Standedge Tunnel Fire 25/1

[Tim_UK]

Standage canal tunnel is much deeper than normal, around 7 feet or 2.1m (according to the visitor centre), to provide additional water storage

While thinking about the water supply from the canal.

1) it’s a long tunnel
2) there is loads of water draining into the canal from all 4 tunnels.
3) the water will recycle - whatever you pump out and spray, most of it will end up back in the canal. (Even the water vapour had 1km of tunnel to cool and drain back in)

4). There is (or was) a pumping station near the top lock on the Marsden side. For keeping the tunnel full of water.


The actual problems will be caused by the height difference between the tunnels. So getting canal water without falling down a hole in to the canal. And getting the pump
low enough to work well. In the dark with a load of smoke.

 

[Viper]

Just out of interest, as the damaged RRV clearly has name 'Story plant', would Network Rail get them (via their insurers) to pay for any direct losses (repairs to tunnel, and compensation to operators unable to use the route).

Or would Network Rail absorb the losses, even if it was indirectly taking funds from another project. If they don't claim, rather undermines point of contractors having third party (public liability) insurance.

There will certainly be contractual insurances present, however there are many factors to consider. Liability is certainly one of them but without knowing the details of the project speculation is difficult. For example, who was conducting the works and who provided the plant? It could be NR conducting the works and hiring the plant; it could be a contractor conducting the works with their own plant; it could be a contractor who has hired the plant from their own supply chain.

Liability also needs to be determined as to the failure. Unexpected equipment failure would likely have liability finding its way to the plant provider, however operator failure would likely place liability on the employer of the operator. As well as the direct costs of the damage to the plant and tunnel, there is also the question of if network delay costs would be recovered if the liable part is not Network Rail.

There are a lot of arms and legs when it comes to damages and losses.

 

[zwk500]

3) the water will recycle - whatever you pump out and spray, most of it will end up back in the canal. (Even the water vapour had 1km of tunnel to cool and drain back in)

Could this cause problems with whatever the fire brigade may add to the water polluting the canal?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Could this cause problems with whatever the fire brigade may add to the water polluting the canal?

I suppose that is possible but in the fullness of time it will get diluted by rainfall etc.

 

[Narrowgauge725]

Could this cause problems with whatever the fire brigade may add to the water polluting the canal?

No the dilution is massive the contamination would not have been noticed. When you look at a large fire and see water run off that in effect is wasted as what you really want is the water turned to vapour, very little energy is absorbed heating the water compared with massive amounts used turning it into steam at 100 degrees C where the real cooling occurs.

 

[edwin_m]

Many firefighting efforts will result in runoff into local drains or rivers, either of which would quickly be carried off somewhere else rather than staying in the canal section between the locks either end. Any environmental damage is therefore likely to be more containable here, noting that fire fighting foams contain PFAS "forever chemicals".