One of the things that has been puzzling me for a few days about the channel tunnel fire is this:
My car is not allowed to be taken through the tunnel as it is powered by LPG. Fifty litres of liquid petroleum gas is considered too risky and hence me and my Butane burning bretheren are banned from accessing this mode of travel. However a wacking great lorry load of volatile and highly combustible chemicals is permissable and as a result there was a major fire and the tunnel is severely damaged.
Not much to do with a youthwork but I'll use my usual excuse of hey, maybe there is a great metaphor in here somewhere. (Or maybe it's not only the channel tunnel that's a massive bore!)
I'm sure bad puns are a mortal sin.
I'd have to check but at the risk of proving my geek qualities it comes down to the difference between the trains that transport cars and those that transport lorries.
The cars are transported in enclosed wagons and the passengers travel in the cars and hence a LPG fire would be extremely hazardous to passengers.
Lorries and transported in open wagons and the drivers (I think) don't stay in their cabs. Whilst you could argue that it would be safer not to allow volatile liquids to be transported this way I suspect a business calculation was made. The risk to life and limb is significantly less for the above reason and the revenue lost from not allowing lorries with volatile compounds to use the tunnel would be far greater than the costs of a fire every decade or so.
I hope geekiness is not a mortal sin...
Doc Jones,
As ever you have brought some wisdom to the subject and I greatly suspect you are right!
I think that they might develop a different model now though!
Geekiness is not a mortal sin I hope!