Tunnels and naked flames

[davidR]

Hi all

 

This may seem a silly question but being totally new to NB's and having just bought our first we are eager to start crusing but being moored at Blisworth which ever way we go, north to Braunston or south to Stoke Bruene, we have to go through a tunnel and I'm aware that the notices say "extinguish all naked flames except pilot lights" I assume that goes for my solid fuel stove too, or does it??

 

Seems a shame this weather to have to put it out but then I can understand why but just wanted to check that I was right in needing to.

 

Cheers

 

David

[carlt]

Hi all

 

This may seem a silly question but being totally new to NB's and having just bought our first we are eager to start crusing but being moored at Blisworth which ever way we go, north to Braunston or south to Stoke Bruene, we have to go through a tunnel and I'm aware that the notices say "extinguish all naked flames except pilot lights" I assume that goes for my solid fuel stove too, or does it??

 

Seems a shame this weather to have to put it out but then I can understand why but just wanted to check that I was right in needing to.

 

Cheers

 

David

I've never put my burner out, for a tunnel, but there are probably people watching, waiting to report us to the tunnel police.

[bottle]

Hi

 

No question is a silly question, the answers may well be.

 

I cannot categorically state that you do not need to but I doubt Daniel (member of the forum) on Emily Ann extinguishes his when going through tunnels.

 

His boat is steam driven.

[Sir Nibble]

I take no precautions whatever in tunnels other than turning on my tunnel light. Rules like this are akin to dialling 999 if you wake up with a headache. Better safe than sorry? Or lighten up and get real?

[alan_fincher]

I'd say it's not a "naked flame" in as much as it's sealed in behind the doors, (OK, I know there will be some air hole somewhere below).

 

I've never heard of anybody not burning a stove in a tunnel.

 

I think they are really only trying to stop you using hobs, ovens & the like, (probably to mimimise risk of a fire on board).

 

I don't think the tunnels are full of explosive gases, and, if they were, pilot lights would be just as likely to ignite it as a stove.

[US Marines]

I absolutely agree with Alan....and with Bottle - no question is a silly one !

[MaryP]

When we went through the Harecastle Tunnel we were told the stove was fine as long as it wasn't smokey. Perhaps rule is due to air quality for those at the tiller. They do have extractor fans there for the engine fumes, so perhaps a stove on is OK???

[John Orentas]

I think the background to all this is that at one time BW or their predecessors insisted that all naked lights including pilot lights were extinguished before you entered a tunnel.. Some years ago they softened the regulations allowing pilot lights to be left burning, but I agree it does look a bit silly now.

 

One area where a similar regulation is still rigorously enforced is on the Manchester Ship Canal whilst cruising past the refineries but there is good reason for that, there have been some nasty incidents in the past.. When I made the trip, they made President take a tow from Ellesmere Port.

[Denis R]

I've never heard of anyone putting out their stove to go through either Braunston or Blisworth tunnels and I have to admit that I don't. In my experience, any fug in either of those tunnels is more from exhaust smoke than stoves.

[Keeping Up]

I think they are really only trying to stop you using hobs, ovens & the like, (probably to mimimise risk of a fire on board).

I would be most disappointed if Pingu didn't bring me a hot cup of coffee as soon as we left the tunnel.

[robkg]

I have always believed the reason for this rule is to minimise the risk of an accidental fire whilst in the tunnel as this could be very hazardous as has been shown in road tunnels in the past. I therefore think that, as advice, it is very sensible. However I am a believer in people taking responsibility for their own safety and I personally would go as far as ensuring the stove was closed down with the doors shut (eliminating any risk of stray sparks or overheating) but not extinguishing it altogether.

[mykaskin]

through a tunnel and I'm aware that the notices say "extinguish all naked flames except pilot lights" I assume that goes for my solid fuel stove too, or does it??

 

My mum has cooked a full meal through a tunnel on a gas cooker before now.

 

One area where a similar regulation is still rigorously enforced is on the Manchester Ship Canal whilst cruising past the refineries but there is good reason for that, there have been some nasty incidents in the past.. When I made the trip, they made President take a tow from Ellesmere Port.

 

We tied alongside a full oil barge in Hull with our desiel heater going full belt... no explosions.

 

Cheers,

 

Mike

 

ps. I was going to put "full blast", but thought better of it!

[davidR]

Thanks all,guess we will be able to stay warm!!!

[Jim]

I agree that I probably wouldn't want to put my stove out when going through a tunnel, but unless I was a lot more confident of my steering ability than I actually am I would want to take my chimney down!

[alan_fincher]

Another (I think) relatively new great sign at tunnels is something like "Keep entire crew within the profile of the boat".

 

Have you ever tried steering from the back if you are not allowed to pop your head up above the roof-line?

 

And why do tunnels that forbid passing still sometimes tell you to keep to the right ?

 

On some of the tunnels we did this year, (Worcester & Birmingham I think), there were so many bloody notices you were in danger of piling up before you went in, trying to read them through the undergrowth in front of them. But despite this some failed to indicate whether two way traffic was permitted or not. Definitely not something where they have always got their act together.

[Keeping Up]

It's useful having your chimney on the left, much less chance of losing it when you pass another boat on the tunnel.

 

We came across several midlands tunnels that were over 14 ft wide, yet the notices a couple of years ago advised you to "check that tunnel entrance is clear before entering". We got a real mouthful of abuse from someone we met in one such tunnel, as we passed without touching.

 

I'm pleased to see that most of those notices have since been removed (whether by local vandals or the national vandals (ie BW) I don't know

[davidR]

I agree that I probably wouldn't want to put my stove out when going through a tunnel, but unless I was a lot more confident of my steering ability than I actually am I would want to take my chimney down!

 

Good point! Are either Braunston or Stoke Bruene likely to claim my chimney if I end up passing someone (going the other way I mean)

[alan_fincher]

Unless it's a very tall chimney, your boat sits high, or the chimney angles outwards, then neither of those tunnels is likely to cause problems.

 

If your stove chimney is on the left hand side of your boat, (the "correct" side in my view), then it should be no problem at all.

 

If it's on the right hand side, (the "wrong" side), passing people means you will bring it close to the arch. It still wouldn't be a problem on most boats, but if in any doubt take it off before you go in.

 

Our boat has the stove on the "wrong" side, and it's a pain.

 

If you ever come down and do the Aylesbury arm, then if you don't take your chimney off, you can almost guarantee one of the particularly tight bridges will do for it. They can take out leading edges of cabins, let alone your chimney.

[ditchcrawler]

I think the background to all this is that at one time BW or their predecessors insisted that all naked lights including pilot lights were extinguished before you entered a tunnel.. Some years ago they softened the regulations allowing pilot lights to be left burning, but I agree it does look a bit silly now.

 

One area where a similar regulation is still rigorously enforced is on the Manchester Ship Canal whilst cruising past the refineries but there is good reason for that, there have been some nasty incidents in the past.. When I made the trip, they made President take a tow from Ellesmere Port.

 

I never could work that one out, If there is a hazardous atmosphere it will be sucked into the running engine never mind the pilot lights and fire.

[churchward]

I'd say it's not a "naked flame" in as much as it's sealed in behind the doors, (OK, I know there will be some air hole somewhere below).

 

I've never heard of anybody not burning a stove in a tunnel.

 

I think they are really only trying to stop you using hobs, ovens & the like, (probably to mimimise risk of a fire on board).

 

I don't think the tunnels are full of explosive gases, and, if they were, pilot lights would be just as likely to ignite it as a stove.

 

I agree and we do not put out the fire going through a tunnel although best not to put fresh fuel on before you enter as the poor steerer may choke with the smoke! However, rather than explosive gases igniting in the tunnel I imagine that the concern is Oxygen consumption from a significant fire source (hence pilot lights not an issue) should you have to stop in the tunnel for some reason. I know the tunnel is fed air from either end but it is surprising how much oxygen a fire can consume in a short time and the air in the cabin could get depleted. Still, the fire is not big and you are not likely to stop unless there is a breakdown and you could always dampen the fire at that point should you need to.

 

I have had some experience of the effect of a burning coal fire in a tunnel when stationary but on a larger scale, a steam locomotive. To cut a long story short we had to stop in Berwyn tunnel (on the Llangollen Railway) It is a narrow single track tunnel so narrow it is difficult to impossible to get out of the loco due to the closeness of the walls depending on how, well, wide you are! The fire of course was blazing to produce all that lovely steam however, going nowhere you could feel the air being sucked into the firebox and taste the air going bad. Obviously in the end all was well and we got moving again but if we didn't get out quickly enough the air would have got bad enough to suffocate us. Thing is of course that a fire in a Locomotive firebox is many times larger and hotter than a Morso so will consume oxygen by the ton so on a narrowboat I wouldn't worry.

Edited November 20, 2008 by churchward

[US Marines]

Wow, that must have been getting quite scary before you got the loco moving again !

 

The loco (and train ?) would have obviously filled a very large proportion of the cross-section of the tunnel - so the air would have been more difficult to draw in from the ends - in fact, in essence, it would appear that there was the perfect recipe for much of the air circulating around the loco, rather than being drawn through the tunnel !

 

I have done some work on road tunnel fires and their prevention (including work on the Mont Blanc tunnel after the large fire there for example). The capacity of the fanned ventilation system in large road tunnels is usually very impressive and, when there is a fire, it is a tricky business to manage these systems effectively. You can use the fans to assist in 'starving' a fire from oxygen, but you can't use them in this way until you are sure that there are no people alive near the fire, because this would asphyxiate them too.

 

 

Edited to add: Sorry, just realised on reading this through that it might make it sound like the fire risk in tunnels is great. Road tunnels are particularly vulnerable because of the potential for high speed collisions and the risk of fire arising from them (although again, this isn't very high actually) - and, as churchward says, the firebox of a steam loco is a tad more oxygen hungry than our Morso Squirrel ! As has been said earlier on this thread, which seems to be supported by most (all ?) of the respondents - putting out your boat stove for a tunnel is at least one step further than most boaters go, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of this posing any kind of measurable risk....

Edited November 20, 2008 by US Marines

[churchward]

Wow, that must have been getting quite scary before you got the loco moving again !

 

The loco (and train ?) would have obviously filled a very large proportion of the cross-section of the tunnel - so the air would have been more difficult to draw in from the ends - in fact, in essence, it would appear that there was the perfect recipe for much of the air circulating around the loco, rather than being drawn through the tunnel !

 

I have done some work on road tunnel fires and their prevention (including work on the Mont Blanc tunnel after the large fire there for example). The capacity of the fanned ventilation system in large road tunnels is usually very impressive and, when there is a fire, it is a tricky business to manage these systems effectively. You can use the fans to assist in 'starving' a fire from oxygen, but you can't use them in this way until you are sure that there are no people alive near the fire, because this would asphyxiate them too.

 

 

Edited to add: Sorry, just realised on reading this through that it might make it sound like the fire risk in tunnels is great. Road tunnels are particularly vulnerable because of the potential for high speed collisions and the risk of fire arising from them (although again, this isn't very high actually) - and, as churchward says, the firebox of a steam loco is a tad more oxygen hungry than our Morso Squirrel ! As has been said earlier on this thread, which seems to be supported by most (all ?) of the respondents - putting out your boat stove for a tunnel is at least one step further than most boaters go, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of this posing any kind of measurable risk....

 

Yes it was interesting! Fortunately we have some very good and experienced crews on the railway and they kept focused on what they needed to do. I am not normally found on the footplate myself as a Signalman I like to be in the warm drinking tea! Odd thing was it was a training session for the train crew (guard etc) to practice passenger tunnel evacuation. The tunnel is so narrow the train doors will not open fully so passengers need to escape from the rear of the train. The plan was to stop the loco just as it emerged form the tunnel but we slipped to a halt before that. If we had got stuck we woudl have had to climb over the tender and droped down between it and the first coach to get out.

 

I agree that the train does fill much of the tunnel so making the risk worse and on the canals at least with wide (and tall) tunnels the same problem does not occur such as Braunston or Blisworth. I suppose it may be more of a potential issue if you had to stop in a narrow or low roof tunnel where the boat again does fill a high percentage of the space say like Harecastle. I still don't think if you had to stop a lit Morso is going to be much of a problem and it wouldn't take long to dampen the fire down or indeed put it out in any case.

Edited November 20, 2008 by churchward

[John Orentas]

I never could work that one out, If there is a hazardous atmosphere it will be sucked into the running engine never mind the pilot lights and fire.

 

 

It must have been in the very early 60's, at that time there were still many ferries on the Manchester Ship Canal, some were little more than rowing boats, by act of parliament a ferry was required at every point were there would have been an intersection with a footpath or any other right of way.. I never crossed the canal on one, the brackish water was very forbidding then but I saw them in use many times..

 

If I remember there was 7 or 8 people in the ferry in the Cadishead area not far from one of the many refineries, a leakage of petroleum based product had occurred and the flammable vapours were on the surface of the water.. It was presumed that a discarded fag end did the damage.. Not a single survivor.

 

There are still a few ferries to be seen on the MSC but I suspect they no longer have the legal status they once had, perhaps as a result of the above disaster, it would be interesting to find out.

[alan_fincher]

It was actually just into the 1970s John - April 14th 1970.

 

The death toll actually seems to be reported as 5, with a further 4 injured.

 

In a former life I had an involvement with the oil business at Partington, but I've never before heard this story, so was interested to go and look it up.

 

It makes you realise how lucky we were for Buncefield not to claim a single victim.

 

EDIT:

 

Edited to say the report I found said that the ferryman had halted the service, because he could see something was very wrong, but that a number of people fearing they would be late for w**k, took it upon themselves to row over. So w**k really can be bad for you......

Edited November 20, 2008 by alan_fincher

[sueb]

Isn't the general idea to put the kettle on and empty the loo when entering a tunnel?

Sue