On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

--
*Time is fun when you're having flies... Kermit

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

On 6/30/2017 10:09 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.


One source said they were welded steel pipes (perhaps seam welded with
BSP taper fittings?). Should have been fairly fire resistant compared to
soldered copper, at least until the fire really got going.

Dave Plowman wrote:

On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Yes, as early as the morning after the fire, "gas pipes" in stairwell
were being mentioned by residents.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

That seemed to be the preferred scheme from several options, not seen
anything which said it was definitely the one chosen.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water?

Could easily be mistaken.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

Even if they were water pipes, and the work wasn't completed, then there
could be firestopping that was missed.

In message , at 10:09:25 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the fire -
showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads
of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are
claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from the
communal areas.

The former was one of the list of possible solutions to delivering
refurbished heating in the original feasibility study, and some sources
suggest the option chosen was a new heat-pump assisted *central* system.
If anyone has access to records of what was actually chosen, it would
help.

Of course it's possible that both were installed - the central system
for the housing association flats and boilers for the privately owned
ones.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:35:44 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, Roland Perry remarked:
In message , at 10:09:25 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the fire
- showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And
loads of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what
are claimed to be cast iron

Sorry; welded steel.

pipes taking gas into individual flats from the communal areas.

The former was one of the list of possible solutions to delivering
refurbished heating in the original feasibility study, and some sources
suggest the option chosen was a new heat-pump assisted *central*
system. If anyone has access to records of what was actually chosen, it
would help.

Of course it's possible that both were installed - the central system
for the housing association flats and boilers for the privately owned
ones.

--
Roland Perry

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

a protected zone is a nice safe place for a gas supply pipe if it wasn't for
leaks that is .......

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

every traditional four storey tenement in scotland had the gas supply in the
common stair .....worked fine for years but then again closes were open
front and back ....

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:09:25 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the fire -
showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads
of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are
claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from the
communal areas.

This is what I don't understand. One resident interviewed early on
mentioned the work done in her flat not being anywhere near the standard
of the show flat - and specifically saying her boiler had just been thrown
in. Ie very untidily installed. But then no mention of individual boilers
on the K&C site. Just of a new communal system.

The former was one of the list of possible solutions to delivering
refurbished heating in the original feasibility study, and some sources
suggest the option chosen was a new heat-pump assisted *central* system.
If anyone has access to records of what was actually chosen, it would
help.

It would indeed. But the then the cladding was apparently changed later
too.

Of course it's possible that both were installed - the central system
for the housing association flats and boilers for the privately owned
ones.

Ah - never considered that one. I'd have thought the cost of installing
individual units to a few flats where none existed before likely very
high. Different if doing the entire block.

--
*All men are idiots, and I married their King.

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

In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident
of the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up
the stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not
by any pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating
system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in
fact not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might
well compromise that, if badly done.

every traditional four storey tenement in scotland had the gas supply in
the common stair .....worked fine for years but then again closes were
open front and back ....

A four storey block might well have been fine with that cladding too. And
any fire appliance can likely reach its windows anyway.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried *

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

In message , at 10:59:11 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

One resident interviewed early on mentioned the work done in her flat
not being anywhere near the standard of the show flat - and
specifically saying her boiler had just been thrown in. Ie very
untidily installed. But then no mention of individual boilers on the
K&C site. Just of a new communal system.

That's likely to be a housing association tenant, so the private vs
rental division I mentioned looks less likely.
--
Roland Perry

Because they all had gas cooking. It was also stated by some people that
pipes also ran out and through walls without any kind of mitigation of fire
blocking systems. If there were gas pipes inside the cladding then this has
surely to be a very very bad thing.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

--
*Time is fun when you're having flies... Kermit

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

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:47:05 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:

[snip]

every traditional four storey tenement in scotland had the gas supply in the
common stair .....worked fine for years but then again closes were open
front and back ....

As it happens, I live in such a building and the gas mains in the area
are being replaced at present. I had a meeting with the SGN project
engineer on Wednesday. The riser in the close is made of steel and is
to remain. The cross pipes are made of copper and apparently require
to be replaced if the gas supply is interrupted but this is not needed
if it is not.

The project engineer explained that a surface mounted pipe is regarded
as safer as it reduces the risk of any escaping gas entering a void.

We have doors front and back but I think the assumption is that that
there is still plenty of ventilation. Why would a pipe in the close
present a greater risk than a pipe within an individual flat anyway?

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:46:29 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:09:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident
of the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating
system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

Whoa !!!!!

Wasn't gas for high rises banned after Ronan Point ????? !!!!!!

I wondered this too but when I raised the point previously someone
said it was only for certain types of building.

In message , at 10:46:29 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, Jethro_uk remarked:

Wasn't gas for high rises banned after Ronan Point ?

Only for ones using that particularly vulnerable style of
prefabrication.
--
Roland Perry

On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 12:08:03 PM UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:46:29 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, Jethro_uk remarked:

Wasn't gas for high rises banned after Ronan Point ?

Only for ones using that particularly vulnerable style of
prefabrication.
--
Roland Perry

Bison prefab, precast panels with rebar hooks and eyes, problem being got bent in transport and handling, site solution was to grind off any hooks or eyes that wouldn`t align.

In message , at 11:18:23 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, Jethro_uk remarked:
Wasn't gas for high rises banned after Ronan Point ?

Only for ones using that particularly vulnerable style of
prefabrication.

Sorry to all the engineers and architects out there, but if you had asked
me at the age of 16, if gas in a tower block was a good idea, I would
have thought you were joking.

Many, many years, my instinctive misgivings about the idea are only more
entrenched.

How many tower blocks collapsed after Ronan Point, because of gas
explosions?
--
Roland Perry

On 30/06/2017 12:36, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:18:23 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, Jethro_uk remarked:
Wasn't gas for high rises banned after Ronan Point ?

Only for ones using that particularly vulnerable style of
prefabrication.

Sorry to all the engineers and architects out there, but if you had asked
me at the age of 16, if gas in a tower block was a good idea, I would
have thought you were joking.

Many, many years, my instinctive misgivings about the idea are only more
entrenched.

How many tower blocks collapsed after Ronan Point, because of gas
explosions?

How many before?

Jethro_uk laid this down on his screen :
So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

Whoa !!!!!

Wasn't gas for high rises banned after Ronan Point ????? !!!!!!

I thought, only for flats where the walls form an intgral part of the
structure, where if there were an explosion - it could blow a wall
panel out causing a collapse.

On Friday, 30 June 2017 10:47:10 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
every traditional four storey tenement in scotland had the gas supply in the
common stair .....worked fine for years but then again closes were open
front and back ....

I think Edinburgh closes were traditionally closed, at least in the better class of buildings, with multiple bell-pulls at the front door and a rod mechanism for opening the door from upper flats. Glasgow were traditionally open.

I have lived in closes which still had the remains of gas lighting points in the close.

Owain

En el artículo ,
Adam Aglionby escribió:

Bison prefab, precast panels with rebar hooks and eyes, problem being got bent
in transport and handling, site solution was to grind off any hooks or eyes that
wouldn`t align.

Holy crap.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 08:49:19 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artÃ*culo ,
Adam Aglionby escribió:

Bison prefab, precast panels with rebar hooks and eyes, problem being
got bent in transport and handling, site solution was to grind off any
hooks or eyes that wouldn`t align.

Holy crap.

Wasn't it on Ronan Point where, if the bolt holes didn't line up
properly, they left the bolts out?

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 10:42:11 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2017-07-01, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 08:49:19 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artÃ*culo
,
Adam Aglionby escribió:

Bison prefab, precast panels with rebar hooks and eyes, problem being
got bent in transport and handling, site solution was to grind off any
hooks or eyes that wouldn`t align.

Holy crap.

Wasn't it on Ronan Point where, if the bolt holes didn't line up
properly, they left the bolts out?

I believe it's Ronan Point they're referring to above.

Ah, must have missed the OP! Same idea, anyway.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article , Roland Perry
writes
In message , at 11:18:23 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, Jethro_uk remarked:
Wasn't gas for high rises banned after Ronan Point ?

Only for ones using that particularly vulnerable style of
prefabrication.

Sorry to all the engineers and architects out there, but if you had asked
me at the age of 16, if gas in a tower block was a good idea, I would
have thought you were joking.

Many, many years, my instinctive misgivings about the idea are only more
entrenched.

How many tower blocks collapsed after Ronan Point, because of gas
explosions?
How many tower blocks have caught fire because of a fridge freezer
explosion?
--
bert

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:24:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Friday, 30 June 2017 10:47:10 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
every traditional four storey tenement in scotland had the gas supply in the
common stair .....worked fine for years but then again closes were open
front and back ....

I think Edinburgh closes were traditionally closed, at least in the better class of buildings, with multiple bell-pulls at the front door and a rod mechanism for opening the door from upper flats.
Yep, you have described my grandparants flat in Forest Road when I was
a lad.


--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

In message , at 20:50:21 on Sat, 1 Jul 2017,
bert remarked:
Wasn't gas for high rises banned after Ronan Point ?

Only for ones using that particularly vulnerable style of
prefabrication.

Sorry to all the engineers and architects out there, but if you had asked
me at the age of 16, if gas in a tower block was a good idea, I would
have thought you were joking.

Many, many years, my instinctive misgivings about the idea are only more
entrenched.

How many tower blocks collapsed after Ronan Point, because of gas
explosions?
How many tower blocks have caught fire because of a fridge freezer
explosion?

Quite a few I expect. The London Fire Brigade say they attend two tower
block fires a day, and there have been previous reports of dodgy brands
of fridge[/freezer]. It'd be strange indeed if a fridge hadn't been the
source of a fire in a tower block before.

Ah yes...

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news...ckle-blaze-in-
bermondsey-block/

"Six fire engines and 35 fire fighters tackled a fire caused by a fridge
at a high rise block"

and earlier in 2011:

https://www.ifsecglobal.com/warning-...re-risk-after-
tower-block-blaze/

"Beko fridge-freezers manufactured between January 2000 and October 2006
are at the centre of the safety warning, and it is thought as many as
500,000 could be in use. London Fire Brigade say there have been 20
fires in the capital alone involving the fridge freezers since 2008,
which have seen one person die and 15 people injured."
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:59:11 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the fire -
showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads
of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are
claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from the
communal areas.

This is what I don't understand. One resident interviewed early on
mentioned the work done in her flat not being anywhere near the standard
of the show flat - and specifically saying her boiler had just been thrown
in. Ie very untidily installed. But then no mention of individual boilers
on the K&C site. Just of a new communal system.

The plot thickens. Today it is reported that tenants of neighbouring
properties are having their rent suspended because they don't have hot
water, the central plant having been destroyed in the Grenfell fire.
--
Roland Perry

On 02/07/2017 10:11, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:59:11 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the fire -
showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads
of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are
claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from the
communal areas.

This is what I don't understand. One resident interviewed early on
mentioned the work done in her flat not being anywhere near the standard
of the show flat - and specifically saying her boiler had just been
thrown
in. Ie very untidily installed. But then no mention of individual boilers
on the K&C site. Just of a new communal system.

The plot thickens. Today it is reported that tenants of neighbouring
properties are having their rent suspended because they don't have hot
water, the central plant having been destroyed in the Grenfell fire.


The plot will continue to thicken..

however it is quite easy to see that the cladding destroyed the building

*but*

the poor design/maintenance of the core killed the people.

The enquiry may say so if and when it reports.
As I see it the enquiry is just an exercise in avoiding the truth.

In message om, at
17:02:42 on Sun, 2 Jul 2017, "dennis@home"
remarked:

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the
fire -
showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads
of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are
claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from the
communal areas.

This is what I don't understand. One resident interviewed early on
mentioned the work done in her flat not being anywhere near the standard
of the show flat - and specifically saying her boiler had just been
thrown
in. Ie very untidily installed. But then no mention of individual boilers
on the K&C site. Just of a new communal system.
The plot thickens. Today it is reported that tenants of neighbouring
properties are having their rent suspended because they don't have hot
water, the central plant having been destroyed in the Grenfell fire.


The plot will continue to thicken..

however it is quite easy to see that the cladding destroyed the building

*but*

the poor design/maintenance of the core killed the people.

The enquiry may say so if and when it reports.

The core wasn't designed to stop fire arriving through the windows on
almost all flats on all floors simultaneously. That's a problem with the
cladding.

As I see it the enquiry is just an exercise in avoiding the truth.

If you have an erroneous preconception about the truth, then you are
doomed to think that.
--
Roland Perry

On 02/07/2017 18:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message om, at
17:02:42 on Sun, 2 Jul 2017, "dennis@home"
remarked:

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the
fire -
showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads
of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are
claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from
the
communal areas.

This is what I don't understand. One resident interviewed early on
mentioned the work done in her flat not being anywhere near the
standard
of the show flat - and specifically saying her boiler had just been
thrown
in. Ie very untidily installed. But then no mention of individual
boilers
on the K&C site. Just of a new communal system.
The plot thickens. Today it is reported that tenants of neighbouring
properties are having their rent suspended because they don't have
hot water, the central plant having been destroyed in the Grenfell fire.


The plot will continue to thicken..

however it is quite easy to see that the cladding destroyed the building

*but*

the poor design/maintenance of the core killed the people.

The enquiry may say so if and when it reports.

The core wasn't designed to stop fire arriving through the windows on
almost all flats on all floors simultaneously. That's a problem with the
cladding.

AFAICS the core wasn't designed at all.

If a flat was on fire you should have been safe to move into the core
and then go down the stairs and escape.
It shouldn't matter that other flats were on fire.

A proper enquiry will find out why the core failed and so many couldn't
get out. The cladding is a side issue and may well be hiding the real
issues.

It doesn't really matter if a block of flats burns down if everyone can
get out and that is the real issue.

Who is looking at what really killed the people while everyone is going
on about the cladding?


As I see it the enquiry is just an exercise in avoiding the truth.

If you have an erroneous preconception about the truth, then you are
doomed to think that.

Yes I can see why that is true.

This is the same issue as the twin towers, many people died because the
core was a crap design and they were trapped. The planes didn't
immediately destroy the buildings but they did destroy the poorly built
stairs. The lifts were inside a structural concrete tube but the stairs
were outside that and only protected by plasterboard.

In message . com, at
19:16:25 on Sun, 2 Jul 2017, "dennis@home"
remarked:
If a flat was on fire you should have been safe to move into the core
and then go down the stairs and escape.
It shouldn't matter that other flats were on fire.

A proper enquiry will find out why the core failed and so many couldn't
get out. The cladding is a side issue and may well be hiding the real
issues.

People were told (in both the short and long term) to stay inside their
flats and await rescue. But that only works if most of the flats aren't
also on fire from the outside in.
--
Roland Perry

On 02/07/2017 17:02, dennis@home wrote:
however it is quite easy to see that the cladding destroyed the building

Err, no it didn't.

A deadly combination of non-fireproof cladding plus
PIR insulation that was assumed to be fire-resistant
(but wasn't because the temperature exceeded its
limitations) plus poor detailed installation (vertical
'tunnels' at each corner and along the sides) plus
tenants who may have interfered with the fire door
entrances to their flat, plus possibly the ones
in communal spaces, all contributed to the inferno
by setting the inside of the building alight too.


I suspect that if rockwool insulation had been used,
and all internal fire doors were working, then
the fire would have been dramatic from outside but
stayed on the outside.

On 02/07/2017 19:54, Roland Perry wrote:
In message . com, at
19:16:25 on Sun, 2 Jul 2017, "dennis@home"
remarked:
If a flat was on fire you should have been safe to move into the core
and then go down the stairs and escape.
It shouldn't matter that other flats were on fire.

A proper enquiry will find out why the core failed and so many
couldn't get out. The cladding is a side issue and may well be hiding
the real issues.

People were told (in both the short and long term) to stay inside their
flats and await rescue. But that only works if most of the flats aren't
also on fire from the outside in.

They weren't told to stay in their flats i they are on fire so they
should have been able to walk out the door into a safe core and leave.

Something serious went wrong to prevent people from getting out and as
going through the window wasn't an option the cladding didn't prevent it.

On 02/07/2017 20:35, Andrew wrote:
On 02/07/2017 17:02, dennis@home wrote:
however it is quite easy to see that the cladding destroyed the building

Err, no it didn't.

err yes it did.


A deadly combination of non-fireproof cladding plus
PIR insulation that was assumed to be fire-resistant
(but wasn't because the temperature exceeded its
limitations) plus poor detailed installation (vertical
'tunnels' at each corner and along the sides) plus

IE. a cladding system.

tenants who may have interfered with the fire door
entrances to their flat, plus possibly the ones
in communal spaces, all contributed to the inferno
by setting the inside of the building alight too.


That may be why the core failed but it probably isn't how the fire spread.
It might be how the smoke spread and made escape impossible.

There are cases of tenants replacing fire doors with PVC doors with zero
fire resistance but I have no idea if this had been done. A proper
investigation is needed not just lets blame it on the cladding.


I suspect that if rockwool insulation had been used,
and all internal fire doors were working, then
the fire would have been dramatic from outside but
stayed on the outside.

Not a chance, the radiant heat would set fire to curtains and stuff like
that even if the windows remained intact and closed.

The internal fire doors should have kept the core clear of fire and most
of the smoke. That's what they are there for.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
The plot will continue to thicken..

however it is quite easy to see that the cladding destroyed the building

*but*

the poor design/maintenance of the core killed the people.

That means pretty well every tower block is a deathtrap, then.

To my thinking, it's likely to be the modernisation that made it so
dangerous. Basically, for whatever reason, the escape route became
unusable too quickly.

The enquiry may say so if and when it reports.
As I see it the enquiry is just an exercise in avoiding the truth.

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

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

En el artículo om,
dennis@home escribió:

I have no idea

That much is evident.

The internal fire doors should have kept the core clear of fire and most
of the smoke

Yes, for a fire in one flat. The building emergency stairwell and smoke
venting system was designed to cope with a fire isolated to a single
flat with a self-closing fire door. It wasn't designed to cope with
multiple simultaneous fires, which was a direct cause of the cladding
used.

Odd how incidents like this bring out the armchair expert/pub bore
mentality.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

Dave Plowman wrote:

To my thinking, it's likely to be the modernisation that made it so
dangerous. Basically, for whatever reason, the escape route became
unusable too quickly.

On radio this morning, discussion that building regs vs local byelaws
are so complex/conflicting that some fire officers would consider
firedoors part of an inspection, others would consider them something to
be *avoided* during an inspection.

In message . com, at
21:56:25 on Sun, 2 Jul 2017, "dennis@home"
remarked:

If a flat was on fire you should have been safe to move into the
core and then go down the stairs and escape.
It shouldn't matter that other flats were on fire.

A proper enquiry will find out why the core failed and so many
couldn't get out. The cladding is a side issue and may well be hiding
the real issues.
People were told (in both the short and long term) to stay inside
their flats and await rescue. But that only works if most of the
flats aren't also on fire from the outside in.

They weren't told to stay in their flats i they are on fire so they
should have been able to walk out the door into a safe core and leave.

That is perhaps where the mixed messages cause a problem.

Something serious went wrong to prevent people from getting out and as
going through the window wasn't an option the cladding didn't prevent
it.

No doubt the enquiry will determine why the stairwell filled with smoke,
but it wouldn't have taken very many doors from interior landings being
propped open by debris[1] to fill it with smoke - once again it will
have been designed for just one landing to have been on fire, not almost
all of them simultaneously.

[1] There is one report circulating that a much earlier fire leaked
smoke because the fire brigade's hoses had to breach those fire
doors in order to extinguish a blaze in a flat.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

There is one report circulating that a much earlier fire leaked
smoke because the fire brigade's hoses had to breach those fire
doors in order to extinguish a blaze in a flat.

The grenfell building has a dry riser with hydrants on each floor, so
running hoses up the stairs and through doors shouldn't be necessary,
but use of the dry riser requires parking a pump in one specific
location at the base of the tower, and there were photos of
vehicles/skips blocking that access during refurbishment ...

In message , at 08:08:47 on Mon, 3 Jul
2017, Andy Burns remarked:
There is one report circulating that a much earlier fire

in a different tower block (sorry if that wasn't clear)...

leaked
smoke because the fire brigade's hoses had to breach those fire
doors in order to extinguish a blaze in a flat.

The grenfell building has a dry riser with hydrants on each floor,

....and whose dry-riser outlets were only on every other floor.

so running hoses up the stairs and through doors shouldn't be
necessary, but use of the dry riser requires parking a pump in one
specific location at the base of the tower, and there were photos of
vehicles/skips blocking that access during refurbishment ...

And reports that even without temporary builders' crap, maybe the pumps
couldn't get that close anyway.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

The grenfell building has a dry riser with hydrants on each floor,

...and whose dry-riser outlets were only on every other floor.

The planning application access statement says

"The fire strategy for Grenfell Tower requires that the Fire
Tender be parked close to the entrance to be able to connect to the
dry riser in the lobby and pressurize the hydrants at each floor"

I suppose it may not be correct, but it doesn't say every other floor.