- Vote on answer
- posted
9 years ago
I would have thought a fire engine would be too heavy for the pier. Esp a burning one.
Drivel.
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.
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.
In message , harryagain writes
Why would a burning fire engine be heavier than a non burning one?
:-)
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.
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. :-)
Personally, no, but the Fire Brigade personnel did exactly that, some being landed on the sea end of the pier by the RNLI.
Precisely. All the comments being made on the local radio are that they did a good gob to save as much as they did.
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.
In article ,
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.
On 01/08/2014 10:36, Tim Streater wrote: ...
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.
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.
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.
:-)
In article ,
What about the weight of water from attempts to extinguish it?
metal oxides are heavier than the metals
:-) :-)
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.