Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Luton-10

Old 24th Oct 2023, 16:32
  #3741 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,975
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Luton Airport fire: Aerial pictures show car park damage https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...herts-67207591
LTNman is online now  
Old 24th Oct 2023, 22:24
  #3742 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
I wonder if Brussels Airport will be rethinking its plans for a new 8 storey 2,700 car park with 617 EV recharging points.
Brussels recently updated below ground car park regulations but I believe above ground is not mandatory- similar to UK.
pabely is online now  
Old 24th Oct 2023, 22:50
  #3743 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 939
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by pabely
I wonder if Brussels Airport will be rethinking its plans for a new 8 storey 2,700 car park with 617 EV recharging points.
Brussels recently updated below ground car park regulations but I believe above ground is not mandatory- similar to UK.
Doubtful. Unlike the UK they have fire-proofing as standard for most car parking facilities.
TartinTon is online now  
Old 25th Oct 2023, 04:54
  #3744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,975
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
No doubt the 2 multi story car parks at Luton were built to identical minimum standards with no thought given to the outcome of any fire. When tested in real world conditions the structure lasted less than an hour before collapse, as the steel beams had not been set into concrete as well as the well reported lack of sprinklers.

it s going to be interesting to see what measures are built into its replacement. The loss of the MSCP is a major loss but the loss of the drop off zone is even worse for the airport.

Last edited by LTNman; 25th Oct 2023 at 06:57.
LTNman is online now  
Old 25th Oct 2023, 12:26
  #3745 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 11,851
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes on 33 Posts
Flew in today and while waiting for my onward bus had a nose round. My pictures are too big in mb for PPRuNe. However from the top of CP1 the damage to CP2 is severe. Blackened, decks warped, collapsed ramps and the smell of burnt Plastic and rubber....
Fortunately no fatalities but what a mess...
The Drop off walk and shuttle bus appeared to be well managed but it was in good weather today. ..
Before allowing cars into the CTA they were being checked that they had official business or pre booked for the working MSCP
Certainly won't be a quick fix overall


Kiltrash is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2023, 13:19
  #3746 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by TartinTon
Doubtful. Unlike the UK they have fire-proofing as standard for most car parking facilities.
Really, I have not been able to find anything in EU law which is different from UK law, only the Dutch have recently brought in new tougher laws. I can't say I have seen, but not specifically looked, anything being used in a CDG multistorey which I have used this year.
pabely is online now  
Old 25th Oct 2023, 15:04
  #3747 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,975
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
https://www.steelconstruction.info/Car_parks_in_fire

and this

https://www.cross-safety.org/sites/d...-car-parks.pdf


Last edited by LTNman; 25th Oct 2023 at 15:34.
LTNman is online now  
Old 25th Oct 2023, 18:30
  #3748 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
So there is no legislation, only recommendations.
Like Glenfell Fire in London, Government partly to blame for not making such things mandatory.
In a world of increased costs, most developers are going to do the minimum to do the job.
The Car Park was steel open sided so was not required by law to fit any modern fire prevention or retardment systems, even though it is acknowledged modern cars contain all sorts of nasty and flammable/toxic things.
pabely is online now  
Old 25th Oct 2023, 19:00
  #3749 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,975
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Those running the airport could have requested and paid for a higher standard particularly as the car park contained the drop off area, which is the principal component in getting passengers to and from the terminal. They decided against the expense and are paying the price together with 1500 car owners and the insurers.

At the moment Luton offers the joint cheapest drop off and pick up of any U.K. airport, as they can’t find quick way of charging drivers while trying to keep the traffic moving, which is greatly irritating management. I have no sympathy, as they have been charging the maximum they thought they could get away with for years, now it is free.

Last edited by LTNman; 25th Oct 2023 at 19:18.
LTNman is online now  
Old 25th Oct 2023, 19:36
  #3750 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 811
Received 7 Likes on 2 Posts
Bet they wished they had integrated a drop off area to Parkway, they could have used this and charged Passengers the drop off charge and put them on the DART- it would have at least generated some income.
Falcon666 is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2023, 19:48
  #3751 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 5,675
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 17 Posts
Originally Posted by Falcon666
Bet they wished they had integrated a drop off area to Parkway, they could have used this and charged Passengers the drop off charge and put them on the DART- it would have at least generated some income.
The cost of the combined Parkway drop off and DART round trip for a car of passengers would have had to be cheaper than the cost of a drop off at the top of the hill... otherwise nobody would choose a Parkway drop off. I suspect building a Parkway drop off pre-fire would have made sense only if traffic at the top of the hill was truly terrible.
davidjohnson6 is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2023, 19:48
  #3752 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,975
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Dart Parkway is a mystery. It was clearly built with a passenger drop off in mind but was abandoned. That potential drop off though is not as big as the temporary one in the mid term car park and I doubt the Dart could cope with the extra passengers. Also Dart money goes directly to LRT and not the operator.
LTNman is online now  
Old 25th Oct 2023, 21:03
  #3753 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,214
Received 72 Likes on 58 Posts
No surprise here. We have seen the 'build it cheap and don't bother what it looks like' since the Tinminal was built in the late 90s.

At the risk of throwing a hand grenade: an earlier post that quoted the existing pax number approvals for MAN, STN, etc - I think they are being highly ambitious with those numbers. I dare say they think they can get more investment with those big numbers. I'll be interested to see what the numbers are in five years time.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2023, 21:38
  #3754 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by PAXboy
At the risk of throwing a hand grenade: an earlier post that quoted the existing pax number approvals for MAN, STN, etc - I think they are being highly ambitious with those numbers. I dare say they think they can get more investment with those big numbers. I'll be interested to see what the numbers are in five years time.
Maybe so but they are approved irrespective if their infrastructure can handle it.
pabely is online now  
Old 25th Oct 2023, 22:02
  #3755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,975
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Last week I attended a public meeting where the new LRT CEO was fielding questions. Just like the Dart he was talking about LRT funding phase one expansion by borrowing money from the Council rather than the traditional path of getting the airport operator to carry the risk and fund it through an extension to the existing concession agreement.

LRT is already a debt ridden company that no longer pays a dividend and that had to be bailed out by the Council so no lessons learned. When questioned further he had no idea about the Council bailout. Maybe that vital information was kept from him? We have to remember that Luton Rising Temperature is a house of dark secrets.

Last edited by LTNman; 26th Oct 2023 at 05:07.
LTNman is online now  
Old 26th Oct 2023, 12:52
  #3756 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,729
Likes: 0
Received 70 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by pabely
The Car Park was steel open sided so was not required by law to fit any modern fire prevention or retardment systems, even though it is acknowledged modern cars contain all sorts of nasty and flammable/toxic things.
It's not required to have fire protection because that sort of structure is no more a building than the Forth Railway Bridge is. It's an engineering structure open to the air. I can't think of another such with sprinklers. If there was any wind much of any sprinkled water would be blown out of the sides. They are not targeted like someone operating a fire extinguisher.

Contrary to much opinion, sprinklers do not sprinkle. They drench. They have substantial water pipe connections, and the weight of water in the system is such that considerable additions would need to be made to the design of the structure. It is for this reason that retro-fitting sprinklers to existing buildings is not normally practical - floor loadings of the intermediate floors would be exceeded, and other issues. Fireproof exit stairways are a separate matter, allowing protected exit while the rest of the structure is lost, but not at issue here.
WHBM is online now  
Old 26th Oct 2023, 13:05
  #3757 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,975
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
I guess we wait then until the other multi-storey burns to the ground. Maybe MSCP1 will be uninsurable, as it is a replica of the other multi-story but minus the drop off area.
LTNman is online now  
Old 26th Oct 2023, 14:59
  #3758 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
I think you should be asking how many of the 5000+ multistorey car parks in UK have fire prevention systems?
pabely is online now  
Old 26th Oct 2023, 15:29
  #3759 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,729
Likes: 0
Received 70 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by pabely
I think you should be asking how many of the 5000+ multistorey car parks in UK have fire prevention systems?
Yes, but this, by adding in all sorts of completely different car park styles, is not comparing like with like. The fully enclosed multi-storey car parks under the Canary Wharf office area are obviously fitted with it. An open air car park, which have far and away the most fires just because they are the majority of parking, which may just destroy the initial and immediately adjacent vehicles, does not. It depends on the vulnerability of the arrangement. Open car parking underneath residential buildings, as in many apartments, is a notable case to consider.

Last edited by WHBM; 26th Oct 2023 at 18:16.
WHBM is online now  
Old 26th Oct 2023, 17:53
  #3760 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
I couldn't find a breakdown of open sided vs enclosed but I did find proposals for updating rules for EVs in enclosed Car Parks https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c7e3f75e5274a3b7de3b294/WS_4_DCLG_BD_2887__D26V1__286858_Final_work_stream_4_report. pdf
Note again this is only enclosed car parks or open car parks whose structure is supporting another building.
pabely is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.