Tower block fire - london

V F · 24 Jun 2017 at 14:41

I don't get it, if they're so short of places to put all these people from all these tower blocks... why don't they put them on cruise ships that could be docked? They have all the facilities, food, rooms and you name it. Surely that is cheaper for up to 4 weeks...

Firestar_3x · 24 Jun 2017 at 14:43

Nice to see labour run councils handling this so well.

LOAM · 24 Jun 2017 at 14:52

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Yep, I stand corrected:

From what I have read both the Insulation (1) and the cladding (3) both failed the fire safety test and burnt with ease !! FFS

That cladding has proven to be fine when used with Rockwool which suggests that its a case of the PIR acting as enough of a wick/fuel to enable the flames to melt the aluminium and expose the PE core.

It comes down to how you detail and construct rainscreen cladding, its highly probable that with some fire breaks in the cavity and around window reveals then it wouldn't have happened.

LOAM · 24 Jun 2017 at 14:54

Firestar_3x said:
Nice to see labour run councils handling this so well.

I suspect LA's have been told their insurance will be invalidated if its found they have discovered an issue and done nothing about it.

dowie · 24 Jun 2017 at 15:09

kitfit1 said:
Just watched an interesting interview on the BBC with the leader of Birmingham City Council.
He said that Birmingham has 213 tower blocks and that none of them had the cladding fitted that Grenfell did. He also said that all the towers had sprinklers installed in the communal areas.
The thing that surprised me most though was his statement that the council had costed for retro fitting every flat with sprinklers at a cost of £31m. In my mind that seemed not a lot of money for the shear volume of flats involved. If his figure of £31m is correct, then why on earth were councils around the country pleading "cost" whenever sprinklers were mentioned in previous reports.

I'm not sure they were?

kitfit1 · 24 Jun 2017 at 15:37

dowie said:
I'm not sure they were?

In nearly every report over the years that i have read, councils have ALWAYS cited cost as the reason for not deploying sprinklers in tower blocks. Clearly the cost is not an issue if Birmingham City Council can deploy sprinklers in all the flats in all 213 tower blocks they own for the sum of £31m. This is really a peanuts sum of money to spend on that many flats and would have cost even less if they had been built with it installed in the first place.

Every single local authority that has built tower blocks over the last 40 years without sprinklers should hang there heads in shame.

dowie · 24 Jun 2017 at 15:44

kitfit1 said:
In nearly every report over the years that i have read, councils have ALWAYS cited cost as the reason for not deploying sprinklers in tower blocks. Clearly the cost is not an issue if Birmingham City Council can deploy sprinklers in all the flats in all 213 tower blocks they own for the sum of £31m. This is really a peanuts sum of money to spend on that many flats and would have cost even less if they had been built with it installed in the first place.

Every single local authority that has built tower blocks over the last 40 years without sprinklers should hang there heads in shame.

Well I'm not a big reader of council reports but certainly the news reports of this recent fire didn't seem to suggest that it was necessarily cost preventing sprinklers form being fitted (AFAIK the council claimed the residents didn't want them)? What are you actually referring to, do you have a link?

pacegod · 24 Jun 2017 at 15:47

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
From what I have read both the Insulation (1) and the cladding (3) both failed the fire safety test and burnt with ease !! FFS

Celotex RS5000 is class 0 rated and can be used on buildings higher than 18m, so should have fine to use.

kitfit1 · 24 Jun 2017 at 15:57

dowie said:
Well I'm not a big reader of council reports but certainly the news reports of this recent fire didn't seem to suggest that it was necessarily cost preventing sprinklers form being fitted (AFAIK the council claimed the residents didn't want them)? What are you actually referring to, do you have a link?

I wasn't refering to council reports. I was refering to fire brigade recommendations. Since the early 1970's all fire brigades have always recommended sprinklers be installed on high rise buildings. But because not all building regs and fire brigade recommendations apply to public (council) buildings, they have have been able to ignore them. The RIBA (Royal Institute Of British Architects) have always insisted the same, along with ICWCI (The Institute Of Clerk Of Works Inspectorate)

Cern · 24 Jun 2017 at 16:01

V F said:
I don't get it, if they're so short of places to put all these people from all these tower blocks... why don't they put them on cruise ships that could be docked? They have all the facilities, food, rooms and you name it. Surely that is cheaper for up to 4 weeks...

Nice idea on paper. But how many 'spare' cruise ships are knocking about? Especially ones which are close enough at hand to be able to be moved into place at short notice? Those that are seaworthy will already be in service, booked up long in advance, sailing all around the place. Those that aren't seaworthy are either undergoing refits or aren't going to be fit for habitation.

kitfit1 · 24 Jun 2017 at 16:01

pacegod said:
Celotex RS5000 is class 0 rated and can be used on buildings higher than 18m, so should have fine to use.

Then clearly the rating is wrong and needs to be changed fast. It did catch fire and did help in the ensuing fire that took a whole building to a raging inferno.

Tunney · 24 Jun 2017 at 16:02

robfosters said:
The council says they will reimburse people who have paid for their own accommodation.

I wonder what the cutoff is? Hotels in that area are not exactly cheap, you can be looking at £200 a night just for a budget hotel. If they have to be gone a week, that's nigh on £1500.

I doubt many residents have the kind of credit rating or savings to run up huge hotel bills before being reimbursed.

Outcast · 24 Jun 2017 at 16:03

JohnnyG said:
Heineken is generally fit for purpose so of course it would bear no blame whereas it seems this fridge may well have been faulty so must take some, the manufacturers anyway.

Having worked at Hotpoint (79 -82) in Two pole Compressor department I can vouch that the compressors are rigorously tested in numerous different ways. The stator IN the compressor pot is the only thing that could meltdown but it's extremely unlikely as there is surge protection etc built in.

Now to the actual report of the fire starting IN the fridge

What the heck did he have IN the fridge that was so combustible ? Maybe something akin to Brake fluid and Chlorine ?

I think we can speculate all we want but until the official report comes out it's all just hearsay. Just like the report that there were actually 700 fatalities !!

LOAM · 24 Jun 2017 at 16:05

pacegod said:
Celotex RS5000 is class 0 rated and can be used on buildings higher than 18m, so should have fine to use.

Celotex have removed that product from sale when used above 18m

http://www.constructionenquirer.com...stop-supply-of-grenfell-insulation-to-towers/

Dolph · 24 Jun 2017 at 16:08

LOAM said:
That cladding has proven to be fine when used with Rockwool which suggests that its a case of the PIR acting as enough of a wick/fuel to enable the flames to melt the aluminium and expose the PE core.

It comes down to how you detail and construct rainscreen cladding, its highly probable that with some fire breaks in the cavity and around window reveals then it wouldn't have happened.

I suspect the same applies in reverse as well, as the fire certification for the insulation was completed with non combustible facing.

dowie · 24 Jun 2017 at 16:18

kitfit1 said:
I wasn't refering to council reports. I was refering to fire brigade recommendations. Since the early 1970's all fire brigades have always recommended sprinklers be installed on high rise buildings. But because not all building regs and fire brigade recommendations apply to public (council) buildings, they have have been able to ignore them. The RIBA (Royal Institute Of British Architects) have always insisted the same, along with ICWCI (The Institute Of Clerk Of Works Inspectorate)

you referred to councils citing costs and you don't seem to have provided anything to support this, I was just asking what you were referring to as you've still provided nothing

for example no mention of cost from the council leader here:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/82...fered-sprinklers-as-Nicholas-Paget-Brown-said

Orionaut · 24 Jun 2017 at 16:23

dowie said:
Well I'm not a big reader of council reports but certainly the news reports of this recent fire didn't seem to suggest that it was necessarily cost preventing sprinklers form being fitted (AFAIK the council claimed the residents didn't want them)? What are you actually referring to, do you have a link?

I wonder how much of the cost concerns and residents objections for installing such systems in Council blocks might have been down to the possibility that both the council and the residents would be concerned that the destructive possibilities from setting off sprinkler systems or stuffing fire-hoses through peoples letter boxes might prove to great a temptation for the little ******** who delight in this sort of thing to resist. :/

kitfit1 · 24 Jun 2017 at 16:27

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-40369131

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rs-grenfell-towers-to-high-rises-were-ignored

Maybe just use google instead of relying on other peeps to link ?

dowie · 24 Jun 2017 at 16:27

Orionaut said:
I wonder how much of the cost concerns and residents objections for installing such systems in Council blocks might have been down to the possibility that both the council and the residents would be concerned that the destructive possibilities from setting off sprinkler systems or stuffing fire-hoses through peoples letter boxes might prove to great a temptation for the little ******** who delight in this sort of thing to resist. :/

I think setting off sprinklers would have been a concern, it seems the residents in this tower frequently dumped rubbish in the entrance foyer/corridors... not as in dropped an empty crips packet or something but literally took mattresses, fridges, old furniture, bin bags and were too lazy to take them to the bin store so dumped in communal areas. One of the complaints against the council form the blog that seemed to complain about everything is that they didn't remove the rubbish quickly enough... rubbish that residents had dumped there themselves!

Em3bbs · 24 Jun 2017 at 16:27

Outcast said:
Having worked at Hotpoint (79 -82) in Two pole Compressor department I can vouch that the compressors are rigorously tested in numerous different ways. The stator IN the compressor pot is the only thing that could meltdown but it's extremely unlikely as there is surge protection etc built in.

Now to the actual report of the fire starting IN the fridge

What the heck did he have IN the fridge that was so combustible ? Maybe something akin to Brake fluid and Chlorine ?

I think we can speculate all we want but until the official report comes out it's all just hearsay. Just like the report that there were actually 700 fatalities !!

If anything you are the one doing the speculating with that post, it's fairly obvious what you are insinuating there. A few years ago my old next door neighbour had a fire started by a fridge in her kitchen which gutted the room and the family had to move out for about 3 months because of the smoke damage to the rest of the house. It's not an uncommon occurrence at all, surges or not.

To put things into perspective, when you worked at Hotpoint a Ford Capri was a modern car.