Talk:King's Cross fire

Untitled
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)

Changes on 26 June 2004
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)

How much destruction?
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)

That's a valid point, and the phrase is excessive. According to Moodie's damage assessment paper, the damaged areas consisted of the following:


 * The upper half of the escalator tunnel from the Piccadilly Line to the ticket hall;
 * The entire ticket hall;
 * The perimeter subway around the ticket hall & the Khyber pass;
 * The passages to street exits and to the BR stations.

The Fire Brigade "Stop" message describes these areas as "100% damaged by fire".

This leaves the following undamaged areas:
 * the three deep-level tube line platforms & their concourses
 * the cut & cover line platforms;
 * the Victoria & Northern line escalator/stair tunnels.

Basically, all the secondary structure above the fire was burned out, while everything below it was undamaged. Note that the primary structure (e.g. the loadbearing roof of the ticket hall) didn't have to be rebuilt, so perhaps "destroyed" is a mite too strong.

I propose changing the text from "destroyed much of..." to "burnt out the top level of..."

Ecb 11:48, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

External link?
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)

Personally I think it should stay (with some explanatory text added) because:


 * The Swedish site is probably one of the few places on the web that had something that isn't detailed in the Fennell report. I suspect the article's original author linked to it because s/he couldn't find any websites to refer to that didn't just restate the things in the wiki article.


 * Most of the sources I've listed are unavailable to the casual browser (they're either printed materials or on paid technical index websites). This is one that we can all look at.

We could incorporate the data from the site into the article, but then surely the link becomes a reference?

Ecb 19:09, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

The link is useless and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.114.13 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not happy
Erm, Im not happy with this article's facts at the moment -- However, I'm not happy to edit it without more research -- maybe somebody else could take a look at the causes of the fire section -- from my understanding (I have done a little research on this in the past) The fire was caused by a match or similar falling between the slats in the steps and igniting the rubbish underneath -- once sufficent heat had built up and maybe the escalator was starting to catch fire there was then a flashback... Which is not quite what the article says -- also similar fires -- my understanding was there had been other minor fires on the tube, not at this or any escalator which is what the article now says! The whole concept of this needs more explanation in terms of understanding risk... --Davelane 21:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the article does say 'probably ignited by a match', which is true. Dan100 13:19, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * It does now because I edited it (although wikipedia conveniently forgot : before i realised how bad this is... i started editing again and realised i either revert till the article was better or change many parts so they are correct -- The fire stared below not on the escalator the rubbish caused the flashback not the steps - the flames not going above the escalator was not a direct cause -- other fires on the network had been ignored -- theres too much for me to correct without reading all the reports again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davelane (talk • contribs) 17:05, 9 January 2005 (UTC)

Cheer up, it's not as bad as all that
The article is less inaccurate than you think, and I'd like to present some of the evidence that made me write it in the way that I did. I've split up your two paragraphs above at the places where (I think) one of your subjects ends and the next begins. These are repeated below, with extracts from the references and some explanation following them. All the references quoted below are cited in full at the bottom of the Wiki article.

from my understanding (I have done a little research on this in the past) The fire was caused by a match or similar falling between the slats in the steps and igniting the rubbish underneath. The following is an extract from Moodie's solo paper:


 * an ignition source developed beneath escalator no. 4 some 21m down from the top and on the right hand side when looking up. This was probably an extraneous heat source such as a lighted match falling onto the grease/fluff layer on the running track.

This was turned into the following sentence for the wiki article:

The fire was caused by rubbish and grease beneath wooden escalators being ignited, probably by a discarded match.

This seems to be a reasonable abbreviation of Moodie's text describing how it started.

Once sufficent heat had built up and maybe the escalator was starting to catch fire there was then a flashback...which is not quite what the article says.

Moodie goes on in further bullet points:


 * The fire on the haulage mechanism developed to ignite the vertical plywood skirting board and the fire spread from beneath to above the escalator via the skirting board.


 * Once above the escalator the fire developed more rapidly and began to involve the plywood balustrades and the stair treads and risers.


 * The fire spread up the escalator on both balustrades and encompassed the plywood facia and advertisement boards on the left hand side wall of the escalator tunnel. It also involved the deckboards and hand rails.


 * Flame and hot gases from the escalator shaft passed into the ticket hall and ignited flammable materials therein.

These quotes show that the source of fuel for the jet of flame that entered the ticket hall was the wooden components of the escalator. The escalator was not "starting to catch fire" at the time of the flashover: it was burning like crazy.

The fire stared below not on the escalator

Which is what the Wiki article states. Perhaps you're referring to the third sentence in the second paragraph, which reads The fire started on the escalator, then flashed over and filled the ticket hall with flames and smoke.

I'm guessing that you've interpreted this as a statement that the fire started on the upper surface of the escalator: is this guess right? This interpretation would indeed contradict the earlier sentence that stated that the fire started on the rubbish and grease beneath it.

When I wrote that sentence, I intended to put the location of the fire into the context of the rest of King's Cross tube station complex, not to define (for a second time) precisely where the ignition took place.

If you did interpret it as defining precisely where the ignition took place then other readers may do so too. So, we should amend it to make clear that it refers to the location of the fire within the station, not the position of the fire on the escalator.

my understanding was there had been other minor fires on the tube, not at this or any escalator which is what the article now says!

A part I didn't write, but it is definitely true that fires had previously occurred here. Another quote from Moodie, from the section where he describes the fire investigators' examination of the escalators:

Damage marks similar to those recorded [at the seat of the fire on escalator No 4] were also found on both sides of escalator No 5, there were a number of these and they seemed to indicate that there had been previous fire starts.

This makes it clear that similar fires had started, then gone out of their own accord, on other escalators in the same shaft.

the rubbish caused the flashback not the steps

This claim is not supported by the evidence in the technical papers, nor by anything in Chapter 12 of the Fennell report.

Fennell (Chapter 12, clause 28) gives a summary of the fire load burnt in the Picc line escalator shaft: of a total of 64,457 MJ burnt, about 8% was grease/rubbish. He went on to describe (Chapter 12, clause 55 (v)) the cause of the jet of flame:

''At first people in the ticket hall saw a few flickers of flames or detached flames, but this quickly developed into a continuous jet of flame. As these flames were produced by the combustion of the wood components of the escalator, there would have been little smoke in that portion of the flow.''

The bulk of the wooden components on the escalator (about one-third of the MJ) were the wooden treads (Fennell, Chapter 12, clause 28), which is why I wrote When the treads of the escalator flashed over, the size of the fire increased exponentially in the wiki article.

Moodie and Jagger (another paper referenced in the article) presented the results of small-scale fire tests aimed at understanding the trench effect. The tests all involve burning solid surfaces (no rubbish) and all replicated the key features of the flows described by the various witnesses.

To summarize, there's no evidence to support the belief that the rubbish caused the flashover. the flames not going above the escalator was not a direct cause This is a tricky one, and I can't figure out what it means. Parsing the double negative changes it to: the flames going above the escalator were a direct cause which is what the article says. Can you clarify what you meant by this? The whole concept of this needs more explanation in terms of  understanding risk...   Please expand on this point. Why do we need to add an explanation of risk in this article? Wiki is an encyclopaedia: this particular page is a description of an awful event, for which the investigation was completed over a decade ago but which is still of interest. The wiki page currently contains a useful summary of the key facts of the fire, and for those who want to look into it further there are references to reports/journals that can be borrowed via a reference library. What would explaining the concept in terms of understanding risk add to the historical record? other fires on the networkhad been ignored Which is perfectly true but is not pertinent to this particular article. theres too much for me to correct without reading all the reports again...  If you want to edit the article, please, please, I beseech you, read those reports again first! Ecb 22:07, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
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)

Survey and discussion

 * 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)
 * Support per nom. David Kernow 12:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. James F. (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Has already been done. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 10:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick query
A Transport for London press release about the 2005 bombings says "The last serious incident was the Kings Cross fire in 1987 when 27 people died after a machine room under a wooden escalator caught fire." This differs from this article both on the number of fatalities and the cause, and I'd be interested to know about the discrepancy. There was a theory occasionally mentioned that friction within the mechanism itself caused the fire, and the 'dropped match igniting rubbish' theory doesn't seem popular among 1980s commuters I know. --15:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * TfL press department must have made a typo. The public inquiry report into the fire (the Fennell report, one of the references in the article) records that 31 people died, and lists the names of 30 of them.
 * As for what started it: the evidence found after the fire and the tests conducted by the HSE all point to a dropped match. For a bit more detail, take a look at the responses in the subsection above headed Cheer up, it's not as bad as all that. Flippant title, but it's a detailed response to an earlier query about the accuracy of the article.Ecb 15:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Another fire
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)


 * 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)

Inappropriate re-distribution of Content
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)

Effect of the paint on the ceiling
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)

I was wondering about the phrase "solvent-based paint"--since a solvent can be anything in which a solute is dissolved, including water, shouldn't this be altered? Coffee is an excellent solvent for sugar, but it isn't very flammable24.131.12.228 20:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What's a jinky?
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)
 * It was 30 and not 50, but still can't find any ref to jinky. Escaper27 12:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Investigation into the fire
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)


 * Done. All it needs is cleaning up and adding a reference for the show. Wayne (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

Replacement of wooden escalators with steel ones?
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)

Horizontal / parallel
"the simulation's depiction of the fire burning horizontal to the 30° slope of the escalator was thought impossible and it was believed the programming was faulty." "Horizontal" ought to read "parallel", yes? LaFoiblesse 2009-08-29 16h35 (GMT)

The match test
The match test, that authorities used, proved that it was not a match, nor cigarette, after all. This is according to the Mystery Detectives series, "Flashover" episode which aired last night on HLN. It completely disputes the claims of smoking and matches in this article. According to the show, excess grease and heat ignited the fire. Clearly, this article is incomplete and thus, not reliable. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely the article is clear enough attributing this conclusion to the official report, linked in the references? A number of competing theories to the disaster were considered by the expert committee, and on page 111 of that report the inspector concludes "The fire was initiated by smokers' material, probably a carelessly discarded lighted match...". It is always possible to make entertaining television programmes presenting claims that the expert committee and inspector were wrong, but these would need to be noted in independent reliable sources to show they are notable. With uncited text and six books in further reading the article is clearly incomplete, but I can't see that it's unreliable presenting what it does say. Edgepedia (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be worth a mention and using Wikipedia I found the episode and wrote the sentence:

"The fire was the subject of an episode of the Forensic Files (later shown as Mystery Detectives) 2006 episode "Flashover"."


 * But I'm struggling to source even this from reliable sources. It's not listed as available on a DVD on the Forensic files website, and looking at the less reliable sources, I can't find the episode on IMDB or tv.com. In mentioning one television programme, we would need to mention others, such this one, this one and this one. Edgepedia (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Forensic Files episode "Flashover" available on YouTube here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.140 (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like an opinion
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?-- Laun  chba  ller  17:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Any opinions?
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)

Design of the station

 * 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)

External links modified
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)

Gout of Fire
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)

Police officers killed
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)

External links modified
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)

Not updated enough
Hey @Brennan1234567890 - do you mind explaining which bits you think are out of date / have incorrect information? Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The beginning says: "The King's Cross fire was a 1987 fire in a London Underground station with 31 fatalities." which isn't enough info. The time which the fire started was used twice. Brennan1234567890 (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (setting aside that a fire starting at 19:30 and a flashover are two different things)
 * That's not "factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information." - that's asking for a slight rewrite of the lead. Is there anything else you think are out of date / have incorrect information? Turini2 (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have amended the first sentence with a brief summary of the event. Turini2 (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)