Talk:King's Cross fire

message: Investigators said the most probable cause of the fire was a discarded match. 
Smoking on the Underground had been banned in 1985 after a fire at Oxford Circus station but smokers often lit cigarettes on the escalators on their way out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.122.182 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Changed cigarette to match.  In January 1988, HSE tried to set the unburnt part of the escalator alight in a controlled test.  Three glowing cigarettes failed to ignite the grease, but the first match succeeded.
Deleted the paragraph on how train movements fanned the flames.  Although this is true, it's not as relevant to the fire development as the trench effect.  Simcox et al modelled the fire with and without train-induced airflows and found no significant difference in the fire development.  Fennell only refers to train-induced airflows in passing (page 110).
Smoking was banned on the Underground after the Oxford Circus fire; Fennell states this in the first chapter of his report.
Added various references for posterity and a link to the identity of the 31st victim. Ecb 10:58, 26 June 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes on 26 June 2004 

message: The article says, "It destroyed much of King's Cross St. Pancras London Underground station, a huge interchange station which has platforms on the Victoria, Piccadilly, Northern, Circle, Hammersmith & City, and Metropolitan lines."
So the claim is that it destroyed much of that. Is that correct? - "destroy" is a very serious word - if a tube station was destroyed, say by a bomb, I would imagine that the tunnels and so on would no longer be there - you'd actually have to dig it out again - you'd need to rebuild it. How severe, actually, was the damage there, and might some other form of wording be appropriate if, say less than 50% of the entire Underground station was actually destroyed? I don't mean to nitpick here and I would be delighted to hear evidence one way or the other - I just think it's important that the article about this horrendous event does state accurately what happened. My worry is that "destroyed much of ..." might be a slight case of hyperbole compared to, say "caused severe damage to much of ...". I'd be very interested to know what others think, snd even more interested to be able to read some evidence. Please tell me if you think I am being unreasonable in raising this. --Nevilley 19:30, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much destruction? 

message: What's the point of the external link, with no explanatory text, to the Swedish site? The site gives some numbers and comments on ambulance and hospital responses (which could with care be incorporated in the article) but is basically, as far as I can see, is an order form for a publication about the fire and responses to it. Do we need it? --Nevilley 19:36, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link? 

message: Kings Cross fire → King's Cross fire : Inside the article, the subject is called King's Cross fire, not Kings Cross fire: Niels Ø 12:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, or add * followed by a comment, then sign your opinion with "~~~~"   
   
* Support for the reason given above.--Niels Ø 12:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Has already been done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 10:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: : Add * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, or add * followed by a comment, then sign your opinion with "~~~~"   
   
* Support for the reason given above.--Niels Ø 12:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has already been done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 10:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey and discussion

message: Recently, there has been another fire at King's Cross although it was in the station. It happened on Monday 26th June. It affected ther control centre for the station so all trains as far as Peterborough and King's Lynn were affected. Should this be added to the article? Simply south 21:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This fire started in an adjacent building works, and was not part of the station at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.230.220 (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another fire 

message: I think this website of a law firm uses the text from this entry without naming Wikipedia at the source, which is required according to the Users' rights and obligations section. It might also be the case that someone has copied the text from the website of the law firm and has placed it on wikipedia. Someone might want to look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.41.67 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate re-distribution of Content 

message: Fennell in his report on the fire stated that the Podorite paint used on the ceiling of the escalator tunnel did not materially affect the progress of the fire. I'm not aware of anything since the report that contradicts his view. Should the reference to the paint exacerbating the fire during flashover be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.238.164.47 (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of the paint on the ceiling 

message: In my 20 or so years working for the LFB as a ff, and as a journalist covering many major incidents, I've  never heard of the term jinky.  Can someone explain what it means, otherwise I'll re-write the section.  Also, I think in LFB terms it was a "50 pumper" not a 30, but I'll check.  Regards. Escaper27 11:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was 30 and not 50, but still can't find any ref to jinky. Escaper27 12:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's a jinky?

message: If anyone has any info (with references) to add about the Investigation into how the fire occurred & discovery of the trench effect (an episode of Minutes from Disaster covered it), it would help to finish the article. - J.P.Lon (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. All it needs is cleaning up and adding a reference for the show. Wayne (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

text: See my "match test" subject below for another reference, but it disputes some information found in this article. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Investigation into the fire

message: The Aftermath section states, 'all of the Underground's WWII-era wooden escalators were replaced with modern steel ones'.  There is no citation for this.
Was there a long time period for this transition?
I rode the Tube daily until around 2003 and, unless I am very much mistaken, there were wooden escalators at certain stations until at least the late-1990s. --Jeremy94117 (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement of wooden escalators with steel ones? 

message: on this edit to King's Cross fire. That edit added a quote made recently (start of 2008) by someone who was on duty at the time - and just so happened to be my father. The next day, an IP address removed it, but didn't leave an edit summary. I would like some advice on the usefulness of that edit; I believe that edit while that edit was a WP:COI edit, it was a net positive and thus came under the scope of WP:IAR. What does everyone else think?--Launchballer 17:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Support the removal. No disrespect to you or your father, but that a fireman attending a major incident with mass casualties found the experience stressful has no encyclopedic value, since it's a statement of the completely obvious. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this doesn't add anything to the article. On the other hand, why is this at the admin incidents board? This thread should be continued at the article talk page. De728631 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like an opinion 

message: As someone who lived in London at the time and who heard this unfold, I was one of the many hundreds of Londoners who went straight to the scene to donate blood as the London Blood Transfusion Service started doing 'shout outs' about lack of blood via LBC (London Broad Casting Radio) which many Londoners listen to.  Some donated at the scene via LBTS vans and others were ferried to UCH and other hospitals (I think St Thomas's) to donate there.   It really was an extraordinary scene to see the utter devastation still unfolding from the ticket hall while hundreds of people lined up around the block ready to donate their blood to try to help.   This may seem irrelevant but, on the other hand, it IS part of the overall history of this story and does represent part of the response made by Londoners which may be worthy of inclusion?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.104.227 (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any opinions? 

message: * On a television news report soon after the fire, someone said that the design of Kings Cross underground station made it "an efficient furnace". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design of the station 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on King's Cross fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141029143253/http://www.london24.com/news/transport/tube_s_only_wooden_escalator_to_carry_last_passengers_1_3419976 to http://www.london24.com/news/transport/tube_s_only_wooden_escalator_to_carry_last_passengers_1_3419976
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi para 2 of this article says 'This sudden transition in intensity, and the gout of fire, was due to the previously unknown trench effect...'.  Is 'gout of fire' a technical term?  I can't find it anywhere else online and I'm not familiar with it.  Is it a typo?  Is anyone able to clarify or reword it?  Thanks.Mccapra (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gout of Fire 

message: I was surprised to see a picture of a statue in Derbyshire featured in this article, true the statue is called the policeman by Ivor Roberts-Jones RA but I can only find one website that states it was created as a memorial to police officers killed at Kings Cross. The thing is I remember the night well and I remember reading the casualty list in the days afterwards and there was no mention of any police officers being killed, yes there were officers who had been badly burned. There is nothing to on the British Transport Police roll of honour that supports this assumption that police officers were killed. If someone can find out who these supposed police officers were and a proper link to information. Otherwise, I would suggest the picture and any information linked to it is removed. Pandaplodder (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police officers killed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on King's Cross fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061003163718/http://newsfilm.bufvc.ac.uk/article.php?story=2005100819530378 to http://newsfilm.bufvc.ac.uk/article.php?story=2005100819530378
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified