manxman1980 Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 Thanks Torry loon Interesting to note but maybe not that surprising with a new "state of the art" building. What about those who regularly went to Summerland? Did anyone else feel it was potentially dangerous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 It should have been obvious to all at the time that a plastic building probably wouldn't perform very well in a fire. That's not hindsight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Educa Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 (edited) Valentine's day 1981......Stardust club in Dublin went on fire. Fire exits were chained and windows had steel plates.. 48 people died with over 200 badly injured. At first it was reported as arson with the owners receiving over 500k compensation. This arson is disputed and the families campaign continues. The fire spread really quickly too...due to the building material. similarity and tragic too that fire doors were chained (stardust toilet windows had steel plates....trapping even more victims). Edited August 7, 2013 by Educa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vorta Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 I went regularly as a child before and after the fire/rebuild and never thought it was dangerous. But I was a child and they could have run bare cables across the floor and I would not think it dangerous (at the time). Hazard awareness only gets better with age (to a point) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTail Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 We were told that the plastic was "special" - it was fire resistant. This video shows fire retardant plastic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vorta Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 I think it's down to temperature. Maybe resistant to matches and cigarettes but once it's well alight and burning it'll pass onto the next panel and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IOMRS97 Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 When Summerland was being built some sheets or Oroglas were damaged during installation and discarded off the end of the building nearest the Manx Electric Railway yard. After the fire, one of my jobs (I won't describe the others for obvious reasons) was to recover some of these broken pieces for analysis - I don't know by whom, possibly someone from the Home Office Forensic Science team. There was a lot of the stuff, far more than was needed for testing, and I took some of the surplus bits home. I found they made excellent fire-lighters and burned fiercely with little effort being required to ignite them. What a pity nobody thought to test them BEFORE they were approved for use in Summerland. Incidentally, I never heard anything about the result of whatever tests were carried out. I know it's easy to spot mistakes with the benefit of hindsight but another thing that sticks in my mind is the fact that prior to the fire, I had never been in Summerland. You might think it would have been a good idea to give members of the emergency services a guided tour, just in case there was ever a problem in the building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 I read somewhere, probably on here, that during the building of Summerland the lads on site used to burn the stuff on their braziers as it gave off a tremendous heat. If that's true, then how the hell did this building ever get passed ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torry loon Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 (edited) Here SMUJ: . . . The winter before completion 'off-cuts' of Oroglas were burnt in braziers onsite. Some I knew (now deceased) mentioned ' what off-cuts would fit in their workbags would give them a full tank of hot water... .. .. Edited August 7, 2013 by Torry loon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Due to the fierce heat, some of the panels shrank from their retainers and fell into the building and then caught fire. The manufacturers of 'Oroglas' had advised that a sprinkler system should be installed in case of fire. It wasn't. It'd be easy to speculate as to why.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Due to the fierce heat, some of the panels shrank from their retainers and fell into the building and then caught fire. The manufacturers of 'Oroglas' had advised that a sprinkler system should be installed in case of fire. It wasn't. It'd be easy to speculate as to why.... To be fair though, if the manufacturers just "advised" that sprinklers would be good then who would install them unless that was part of building regulation rules? Sprinkler installations on a building that size are very expensive, you dont just connect them to the main, they need storage tanks, pumps and all sorts of other things to work properly from what I have seen. There are ways of making modern buildings safer in a fire than they are now but no developer, architect or client is going to spend money on something that is not required by law in most cases. Sprinklers installed in all new private houses would save lots of lives but it is not a building regulation requirement ATM and with the costs involved no one/ few are installing them just because they would be better for the home owner. Building regulations were a lot different after the Summerland fire, for good reason but I dont think you can expect the people involved at the time to have installed very expensive fire precautions when they were not a legal requirement if you know what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 BladeRunner has pretty much got the point I was making. Was the building recognised as being unsafe only after the events or were concerns raised by people before? IOMRS97 -What you say about a tour of the building for the emergency services makes sense. Was this done for any other building at that time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Due to the fierce heat, some of the panels shrank from their retainers and fell into the building and then caught fire. The manufacturers of 'Oroglas' had advised that a sprinkler system should be installed in case of fire. It wasn't. It'd be easy to speculate as to why.... To be fair though, if the manufacturers just "advised" that sprinklers would be good then who would install them unless that was part of building regulation rules? Sprinkler installations on a building that size are very expensive, you dont just connect them to the main, they need storage tanks, pumps and all sorts of other things to work properly from what I have seen. There are ways of making modern buildings safer in a fire than they are now but no developer, architect or client is going to spend money on something that is not required by law in most cases. Sprinklers installed in all new private houses would save lots of lives but it is not a building regulation requirement ATM and with the costs involved no one/ few are installing them just because they would be better for the home owner. Building regulations were a lot different after the Summerland fire, for good reason but I dont think you can expect the people involved at the time to have installed very expensive fire precautions when they were not a legal requirement if you know what I mean. I know what you mean. There were many reasons why people died; it wasn't just the fabric of the building, the LOCKED FIRE EXITS, poor management-communication and panic also contributed to the death-toll. As did the inadequate fire-fighting equipment. The last thing on everyones mind was that a tragedy would occur- this possibility never really entered into the equation so was ignored, perhaps wilfully. It is said that the Summerland fire instigated change in the perception of risk-management of such projects. It was a hard way to learn for some, though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 BladeRunner has pretty much got the point I was making. Was the building recognised as being unsafe only after the events or were concerns raised by people before? IOMRS97 -What you say about a tour of the building for the emergency services makes sense. Was this done for any other building at that time? Concerns raised by people either before or after dont really come into it, the building must have compiled with the Building Regulations at the time or it would not have opened to the public. These regulations are a lot more onerous these days and as Quilp says, a lot of the problem was locked fire escapes and poor communication of the seriousness of the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 When I was a student, all the building surveyor students asked me about Summerland as it marked a watershed in UK building and fire regs and was something of a case study. The revision of these regulations is a more fitting and lasting memorial to those who perished than any plaque, garden or statue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.