Shame about the pier. I wonder how many arcade games had been plugged into
extension leads?
What amazes me is that the fire hoses are so in-effective. Is some
technique or approach missing. I have seen with other fires that the fire
services almost seem incapable of putting out a fire.
I realise that their first concern maight be to prevent spread.

On 31/07/2014 10:30, DerbyBorn wrote:
Shame about the pier. I wonder how many arcade games had been plugged into
extension leads?
What amazes me is that the fire hoses are so in-effective. Is some
technique or approach missing. I have seen with other fires that the fire
services almost seem incapable of putting out a fire.
I realise that their first concern maight be to prevent spread.


Their first priority is to save lives, including the lives of the fire
crews. Saving property comes second to that. As it is, I think they did
an excellent job of preventing the fire from spreading to other parts of
the pier. I doubt they could have saved the building, which almost
certainly had lots of hidden spaces where the fire could spread without
it being possible to bring a hose to bear; the fire is said to have
started behind a wooden panel.


--
Colin Bignell

Its not the first time its burned down you know. I was there before the
first being shown the camera obscurer. Very impressive device, and no
electrics.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Shame about the pier. I wonder how many arcade games had been plugged into
extension leads?
What amazes me is that the fire hoses are so in-effective. Is some
technique or approach missing. I have seen with other fires that the fire
services almost seem incapable of putting out a fire.
I realise that their first concern maight be to prevent spread.

On 31/07/2014 10:30, DerbyBorn wrote:
Shame about the pier. I wonder how many arcade games had been plugged into
extension leads?
What amazes me is that the fire hoses are so in-effective. Is some
technique or approach missing. I have seen with other fires that the fire
services almost seem incapable of putting out a fire.

They said that the mains pressure was low and so they couldn't get as
much water as they needed from the hydrants. The other supply, aka 'The
English Channel', had an outgoing tide which also made supplies less
than optimal.

--
F

I could smell it - we are to the East a couple of miles from Battle, and
there was a distinct aroma - initially burning paint, then just burning

Andrew

"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...

Shame about the pier. I wonder how many arcade games had been plugged into
extension leads?
What amazes me is that the fire hoses are so in-effective. Is some
technique or approach missing. I have seen with other fires that the fire
services almost seem incapable of putting out a fire.
I realise that their first concern maight be to prevent spread.

"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote:
On 31/07/2014 10:30, DerbyBorn wrote:
Shame about the pier. I wonder how many arcade games had been plugged into
extension leads?
What amazes me is that the fire hoses are so in-effective. Is some
technique or approach missing. I have seen with other fires that the fire
services almost seem incapable of putting out a fire.
I realise that their first concern maight be to prevent spread.


Their first priority is to save lives, including the lives of the fire
crews. Saving property comes second to that. As it is, I think they did
an excellent job of preventing the fire from spreading to other parts of
the pier. I doubt they could have saved the building, which almost
certainly had lots of hidden spaces where the fire could spread without
it being possible to bring a hose to bear; the fire is said to have
started behind a wooden panel.



One would hope that structures like this would have sprinkler systems given
the well known difficulties of fighting fires on them. That said, common
sense usually doesn't apply for some reason. Maybe they would be
ineffectual for other reasons though...

Tim

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:30:09 AM UTC+1, DerbyBorn wrote:
What amazes me is that the fire hoses are so in-effective.

It's the new eco-friendly fire hoses. They have an A rating because they use less water :-)

Owain

In article 2,
DerbyBorn wrote:
Shame about the pier. I wonder how many arcade games had been plugged into
extension leads?
What amazes me is that the fire hoses are so in-effective. Is some
technique or approach missing. I have seen with other fires that the fire
services almost seem incapable of putting out a fire.
I realise that their first concern maight be to prevent spread.

On the R4 news today, it was said they were pleased to have been able to
stop it spreading and destroying the whole thing.

--
*WHY ARE HEMORRHOIDS CALLED "HEMORRHOIDS" INSTEAD OF "ASTEROIDS"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 31/07/2014 13:57, Tim+ wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote:
On 31/07/2014 10:30, DerbyBorn wrote:
Shame about the pier. I wonder how many arcade games had been plugged into
extension leads?
What amazes me is that the fire hoses are so in-effective. Is some
technique or approach missing. I have seen with other fires that the fire
services almost seem incapable of putting out a fire.
I realise that their first concern maight be to prevent spread.


Their first priority is to save lives, including the lives of the fire
crews. Saving property comes second to that. As it is, I think they did
an excellent job of preventing the fire from spreading to other parts of
the pier. I doubt they could have saved the building, which almost
certainly had lots of hidden spaces where the fire could spread without
it being possible to bring a hose to bear; the fire is said to have
started behind a wooden panel.



One would hope that structures like this would have sprinkler systems given
the well known difficulties of fighting fires on them. That said, common
sense usually doesn't apply for some reason. Maybe they would be
ineffectual for other reasons though...


A sprinkler system is only useful if it is activated by the fire and can
play on the source of the fire. What appears to have happened here is
that an electrical fault in an enclosed space caused a fire that got a
good hold before any flames appeared.


--
Colin Bignell

On 31/07/2014 12:55, Andrew Mawson wrote:
I could smell it - we are to the East a couple of miles from Battle, and
there was a distinct aroma - initially burning paint, then just burning

Andrew

MMM, lovely, all that burning lead paint that has been overpainted many
times over the years. Hope the sensible onlookers stayed upwind.

Jeremy Vine was talking to the owner of the ?Burnham-on-Sea pier, which
burnt down in 2008. The current building regs don't allow slatted floors
which give piers their character, and the extra weight to comply with
all the latest regs is far too much for the cast iron piers. Now there
is a new structure supported on piles that are intermingled with the
original cast iron stuff.


"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...

Shame about the pier. I wonder how many arcade games had been plugged into
extension leads?
What amazes me is that the fire hoses are so in-effective. Is some
technique or approach missing. I have seen with other fires that the fire
services almost seem incapable of putting out a fire.
I realise that their first concern maight be to prevent spread.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:30:09 GMT, DerbyBorn wrote:

What amazes me is that the fire hoses are so in-effective. Is some
technique or approach missing. I have seen with other fires that the
fire services almost seem incapable of putting out a fire.

Saving life, then containment, then putting out. Some times they
don't bother with the last bit and let it burn itself out whilst
keeping an eye on it. Didn't they let (or are letting) one of the
recent recycling center fires (tyres?) burn itself out?

Big open mostly timber structure like that is going to burn very
well. There seemed to be a reasonable breeze as well on the pictures
I saw.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Tim+ wrote:

DerbyBorn wrote:

Shame about the pier.

One would hope that structures like this would have sprinkler systems

Makes you wonder if it's still possible to buy fire insurance for a
pier? If I was an insurer I think I'd insist on sprinklers ...

On 31/07/2014 18:48, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim+ wrote:

DerbyBorn wrote:

Shame about the pier.

One would hope that structures like this would have sprinkler systems

Makes you wonder if it's still possible to buy fire insurance for a
pier? If I was an insurer I think I'd insist on sprinklers ...


On the local radio, one of the Eastbourne Councillors was saying that it
was impossible for concession holders on a pier to get business
insurance and that the Council would be looking at how they could help
those affected by the fire.

--
Colin Bignell

One would also hope that it would have a point
where a fire engine could tap into it and pump the sodding water to get
the pressure up.

Doesn't work, you just suck the mains dry.
Allan

On 31/07/2014 15:12, wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:30:09 AM UTC+1, DerbyBorn wrote:
What amazes me is that the fire hoses are so in-effective.

It's the new eco-friendly fire hoses. They have an A rating because they use less water :-)

Owain

Mind they have been experimenting with various forms of water sprayer
which really do use less water.

--
Rod

On 31/07/2014 15:10, Tim Streater wrote:
....
One would hope that there would be a fire-fighting main along the pier,
connected to hydrants. One would also hope that it would have a point
where a fire engine could tap into it and pump the sodding water to get
the pressure up.

What you are suggesting sounds like a horizontal version of the risers
installed in tall buildings. If you are going to all that expense, why
not also have a submerged high volume pump below spring low water mark,
to feed the main with sea water? They used a similar system to draw fire
fighting water from the Thames during the Blitz.

--
Colin Bignell

On 31/07/2014 23:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , \"cpb\"@"
wrote:

On 31/07/2014 15:10, Tim Streater wrote:
...
One would hope that there would be a fire-fighting main along the pier,
connected to hydrants. One would also hope that it would have a point
where a fire engine could tap into it and pump the sodding water to get
the pressure up.

What you are suggesting sounds like a horizontal version of the risers
installed in tall buildings. If you are going to all that expense, why
not also have a submerged high volume pump below spring low water
mark, to feed the main with sea water? They used a similar system to
draw fire fighting water from the Thames during the Blitz.

Why not indeed.

Because, duriing the blitz, there was a pretty good chance of incendiary
bombs being dropped on you any night.

On 31/07/2014 23:36, newshound wrote:
On 31/07/2014 23:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , \"cpb\"@"
wrote:

On 31/07/2014 15:10, Tim Streater wrote:
...
One would hope that there would be a fire-fighting main along the
pier,
connected to hydrants. One would also hope that it would have a point
where a fire engine could tap into it and pump the sodding water to
get
the pressure up.

What you are suggesting sounds like a horizontal version of the risers
installed in tall buildings. If you are going to all that expense, why
not also have a submerged high volume pump below spring low water
mark, to feed the main with sea water? They used a similar system to
draw fire fighting water from the Thames during the Blitz.

Why not indeed.

Because, duriing the blitz, there was a pretty good chance of incendiary
bombs being dropped on you any night.

Although the main problem was high explosive bombs, which were likely to
rupture underground water supplies; hence laying 6 inch steel pipes as
fire fighting mains in the street gutters in vulnerable areas and
feeding them from rivers where possible. The principle remains the same;
a need to produce large volumes of water, preferably from an
inexhaustible supply, to fight a major conflagration.

--
Colin Bignell

On 31/07/2014 23:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , \"cpb\"@"
wrote:

On 31/07/2014 15:10, Tim Streater wrote:
...
One would hope that there would be a fire-fighting main along the pier,
connected to hydrants. One would also hope that it would have a point
where a fire engine could tap into it and pump the sodding water to get
the pressure up.

What you are suggesting sounds like a horizontal version of the risers
installed in tall buildings. If you are going to all that expense, why
not also have a submerged high volume pump below spring low water
mark, to feed the main with sea water? They used a similar system to
draw fire fighting water from the Thames during the Blitz.

Why not indeed.


Because when you fit sprinklers you normally fit a tank with a few
thousand litres of water in it. Sprinklers may have saved the building,
a high pressure main wouldn't.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article

rnal-september.org, Tim+
wrote:

"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote:
On 31/07/2014 10:30, DerbyBorn wrote:
Shame about the pier. I wonder how many arcade games had been plugged
into
extension leads?
What amazes me is that the fire hoses are so in-effective. Is some
technique or approach missing. I have seen with other fires that the
fire
services almost seem incapable of putting out a fire.
I realise that their first concern maight be to prevent spread.

Their first priority is to save lives, including the lives of the fire
crews. Saving property comes second to that. As it is, I think they did
an excellent job of preventing the fire from spreading to other parts
of
the pier. I doubt they could have saved the building, which almost
certainly had lots of hidden spaces where the fire could spread without
it being possible to bring a hose to bear; the fire is said to have
started behind a wooden panel.

One would hope that structures like this would have sprinkler systems
given
the well known difficulties of fighting fires on them. That said, common
sense usually doesn't apply for some reason. Maybe they would be
ineffectual for other reasons though...

One would hope that there would be a fire-fighting main along the pier,
connected to hydrants. One would also hope that it would have a point
where a fire engine could tap into it and pump the sodding water to get
the pressure up.


I would have thought a fire engine would be too heavy for the pier. Esp a
burning one.

"Al" wrote in message
...
One would also hope that it would have a point
where a fire engine could tap into it and pump the sodding water to get
the pressure up.

Doesn't work, you just suck the mains dry.
Allan


Drivel.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , \"cpb\"@"
wrote:

On 31/07/2014 15:10, Tim Streater wrote:
...
One would hope that there would be a fire-fighting main along the pier,
connected to hydrants. One would also hope that it would have a point
where a fire engine could tap into it and pump the sodding water to get
the pressure up.

What you are suggesting sounds like a horizontal version of the risers
installed in tall buildings. If you are going to all that expense, why
not also have a submerged high volume pump below spring low water mark,
to feed the main with sea water? They used a similar system to draw fire
fighting water from the Thames during the Blitz.

Why not indeed.

Money. And the cost of maintenance.

On 01/08/2014 08:27, Dennis@home wrote:
On 31/07/2014 23:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , \"cpb\"@"
wrote:

On 31/07/2014 15:10, Tim Streater wrote:
...
One would hope that there would be a fire-fighting main along the
pier,
connected to hydrants. One would also hope that it would have a point
where a fire engine could tap into it and pump the sodding water to
get
the pressure up.

What you are suggesting sounds like a horizontal version of the risers
installed in tall buildings. If you are going to all that expense, why
not also have a submerged high volume pump below spring low water
mark, to feed the main with sea water? They used a similar system to
draw fire fighting water from the Thames during the Blitz.

Why not indeed.


Because when you fit sprinklers you normally fit a tank with a few
thousand litres of water in it. Sprinklers may have saved the building,
a high pressure main wouldn't.

The question being, where on an old Victorian pier, are you going to
find somewhere that is both strong enough and high enough to carry a
cistern containing a few thousand litres of water to feed sprinklers in
a building of that size? OTOH, a dry main, fed from a pump when needed,
won't overload the structure and can produce an unlimited feed of water.
FWIW, I very much doubt that sprinklers would have saved the pier, as
they work best on open fires as they start, not fires that have
established themselves inside an enclosed part of the structure, as this
one did. I don't suppose a high volume fire main would have either, but
it would have made the job of the fire brigade in stopping the spread of
the fire easier.

--
Colin Bignell

On 01/08/2014 09:11, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article

rnal-september.org, Tim+
wrote:

"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote:
On 31/07/2014 10:30, DerbyBorn wrote:
Shame about the pier. I wonder how many arcade games had been plugged
into
extension leads?
What amazes me is that the fire hoses are so in-effective. Is some
technique or approach missing. I have seen with other fires that the
fire
services almost seem incapable of putting out a fire.
I realise that their first concern maight be to prevent spread.

Their first priority is to save lives, including the lives of the fire
crews. Saving property comes second to that. As it is, I think they did
an excellent job of preventing the fire from spreading to other parts
of
the pier. I doubt they could have saved the building, which almost
certainly had lots of hidden spaces where the fire could spread without
it being possible to bring a hose to bear; the fire is said to have
started behind a wooden panel.

One would hope that structures like this would have sprinkler systems
given
the well known difficulties of fighting fires on them. That said, common
sense usually doesn't apply for some reason. Maybe they would be
ineffectual for other reasons though...

One would hope that there would be a fire-fighting main along the pier,
connected to hydrants. One would also hope that it would have a point
where a fire engine could tap into it and pump the sodding water to get
the pressure up.


I would have thought a fire engine would be too heavy for the pier. Esp a
burning one.



It would not need to be on the pier to pressurise the main. The booster
point could easily be at the shore end, where two or more appliances
could be connected to it.

--
Colin Bignell

In message , harryagain
writes
I would have thought a fire engine would be too heavy for the pier. Esp a
burning one.

Why would a burning fire engine be heavier than a non burning one?

:-)
--
Graeme

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 09:14:08 +0100, "Nightjar wrote:

I don't suppose a high volume fire main would have either, but it would
have made the job of the fire brigade in stopping the spread of the fire
easier.

Would you want to venture out on to a timber decked pier no more than
a handful of metres from a large, mainly, timber building that was
well alight?

If the outlets to the fire main were on the pier legs so they could
have jets from the beach without having to run hoses from pumps on
the prom that might help. BTBH a timber building once going is going
to be damn hard to put out let alone one supported up on a nice
grate.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 01/08/2014 09:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

One would hope that there would be a fire-fighting main along the pier,
connected to hydrants. One would also hope that it would have a point
where a fire engine could tap into it and pump the sodding water to get
the pressure up.

I would have thought a fire engine would be too heavy for the pier.
Esp a burning one.

Then you'd have that tapping point onshore, at the point where the main
is about to enter the pier proper. All the pix I saw on the Beeb
website seemed to show no jets of water being played onto the fire.
Then the talk was of low water pressure, hence my comment.

That is more to do with the capacity of the mains serving the area than
with any on the pier. I don't see the water authorities putting in huge
water mains near piers, just in case they catch fire.

What they really wanted was a convenient passing fire tug, which would
have had an unlimited supply of water and a pumping capacity of anything
from 10 to 25 times that of a single fire engine. :-)

--
Colin Bignell

On 01/08/2014 09:56, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 09:14:08 +0100, "Nightjar wrote:

I don't suppose a high volume fire main would have either, but it would
have made the job of the fire brigade in stopping the spread of the fire
easier.

Would you want to venture out on to a timber decked pier no more than
a handful of metres from a large, mainly, timber building that was
well alight?

Personally, no, but the Fire Brigade personnel did exactly that, some
being landed on the sea end of the pier by the RNLI.

If the outlets to the fire main were on the pier legs so they could
have jets from the beach without having to run hoses from pumps on
the prom that might help. BTBH a timber building once going is going
to be damn hard to put out let alone one supported up on a nice
grate.

Precisely. All the comments being made on the local radio are that they
did a good gob to save as much as they did.


--
Colin Bignell

On 01/08/2014 09:56, Dave Liquorice wrote:
.. BTBH a timber building once going is going
to be damn hard to put out let alone one supported up on a nice
grate.

A representative of the Hastings pier restoration project (that also
burned down, but the fire brigade could not go onto it as it had been
declared unsafe two years previously) says that part of the problem is
that piers were not usually built to carry buildings. Hence the
buildings were always built very lightly, which makes them more
vulnerable to fire.


--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Tim Streater writes:
One would hope that there would be a fire-fighting main along the pier,
connected to hydrants. One would also hope that it would have a point
where a fire engine could tap into it and pump the sodding water to get
the pressure up.

You can't have people on the pier when it's that fierce.
They run the risk of being cut off, and couldn't have passed by
that building anyway.

They did try to use the town's fire hydrant supply - pressure was too low.
They then used seawater, but the tide was rapidly running out during the
fire, presumably requiring repeated movement of pumps further out and
longer hoses coupling up.

I imagine there may well be some comeback on the fire hydrant supply not
being usable.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 01/08/2014 10:36, Tim Streater wrote:
....
What regs apply for a rebuild? Would they need planning for a
replacement? Would the LA demand adequate fire protection systems, such
as the availability of sufficient water supplies? And so on.

I suggest keeping an eye on what happens to Hastings pier to find out.
That burned down and the Town Council issued a compulsory purchase order
on it. It is now in the process of being restored. SFAIK, the owners of
Eastbourne pier have not commented yet, but that may go the same way.

What are owners/LAs doing in places where such piers haven't burnt
down? Just waiting until they do?

Essentially, yes. Few are actually owned by the local authorities and
private owners have to balance the cost against the risk. Gravesend Town
Pier, which is LA owned, is, unusually, built entirely from cast iron,
so is not at great risk, but the buildings on it all have modern
interiors and sprinkler systems.


--
Colin Bignell

On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 09:49:21 +0100, News wrote:

In message , harryagain
writes
I would have thought a fire engine would be too heavy for the pier. Esp a
burning one.

Why would a burning fire engine be heavier than a non burning one?

Yes, the upward movement of the rising hot gases of combustion will cause an equal
downward force on the fire engine.
or,
No, the rising hot gases of combustion create a low pressure area immediately above the
fire engine decreasing its weight.

:-)


--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/

On 01/08/2014 11:57, Paul Herber wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 09:49:21 +0100, News wrote:

In message , harryagain
writes
I would have thought a fire engine would be too heavy for the pier. Esp a
burning one.

Why would a burning fire engine be heavier than a non burning one?

Yes, the upward movement of the rising hot gases of combustion will cause an equal
downward force on the fire engine.
or,
No, the rising hot gases of combustion create a low pressure area immediately above the
fire engine decreasing its weight.

:-)


What about the weight of water from attempts to extinguish it?

--
Colin Bignell

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:05:00 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , \"cpb\"@"
wrote:

On 01/08/2014 10:36, Tim Streater wrote:
...
What regs apply for a rebuild? Would they need planning for a
replacement? Would the LA demand adequate fire protection systems, such
as the availability of sufficient water supplies? And so on.

I suggest keeping an eye on what happens to Hastings pier to find out.
That burned down and the Town Council issued a compulsory purchase order
on it. It is now in the process of being restored. SFAIK, the owners of
Eastbourne pier have not commented yet, but that may go the same way.

What are owners/LAs doing in places where such piers haven't burnt
down? Just waiting until they do?

Essentially, yes. Few are actually owned by the local authorities and
private owners have to balance the cost against the risk. Gravesend Town
Pier, which is LA owned, is, unusually, built entirely from cast iron,
so is not at great risk, but the buildings on it all have modern
interiors and sprinkler systems.

Thanks. These things are gems and yes, a wooden building is going to go
up PDQ. Sounds like the FB did what they could, but let's hope this
wakes a few people up.

I thought smoke inhalation did the exact opposite.



--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/

On 01/08/14 09:49, News wrote:
In message , harryagain
writes
I would have thought a fire engine would be too heavy for the pier. Esp a
burning one.

Why would a burning fire engine be heavier than a non burning one?

:-)
metal oxides are heavier than the metals

:-) :-)

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 01/08/14 12:34, Paul Herber wrote:
Thanks. These things are gems and yes, a wooden building is going to go
up PDQ. Sounds like the FB did what they could, but let's hope this
wakes a few people up.
I thought smoke inhalation did the exact opposite.

Depends on what you are smoking...


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 13:07:27 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/08/14 12:34, Paul Herber wrote:
Thanks. These things are gems and yes, a wooden building is going to go
up PDQ. Sounds like the FB did what they could, but let's hope this
wakes a few people up.
I thought smoke inhalation did the exact opposite.

Depends on what you are smoking...

Dang, wrong newsgroup. For some reason I though this was uk.media.radio.archers
I was looking for a bad taste nomination.



--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/

On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 10:00:23 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gabriel wrote:

One would hope that there would be a fire-fighting main along the
pier,
connected to hydrants. One would also hope that it would have a
point
where a fire engine could tap into it and pump the sodding water
to get
the pressure up.

You can't have people on the pier when it's that fierce. They run the
risk of being cut off, and couldn't have passed by that building anyway.

Didn't several hunded people on the pier past the arcade get off
safely? I'd assume walked off down the windward side before the fire
got hold. I'm sure the news would have made a bigger fuss if they had
been "trapped" and had to be evacuated by sea.

I imagine there may well be some comeback on the fire hydrant supply not
being usable.

The fire services normally (used to?) go around reasonably regulary
checking hydrants... Where there are hydrants feck knows where the
nearest one to this place is. Oh, I remember there is an air vent and
hydrant at the top of the rise on the new main they put in a few
years back. It's not painted yellow or have any signage though.
That's several hundred yards away. Failing that and again several
hundred yards away in the opposite direction their might be one on
the "old main" where it crosses a road.

Mind you with only a single pump and retained fire crew within 10
minutes, houses around here have a tendancy to pretty much burn down
if they catch fire. Pumps from other stations take the best part of
45 mins to get here.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Friday, August 1, 2014 1:16:00 PM UTC+1, Paul Herber wrote:
I thought smoke inhalation did the exact opposite.
Depends on what you are smoking...
Dang, wrong newsgroup. For some reason I though this was uk.media.radio.archers
I was looking for a bad taste nomination.

You'll have to try a hell of a lot harder to get one of those /here.

Owain

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:03:22 +0100, "Nightjar wrote:

Would you want to venture out on to a timber decked pier no more
than
a handful of metres from a large, mainly, timber building that was
well alight?

Personally, no, but the Fire Brigade personnel did exactly that, some
being landed on the sea end of the pier by the RNLI.

I bet they kept their distance rather than up close and personal like
they would be on the walkways around the building. They'd also have
plenty of time to get back to the boat(s) should it start to spread
along the pier decking. an't help wondering what they did other than
watch unless hoses had been run past the building or there is some
form of fire fighting water supply available along the piers length.

--
Cheers
Dave.