which is why I wrote When the treads of the escalator flashed over, the size of the fire increased exponentially in the wiki article.

Moodie and Jagger (another paper referenced in the article) presented the results of small-scale fire tests aimed at understanding the trench effect. The tests all involve burning solid surfaces (no rubbish) and all replicated the key features of the flows described by the various witnesses.

To summarize, there's no evidence to support the belief that the rubbish caused the flashover.

the flames not going above the escalator was not a direct cause

This is a tricky one, and I can't figure out what it means. Parsing the double negative changes it to:

the flames going above the escalator were a direct cause

which is what the article says. Can you clarify what you meant by this?

The whole concept of this needs more explanation in terms of understanding risk...

Please expand on this point. Why do we need to add an explanation of risk in this article? Wiki is an encyclopaedia: this particular page is a description of an awful event, for which the investigation was completed over a decade ago but which is still of interest.

The wiki page currently contains a useful summary of the key facts of the fire, and for those who want to look into it further there are references to reports/journals that can be borrowed via a reference library. What would explaining the concept in terms of understanding risk add to the historical record?

other fires on the networkhad been ignored

Which is perfectly true but is not pertinent to this particular article.

theres too much for me to correct without reading all the reports again...

If you want to edit the article, please, please, I beseech you, read those reports again first!

Ecb 22:07, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Kings Cross fire → King's Cross fire : Inside the article, the subject is called King's Cross fire, not Kings Cross fire: Niels Ø 12:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey and discussion

Add * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, or add * followed by a comment, then sign your opinion with "~~~~"
  • Support for the reason given above.--Niels Ø 12:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. David Kernow 12:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Has already been done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 10:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick query

A Transport for London press release about the 2005 bombings [1] says "The last serious incident was the Kings Cross fire in 1987 when 27 people died after a machine room under a wooden escalator caught fire."

This differs from this article both on the number of fatalities and the cause, and I'd be interested to know about the discrepancy. There was a theory occasionally mentioned that friction within the mechanism itself caused the fire, and the 'dropped match igniting rubbish' theory doesn't seem popular among 1980s commuters I know. --15:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

TfL press department must have made a typo. The public inquiry report into the fire (the Fennell report, one of the references in the article) records that 31 people died, and lists the names of 30 of them.
As for what started it: the evidence found after the fire and the tests conducted by the HSE all point to a dropped match. For a bit more detail, take a look at the responses in the subsection above headed Cheer up, it's not as bad as all that. Flippant title, but it's a detailed response to an earlier query about the accuracy of the article.Ecb 15:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another fire

Recently, there has been another fire at King's Cross although it was in the station. It happened on Monday 26th June. It affected ther control centre for the station so all trains as far as Peterborough and King's Lynn were affected. Should this be added to the article? Simply south 21:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

- This fire started in an adjacent building works, and was not part of the station at all.

[edit] Effect of the paint on the ceiling

I was wondering about the phrase "solvent-based paint"--since a solvent can be anything in which a solute is dissolved, including water, shouldn't this be altered? Coffee is an excellent solvent for sugar, but it isn't very flammable24.131.12.228 20:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fennell in his report on the fire stated that the Podorite paint used on the ceiling of the escalator tunnel did not materially affect the progress of the fire. I'm not aware of anything since the report that contradicts his view. Should the reference to the paint exacerbating the fire during flashover be removed?

[edit] What's a jinky?

In my 20 or so years working for the LFB as a ff, and as a journalist covering many major incidents, I've never heard of the term jinky. Can someone explain what it means, otherwise I'll re-write the section. Also, I think in LFB terms it was a "50 pumper" not a 30, but I'll check. Regards. Escaper27 11:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It was 30 and not 50, but still can't find any ref to jinky. Escaper27 12:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Investigation into the fire

If anyone has any info (with references) to add about the Investigation into how the fire occurred & discovery of the trench effect (an episode of Minutes from Disaster covered it), it would help to finish the article. - J.P.Lon (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)