Fire Alarm System At Cashin Quay Defended

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31210, 7 November 1966, Page 22

Fire Alarm System At Cashin Quay Defended

W«s the anonymotu correspondent trying to be obistructive because he had a vested interest in an older fire protection system, asked the Lyttelton Harbour Board’s engineer-in-chief (Mr J. A. Cashin) when a letter on fire protection at Cashin quay from a correspondent to “The Press” signed "Sane Standards,” was referred to him. The correspondent wrote:— “Mr Cashin’s statement is erroneous. His remark that, ‘there are many instal lations of this type connected to the Fire Board’s panel,’ is typical. In fact, there are only two apart from the Harbour Board and both of these are in the premises of the company which installed the system at Cashin quay. Neither of these would meet the requirements of the fire underwriters for premium rebates. In addition, one government department has two buildings which are protected by thermal alarms and in which some smoke detectors were added to cover special risks only. Mr Cashin’s statement about water damage from accidental sprinkler discharge is ludicrous. Such an event is limited in effect, but a fire will be of such proportions, because of the distance which the brigade must cover, thut perhaps millions of gallons of

water will be poured Into the sheds.”

“The correspondent appears to be trying to mislead,” said Mr Cashin. “After raying there are only two installations apart from the Harbour Board he lists a further four. In fact there are seven connected to the Christchurch Fire Board's panel, a further 12 installed by the Christchurch branch of the organisation responsible for their introduction into this countrv. 54 in the Auckland area. 35 in the Wellington area. 11 in the Dunedin area, all except police station installations connected to Fire Board panels or sirens. No fire brigade has to date refused a connexion of this system to its alarm panel. “I cannot understand what the correspondent Is trying to imply. Naturally there will be relatively few installations of a system recently developed and competing against well established older systems. The question therefore presents itself: has an anonymous correspondent himself a vested interest In an older system and for this reason is trying to be obstructive? “The reason for the relatively low number of Installations in Christchurch might possibly be due to owners of premises being traditionally conservative in their attitude to this modern and unique ionisation chamber fire detection system.

“I cannot agree with the correspondent’s remarks on water damage from accidental sprinkler discharge. Having in mind the number of recent instances within New Zealand of faulty operation of sprinklers discovered during our investigations I am still of the opinion, and this is the opinion of most overseas port authorities, that sprinkler systems should not be installed in large transit sheds. “I cannot agree with the opinions the correspondent has expressed on the quantities of water likely to be required to quench a Are. The early alarm given by the newly developed system enables the very efficient Lyttelton Volunteer Brigade, situated less than half a mile from the sheds, to be in operation within five minutes, at the most, of an alarm being sounded,” said Mr Cashin.