Pachinko Jiko: Meltdown on the Yamanote

[omae mona]

For those in Tokyo who haven't rolled out of bed yet... we are now approaching the 5 hour mark with total shutdown of the Yamanote Line. Sections of Keihin Tohoku, Tokaido, Shonan Shinjuku and Tokaido Shinkansen lines are also not running. As of a few minutes ago, I see JR is finally estimating a 1PM resumption of service.

Apparently a pachinko parlour or game centre went up in flames in Yurakucho, right next to the tracks, around 6:30 AM.

yurakucho-fire.png

NHK video here

[matsuki]

Soooo glad I'm not in Tokyo now

[Russell]

That sounds like a big inconvenience.

I am glad not to make a business trip to Tokyo today.

[omae mona]

They've just pushed their estimates up to 12:30 for resumption of service. I am not sure I would want to be riding a train over that section of track, but maybe molten metal cools faster than I guessed.

Current JR Kanto train status: http://traininfo.jreast.co.jp/train_info/kanto.aspx

[yanpa]

I saw a train moving along the western side of the Yamanote bound for Machida Tamachi just now...

[yanpa]

I wonder if it was an accidental fire or an "accidental" fire.

[matsuki]

I wonder if it was an accidental fire or an "accidental" fire.

With how shitty fire insurance pays out here, the only way it's "accidental" is if the whole places was soaked in gas before the fire.

[Russell]

With how shitty fire insurance pays out here, ...

Could you elaborate on that?

[yanpa]

I wonder if it was an accidental fire or an "accidental" fire.

With how shitty fire insurance pays out here, the only way it's "accidental" is if the whole places was soaked in gas before the fire.

I was thinking of it being "accidental" more along the lines of "occupying prime real-estate up for redevelopment" and/or possibly "the focus of intensive intra-NorkYakuza business relationships".

[matsuki]

With how shitty fire insurance pays out here, ...

Could you elaborate on that?

No personal experience, just heard many horror stories here about fire insurance not paying a reasonable amount or not paying at all, placing the blame on some other cause of the fire or citing some sort of clause that the whole building must be totally destroyed by the fire.

I wonder if it was an accidental fire or an "accidental" fire.

With how shitty fire insurance pays out here, the only way it's "accidental" is if the whole places was soaked in gas before the fire.

I was thinking of it being "accidental" more along the lines of "occupying prime real-estate up for redevelopment" and/or possibly "the focus of intensive intra-NorkYakuza business relationships".

00275198-962183_700[1].jpg

[yanpa]

I was thinking of it being "accidental" more along the lines of "occupying prime real-estate up for redevelopment"

Aha, it is the place I was thinking of. It's part of a little triangle of buildings mostly constructed in what I call the "Showa Shack" style which are now very much out-of place in that area (Yurakucho/Marunouchi/Ginza), I'm sure an enterprising developer who could acquire all the plots could put up a nice little 10~15 storey building in a prime location.

[yanpa]

With how shitty fire insurance pays out here, ...

Could you elaborate on that?

No personal experience, just heard many horror stories here about fire insurance not paying a reasonable amount or not paying at all, placing the blame on some other cause of the fire or citing some sort of clause that the whole building must be totally destroyed by the fire.

IIRC earthquake insurance theoretically covers damage caused directly by the earthquake itself, but if your house burns down because of fires started by the earthquake, you're out of luck. (And no, I didn't bother...)

[Russell]

With how shitty fire insurance pays out here, ...

Could you elaborate on that?

No personal experience, just heard many horror stories here about fire insurance not paying a reasonable amount or not paying at all, placing the blame on some other cause of the fire or citing some sort of clause that the whole building must be totally destroyed by the fire.

IIRC earthquake insurance theoretically covers damage caused directly by the earthquake itself, but if your house burns down because of fires started by the earthquake, you're out of luck. (And no, I didn't bother...)

Even if you have a fire insurance?

[Wage Slave]

With how shitty fire insurance pays out here, ...

Could you elaborate on that?

No personal experience, just heard many horror stories here about fire insurance not paying a reasonable amount or not paying at all, placing the blame on some other cause of the fire or citing some sort of clause that the whole building must be totally destroyed by the fire.

IIRC earthquake insurance theoretically covers damage caused directly by the earthquake itself, but if your house burns down because of fires started by the earthquake, you're out of luck. (And no, I didn't bother...)

I thought it was more earthquake insurance will pay out a token amount for earthquake damage and fire damage consequent to the earthquake is limited by the same token payment. If you just suffer a fire from some other cause then I thought the coverage was OK. But it's been 7 years or so since I looked at it and things may have changed. It might also depend on how old your building is.

[Wage Slave]

With how shitty fire insurance pays out here, ...

Could you elaborate on that?

No personal experience, just heard many horror stories here about fire insurance not paying a reasonable amount or not paying at all, placing the blame on some other cause of the fire or citing some sort of clause that the whole building must be totally destroyed by the fire.

IIRC earthquake insurance theoretically covers damage caused directly by the earthquake itself, but if your house burns down because of fires started by the earthquake, you're out of luck. (And no, I didn't bother...)

Even if you have a fire insurance?

Yes. Or the last time I looked. If the fire is consequent to an earthquake cover is limited by the earthquake rules. And they are very mean. Perhaps they have to be. Earthquake (and consequent fire) damage is typically so widespread it would sink any insurance company if it were fully covered.

[Russell]

That doesn't sound very encouraging.

I had better go through the small letters of my insurance policies...

BTW, the Shinkansen service has also been suspended due to the fire, according to this link.

[omae mona]

BTW, the Shinkansen service has also been suspended due to the fire, according to this link.

I think that's probably old news from this morning, when I originally posted. The realtime JR links seem to be bearing better news at this point.

Kanto area trains: delays on Yamanote, Shonan Shinjuku line (I guess they have not fully caught up yet)
Shinkansen: Currently, all trains on schedule

[Coligny]

Yes. Or the last time I looked. If the fire is consequent to an earthquake cover is limited by the earthquake rules. And they are very mean. Perhaps they have to be. Earthquake (and consequent fire) damage is typically so widespread it would sink any insurance company if it were fully covered.

Sure, but if people realize they are paying insurance to not be reimbursed when SHTF. Insurance companies will go bust...

Maybe...

I hope...

But what you describe is near a situation where Mercedes Benz agree to take your money to buy a car but refuse to give you any car in exchange because is would cost them too much in relation to their desired profit. That's capitalism gone extremly wrong...

[yanpa]

BTW, the Shinkansen service has also been suspended due to the fire, according to this link.

I think that's probably old news from this morning, when I originally posted. The realtime JR links seem to be bearing better news at this point.

Kanto area trains: delays on Yamanote, Shonan Shinjuku line (I guess they have not fully caught up yet)
Shinkansen: Currently, all trains on schedule

I passed that way around 2pm, all services were running, albeit somewhat irregularly, and there was a backlog of Shinkansens waiting to enter Tokyo station.

[matsuki]

With how shitty fire insurance pays out here, ...

Could you elaborate on that?

No personal experience, just heard many horror stories here about fire insurance not paying a reasonable amount or not paying at all, placing the blame on some other cause of the fire or citing some sort of clause that the whole building must be totally destroyed by the fire.

IIRC earthquake insurance theoretically covers damage caused directly by the earthquake itself, but if your house burns down because of fires started by the earthquake, you're out of luck. (And no, I didn't bother...)

That's the type of shit I'm talking about...fire insurance will blame the earthquake, earthquake insurance blames the fire, even with both policies, you end up having to sue either or both just to get some service from either.

That doesn't sound very encouraging.

I had better go through the small letters of my insurance policies...

Better off spending your money building/retrofitting and doing whatever you can to minimize potential damage due to any situation rather than 'feeling' insured by paying a Japanese insurance company. Suddenly reinforced ICF (insulated concrete) homes don't sound so bad, yeah?

[Coligny]

I passed that way around 2pm, all services were running, albeit somewhat irregularly, and there was a backlog of Shinkansens waiting to enter Tokyo station.

They wuz flying a waiting pattern around the station ? I'd be curious to know how JR handle this kind of events knowing that anything slightly out of their standard procedure tend to make everyone commit mass suicide rather than dealing with the unknown...

[yanpa]

I passed that way around 2pm, all services were running, albeit somewhat irregularly, and there was a backlog of Shinkansens waiting to enter Tokyo station.

They wuz flying a waiting pattern around the station ? I'd be curious to know how JR handle this kind of events knowing that anything slightly out of their standard procedure tend to make everyone commit mass suicide rather than dealing with the unknown...

IIRC they were terminating Shinkansens at Shinagawa before the line was reopened, for which I presume they have some kind of contingency plan.

I did see a Yamanote Line train roll into Takadanobaba as a kaiso, then have its destination changed to Tamachi (not Machida as I wrote above), where there is a turnback siding (not sure what the technical term is) so I presume they at least have some options for other routes beyond the standard "shut the entire line down until the single blockage is cleared" directive.

Now, what would really bugger things up would be some sort of inflammable liquid tank truck collision and dramatic explosion on the road bridge south of Shinagawa Station, which would not only take out all but one JR lines leading into Tokyo from the south, and as an added bonus the Keikyu line.

[Wage Slave]

Better off spending your money building/retrofitting and doing whatever you can to minimize potential damage due to any situation rather than 'feeling' insured by paying a Japanese insurance company. Suddenly reinforced ICF (insulated concrete) homes don't sound so bad, yeah?

I trust any insurance company about as far as I can throw them and yes, I'd agree that if cover against earthquake damage/fire is even available, it will realistically be at such a cost that the money would be better spent on improving quake resistance and fire control. As far as I understand the principle of private enterprise insurance, some things are just not insurable - Nuclear power stations for example. Oddly though, with all these well attested flaws many seem to believe that private insurance is the best way to organise healthcare. But I digress.

I could be completely wrong about this but my impression of the huge quake was that the vast majority of residential and commercial structures didn't collapse and that although there were some fires the automatic switch off systems and such worked well. What ruined everything was the Tsunami and a certain nuclear power station not coping well with either the quake or the Tsunami. There have been numerous pretty significant quakes since which haven't caused significant damage - or fires.

If our house gets hit by a really big one then as long as it doesn't actually collapse with us in it that will have to do. Repairs and rebuilding will inevitably cost a lot and won't happen all that soon either. Luckily, as outsiders, we have the option to just leave for a while if it's really bad.

[Coligny]

I trust any insurance company about as far as I can throw them and yes, I'd agree that if cover against earthquake damage/fire is even available, it will realistically be at such a cost that the money would be better spent on improving quake resistance and fire control. As far as I understand the principle of private enterprise insurance, some things are just not insurable - Nuclear power stations for example. Oddly though, with all these well attested flaws many seem to believe that private insurance is the best way to organise healthcare. But I digress.

In the US, Limited private insurance, the rest is covered by the taxpayer:

Price Anderson act

[yanpa]

I could be completely wrong about this but my impression of the huge quake was that the vast majority of residential and commercial structures didn't collapse

I read somewhere (sorry, no link) that of the buildings destroyed, only 2% were destroyed by the earthquake itself, the rest by the tsunami. On the other hand I also remember seeing a documentary or news report (sorry again, this is anecdotal) about a claims adjuster going round buildings in the Tohoku area assessing damage, of which there seemed to be a fair amount to varying degrees. There were also quite a few homes outside the Tohoku area (mainly Chiba) which were rendered unihabitable due to ground liquefication, no idea what the insurance situation there is but probably not good. (Note to self: never buy property which doesn't come with its own land, and if it does make sure that land didn't used to be a water feature).

[matsuki]

Homes 1-3 stories should be safe from most earthquakes, if built properly. Might be some damage but nothing disastrous and certainly no need for those underhome earthquake-proofing systems they are scamming people on now.

Liquefaction...yeah, let's just not build there. The quake did a good job of showing the places to avoid.

[Coligny]

You guys do know that liquefaction under structures is a problem easily solved by driving down long concrete poles in a grid pattern before building on top ?

Take a cup of sand, drive toothpicks init every 5 mm. You can now hold it ipside down without spills. Works also with sands from the small bowls where you burn sentend sticks in temples or in front of the dead people closet at home... (Whut that stuff name already ?... Founded, it's butsudan, yay me ! )

[matsuki]

You guys do know that liquefaction under structures is a problem easily solved by driving down long concrete poles in a grid pattern before building on top ?

Take a cup of sand, drive toothpicks init every 5 mm. You can now hold it ipside down without spills. Works also with sands from the small bowls where you burn sentend sticks in temples or in front of the dead people closet at home... (Whut that stuff name already ?... Founded, it's butsudan, yay me ! )

Yeah, that's why Disneyland survived....but that's a huuuge added cost.

[IparryU]

With how shitty fire insurance pays out here, ...

Could you elaborate on that?

No personal experience, just heard many horror stories here about fire insurance not paying a reasonable amount or not paying at all, placing the blame on some other cause of the fire or citing some sort of clause that the whole building must be totally destroyed by the fire.

IIRC earthquake insurance theoretically covers damage caused directly by the earthquake itself, but if your house burns down because of fires started by the earthquake, you're out of luck. (And no, I didn't bother...)

There is repairable damage which pays up to 70%, such as a crack on the outer walls or is basically cosmetic repairs. Many building owners opted to pay for repairs themselves because it saves more money as you have to renew insurance every 5 years and like many types of insurance, if you claim the bill goes up.

Then there is unrepairable damage like main support beam that would require for the building to be partially destroyed to be repaired. Which is "similar" (read in same category) to the building crumbling and having to be rebuilt. The % of coverage for that is fuck all IIRC.

Same for fire, bit with more variables, such as if the fire was intentional, caused by another fire that spread from a different structure, or if it was accidental.

I forgot the length of fire insurance coverage, but it may be for the life of the mortgage, 15 years, and/or upon change of owner.

Sent from my SC-03E using Tapatalk

[Coligny]

Pretty sure there is an insurance included with the financing of them buildings. Reason why the clinic has not been fully paid yet, the money went to Meitetsu shares instead...
But that's for pro buildings, the house has been fully paid for long ago.