Chat Forum
It is currently Mon May 25, 2020 9:41 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1875 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 47  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13025
Margin_Walker wrote:
Plans of the building (apparently) from Twwitter via the Guardian

Image

Just the one stairwell for the building. Is that standard for buildings this size from the era?


From that era, yes. Nowadays - no way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4458
Terrible, terrible scenes :((

Here is a bit of commentary on the Architects Journal
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/new ... kk.twitter
(may need to register to read)

A few snippets from some on how this might have happened (sorry if already posted)

Quote:
Geoff Wilkinson, the AJ’s building regulations columnist:

"It’s very early and we should avoid speculating, but we in light of Lakanal House we have to ask questions about the refurbishment.
I hear reports of a recent fire at Trellick Tower which was contained correctly by compartmentation. Yet this fire clearly overcame that compartmentation very quickly and questions have to be asked why.
Another report spoke of recent works to the gas riser - if this was leaking then that would certainly help to explain the speed and ferocity.
No doubt sprinklers will be mentioned again but if the cladding or the gas rider were at fault then they would have little effect.
I have seen extracts of a fire risk assessment and talk of combustible material stored in the common walkways which suggests poor overall management."


Quote:
Owen Luder, former RIBA president
"It appears that the 1970s block was very recently renovated. That appears to have included new windows and cladding. There is always the risk, and there have been cases in the past, that the design of the replacement windows and the cladding did not provide the necessary fire checks to prevent fire spreading externally from one flat to the one above. However the nature of this fire from what I have seen on TV that does not appear to be the case. Although I wouldn’t rule it out.

As for the stability of the block this is unlikely to be affected by this fire - intense and hot as it was - as the structure is almost a reinforced concrete frame with a central concrete lift shaft which should have remained. In the case of New York’s Twin Towers the main structure was steel and the heat generated by the explosion of aviation fuel created heat at such a level that the steel structure on the floors where the planes hit, bent and the top floors above collapsed which then caused the blocks to completely collapse."


:((


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 2:45 pm
Posts: 700
Varsity Way wrote:
No conspiracy theories yet?

Surely this was a plane impact :blush:
:x :? :blush: :frown: :thumbdown:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28750
Location: Hut 8
henry wrote:
Found this potentially illuminating but obviously carries multiple caveats since it emanatesfeom Reddit:

From reddit: "Hi all, I am a fire engineer and work with building design, specifically are performance based design for fire life safety in buildings.
I see a lot of comments wondering about people evacuating and how the fire spread so fast. So I thought I'd try to explain but do note I did not work on this building and have no more building specific knowledge than you.
How did the fire spread so fast? From looking at it this most likely begun spreading so fast as a facade fire. The recently installed panels are most likely combustible or to be more specific they probably have an aluminum exterior but have a combustible core or insulation. As aluminum melts fairly easily, once the core is exposed the fire can spread rapidly across the surface preheating and melting off the aluminum skin of the panels ahead if it, exposing more combustible material and spreading faster.


:?
Shades of the Falklands and contentious issue of burning ships i.e. accusations of Sheffield going up because "it was made of Aluminium". Link to a rebuttal on the Aluminium issue
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/03/opini ... 51244.html

The aspect of combustible materials being used for insulation is more worrying (in the context of someone's earlier post about gaps): nothing burns in the absence of oxygen so if no gaps, no burning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6415
400-600 people lived there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2293
Location: This vale of tears.
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
18ChinsOfChinatown wrote:
People in buildings adjacent to the tower, claiming to have witnessed people jumping from their apartment windows to escape the blaze. Horrific.

:((
Echoes of the Joelma one when I was much younger.

Always said that if I lived in a block, I'd own a sport 'chute! On a more practical level, given that smoke kills most people (and may have prevented people escaping their flats here?), why more thought isn't given to cheap smoke masks.


I remember thinking this after 9/11. Difficult and dangerous to jump from such a low height, you'd need an attached line to pull the chute out as you fell.

I live in a third story apartment and have sometimes thought of buying a rope ladder which could be attached to the inside wall underneath one of the main windows.


Last edited by dynamo_kev on Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32534
Location: in transit
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
400-600 people lived there.

:((

Jesus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4458
theo wrote:
My sister is nearby. She was woken by the helicopters and sirens. She works at a local school and they have had a collection of clothes etc for those who have lost everything.

Shocking that the recent refurbishment clearly used cladding that was not properly fire rated. Whoever made that call (clearly for cost reasons) needs to be shot as does the Building Regs inspector who signed it of.

There has long been a gripe that while private developers adhere to the Part L building regs local authorities often don't. Lets hope that is the not the case here but if it is then someone is in massive trouble (criminal charges)and I can see Ken & Chel facing a hefty lawsuit.

It wouldn't surprise me with the local authority. This is the reality of council cuts though - K&C have suffered massive, massive cuts to their work force and as such they are operating under often impossible circumstances. This is not to excuse them but councils cannot operate with one or two members of staff per department where there were previously dozens or more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13025
dargotronV.1 wrote:
theo wrote:
My sister is nearby. She was woken by the helicopters and sirens. She works at a local school and they have had a collection of clothes etc for those who have lost everything.

Shocking that the recent refurbishment clearly used cladding that was not properly fire rated. Whoever made that call (clearly for cost reasons) needs to be shot as does the Building Regs inspector who signed it of.

There has long been a gripe that while private developers adhere to the Part L building regs local authorities often don't. Lets hope that is the not the case here but if it is then someone is in massive trouble (criminal charges)and I can see Ken & Chel facing a hefty lawsuit.

It wouldn't surprise me with the local authority. This is the reality of council cuts though - K&C have suffered massive, massive cuts to their work force and as such they are operating under often impossible circumstances. This is not to excuse them but councils cannot operate with one or two members of staff per department where there were previously dozens or more.


They would have outsourced the PM and Building Regs sign off I suspect. B/Regs inspectors don't have to be local authority employees, they can be private consultants that must comply with various bits and bobs to be accredited with being an inspector for the purpose of Building Regs sign off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4458
theo wrote:
dargotronV.1 wrote:
theo wrote:
My sister is nearby. She was woken by the helicopters and sirens. She works at a local school and they have had a collection of clothes etc for those who have lost everything.

Shocking that the recent refurbishment clearly used cladding that was not properly fire rated. Whoever made that call (clearly for cost reasons) needs to be shot as does the Building Regs inspector who signed it of.

There has long been a gripe that while private developers adhere to the Part L building regs local authorities often don't. Lets hope that is the not the case here but if it is then someone is in massive trouble (criminal charges)and I can see Ken & Chel facing a hefty lawsuit.

It wouldn't surprise me with the local authority. This is the reality of council cuts though - K&C have suffered massive, massive cuts to their work force and as such they are operating under often impossible circumstances. This is not to excuse them but councils cannot operate with one or two members of staff per department where there were previously dozens or more.


They would have outsourced the PM and Building Regs sign off I suspect. B/Regs inspectors don't have to be local authority employees, they can be private consultants that must comply with various bits and bobs to be accredited with being an inspector for the purpose of Building Regs sign off.

Ah ok.

I have worked with private building control in London - their lack of attention to detail to me was alarming. It is true that they take fire regulations more seriously than any other part of the regs but (as I imagine there will be) there should be questions asked of their role in this too as they often cut corners when it comes to diligence or thoroughly checking proposals against the regs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 4320
village wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
TB63 wrote:
I'm down in Southampton at one of our high rise construction sites.

Reports going round the industry is that the insulation behind the newly installed cladding went up, hence the fire which a front door would contain is negated as the fire was coming in from the outside, popping the windows in as it went. Kingspan and similar insulation materials not allowed above 6 stories now. Has to be Rockwool or similar..

As per Jeff's post, how TF would that have passed (presumably) rigorous certification checks?


Maybe not so rigorous. The mandatory fire equipment safety checks at this tower block had apparently not been done for 4yrs.

In HK they've recently found that the longest bridge in the world (still under construction) from HK to Macau, has used concrete that may not actually be concrete. Certification checks were falsified. Now you might say that London is not China but I'm increasingly of the mind that standards in the UK are slipping pretty rapidly.

Well the corruption doesn't have to be local, can be anywhere in the supply chain. We've found out here that some of the Canterbury rebuild has ended up using falsely certified materials.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6415
Saying 6 dead which is obviously bad but I thought it would be a lot worse.

Edit, the police now say it's expected to rise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28750
Location: Hut 8
dynamo_kev wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
18ChinsOfChinatown wrote:
People in buildings adjacent to the tower, claiming to have witnessed people jumping from their apartment windows to escape the blaze. Horrific.

:((
Echoes of the Joelma one when I was much younger.

Always said that if I lived in a block, I'd own a sport 'chute! On a more practical level, given that smoke kills most people (and may have prevented people escaping their flats here?), why more thought isn't given to cheap smoke masks.


I remember thinking this after 9/11. Difficult and dangerous to jump from such a low height, you'd need an attached line to pull the chute out as you fell.

I live in a third story apartment and have sometimes thought of buying a rope ladder which could be attached to the inside wall underneath one of the main windows.

All true. Sports 'chutes do open quickly AFAIK: someone I know uses them for BASE jumping. Mind you, he wrecked his knee 2 weeks ago! But faced with the definite of burning or doing a Homer Simpson type "bounce down the side of something", I'd take my chances.

Rope ladders definitely one thought for lower floors. We looked at one for work but the thickness of the old walls here meant none of the designs we saw permitted the "hooking bit" to work.

I never stay in higher floors in hotels. I check beforehand and change rooms if necessary. Figure being roused from sleep (or not at all) adds a time factor in that I would like to eliminate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 7284
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
henry wrote:
Found this potentially illuminating but obviously carries multiple caveats since it emanatesfeom Reddit:

From reddit: "Hi all, I am a fire engineer and work with building design, specifically are performance based design for fire life safety in buildings.
I see a lot of comments wondering about people evacuating and how the fire spread so fast. So I thought I'd try to explain but do note I did not work on this building and have no more building specific knowledge than you.
How did the fire spread so fast? From looking at it this most likely begun spreading so fast as a facade fire. The recently installed panels are most likely combustible or to be more specific they probably have an aluminum exterior but have a combustible core or insulation. As aluminum melts fairly easily, once the core is exposed the fire can spread rapidly across the surface preheating and melting off the aluminum skin of the panels ahead if it, exposing more combustible material and spreading faster.


:?
Shades of the Falklands and contentious issue of burning ships i.e. accusations of Sheffield going up because "it was made of Aluminium". Link to a rebuttal on the Aluminium issue
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/03/opini ... 51244.html

The aspect of combustible materials being used for insulation is more worrying (in the context of someone's earlier post about gaps): nothing burns in the absence of oxygen so if no gaps, no burning.


I'm skeptical that combustible materials could have been used but PE and PU is not allowed in many regions mainly because the smoke they emit is incredibly thick and toxic. More importantly it is also not insurable so builders have no option in places like Singapore to use other boards. I have no idea about the UK but there are so many non combustible cladding materials on the market that I don't know how or why (money excluded) you would or be allowed to use them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13025
Rumham wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
henry wrote:
Found this potentially illuminating but obviously carries multiple caveats since it emanatesfeom Reddit:

From reddit: "Hi all, I am a fire engineer and work with building design, specifically are performance based design for fire life safety in buildings.
I see a lot of comments wondering about people evacuating and how the fire spread so fast. So I thought I'd try to explain but do note I did not work on this building and have no more building specific knowledge than you.
How did the fire spread so fast? From looking at it this most likely begun spreading so fast as a facade fire. The recently installed panels are most likely combustible or to be more specific they probably have an aluminum exterior but have a combustible core or insulation. As aluminum melts fairly easily, once the core is exposed the fire can spread rapidly across the surface preheating and melting off the aluminum skin of the panels ahead if it, exposing more combustible material and spreading faster.


:?
Shades of the Falklands and contentious issue of burning ships i.e. accusations of Sheffield going up because "it was made of Aluminium". Link to a rebuttal on the Aluminium issue
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/03/opini ... 51244.html

The aspect of combustible materials being used for insulation is more worrying (in the context of someone's earlier post about gaps): nothing burns in the absence of oxygen so if no gaps, no burning.


I'm skeptical that combustible materials could have been used but PE and PU is not allowed in many regions mainly because the smoke they emit is incredibly thick and toxic. More importantly it is also not insurable so builders have no option in places like Singapore to use other boards. I have no idea about the UK but there are so many non combustible cladding materials on the market that I don't know how or why (money excluded) you would or be allowed to use them.


A lot of insurers won't provide cover if they present. I expect this will heighten that restriction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28750
Location: Hut 8
Rumham wrote:
I'm skeptical that combustible materials could have been used but PE and PU is not allowed in many regions mainly because the smoke they emit is incredibly thick and toxic. More importantly it is also not insurable so builders have no option in places like Singapore to use other boards. I have no idea about the UK but there are so many non combustible cladding materials on the market that I don't know how or why (money excluded) you would or be allowed to use them.

Had to use heat resistant plasterboard around the wood burner we have. I don't recall it being particularly expensive. Resistant to > 500/600C I think. Would have to dig out specs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 4320
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
Saying 6 dead which is obviously bad but I thought it would be a lot worse.

Edit, the police now say it's expected to rise.

I think the way they usually do it is to talk about the number of bodies found rather than guess at a total. Though even then six is low, it would include those who jumped and those who've died since getting to hospital. So maybe they did get a lot of people out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22835
theo wrote:
dargotronV.1 wrote:
theo wrote:
My sister is nearby. She was woken by the helicopters and sirens. She works at a local school and they have had a collection of clothes etc for those who have lost everything.

Shocking that the recent refurbishment clearly used cladding that was not properly fire rated. Whoever made that call (clearly for cost reasons) needs to be shot as does the Building Regs inspector who signed it of.

There has long been a gripe that while private developers adhere to the Part L building regs local authorities often don't. Lets hope that is the not the case here but if it is then someone is in massive trouble (criminal charges)and I can see Ken & Chel facing a hefty lawsuit.

It wouldn't surprise me with the local authority. This is the reality of council cuts though - K&C have suffered massive, massive cuts to their work force and as such they are operating under often impossible circumstances. This is not to excuse them but councils cannot operate with one or two members of staff per department where there were previously dozens or more.


They would have outsourced the PM and Building Regs sign off I suspect. B/Regs inspectors don't have to be local authority employees, they can be private consultants that must comply with various bits and bobs to be accredited with being an inspector for the purpose of Building Regs sign off.

The different levels of knowledge/assiduosness (is that a word?) between different building control inspectors, even within the same council, is alarming


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13025
happyhooker wrote:
theo wrote:
dargotronV.1 wrote:
theo wrote:
My sister is nearby. She was woken by the helicopters and sirens. She works at a local school and they have had a collection of clothes etc for those who have lost everything.

Shocking that the recent refurbishment clearly used cladding that was not properly fire rated. Whoever made that call (clearly for cost reasons) needs to be shot as does the Building Regs inspector who signed it of.

There has long been a gripe that while private developers adhere to the Part L building regs local authorities often don't. Lets hope that is the not the case here but if it is then someone is in massive trouble (criminal charges)and I can see Ken & Chel facing a hefty lawsuit.

It wouldn't surprise me with the local authority. This is the reality of council cuts though - K&C have suffered massive, massive cuts to their work force and as such they are operating under often impossible circumstances. This is not to excuse them but councils cannot operate with one or two members of staff per department where there were previously dozens or more.


They would have outsourced the PM and Building Regs sign off I suspect. B/Regs inspectors don't have to be local authority employees, they can be private consultants that must comply with various bits and bobs to be accredited with being an inspector for the purpose of Building Regs sign off.

The different levels of knowledge/assiduosness (is that a word?) between different building control inspectors, even within the same council, is alarming


Yep.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28750
Location: Hut 8
theo wrote:
They would have outsourced the PM and Building Regs sign off I suspect. B/Regs inspectors don't have to be local authority employees, they can be private consultants that must comply with various bits and bobs to be accredited with being an inspector for the purpose of Building Regs sign off.


Defo true here. We had 2 different ones at various stages of a small project and both were contractors and neither was remotely local (in case anything was peculiar to the locale).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13025
Apparently children were being thrown to safety. :(

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/40270874/l ... -to-safety


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:57 pm
Posts: 3224
Hoping the casualties stay low. This is something you'd expect would happen in Mumbai not West London. Shocking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16798
Have been cloistered in a meeting all day and part of the evening (building defects) to come out to this terrible news. How trivial my day seems, no is, in comparison.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28750
Location: Hut 8
Andalu wrote:
Hoping the casualties stay low. This is something you'd expect would happen in Mumbai not West London. Shocking.

I know this is off topic, but wondered if in somewhere like Mumbai, tower blocks would be relatively new i.e. the poor live in low level dwellings, off prime real estate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:02 am
Posts: 4070
Places like Mumbai, the poor live in the streets, under bridges, in rubbish dumps.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16798
Rumham wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
henry wrote:
Found this potentially illuminating but obviously carries multiple caveats since it emanatesfeom Reddit:

From reddit: "Hi all, I am a fire engineer and work with building design, specifically are performance based design for fire life safety in buildings.
I see a lot of comments wondering about people evacuating and how the fire spread so fast. So I thought I'd try to explain but do note I did not work on this building and have no more building specific knowledge than you.
How did the fire spread so fast? From looking at it this most likely begun spreading so fast as a facade fire. The recently installed panels are most likely combustible or to be more specific they probably have an aluminum exterior but have a combustible core or insulation. As aluminum melts fairly easily, once the core is exposed the fire can spread rapidly across the surface preheating and melting off the aluminum skin of the panels ahead if it, exposing more combustible material and spreading faster.


:?
Shades of the Falklands and contentious issue of burning ships i.e. accusations of Sheffield going up because "it was made of Aluminium". Link to a rebuttal on the Aluminium issue
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/03/opini ... 51244.html

The aspect of combustible materials being used for insulation is more worrying (in the context of someone's earlier post about gaps): nothing burns in the absence of oxygen so if no gaps, no burning.


I'm skeptical that combustible materials could have been used but PE and PU is not allowed in many regions mainly because the smoke they emit is incredibly thick and toxic. More importantly it is also not insurable so builders have no option in places like Singapore to use other boards. I have no idea about the UK but there are so many non combustible cladding materials on the market that I don't know how or why (money excluded) you would or be allowed to use them.


There have been a number of fatal high rise fires where composite panels (ACP, etc) have been used, where rapid vertical spread is on the cards. Anyone working in that area must be aware if the danger.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1505
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Andalu wrote:
Hoping the casualties stay low. This is something you'd expect would happen in Mumbai not West London. Shocking.

I know this is off topic, but wondered if in somewhere like Mumbai, tower blocks would be relatively new i.e. the poor live in low level dwellings, off prime real estate.


A good example might be Manila where there has been a massive upsurge in the number of high rises (Farva can corroborate) in the business districts and other outlying areas. I always wondered about the safety of those. They went up very quickly (and that is ignoring the complete lack of H&S for the workers building them)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27612
Horrible news :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28750
Location: Hut 8
Denirostaxidriver wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Andalu wrote:
Hoping the casualties stay low. This is something you'd expect would happen in Mumbai not West London. Shocking.

I know this is off topic, but wondered if in somewhere like Mumbai, tower blocks would be relatively new i.e. the poor live in low level dwellings, off prime real estate.


A good example might be Manila where there has been a massive upsurge in the number of high rises (Farva can corroborate) in the business districts and other outlying areas. I always wondered about the safety of those. They went up very quickly (and that is ignoring the complete lack of H&S for the workers building them)

Yeah. I guess assuming new = better build/safety is gratuitous. Would expect posh accom to be better if only because the builders would be cynical enough to know the wealthy might check first or have the means to sue if it went wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9807
Location: Indiana
village wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
TB63 wrote:
I'm down in Southampton at one of our high rise construction sites.

Reports going round the industry is that the insulation behind the newly installed cladding went up, hence the fire which a front door would contain is negated as the fire was coming in from the outside, popping the windows in as it went. Kingspan and similar insulation materials not allowed above 6 stories now. Has to be Rockwool or similar..

As per Jeff's post, how TF would that have passed (presumably) rigorous certification checks?


Maybe not so rigorous. The mandatory fire equipment safety checks at this tower block had apparently not been done for 4yrs.

In HK they've recently found that the longest bridge in the world (still under construction) from HK to Macau, has used concrete that may not actually be concrete. Certification checks were falsified. Now you might say that London is not China but I'm increasingly of the mind that standards in the UK are slipping pretty rapidly.


You can have all the standards you want. It's more difficult to tackle systemic corruption so cheating of the standards does not take place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28750
Location: Hut 8
Flyin Ryan wrote:
village wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
TB63 wrote:
I'm down in Southampton at one of our high rise construction sites.

Reports going round the industry is that the insulation behind the newly installed cladding went up, hence the fire which a front door would contain is negated as the fire was coming in from the outside, popping the windows in as it went. Kingspan and similar insulation materials not allowed above 6 stories now. Has to be Rockwool or similar..

As per Jeff's post, how TF would that have passed (presumably) rigorous certification checks?


Maybe not so rigorous. The mandatory fire equipment safety checks at this tower block had apparently not been done for 4yrs.

In HK they've recently found that the longest bridge in the world (still under construction) from HK to Macau, has used concrete that may not actually be concrete. Certification checks were falsified. Now you might say that London is not China but I'm increasingly of the mind that standards in the UK are slipping pretty rapidly.


You can have all the standards you want. It's more difficult to tackle systemic corruption so cheating of the standards does not take place.

In a perverse sense, when there are no standards, you are more likely to check first.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28750
Location: Hut 8
Checked out that action group.

This is going to be a topical read:
https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.c ... with-fire/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52569
Location: Oundle
Worked on a design for an escape lift, way back.

Usually the instructions were not to use the lift but we thought it was the best way safely to evacuate residents.

Problematical but solvable. Ditched. Cost.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28750
Location: Hut 8
globus wrote:
Worked on a design for an escape lift, way back.

Usually the instructions were not to use the lift but we thought it was the best way safely to evacuate residents.

Problematical but solvable. Ditched. Cost.

Same issue with B1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0TVr0_m34s


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2698
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
globus wrote:
Worked on a design for an escape lift, way back.

Usually the instructions were not to use the lift but we thought it was the best way safely to evacuate residents.

Problematical but solvable. Ditched. Cost.

Same issue with B1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0TVr0_m34s


Ejector capsules in all apartments?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13025
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Checked out that action group.

This is going to be a topical read:
https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.c ... with-fire/


Crikey.

Nice to see Kim Jung Un get a mention.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28750
Location: Hut 8
koroke hangareka wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
globus wrote:
Worked on a design for an escape lift, way back.

Usually the instructions were not to use the lift but we thought it was the best way safely to evacuate residents.

Problematical but solvable. Ditched. Cost.

Same issue with B1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0TVr0_m34s


Ejector capsules in all apartments?

Sounds reasonable to me. At least for penthouse ones?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1697
dargotronV.1 wrote:
theo wrote:
My sister is nearby. She was woken by the helicopters and sirens. She works at a local school and they have had a collection of clothes etc for those who have lost everything.

Shocking that the recent refurbishment clearly used cladding that was not properly fire rated. Whoever made that call (clearly for cost reasons) needs to be shot as does the Building Regs inspector who signed it of.

There has long been a gripe that while private developers adhere to the Part L building regs local authorities often don't. Lets hope that is the not the case here but if it is then someone is in massive trouble (criminal charges)and I can see Ken & Chel facing a hefty lawsuit.

It wouldn't surprise me with the local authority. This is the reality of council cuts though - K&C have suffered massive, massive cuts to their work force and as such they are operating under often impossible circumstances. This is not to excuse them but councils cannot operate with one or two members of staff per department where there were previously dozens or more.


The other thing about Kensington & Chelsea is they entered into a "tri-borough" arrangement with Hammersmith & Fulham and Westminster to share some services across all 3 boroughs in order to save costs. I don't know if services related to safety of their properties were part of this arrangement but anyway it is being terminated in 2018 because it hasn't been working as they expected...

Last year there was a large fire in a tower block in Shepherds Bush (caused by a tumble drier IIRC) that is really quite close to Grenfell tower but in a different borough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28750
Location: Hut 8
theo wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Checked out that action group.

This is going to be a topical read:
https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.c ... with-fire/


Crikey.

Nice to see Kim Jung Un get a mention.

No sausages though?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52569
Location: Oundle
koroke hangareka wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
globus wrote:
Worked on a design for an escape lift, way back.

Usually the instructions were not to use the lift but we thought it was the best way safely to evacuate residents.

Problematical but solvable. Ditched. Cost.

Same issue with B1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0TVr0_m34s


Ejector capsules in all apartments?

No. Just a fireproof lift. Biggest problem was to fireproof all the wires, the rest was pretty easy.

You do not want to be the firm that produced an oven half way down.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1875 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 47  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: camroc1, CarrotGawks, CrazyIslander, Derwyn, EverReady, Fangle, frillage, Gavin Duffy, Google Adsense [Bot], henry, HKCJ, iarmhiman, inactionman, Insane_Homer, juddy, Laurent, Lazy Couch potato, Lobby, Lord Denning, Mr Mike, Mullet 2, Nolanator, Sandstorm, terryfinch, wilber and 126 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group