Went to Bruges for the weekend via the Channel Tunnel, wonderful journey until I got back to M20/M25 junc Sunday night but that's another story.
While waiting at the check-in for the Shuttle I noticed that LPG fuelled vehicles appear to be banned from using the Tunnel, at least I assume that's what the sign with a car with LPG written on it and a big red line through it means. Seemed to mean banned for things like guns etc.anyway. Thought crossed my mind as to why? Is LPG fuel that much more volatile?
Another thought was if enough people are convinced by the cost factor to convert to LPG then will they become accepted through the Tunnel or will they just have no customers and end up having to put a cork in the end?
|
I do like the idea of the cork! But of course we all know the rules would be relaxed. Perhaps it's like the ferries, where the gas in caravans and campers must be switched off whilst in transit.
Mike
|
|
|
I once saw an old VW camper blow up on the hard shoulder of the M25. It had an engine fire, but when the fire got to the propane tank it blew the thing to bits. CNG and LPG conversions on cars are much safer and much less likely to blow but if they went off in the extreme heat of a fire in the tunnel they would go off like bombs.
HJ
|
|
|
|
Fortunatley LPG tanks won't blow up even in a fire as they have a release valve on them that will let the gas out in a controlled manner, so you get a small controlled fire, rather than pressure build-up to a big bang. I think that LPG in a proper tank with valves etc are safer than a tank of unleaded.
|
|
I thought I read that the LPG ban was due to the problem that many older LPG conversions on continental cars DIDN'T have safety release valves on the tanks!!
|
|
|
|
Dave N
Got to agree with you about the safety of LPG and petrol. I recall a program, Horizon I think, a couple of years ago which compared different types of fuel for cars. The main point was that Hydrogen was in fact safer than petrol even with all the fuss about the Hindenburg. They set up a test with a cylinder of H2 and one of petrol and had a flame near each, then shot them from a safe distance with a rifle. The petrol made a far worse mess than the H2.
Trouble is I cant get any form of pressure tank onto the bike very easily. Petrol will have to stay for two wheels.
Bill
|
> even with all the fuss about the Hindenburg.
As an aside, it is more likely that the Hindenburg fire was caused by the substances used for covering the fabric than the gas within the structure.
M.
|
|
|
|
Mark
I recall that it was Magnesium on the skin of the Hindenburg. Wowee, what a bright idea.
Chris
|
|
|
Everyone is quite right about LPG. HSE did some tests years ago in their explosives facility near Buxton. They set fire to an LPG car to see what happened. Basically once it got to the point where the safety valve blew all that resulted was a rather spectacular flame. I think they have the safety valves sorted even better now.
The pressure at which LPG is liquefied is rather low, yet for proper compressed gases the danger is not the combustion but the stored energy. Eg typical Oxy bottle in a welding set has a stored energy of over 1million foot pounds. If you have ever seen one of these torpedoes exiting the garage doors when the valve gets bust you will know what I mean. Likewise if you have seen the after effects when one bursts its not a pretty sight.
|
|
Could try asking Eurotunnel for an explanation but I guess it is to do with the risk posed by leaks. Nature of the product, pressurised vessels and installations *probably* give a higher probability of industrial scale leaks than in liquid fuelled vehicles, when in any event a big leak would be visible due the pool of liquid. LPG is heavier than air and will collect, perhaps undetected, in low points until ignited perhaps by a spark drawn from the 25kv line that powers the loco-BANG. Not sure how this compares with petrol vapour but then the volatility of that substance is a big argument for running a diesel!!!!
|
|
|
|
Also most people survived the Hindenburg crash, unlike modern airliner disasters.
Cliff Pope
|
Even allowing fabric material as the possible igniter, there would have been comparatively little harm, had there been no hydrogen to ignite; that is, had the gasbags been helium filled as was intended by the designers. But the New Deal did not like the New Order, and the US government refused to issue an export permit, and 13 passengers and 22 crew members died. The do-gooders do harm in all ages!
I was told I saw R100 when I was small (the "Capitalist Airship", the one that worked) but sadly I don't think I really remember.
|
The r100 and theR101 both worked.
It was just that the R101 suffered from crass political pressures and flew without a valid certificate of airworthiness.
its crash was largely due to pilot error,its engines were idling and its elevators were probably not doing that for which they were designed.
I do not share many peoples high opinion of Lord Thompson,i think he was weak and politically expedient in his judgement.
|
|
|
|
