Should large train stations have a fire suppression system installed?

[Audited Pizza]

If the don't already, in case a train, (especially one that's a diesel multiple unit) catches fire? The suppression system I would have in mind would be a foam based system, and it would obviously be installed in such a manner that it couldn't be set off maliciously where there wasn't a fire.

Would there be any pitfalls to this idea and do any countries in the world have anything like this installed in any of their train stations already?

 

[Ken H]

If the don't already, in case a train, (especially one that's a diesel multiple unit) catches fire? The suppression system I would have in mind would be a foam based system, and it would obviously be installed in such a manner that it couldn't be set off maliciously where there wasn't a fire.

Would there be any pitfalls to this idea and do any countries in the world have anything like this installed in any of their train stations already?

Would water fog not be better? You dont want to spray people with foam.

 

[Tio Terry]

If a Station is classified as an Underground Station - and this includes stations such as Liverpool Street - then there are regulations that need to be applied.
Have a Look at:-

The Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989

These Regulations provide for fire precautions to be taken in certain underground and low level railway stations used by members of the public. The railway stations to which the Regulations apply are described in regulation 3 by reference to the station having a railway platform which is wholly...

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue with sprinklers in the trainshed would be the minor issue of the fizzy knitting in the way of where they might spray.

 

[John Webb]

DMUs have their own on-board system for dealing with engine fires. You can't easily have sprinklers over the track for several reasons - firstly an open-air system would need to be air-charged to prevent freezing problems which will result in a delay in applying water or foam; secondly, as Bletchleyite points out they couldn't be where there is Overhead Line equipment (servicing as well as flash-over problems); finally why do you want them in the first place? Is it to protect the passengers, the train or the station?
If to protect the passengers, then a system within the carriages may be better? Likewise to protect the train. And the majority of stations are well-ventilated and with high or no ceiling, so smoke and flames are easily vented. Take into account the expense of such systems and the infrequency of train fires anyway, I cannot see a 'reasonable and practical' case being made out to require investment for the majority of stations.

'Underground' stations are a different matter and these do have various requirements aimed primarily at the safety of passengers.

John Webb BSc, MIFireE

 

[mike57]

To follow up @John Webb and @Bletchleyite post, (again excluding underground stations, which is a different case) it will not improve safety, so it becomes asset protection. I cant see that the cost would be justified, as the cost of installation would probably exceed the asset protection savings over the life time of the systems, and add in all the other complications, is it a zoned system? Thinking about my local large station, York, how would you target the problem platform/section of that platform. System would have to be manually controlled, and might interfere with other firefighting efforts either from local staff or the Fire Brigade. Couple this with the fact that water (because most firefighting foams are water based) and 25kV overhead wiring when mixed in an uncontrolled way result in unwanted outcomes, and I would argue that the system might actually cause more harm than good.

 

[HSTEd]

To follow up @John Webb and @Bletchleyite post, (again excluding underground stations, which is a different case) it will not improve safety, so it becomes asset protection. I cant see that the cost would be justified, as the cost of installation would probably exceed the asset protection savings over the life time of the systems, and add in all the other complications, is it a zoned system? Thinking about my local large station, York, how would you target the problem platform/section of that platform. System would have to be manually controlled, and might interfere with other firefighting efforts either from local staff or the Fire Brigade. Couple this with the fact that water (because most firefighting foams are water based) and 25kV overhead wiring when mixed in an uncontrolled way result in unwanted outcomes, and I would argue that the system might actually cause more harm than good.

Surely if we were talking about a new installation system, in a new station [I agree that retrofit is going to be a pain], the system would just isolate the 25kV when the sprinkler system is triggered?

 

[mike57]

Surely if we were talking about a new installation system, in a new station [I agree that retrofit is going to be a pain], the system would just isolate the 25kV when the sprinkler system is triggered?

Yes it would have to isolate, but I dont think that sort of system would improve safety, and as an asset protection measure I dont think the costs and complexity would be worthwhile

 

[John Webb]

Surely if we were talking about a new installation system, in a new station [I agree that retrofit is going to be a pain], the system would just isolate the 25kV when the sprinkler system is triggered?

Suddenly shutting down the Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) 25kV can bring it's own safety problems and further expense in providing the switch gear to isolate and earth the affected OLE and provide the isolating sections in the OLE.

Far better use of sprinklers for asset protection is within the station buildings. Had Nottingham (? I think) been so protected the arson incident in the toilets a couple of years ago would have been far less serious for the station and the travelling public.