Liverpool car park fire

[muz379]

Sure most of us would have seen this story in the news

A huge fire has destroyed up to 1,400 vehicles in a multi-storey car park in Liverpool, forcing many people to spend New Year's Eve in a temporary shelter.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service said the blaze at King's Dock - next to the Liverpool Echo Arena - was one of the worst it had ever dealt with.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-42533830

Luckily nobody was killed or injured . And presumably as with other multi loss incidents the insurers will just agree to deal with their own customers . Either way the incident is obviously going to result in a lot of people being out of pocket which is not a great start to the year .

It does beg the question though how a fire reported to have started in the engine bay of one car could spread this much and cause this much damage .

I've seen reports of the fire brigade not having immediate access to foam which meant they could not effectively tackle the running fuel fires which would have been present . How would the fire brigade responding to a massive incident like this in a highly populated urban area not have immediate access to foam . Is this a symptom of the cuts or just mismanagement on behalf of the fire service .

 

[TheAdelante]

Oh no, that’s awful news. I’m glad no one was hurt though.

 

[ninja-lewis]

I've seen reports of the fire brigade not having immediate access to foam which meant they could not effectively tackle the running fuel fires which would have been present . How would the fire brigade responding to a massive incident like this in a highly populated urban area not have immediate access to foam . Is this a symptom of the cuts or just mismanagement on behalf of the fire service .

They have Compressed Air Foam systems on appliances. It's possible that they were unable to bring these to bear on the fire whether due to the appliances not being able to get close enough or the foam system not having enough pressure to reach the level of the fire. The car park may have been designed to provide risers that only support water.

They also have Bulk Foam Unit demountable pods carried by a Prime Mover (think Thunderbird 2) but it may have taken to switch to the relevant pod and then set up when they arrived (the two Merseyside fire stations equipped with them are less than 15 minutes from the Arena). They may have needed more pods with extra pumps/hoses too.

The fire may already have been too large when the first firefighters arrived and therefore initial efforts may have been focused on ensuring there was nobody inside still rather than attacking the fire.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I have seen several tweets from various fire brigade personnel criticising the lack of sprinklers or misting systems in that car park; they are all invariably saying such a system would have contained it well enough to allow them to tackle it easily.

 

[thejuggler]

I have seen several tweets from various fire brigade personnel criticising the lack of sprinklers or misting systems in that car park; they are all invariably saying such a system would have contained it well enough to allow them to tackle it easily.

The fire service will always say that. Unfortunately it isn't cost effective to install and continue to maintain a sprinkler system for what is a very low fire risk fire environment - the fire was large, but a car park fire isn't a regular occurrence. I can't remember the previous one in a multi storey - and whilst a lot of cars were written off it is only metal which can be replaced. The car park owner will only be concerned if they can't get insurance, generally not an issue due to low risk.

Water companies generally don't like the mains fed fire sprinklers as they need huge amounts of water. If they go off they can reduce pressure across a wide network which may have to be purged should the system activate - a real problem in a dense city centre where hospitals etc may be affected. This therefore means consideration for an on site storage solution which isn't always possible.

As regards the ferocity people don't appreciate how quickly fire spreads. Consider the car park - it is a low ceiling environment with nowhere for flammable gases to escape. Flashover will have happened very quickly - in a house fire started in a room with a match it will happen in less than 3 minutes. When you have a car full of flammable liquid it will occur much more quickly - all those gases can't escape and will simply ignite above the other vehicles engulfing them all.

Foam will get the fire out, however the long term effect of fire suppressing foams are only just being understood and there is every chance over the years they will be removed from general use - have a look at the Guernsey v 3M case - foam from the airport fire service contaminated the water supply for the whole island. Long term health effects on residents are unknown.

 

[John Webb]

The fire service will always say that. Unfortunately it isn't cost effective to install and continue to maintain a sprinkler system for what is a very low fire risk fire environment - the fire was large, but a car park fire isn't a regular occurrence. I can't remember the previous one in a multi storey - and whilst a lot of cars were written off it is only metal which can be replaced. The car park owner will only be concerned if they can't get insurance, generally not an issue due to low risk.

Water companies generally don't like the mains fed fire sprinklers as they need huge amounts of water. If they go off they can reduce pressure across a wide network which may have to be purged should the system activate - a real problem in a dense city centre where hospitals etc may be affected. This therefore means consideration for an on site storage solution which isn't always possible.

As someone who worked with sprinklers for some years I regret that I have to disagree with this statement. Most fires extinguished by sprinklers are put out with five or less heads operating - this uses significantly less water than a large single nozzle supplied from a fire appliance.
Main problem with sprinklers in car parks is protection from vandalism and cold weather; the latter in particular may require the use of a 'dry' sprinkler system which has extra expense and maintenance costs.

As regards the ferocity people don't appreciate how quickly fire spreads. Consider the car park - it is a low ceiling environment with nowhere for flammable gases to escape. Flashover will have happened very quickly - in a house fire started in a room with a match it will happen in less than 3 minutes. When you have a car full of flammable liquid it will occur much more quickly - all those gases can't escape and will simply ignite above the other vehicles engulfing them all.

Foam will get the fire out, however the long term effect of fire suppressing foams are only just being understood and there is every chance over the years they will be removed from general use - have a look at the Guernsey v 3M case - foam from the airport fire service contaminated the water supply for the whole island. Long term health effects on residents are unknown.

You are correct to point out the potential for rapid spread due to low ceilings. However the car park in Liverpool was open sided and also had a large open area according to photos in the BBC News report linked by muz378 in their original post, so there was a significant degree of venting. What may be a more significant factor is the much greater use of plastics in cars, both for body parts and interiors (and fuel tanks?) compared to when research was first carried out in the early 1970s into multi-storey car parks and fire spread between vehicles.
Re contamination - this is something that should be taken into account not only for foam but for fuel leaks when designing the drainage for car parks, particularly multi-storey ones.

John Webb BSc, MIFireE

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

It does beg the question though how a fire reported to have started in the engine bay of one car could spread this much and cause this much damage .

Fire is always unpredictable, and often times counter-intuitive in that it doesn't do what you'd expect it to do. The fire at King's Cross in 1987 started off just the size of a campfire, yet in less than thirty seconds became a raging inferno that killed 31 people and reached about 600 degrees Celsius at it's peak. Starting in the engine bay of a car seems like an easy place to spread to other nearby cars. Even though the fire brigade was on scene within seven minutes to being alerted to the fire, that's more than enough time for it to spread. As I always say, "every inferno starts off as a tiny fire".

I've seen reports of the fire brigade not having immediate access to foam which meant they could not effectively tackle the running fuel fires which would have been present . How would the fire brigade responding to a massive incident like this in a highly populated urban area not have immediate access to foam . Is this a symptom of the cuts or just mismanagement on behalf of the fire service .

I think ninja-lewis answers most of your question, but with most fire brigades the amount of appliances containing special foam is significantly less than those which contain or use water, simply because the majority of fires that the fire brigades face are simple Class A fires which can be tackled with water. Often times foam fire appliances aren't used to the same extent as water appliances, and if anything, it seems two foam appliances within 15 minutes of the scene was a decent amount. But then like what has been said it may have been difficult to get the appliances close enough, or to get a good amount of pressure to tackle the fire. I also think that part of the priority of firefighting is to ensure nobody is within the vicinity before fighting the fire, and also ensure that it doesn't spread.

That's what they did in this case at least: contained it to the car park before fighting it head on. Unfortunately in this case, the fire would be able to spread more easily because of the abundance of cars and contained area that can trap heat and flammable gasses more so than open air. Let us not forget, in a contained environment even with ventilation, the fire would have less Oxygen than in open air, and so rather than Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide would be formed in the smoke. This gas is technically flammable considering that it's the result of incomplete combustion, but then it's also unlikely the CO would've just flashed and caused a huge fire, but then again it is still a possibility.

 

[HSTEd]

I think in the long run all large buildings will have to contain sprinkler systems.
The political pressure will build and build, and considering this fire is going to cost many millions of pounds.... the insurance companies might get spooked.

 

[muz379]

They have Compressed Air Foam systems on appliances. It's possible that they were unable to bring these to bear on the fire whether due to the appliances not being able to get close enough or the foam system not having enough pressure to reach the level of the fire. The car park may have been designed to provide risers that only support water.

They also have Bulk Foam Unit demountable pods carried by a Prime Mover (think Thunderbird 2) but it may have taken to switch to the relevant pod and then set up when they arrived (the two Merseyside fire stations equipped with them are less than 15 minutes from the Arena). They may have needed more pods with extra pumps/hoses too.

The fire may already have been too large when the first firefighters arrived and therefore initial efforts may have been focused on ensuring there was nobody inside still rather than attacking the fire.

Ahh that makes sense , I guess I just thought that in the event of responding to fires in a densely populated urban areas with many hi rise building the fire service would have immediate capability to deploy foam even to upper floors .Much in the same way that airport fire services would be immediately able to deploy foam anywhere on the airfield it is they cover .

I agree that the primary response of the fire service on arrival should have been to ensure nobody was inside the car park presumably making good use of the fire proof stairwells , after that fire fighting I agree should have been carried out with minimum risk to fire service personnel , after all its only the building and vehicles/contents all of which should be adequately insured against this risk anyway . Given the risks of explosions from various components in vehicles fires sending extensive resources into a confined space to try and fight the fire after it was confirmed no life was in immediate danger was the right call in my view .

I think in the long run all large buildings will have to contain sprinkler systems.
The political pressure will build and build, and considering this fire is going to cost many millions of pounds.... the insurance companies might get spooked.

I dont personally think that in the case of car parks like this sprinkler systems are proportionate . As someone else above said sprinkler systems would have to be dry pipe design which is costly , and a system of this size would presumably need an independent stored supply of water increasing further cost . There is also a delay between fire detection and water delivery . I believe that delay can be up to a minute . Surely in that time a fire could actually develop quite rapidly . Sprinkler systems are to my knowledge intended to contain the spread of fire to allow more time for evacuation in buildings full of people . A car park of this nature with fire safe stair wells for evacuation is unlikely to result in anybody becoming trapped by the fire .

In my view the risk cost analysis for a car park of this type makes sprinkler systems disproportionate , that view I feel is vindicated by this incident in which there was no reported injury or loss of life . Only loss suffered is financial loss all of which is(or should be ) adequately insured against by private vehicle owners and the car park owners .

I am interested in seeing how the insurance companies respond to this . Presumably as I said assuming no negligence can be found on behalf of the car park operator or the owner of the first car to ignite people will be left claiming against their own insurance , thus losing their own excess & NCB and having increased premiums . As well as possibly loosing on the value their insurance pay out for their car .

 

[fowler9]

Was very sad to hear that someone left three dogs in one of the cars and they all died.

 

[GusB]

Was very sad to hear that someone left three dogs in one of the cars and they all died.

Several dogs were rescued from the fire. The cars on the top storey were apparently undamaged.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...iverpool-multistorey-car-park-fire-horse-show

Six dogs have been rescued from a multistorey car park in Liverpool gutted by a fire on Sunday night which destroyed more than 1,000 cars.

Fire investigators said on Monday they did not believe the fire was started deliberately.

The dogs are thought to have been left in the vehicles while their owners attended the Liverpool international horse show at the neighbouring Echo Arena.

Firefighters rescued the animals after extinguishing the “ferocious” fire which whipped through the car park in Kings Dock on New Year’s Eve.

The overwhelming majority of the estimated 1,400 vehicles in the seven-storey structure were destroyed, according to Merseyside’s chief fire officer, Dan Stephens. Just a few on the roof level and at the corners of the building were spared, he added.

 

[muz379]

Was very sad to hear that someone left three dogs in one of the cars and they all died.

if that is true then that is very sad indeed .

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I have seen several tweets from various fire brigade personnel criticising the lack of sprinklers or misting systems in that car park; they are all invariably saying such a system would have contained it well enough to allow them to tackle it easily.

Questions for a reporter to ask and get a suitable headline grabbing quote from an official spokesman:
Q1 Would sprinklers have helped reduce the fire?
A1 Yes possibly so.

Q2 If everyone had walked to the event would this have helped prevent the fire?
A2 Yes absolutely so.

Q3 If no large public events were held, would this prevent a similar fire occurring in future?
A3 Yes absolutely so.

How many fires of this nature have occurred since the first multi-storey car parks were built? There must have been many fires in vehicles in multi-storey (or underground) car parks over the years, is this the only total destruction event? Vehicles do seem to ignite on the open road on a regular basis.

 

[muz379]

How many fires of this nature have occurred since the first multi-storey car parks were built? There must have been many fires in vehicles in multi-storey (or underground) car parks over the years, is this the only total destruction event? Vehicles do seem to ignite on the open road on a regular basis.

I suspect a few . But at the same time I suspect vehicles are less likely to ignite in a car park than on the open road because the engines and electrical systems are off the majority of time the car is in the car park . And simple logic dictates the engine and electrical system are the two biggest sources of fire .


Thinking about it I dont think that sprinklers would be proportionate in a multi storey car park like this , the only loss here is financial . And that is precisely what insurance is for