http://www.v160.de/phorum5/read.php?3,12442,12442#msg-12442

The one destroyed electric loco had been "E75 09", a 2-4-4-2 downscaled single-phase 1928 version of the Virginian's "Squarehead" EL-3A locomotives of 1922 (.

The "put it aside in the ol'shed" - attitude towards museum items may have to be revised. Steel, concrete, and brick firewalls between pairs of tracks may have prevented a lot of the encountered damage.

Sorry, @webmaster: Dorr, if you deem such "negative" information unsuitable for the forum, pls. purge it. No need to repeat any such "headlines" here, and I'd rather hae liked to place this anonymously. But maybe in case someone asks ...

CTW

CTW, DE-Goslar

From the photos it looks as though at least some of the steam locomotives can probably be recovered, but most of the diesels and electrics are destroyed beyond repair.

Makes me wonder how well protected the NRM at York or the transport museum at Luzern are against fire.

--
Tim Hall
www.kalyr.com/railways

24 major rolling stock items (counting 1935 "Eagle" replica train as a single item); List is available on www.lok-report.de and others.

> From the photos it looks as though at least some of the steam locomotives can probably be recovered <

Inch-thick Steel had been glowing, lost carbon, asymmetrically heated frames may have cracked ... in fact, indications are that roof repairs with hotmelt laminate under open burner flames may have been responsible. "Exploded" gas bottles might also have been propane, neither these nor the alleged acetylene cylinders are supposed to be stored in the loco shed. The entire facility seemed to have been soakingly wet with hydrocarbon ... lube, diesel, and maybe the propane of one such bottle. Might explain why the entire shed was engulfed that rapidly. However, if so, an insurance would rightly refuse to pay. Maybe the alleged roof repair crew will need to look for a good attorney ...

> but most of the diesels and electrics are destroyed beyond repair.<

Seems so. fortunately, only one electric met this fate. But, ok, I personally see that this is an early piece of international consultation in the 1920ies; seeking improvement over the "two-rooms-and-a-bath" class "E77" articulateds the solution was found in the non-articulated E77 of same axle code sequence, apparently derived from the VGN "EL-3A" electrics which had been published in the same issue of "Elektrische Bahnen" of 1925 as had been the E77. However, this "E75 09" unit was self-propelling, but its "B" motor had suffered a fused stator coil and an armature ground leakage in 1987, causing it to self-excite with hot bearings unless brushes had been removed. The unit had been stored there off-wires and without shore power. Couldn't be the cause.

I still wonder why - at current high fuel prices - non-operable diesels or diesels with expired tickets (or even units with longer intervals between days of operation) had been fully-fuelled, thus feeding the blaze.

> Makes me wonder how well protected the NRM at York or the transport museum at Luzern are against fire. <

Or Utrecht, or Sacramento. et al. Seems the local fire brigade experts need to be consulted at planning and concept stages ...

General problem is long-term storage of diesel together with steam or electrics with sources of vigorous sparking. Potential risk of fuel leaks is increasing as most museum items have far exceeded material and design life expectancy. Same with cables and isolation: Fatigue and concealed material deterioration may have such desastrous consequences, think of early leather and rubber gaskets. Further, the problem of ancient NC-varnishes, polishing oils, wooden bodywork, tarmaced roofs, etc. render these items "risky".

I still wonder if some stabled items could be protected by brick walls in between. A proven method against fire spreadings in war storage of aircraft. Keeps any fire confined, sad as it may be, but avoids such a "total" blaze. Storage in old wooden sheds needs to be re-assessed. Wooden roof structures are to be banned. Well, that's nearly 90 % ...

BTW - what about the other train on the Southend pier - I heard news on that blaze on BFBS radio here, about the repeated ordeals by fire - and that one train was used by the fire crews. What about the other one ? Hope it's allright, nevertheless ...

All the best, anyway - CTW

CTW, DE-Goslar

I assume there was no type of fire control system inside? A foam system (although expensive) might have helped. I don't think it's unsuitable at all. Perhaps this is a wake up call to museums everywhere to ask for a few more donations to prevent this from happening. This story should be posted everywhere.

Dean

> I assume there was no type of fire control system inside? <

No - seems even the tanker car in the background seems to have contributed its share. At least the blaze was most intense at this end of the shed. You might wish to just glance through the two galleries of the Bavarian Broadcasting System (BR):

br-online.de/bayern-heute/artikel/0510/18-brand-nuernberg/index.xml

All in German, but the pics are self-explanatory, I'd guess. The Prairie cl 23 # 105 unit's wreck photo captions are nonsense, featuring Pacific cl.01 150 instead. Further, class 45 #010 2-10-2 was by far nothing "most powerful". Not even in Europe, where Greek My-Alphas and some post-war Czech and French steamers ranked it third or fourth ... (let alone US and USSR items ...).

> A foam system (although expensive) might have helped. I don't think it's unsuitable at all. Perhaps this is a wake up call to museums everywhere to ask for a few more donations to prevent this from happening. This story should be posted everywhere. <

Yes, but only a combination of several of these precautions will help (budget permitting), water spray nozzles, separation of fuel from non-operable items, brick walls between pairs of tracks, and no fuelling, no startup, no firing up inside such sheds. No wooden roof structures ... mineral "intumescent" insulation of fire bridges by cable ducts ... and general caution: In terms of fire-brigade "speak" the collection is often just an assortment of life-expired, worn-out and fatigue-prone materials. This is the alarming news about his. Any cable from the 1930ies may fuse in the wrong place at the wrong moment.

An automatic fire warning system which is left for itself will give a treacherous safety. As is the sprinkler nozzle which happens to be clogged with decade-old lime precipitate when urgently needed. Or the new water supply system proving prone to freezing due to one of these contemporary installations on the outside of the building, etc ...
All the best - CTW

CTW, DE-Goslar

I must assume that fire codes are not strictly enforced for this type of facility/structure, perhaps since it does not see a high flow of public traffic compared to a shopping center or movie theater for example. Most towns and cities require at least yearly inspections of sprinkler systems which includes flushing the pipes and even removal/inspection of sprinkler heads.

From what I've read, most of Germany has adopted fire code rules similar to California which are the most strict in the USA. Guess they only apply to certain structures and situations.

Dean

I assume so - though I've not made a strict comparison so far. What might apply in such cases is the non-applicability of new rules to

a) old structures which would require fortunes to adapt
(more likely a fixed transition period applies in such cases)
b) German Railways had been a State Authority of its own in
the past and had been making their own rules and exemptions where
it suited them best.

When blending both in the most unfortunate way, you end up with virtually no such "defense line" (that metaphoric term is most appropriate!). Add to this a "pragmatic" behaviour of these roofing crews, and there you are with a collection fully ablaze.

Well, you are right that there must be several such fire obstacles, neither of these working to a real 100 % degree. Foam or water nozzles, silicate- impregnated timber parts, brick walls, alarm devices, double metal plates intersecting the roof structure with no cables through to act as "concealed fuses", and in electric traction instances, trolley poles and pantographs down, with only outside wires live. No storage of hydrocarbon matter inside ...

Anyway, I hope the nozzles I vaguely remember to have seen in Sacramento had been real spray nozzles ... something badly missing in this Nuremberg roundhouse.

Maybe you already read the follwing, but here is a brief adaptation of DB's officially-issued listing of the losses:

Fahrzeuge im Depot Gostenhof des DB Museums Nürnberg
Following vehicles sustained major damage in a roundhouse fire in the night 18 Oct.,2005 :
1. Dampflokomotiven / Steam locomotives
• Nachbau „Adler“ (fahrfähig) mit 5 Wagen (Replica built in 1935)
• 01 150 ("Pacific"- Einheitsschnellzuglok Bj 1935)
• 23 105 ("Prairie"-type; Bj 1959, last-ever steam loco for DB)
• 45 010 (3000 hp 1'E1' (2-10-2) with "Riggenbach"-type dynamic steam brake; Güterzuglok Bj 1941) *
• 50 622 (low-axleload decapod 1'E (2-10-0) Güterzuglok Bj 1940)
• 86 457 (1'D1' (2-8-2 tank engine for branch line service) Nebenbahnlok Bj 1942)
• PT 2/2 „Glaskastl“ (Bavarian 0-4-0 enclosed lightweight branchline steam loco for one-man operation) *
• 89 801 (Bj. 1921) (C (0-3-0) Bavarian R3/3 switcher) *

2. Elektrolokomotiven / Electric Locomotive
• E 75 09 (1'BB1' (2-4-4-2, NON-articulated the way the VGN's 1924 cl."EL3A" single cab units had been, side-rods & jackshafts between pilot axle and 1st set of drivers, but straight series-wound multipole ac commutator motors; built 1928; semi-operable after one motor had fused in 1987) *

3. Diesellokomotiven
• V 80 002 ( B'B'-dh; had been operable, Bj 1952)(*)
• 211 023-7 ( B'B'-dh; ex- V100 1023, Bj 1961)
• V 200 002 ( B'B'-dh; had been operable, Bj 1954, 2nd prototype)(*)
• 360 150-7 ( C-dh <0-6-0>, diesel yard switcher Bj 1957)
• 360 151-5 ( C-dh, dreiachsige Rangierlok Bj 1957)
• 212 023-6 ( B'B'-dh; "V 100 2023")
• 212 330-5 ( B'B'-dh; "V 100 2330")

4. Triebwagen / Rail Cars or Multiple Units
• TW 201 MAN elektric Berlin Subway (U-Bahn) motor car (Bj 1913)

• 627 001-1 (4-axle, single-unit Diesel-Railcar BR 627 Prototype 1974)

5. Wagen / freight and coaching stock
• GW 21 80 313 0978-3 (Flat car)
• 2 Stück 3-achsige Bauzugwagen "B3yge" (1950ies modern-rebodied on old 3-axle prussian underframes & running gear, operated in pairs, used as works train accommodation cars after their career in passenger service had ended in the late 1970ies)

The stuff marked with an asterisk "*" had really been unique; but even the Berlin sub car still has a "classmate" (BVG cl. AI-T2 #212) in Berlin.

The other items have at least similar units of the same breed preserved elsewhere. V80/280 002 might be replaced by a unit returned from Italy, and there's still a V200 007, of the first series, but not identical to 002. Depends on the point of view. A triplicate "V 100" with others still active was certainly something the admirers of the class liked, but ... ok, this is a "forum landmine" for fruitless discussion, shouldn't be pursued. The latter two had been painstakingly restored to 1960ies delivery state, a work now lost.

Edit note: On 07 November, the hulk of the "Eagle" / "Adler" replica Stephenson steam loco (plus tender) was craned onto flatbed lorry trailer and shipped to Meiningen steam loco works for repairs. Photos reveal that some items and rubble had been removed from the site.

Seems one more "line of defense": Have duplicates / replicas elsewhere? Well, not perfect, either.

Maybe one aspect is to preserve design drawings, calculations, boiler certificates and permits in a safe, and have copies to work with on the hardware. Any such item can be built new from scratch if the blueprints are complete. The hardware item is often historically less relevant than the design ideas and principles behind it.

But a museum comprising merely data sets would be something like a frozen seed or sperm "bank" to clone from - not the real thing.

All the best
- CTW

CTW, DE-Goslar

Dean
(Even the Pyramids will someday turn to dust, a chance to see and touch them if only once would be quite an experience. - Me)