THE NUNEATON FIRE INQUEST.
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Match Lighted to Assist Tank Replenishment ! Bad Practices in Bus Handling. Our Own Comments and Recommendations.
#'r HE CORONER'S inquiry into the fatal bus fire at Nuneaton was resumed on Monday, the 15th instant. We had already sent a competent engineer to the scene of the accident, but, feeling that something more technical than the report which would appear in the general Press was needed, we were represented at the adjourned inquest so that we might give our readers the benefit of such of the available information as would be likely to prove useful in preventing the recurrence of such fires.
It would be impossible for anyone who had not actually seen the remains of the bus to realize the terrible fierceness and suddenness with which the fire must have spread. The reports which have appeared in the daily Press are in no way exaggeaated, as nothing but the strongest wooden up rights remain, and these are charred to a depth that prevented them from burning further. The floorboards had been completely consumed. The metal forming the outer shell of the body had evidently been rendered very hot, all the paint having been burnt off, leaving a dross on the metal which denotes that it had been red-hot.
The only part of the upholstery left is a patch of artificial leather at the lower part of the rear door. This, it is supposed, was protected from burning by the bodies of the victims when they fell in their efforts to open the rear door.
We have no wish to give sensational details, but merely mention these facts to impress upon those responsible for the conduct of passenger services, that nothing should be left undone which will pre vent such fu-es occurring in the future, as in our opinion this terrible occurrence was entirely due to faulty design of the body, and to certain practices which we will mention in detail later en, and which, to our way of thinking are bad.
A short story of what happened is as follows :A Ford bus with seating accommodation for fourteen passengers, seated as shown in our illustration, started on a two-and a-half-mile journey with twenty passengers on board ; it was a Saturday night, and most of the passengers were returning to the colliery district whence they had come. Although the weather was warm, rain was falling, so that the windows were closed. Near the top of a hill the petrol failed to reach the carburetter, owing to the incline (although in all probability the tank still contained an appreciable amount of petrol). The driver got out and asked a passenger to put a scotch under the back wheel. He then asked another passenger inside to hand him a spare can of petrol from -under • one of the seats, and commenced to pour petrol into the tank without the use of a funnel. The electric lights in the interior having failed, the bus was in darkness, so it would not be easy for him to see accurately the 2i-in. hole of the tank, which was situated under the driver's seat, and therefore, right inside the bus among the passengers. (See the illustration below.) Up to this point the evidence is clear, but Here there is conflicting evidence as to the striking of a light, as, in all probability, if it were struck, the person who struck it is among the dead. It is certain, however, that, whilst the tank was being filled, a flash came and the whole bus, became instantly one mass of flame. The driver said he "thought he threw the petrol can into the street," and he then tried to reach the emergency door, but was prevented from doing so by the people, who were trying to get out of the way of the flames. He then, went to the rear and tried to open the emergency door from the back, but owing to the fact that the fasteners were inside, he had some difficulty in doing this. Some of the glass of the windows was broken by people outside, and a few of the passengers were pulled through the windows. By the time the back door was opened it was too late, and, several lives were lost.
Conflicting Evidence About the Light.
What actually set fire to the petrol can only be inferred, as there was conflicting evidence on this point. The evidence was, however, sufficient to enable the jury to come to the conclusion that one of the passengers struck a light, and that this ignited the petrol gas, although the flame did not come into actual contact with any petrol. Surely this is a condition that should not prevail in a public vehicle filled with all sorts of people, many of whom had no knowledge of the nature of petrol ! So far as we could gather from the evidence, the driver did not even caution the passengers against striking lights, and even had he done so, many might have disregarded his caution.
The engine was not running at the time, and the exhaust pipe could not have been hot enough to ignite petrol, as some minutes must have elapsed between the time when the engine stopped and the time of the flash.
No oil lamps were used on the bus, only the electric lights inside the vehicle having failed, being on a separate accumulator system. Taking all these facts into consideration, we think that the conclusion come to by the jury was the only one possible. When one considers the conditions under which the filling-up was done, there is not much to be wondered at that a fire should have started. The extraordinary severity of the fire, however, seems to be wrapped in mystery.
Supposing that petrol was spilt, as it probably was, one can hardly account for the magnitude of the fire that followed. An inspection of the sister vehicle showed that the petrol tank had a clear space under it, so that any spilt petrol could have fallen away, and would not have run along the floorboards.
Even if the driver dro ped the can when the flash came, as some say he did, he says that he eventually recovered it and threw it outside, so that if his statement is correct, there would hardly have been time for sufficient spirit to escape to account for the raging furnace which the bus became. It is impossible now to get any further information, but one cannot help thinking that there must have been some undisclosed reason for the extraordinary severity of the outbreak, such as a leak from the tin of petrol which had been under one of the seats might account for. Fumes from present-day fuel are heavy enough to remain on the floor without disclosing their presence by their odour. The floorboards of the sister bus were particularly free from the accumulation of grease one so often finds. The petrol tank had not burst ,• had it done so, this might have accounted for the fierceness of the fire.
It would also seem as if some contributory cause must have been operating, such as highly inflammable covering to the upholstery. In this bus, all the windows would slide down to within about three feet of the floor, which would have enabled all the passengers to escape that way. The rear door was presumably in working order, as it was eventually opened from the outside. The lower catch had evidently been unfastened, as it was not strained by _forcing the 'door, as was the upper one.
The seat across the door had obviously been removed by someone in the efforts to get out. This can be plainly seen by the portion of the door which was seemingly shielded from the fire by the body of one of the victims who had fallen and rested against the door where the seat had been. In spite of all these apparently easy means of exit, these people were burnt to death. it may be said that had there been instructions written up inside the bus as to how to escape in case of danger, these people would have had a better chance. There should have been such instructions, but even then, haw many would have remembered them in the time of panic?
One witness said she could not read, so in her case instructions posted inside the bus would have been useless. The bus was in darkness, so, again, the uselessness of such instructions is demonstrated. All the witnesses examined said that they• had no knowledge that there was a door at the rear, or that the windows could be lowered. The woman who was sitting on the removable seat across the rear doorway (she was pulled out through a window), said she had no idea that there was a door behind her. All this goes to prove that, in cases of sudden danger,
these emergency exits cannot be relied upon, as these unfortunate people were only typical of others who would do exactly the same thing in similar ci rcumstances.
The inquest revealed some bad practices, which, strangely enough, were allowed to pass without comment. There was DO mention of the carrying off a fire extinguisher—no question as to whether one was on the bus, whether it was in order, or whether it was used. We felt that this point should have been raised. No instructions were posted up in the bus as to the opening of the rear doors or windows. It is true that in our opinion such notices should not be relied upon. but this is no reason why they should not exist. The driver told the Court how he filled a tank, situated inside a much overcrowded bus, with petrol, by pouring it from a can which had been lying under one of the seats. He said he had no funnel, so poured the spirit, as well as he could see in the darkness, into the tank. He gave no warning to those near him about striking lights. He said he had done all this before on many occasions.
He told the Court that he took the bus over without knowing how much petrol was in the tank, and that he had no idea bow many miles to the gallon the bug would run. On a two-and-a-half-mile journey he ran out of petrol when he had gone only a mile and a half, so he commenced to pour petrol into a tank, situated as shown in our illustration, in the dark. is it to be wondered at that some well-meaning person, ignorant of the danger, should strike a light to help him, especially as the passengers had not been warned of the dairger of such an action? All these statements were allowed to pass as if such acts were the usual procedure in bus-handling, and without any comment or suggestion that they were highly dangerous. We were also surprised that no questions should have been raised with regard to the licensing of such a vehicle in which a petrol tank has its filler situated inside among the passengers, and that the carrying of a petrol can under one of the seats was not commented upon.
In our opinion, all existing buses in which the petrol tanks are situated inside the body should be fitted with an arrangement whereby they can be filled from the outside, as suggested in the article in The Commercial Motor for September 16th.
In the design of bodies, we can see no advantage in the side door situated forward. The front of a vehicle is more likely to be damaged, when an accident occurs, than the rear, consequently, should an accident happen, there ia a possibility of a front door becoming jammed, and so preventing the passengers from escaping. The front is usually the place where fires may start, and no matter what _emergency doorways are provided, we think that the present case is sufficient to prove that if they are closed by doors, they are useless, for people will instantly make for the doorway by which they entered.
There is nothing inflammable at the rear of a bus, consequently that is the safest place for entering and leaving. Moreover, in the case of a bus getting ditched, the side door is a danger. Even in the case of a small bus where no conductor is employed, there should be no difficulty in collecting fares on the thinly populated routes where such buses are used. Taking all points into consideration, we can see nothing in favour of the front side entrance as eonipared.with the open doorway as used in the London buses. With an open doorway at the rear and a platform surrounded by a rail, there is no possibility of passengers being imprisoned in case of fire or other accident. We illustrate such a suggested arrangement.