Luton airport car park fire

[V]

So the fire brigade believe that a diesel car started the fire that destroyed 1200-1500 cars and the car park.

 

Consider this. A driver of a turbo-diesel car is running late for a flight and has been driving hard at high speed for at least 30 minutes. The car has a faulty EGR cooler or a small leak on the water cooled turbo. Arriving at the car park the turbo's exhaust scroll is red hot (400 degC to 1,000 degC). The driver switches off the engine while still hot and rushes to the terminal to catch their flight. Leaking engine coolant spurts onto the red hot exhaust scroll under normal system pressure. It boils away the water but ignites the ethylene glycol in the coolant (400 degC). Glycol stains on plastic engine parts allow the fire to take hold of the engine compartment.

 

https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/bmw-extends-uk-recall-over-fire-risk-aavZB2R92Thr

 

https://car-recalls.eu/mercedes-benz-v-class-coolant-pump-leak-fire/

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-07-22/volvo-issues-vehicle-recall-over-fire-risk

 

[BLUE STAR]

They reckon the fire spread from a Land Rover to a number of EV's. So that would give it some some legs then. Napalm on wheels !

£22 million structure, 1500 vehicles involved How they going to sort out who's insurance pays up I wonder

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12618033/started-London-Luton-car-park-fire-moment.html

 

Someone's going to have to reconsider where or how  EV's & even Hybrids can be parked to limit future  damage !

What happened to the risk assessment stuff regarding parked vehicles containing  large lithium batteries, someone messed up there or was it 'taboo' to even mention it ?

 

Looking at the picture of the Range Rover that appears not to be parked up with its brake lights on, the raging fire could be coming from a parked vehicle in front of it ?

Edited October 11, 2023 by BLUE STAR

[UKTJ]

53 minutes ago, BLUE STAR said:

They reckon the fire spread from a Land Rover to a number of EV's. So that would give it some some legs then. Napalm on wheels !

£22 million structure, 1500 vehicles involved How they going to sort out who's insurance pays up I wonder

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12618033/started-London-Luton-car-park-fire-moment.html

 

Someone's going to have to reconsider where or how  EV's & even Hybrids can be parked to limit future  damage !

What happened to the risk assessment stuff regarding parked vehicles containing  large lithium batteries, someone messed up there or was it 'taboo' to even mention it ?

 

Looking at the picture of the Range Rover that appears not to be parked up with its brake lights on, the raging fire could be coming from a parked vehicle in front of it ?

I heard about somebody whose house burnt down.  It was started by faulty electrics, but clearly that was irrelevant as it was really the fault of all the timber in his roof that was set on fire by something else.  Somebody clearly needs to do something about all this wood in people's homes, just sitting there waiting for something else to set it on fire, it's an outrage.

Edited October 11, 2023 by UKTJ

[V]

15 hours ago, BLUE STAR said:

£22 million structure

It cost that much and still didn't have a sprinkler system! I would not be surprised if after all the payouts on motor insurance claims that insurers make car park sprinklers compulsory with punishing premiums on building insurance for car parks that don't have them.

 

I am definitely going to be looking at car parking more carefully now. I will be paying more attention to visible sprinklers, the number of accessible fire escapes and the age and condition of the concrete structure.

 

Multi-storey car parks designed in the last century were built for much lighter passenger cars. A Ford Cortina Mk2 was around 850kg, whereas a 2023 Ford Mondeo is 1650kg, a 2023 Range Rover is 2770kg. At full capacity, older car parks could be carrying two to three times as much weight as they were designed for.

Edited October 12, 2023 by V
Changed That to It in first sentence.

[UKTJ]

5 minutes ago, V said:

I am definitely going to be looking at car parking more carefully now. I will be paying more attention to visible sprinklers, the number of accessible fire escapes and the age and condition of the concrete structure.

It's a good point, I have never really thought about safety when parking in a multistorey, maybe it is something that will be more front of mind in the future.  Honestly I can't say in any local multistorey car parks I use have sprinklers or not.

[V]

1 hour ago, BLUE STAR said:

Looking at the picture of the Range Rover that appears not to be parked up with its brake lights on, the raging fire could be coming from a parked vehicle in front of it ?

I made the same observation and came to a similar conclusion that it was a moving vehicle obscuring the line of sight to the actual fire.

[Ludders]

More likely to be a dead short in the Alternator, it's not the first time Land/Range Rovers have spontaneously combusted...

[UKTJ]

24 minutes ago, V said:

I made the same observation and came to a similar conclusion that it was a moving vehicle obscuring the line of sight to the actual fire.

Given the scale of the explosion, would that not mean the occupant(s) would be dead?  I have not heard of any fatalities.  If it were an electrical fault could that have caused the lights to be on?  Or, could it be the alarm was triggered and the picture, as a still, has caught a flashing light while it is on?  Just think if there had been somebody in the car that exploded we would have heard by now.

[V]

I think the Range Rover in the photos was driving past the car that was burning. The photo I saw is of a Range Rover that has headlights on. It also doesn't look like the top floor where the fire is claimed to have started. I can't find that many photos now in the space of 12 hours since I first saw them, Here is one website with the image https://turbocelebrity.com/world-news/luton-airport-inferno-comes-five-years-after-liverpool-land-rover-fire/

[V]

I have just watched a 17 second video clip with an edit that still doesn't clearly show that the Range Rover is the source of the fire. The second half of the clip shows the Range Rover caught by the fire with the headlamps and tail lamps now off. It is possible that it was the source of the fire. It just appears odd to me that the vehicle's lights were on and the car doesn't look like it was parked. Perhaps the driver jumped out and left it burning when it caught fire.

[UKTJ]

8 hours ago, V said:

I think the Range Rover in the photos was driving past the car that was burning. The photo I saw is of a Range Rover that has headlights on. It also doesn't look like the top floor where the fire is claimed to have started. I can't find that many photos now in the space of 12 hours since I first saw them, Here is one website with the image https://turbocelebrity.com/world-news/luton-airport-inferno-comes-five-years-after-liverpool-land-rover-fire/

To me the picture shows the Range Rover is parked with a wall directly in front of it.  The newspaper report references another Range Rover fire caused by electrical issue where the driver had to climb out of a window because she was trapped by locked doors.  Presumably those doors would not open due to the electrics / fire.  Presumably that could also result in the lights being on.  If somebody was in that car and leapt out and then had to run for their life they would surely be all over the media by now?

Edited October 12, 2023 by UKTJ

[UKTJ]

7 hours ago, V said:

I have just watched a 17 second video clip with an edit that still doesn't clearly show that the Range Rover is the source of the fire. The second half of the clip shows the Range Rover caught by the fire with the headlamps and tail lamps now off. It is possible that it was the source of the fire. It just appears odd to me that the vehicle's lights were on and the car doesn't look like it was parked. Perhaps the driver jumped out and left it burning when it caught fire.

So what was the source and why would the Fire Service say it was the Range Rover if it wasn't?  And if this were the case why would Land Rover take the blame and not refute the claim, which must be a PR disaster for them?

[V]

2 hours ago, UKTJ said:

So what was the source and why would the Fire Service say it was the Range Rover if it wasn't?  And if this were the case why would Land Rover take the blame and not refute the claim, which must be a PR disaster for them?

I'm just a bit suspicious about all of the news coverage so far and the enthusiasm to gloss over facts that some reporters think are irrelevant. Their omission paints a completely different story.

 

The fire was reported as starting on the top floor of the car park where cars are parked open to the sky.

Then a news outlet shows a video of a burning car falling through the roof (upper floor) and claims it to be footage of an initial explosion that started the fire when clearly the car falling through the upper floor was already on fire. It must have been burning at a sufficiently high enough temperature to cause structural failure of the concrete at between 600-1000 degC. Considering a petrol car fire can achieve this temperature, it's likely a diesel car could too.

 

My imagined account of the incident from the photos and videos released would be something like this:

"A driver abandoned their vehicle when it caught fire while they were looking for a parking space inside the multi-storey car park at Luton Airport. At this point in time it has not been established what caused the fire in the diesel Range Rover. However, the fire took hold of the vehicle quickly and the driver jumped out to raise the alarm. The flames from the burning Range Rover ignited cars parked above on the upper floor which quickly spread from car to car. The intensity of the heat caused some cars to fall through the upper floor when the concrete structure failed spreading the fire further. Approximately 1,000 vehicles and substantial part of the £20M car park have been destroyed. Owners of cars damaged in the incident are questioning why the newly built car park did not have an automatic fire suppression system."

 

Whatever the reason for the cause of the fire, it is a disaster for Range Rover and something that all manufacturers should be concerned about. The over use of combustible plastics on engine components has to stop. Component designers should learn lessons from their safety recalls and the safety recalls from other manufacturers. Modern engines appear to be designed with no expectation of component failure and what the consequences of that failure will be.

[V]

It looks like the car park wasn't made out of reinforced concrete.

https://www.raisedfloor.co.uk/work/multi-storey-car-park-luton-airport/

 

Hmm...

https://www.cross-safety.org/uk/safety-information/cross-safety-report/fire-risks-multi-storey-car-parks-940

 

[BLUE STAR]

14 hours ago, UKTJ said:

It's a good point, I have never really thought about safety when parking in a multistorey, maybe it is something that will be more front of mind in the future.  Honestly I can't say in any local multistorey car parks I use have sprinklers or not.

Not something I've ever looked at either.

But I cant see a sprinkler system ever being to handle an EV fire they are just too intense, as they have to be submerged in a specialist tank for quite a period of time to quell the combustible lithium , eg the Freemantle Highway ship fire, smouldering EV's being forklifted out the ship into them.

 

[V]

There is a new technique of using chilled salt water that can end an EV fire in about an hour. It discharges the battery at the same time. It has been developed for sea going ferries but it could be adapted to the submersion tank system.

[BLUE STAR]

13 minutes ago, V said:

It looks like the car park wasn't made out of reinforced concrete.

https://www.raisedfloor.co.uk/work/multi-storey-car-park-luton-airport/

 

Hmm...

https://www.cross-safety.org/uk/safety-information/cross-safety-report/fire-risks-multi-storey-car-parks-940

 

Yep the intense and continued heat generated by an EV fire would certainly weaken the steel & make it malleable and prone to give way.

I wonder how many EV's were involved, will they ever tell if there was  ?  On the Freemantle Highway they initially stated just 25 then ended up at 500 probably to try an limit any bad press.  'Politics in action' ?

[BLUE STAR]

4 minutes ago, V said:

There is a new technique of using chilled salt water that can end an EV fire in about an hour. It discharges the battery at the same time. It has been developed for sea going ferries but it could be adapted to the submersion tank system.

Yeah I seen a headline of that recently but didn't take too much notice.

I guess they'll have to be waring some good rubber boots and gauntlets then when hosing it on.

Wonder if they could build 'refrigerated salt extinguishers' as part of the battery system, like they have on aero engines to quell a fire.

Nothing like even more complication just to drive down the road  

[BLUE STAR]

[UKTJ]

1 hour ago, V said:

I'm just a bit suspicious about all of the news coverage so far and the enthusiasm to gloss over facts that some reporters think are irrelevant. Their omission paints a completely different story.

 

The fire was reported as starting on the top floor of the car park where cars are parked open to the sky.

Then a news outlet shows a video of a burning car falling through the roof (upper floor) and claims it to be footage of an initial explosion that started the fire when clearly the car falling through the upper floor was already on fire. It must have been burning at a sufficiently high enough temperature to cause structural failure of the concrete at between 600-1000 degC. Considering a petrol car fire can achieve this temperature, it's likely a diesel car could too.

 

My imagined account of the incident from the photos and videos released would be something like this:

"A driver abandoned their vehicle when it caught fire while they were looking for a parking space inside the multi-storey car park at Luton Airport. At this point in time it has not been established what caused the fire in the diesel Range Rover. However, the fire took hold of the vehicle quickly and the driver jumped out to raise the alarm. The flames from the burning Range Rover ignited cars parked above on the upper floor which quickly spread from car to car. The intensity of the heat caused some cars to fall through the upper floor when the concrete structure failed spreading the fire further. Approximately 1,000 vehicles and substantial part of the £20M car park have been destroyed. Owners of cars damaged in the incident are questioning why the newly built car park did not have an automatic fire suppression system."

 

Whatever the reason for the cause of the fire, it is a disaster for Range Rover and something that all manufacturers should be concerned about. The over use of combustible plastics on engine components has to stop. Component designers should learn lessons from their safety recalls and the safety recalls from other manufacturers. Modern engines appear to be designed with no expectation of component failure and what the consequences of that failure will be.

This BBC report references the fire starting on the third floor and spreading upwards (Bedfordshire's Chief Fire Officer also said it started on the third floor).  The pictures, and video I think they were taken from, seem to me to show the Range Rover parked up against a wall, but that may not be the case it is not really clear.  A second witness (who I think is the one who took the video) says they got an extinguisher and went towards the car, no mention of anyone in it or having just escaped.  The video itself seems to show the car's lights being off initially and later being on, I can't imagjne anyone staying in the car and switching the lights on, so I still think the lights being on while the car was on fire was more likely caused by either the electrical fault that started the fire or damage to the electrical system during the early stages of the fire.

Edited October 12, 2023 by UKTJ

[V]

I think it is shocking that as Luton Borough Council owned the car park, that their own building inspectors did not insist on the installation of fire suppression when the car park was built four years ago. I know sprinklers are not currently mandatory for car park structures, but they should be. Out of 162 fires at car parks with automatic fire suppression, 100 of them were successfully extinguished or contained by the system.

 

I think car parking needs a complete rethink for fire safety, especially by marking all car parking spaces 'disabled parking size' so that everyone has a reasonable chance of escape. The minimum width of a walkway (or a fire escape for less than 5 people) is conveniently ignored when it comes to the space between parked cars.

 

Perhaps EV parking should be kept entirely separate from petrol and diesel parking to allow specific fire prevention and fire defense materials to be deployed in construction appropriately. A water sprinkler system for ICE vehicles and refrigerated salt water drenching for EVs. Separate EV parking is naturally easier if it is combined with EV charging.

 

[Raakhee]

20 hours ago, V said:

It cost that much and still didn't have a sprinkler system! I would not be surprised if after all the payouts on motor insurance claims that insurers make car park sprinklers compulsory with punishing premiums on building insurance for car parks that don't have them.

 

What??? I thought it was mandatory for multi level car parks to have fire suppression systems. How the heck would you get a fire truck up the ramps?

 

I agree. I'll be also looking closely at the ceilings when using parkades

[JimC]

Not a diesel Land Rover fire

[V]

I am inclined to agree. From the internal layout of a hybrid Range Rover engine bay, I think a battery fire in a hybrid is a real possibility.

 

Whatever the cause, and despite the findings in the published report following the Liverpool car park fire, very little is being done to improve car park safety in new builds or existing car parks. Fire safety is one aspect, but structural issues are also being overlooked.

[Surfer]

On 11/10/2023 at 22:09, V said:

It cost that much and still didn't have a sprinkler system! I would not be surprised if after all the payouts on motor insurance claims that insurers make car park sprinklers compulsory with punishing premiums on building insurance for car parks that don't have them.

 

I am definitely going to be looking at car parking more carefully now. I will be paying more attention to visible sprinklers, the number of accessible fire escapes and the age and condition of the concrete structure.

 

Multi-storey car parks designed in the last century were built for much lighter passenger cars. A Ford Cortina Mk2 was around 850kg, whereas a 2023 Ford Mondeo is 1650kg, a 2023 Range Rover is 2770kg. At full capacity, older car parks could be carrying two to three times as much weight as they were designed for.

Sprinklers would have probably done even more damage and put lives at risk.  It is common knowledge that oil and petrol will float on top of water.  If a sprinkler system activate the burning diesel or petrol on the water would have been carried around the car park a lot quicker as it may have gushed down drain pipes quicker to lower floors trapping people on various floors.  There is no way that any sprinkler system would have extinguished any diesel or petrol fire and certainly would not have limited the damage.