Smart Concepts: The Holistic Apporach
Sustainable Solutions for Sustainable Mobility
Up to 30% of the life cycle costs of urban infrastructure can be saved.
In most cases, fire protection is viewed negatively in the development of infrastructure projects or rail vehicles, as it entails high additional costs and expenses, delays approvals, adds weight or space requirements, and increases maintenance costs. With Smart Concepts by FOGTEC, this can be changed thanks to a different perspective and a holistic system approach. A fire protection system can not only contribute to increased safety, but also lead to a positive change in the overall financial balance of the project through the use of synergies.
Fire protection is definitely an important safety consideration when looking at systems of any kind. However, synergies and optimization potential are often not exploited due to an inefficient approach.
This is usually due to the consideration of individual subsystems, which together form a complete system, but are rarely viewed as such. The FOGTEC team has broken this pattern and, in numerous projects around the globe, has not only integrated fire protection systems to increase safety, but has also been able to achieve additional benefits through a holistic approach based on synergy gains.
These can range from gains in design, simplification of evacuation concepts, operational processes, reduction of requirements elsewhere, to purely financial advantages.
A distinction can be made between the impact on the infrastructure and on the “vehicle” system itself.
FAQ – Fire Protection in Smart Concepts
What is a holistic approach?
In this case, stations, vehicles, and the connections between stations are considered as a single system for fire protection purposes, and measures taken in one subsystem are also considered in terms of their impact on the other subsystems.
On what basis are such high cost savings assumed?
The basis for this is a study comparing an existing underground subway network with retrofitting all measures (second evacuation route, smoke-free stations, etc.) compared to equipping all vehicles plus residual measures in the infrastructure.
Do the regulations allow for such an approach?
This is already taken into account as a possibility in NFPA 130, which is why Los Angeles equips all new vehicles with FOGTEC systems. In EN, a compensatory approach has still not been implemented and must be realized via an individual process in the respective project.
In which systems is this approach most effective?
The best possible results can be achieved in systems that can be assigned to an operator with a defined fleet.
