Why on earth do they not use those tubes in the tate gallery as fire escapes instead of stairs?

Question

I saw the tubes on the news yesterday, basically like long tubular helter skelters and it just struck me that if they used these as emergency exits in buildings then far fewer people would die when evacuating buildings. If they'd had them in the twin towers then maybe more people would have survived as it takes only minutes to get to the bottom instead of having to run down all those stairs and also potentially getting crushed in the panic.

Answer 1

I actually visited the Tate yesterday and witnessed the 'tubes' first hand. I must agree with you they'd be better served as fire exits. People were even taking photo's of them (always the Jap's) as they stood back in awe and amazement. Apparently it's called 'conceptual art' or as I like to call them, swimming pool water slides. Waste of space and ultimately, tax payers money, as they were funded by the Arts Council, who are funded by the government, who are funded by us! Just had a thought...WE actually own those 'tubes', does that mean we can have a say what purpose they serve?....I doubt it!

Answer 2

There are reasons why we no longer use tubes (this was originally tried in several of the first tall buildings - Industrial Age architecture). First, the weight and size of individuals in this country is an issue. To keep the tubes within engineering restrictions for functionality and reliability, they cannot accomodate all body sizes and types. Very large people would not be able to use them. Second, maintenance is a huge problem. Slight wear or defects in the tubes (imagine hundreds of feet of tubes in a large building) could fail under emergency use and unecessarily cause the death of large numbers of people. Third, you can help a person stranded in a stairwell (twisted ankle, shock, whetever the problem), but if they are in a tube that just isn't as easy to accomlish. Finally, and especially with buildings like the World Trade Center towers or the Empire State building, you have the issue of access points. Does every floor have their own emergency tube to get to the ground? That would increase the size of the building to the point that it would probably cease to be economically viable to build it. Also, with very tall buildings like that, if you took a tube from a higher floor, the momentum you would build up during your descent would be so overwhelming that when you reached the bottom the egress from the tube would likely kill or severely injure you ... and that's if you don't collide with another person along the way or at the bottom.

You have to think that there must be decent reasons for the change. Sometimes old technology looks viable, but there are numbers of reason why it is not. Reasonable question though, and in smaller structures of only a half-dozen or so stories, tubes may be an option, but I doubt that the cost is worth the effort. I would tend to think that the tubes would be less reliable in something like a fire or airplane collision than a stairwell would be. Stairs are usually made of concrete and centered in the structure, where tubes would have to run all over the place to keep them from being tight spiral or even horizontal death slides.

Now, portable tubes that could be utilized by fire department personel to evacuate buildings is another idea. See the link below for a reference.

Answer 3

Some time ago (IIRC it might even have been on tomorrows world) I saw a working design for just this sort of thing. It was constructed in a similar way to the waste chutes that are used on building sites, but out of a flame reistant fabric. The tube narrowed and expanded in a series of 'valves' that stopped people falling too far and too fast, and at the same time stopped too many people being in the same section and being crushed. If you want furher info, the patent office could probably help.

On a side note however, after the twin towers, a number of designs came out to save people from tall buildings, including a 4 rotor hover platform, that have yet to see the light of day. Strange given the billions thrown at the war on terror that none of the money can be spared to save lives in this way. I guess its all about priorities that I am clearly too stupid too understand.

Answer 4

Good idea but not as easy as it sounds. The amount of people evcuating something like the twin towers would be colossal andmay cause a disaster if there was a jam in the tubes.
It would have to go round in many circles to stop you coming out at the bottom like bullet.

I am sure it will start architects thinking though

Answer 5

Good idea, but they too can be quite scary and last for a long time over just a few floors, so 100 floors might feel like never ending for some people. plus in a rush they could get blocked up. You'd probably be dizzy at the end and a blockage would happen sooner or later.

Answer 6

but for safety one at a time only - would you like to be at the end of the orderly queue?!!! Certainly it seems like a really good idea where there are not large numbers of people to get out of a building. The Prada woman has one from her office to her car incidentally. But when it comes to large numbers of people then it is not a safe option due to the time between sliders needed for safety. People would not wait, they would panic.

Answer 7

Thing is what if too many people try and get on the slide at the same time because they are panicking, this could cause the slide to collapse. People could get stuck and you would get people pushing others out of the way so they can get on first

Answer 8

Technically the full Christian church is the representative of Christ on earth, in accordance to Jesus, himself. with reference to the pope, i don't probably think of it is supported scripturally, yet i could prefer to confirm the scriptures that Catholics themselves contemporary by way of fact the reason for having a pope, by way of fact i'm uncertain what the Catholics think of is the scriptural justification. That being stated, it would not extremely count selection to me in the event that they have a pope. each and every company has to have somebody in cost. The Church of england has the Archbishop of Canterbury, case in point. _________________ @Tyler: mutually as I agree the verse you stated may be the data for PETER being the pope, it does not help the belief of a non-give up line of alternative popes....and there is not any historic data that Peter exceeded the authority to the subsequent individual, as Jesus had given to him. in simple terms saying.

Answer 9

Be a lot easier jumping off the 26th floor onto a mattress!

Answer 10

Imagine the blockages caused by grossly obese people?