• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Paralympian forced to wet herself on train without accessible toilet

Status
Not open for further replies.

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
And attitudes like that will just get all the toilets taken out of use.
If this is the result of providing them then it clearly is not going to be worth it.

And what about all those other passengers? Potentially thousands that are affected by a train sitting in a platform for 20 or more minutes.

What are you on about?

We're talking about a human being wetting herself because she was unable to go to the toilet. YES, that is absolutely more important than losing some minutes (20?? no...) and yes, you should delay the train for a reasonable length of time to allow for a toilet stop. This is basic human dignity.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Via Bank

Member
Joined
28 Mar 2010
Messages
669
Location
London
That might be a medical affliction, but where is it classed as a disability. Will you be classed as disabled because of it?

If it prohibits someone from carrying out their day to day business and getting on with their life, then yes, it is a disability.

It is not what is different about a person that disables them, but society's failure to accommodate this variance. Look up the social model of disability.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
That might be a medical affliction, but where is it classed as a disability. Will you be classed as disabled because of it?

However, you may have a disability, a symptom of which means you need to use the toilet frequently or urgently.
 

Via Bank

Member
Joined
28 Mar 2010
Messages
669
Location
London
And attitudes like that will just get all the toilets taken out of use.
If this is the result of providing them then it clearly is not going to be worth it.

And what about all those other passengers? Potentially thousands that are affected by a train sitting in a platform for 20 or more minutes. Potentially forcing several other trains to stack up behind it.

Then perhaps that would be an incentive for TOCs to provide adequate toilet facilities and assistance for disabled people?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
What are you on about?

We're talking about a human being wetting herself because she was unable to go to the toilet. YES, that is absolutely more important than losing some minutes
Unless you assign delay minutes a zero value then at some point delaying some people will eventually become more important than anything else if there are enough people.
How about some people missed a flight to get on a holiday of a lifetime because of the collapse of the timetable that results from this.
Or how about the people who didn't reach their parents bedside before they died because they were stuck on a train stacked up behind this one?
(20?? no...)
The train crew is going to have to manhandle the person off the train, probably firemans lift them across the station as apparently lifts are out of action, wait for them to go to the toilet and then do it all back again.
20 minutes is not unreasonable in that circumstance.
and yes, you should delay the train for a reasonable length of time to allow for a toilet stop. This is basic human dignity.

The dignity of one person. Weighed against hundreds of others, all of whoom have their own reasons to want to be where the train is going to. All of whoom deserve to get there when the railway said they would get there.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Then perhaps that would be an incentive for TOCs to provide adequate toilet facilities and assistance for disabled people?

Or an incentive for the TOCs to withdraw the toilets and publish that they are doing so. That discharges their equality obligations in their entirety.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
Regular access to toilet facilities should be and franchise requirement be that on board the train or frequently at stations (for example no more than 10 minutes travel time away)

Toilet facilities should be accessible from the train without requiring permission from anyone to use ( asking in itself can be embarrassing )

When I was working at West Drayton the rpis working there refused me access to the toilet facilities and I felt quite humiliated.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
What are you on about?

We're talking about a human being wetting herself because she was unable to go to the toilet. YES, that is absolutely more important than losing some minutes (20?? no...) and yes, you should delay the train for a reasonable length of time to allow for a toilet stop. This is basic human dignity.

The lady in the wheelchair may not have *wanted* to be the one holding everyone else up for 20 minutes whilst she went to the loo, even if she was offered it as a choice.

Personally, I would feel embarrassed if a 100-odd other passengers had been sat for 20 minutes just so I could go to the toilet, and then had to go back and sheepishly re-join them (imagine the glares a minority of other passengers would give, even if the vast majority - for which I would include myself - would be understanding).

Living with a disability is not always about expecting special treatment for everything; this lady may have just wished to be able to do what everyone else does (going to the loo without inconveniencing or delaying others), without having to be the one for whom special arrangements must be made above the needs of others. On the flip side, how many able bodied people would honestly consider an hour-long delay on their journey home just to use the loo acceptable? Especially on a cold winters' evening.

That's what many people with a disability would consider "equality".
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
Unless you assign delay minutes a zero value then at some point delaying some people will eventually become more important than anything else if there are enough people.
How about some people missed a flight to get on a holiday of a lifetime because of the collapse of the timetable that results from this.
Or how about the people who didn't reach their parents bedside before they died because they were stuck on a train stacked up behind this one?

Delay minutes do not have a zero value, which is why I was specific about including the term "reasonable". In any case, the customer was offered to alight and wait for the next train, incurring almost no delay to the train at all. There is no "collapse of the timetable" going on, nor is there likely to be, because of toilet stops. I've worked in a control centre (for XC!); I've seen lots of 170s incur toilet stops.

Just to repeat the scenario in the OP - the customer could have alighted and used the toilet at the station, but for some reason was unable to alight. That was the only barrier - getting from the train to the platform.

The train crew is going to have to manhandle the person off the train, probably firemans lift them across the station as apparently lifts are out of action, wait for them to go to the toilet and then do it all back again.
20 minutes is not unreasonable in that circumstance.

Nobody is talking about fireman's lifts! You stop the train at a station which has toilet facilities. If the toilet facilities are inaccessible then you simply keep going on the journey until you find an accessible one. At all times, the customer should be kept informed and involved with the process, and it should never come to the situation as described by the customer in this case.

The dignity of one person. Weighed against hundreds of others, all of whoom have their own reasons to want to be where the train is going to. All of whoom deserve to get there when the railway said they would get there.

You're weighing basic human dignity - the dignity of not soiling yourself - against operational convenience. From my experience, I think your hypothetical examples are unrealistic and somewhat hysterical.

Mercifully, it would appear you have no role in the running of the railway.
 

Bellbell

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2013
Messages
245
The only possible explanation I can think of is that the guard said she could get off and wait for the next one and she refused the offer but later changed her mind and was unable to notify the guard so when she made her way to the doors there was no one there to assist.

Personally I would have held the train for her and think the guard was wrong to tell her to wait for the next one, for an hour - 10 minutes, fine.

All of our trains have onboard ramps and every single guard would be able to use the ramps. I've never worked for a different TOC and frankly never stopped to think about it but surely all trains with disabled toilets have ramps on board? If not on board then they must be accessible at stations, presumably, unless all stations on the route are staffed at all hours? Even then I'd be surprised if train crew couldn't access ramps.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Delay minutes do not have a zero value, which is why I was specific about including the term "reasonable". In any case, the customer was offered to alight and wait for the next train, incurring almost no delay to the train at all. There is no "collapse of the timetable" going on, nor is there likely to be, because of toilet stops. I've worked in a control centre (for XC!); I've seen lots of 170s incur toilet stops.
Yes, but I can think of numerous places on this route where stopping the train could have caused serious problems. We don't have enough information to make any kind of informed comment - and I am getting rather annoyed at the people in this thread demanding the heads of all responsible.
Just to repeat the scenario in the OP - the customer could have alighted and used the toilet at the station, but for some reason was unable to alight. That was the only barrier - getting from the train to the platform.
If that is so why didn't some passengers offer to simply carry her and her wheelchair off the train? There is clearly some other circumstance here that made that not possible.
Or as she said - why could noone simply carry her to the normal toilet since she was apparently willing to crawl but was only prevented from doing so by the distance.
There is something not at all clear about this scenario.
Nobody is talking about fireman's lifts! You stop the train at a station which has toilet facilities. If the toilet facilities are inaccessible then you simply keep going on the journey until you find an accessible one. At all times, the customer should be kept informed and involved with the process, and it should never come to the situation as described by the customer in this case.
But this is a time limited scenario.
What happens if the time available to reach an appropriate station expires before they do reach an appropriate station?
You're weighing basic human dignity - the dignity of not soiling yourself - against operational convenience. From my experience, I think your hypothetical examples are unrealistic and somewhat hysterical.
Really?
If you select a few hundred passengers at random from the railway then I think it is likely that you will get at least one passenger with a story similar to the one I described.
Especially on a route that is not in full blown commuter country.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
The only possible explanation I can think of is that the guard said she could get off and wait for the next one and she refused the offer but later changed her mind and was unable to notify the guard so when she made her way to the doors there was no one there to assist.

This is the only thing I can think of, too.

However, I know XC's culture. They are quite good at sticking up for themselves and their staff when they come under fire.

That XC have simply apologised and got the MD involved signifies that something went quite badly wrong, either on an individual or procedural level.
 

Liam

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2010
Messages
1,246
The dignity of one person. Weighed against hundreds of others, all of whoom have their own reasons to want to be where the train is going to. All of whoom deserve to get there when the railway said they would get there.

I'd rather be delayed 20 minutes than have to be present as someone wet themselves.

Was there any delay on the return journey? I assume the train was cleaned before it's next working.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Was there any delay on the return journey? I assume the train was cleaned before it's next working.
I very much doubt it - even assuming any fluid reached the train floor such things can be cleaned up in a matter of a couple of minutes using appropriate materiel.
And I know that from experience.
 

Bellbell

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2013
Messages
245
This is the only thing I can think of, too.

However, I know XC's culture. They are quite good at sticking up for themselves and their staff when they come under fire.

That XC have simply apologised and got the MD involved signifies that something went quite badly wrong, either on an individual or procedural level.

I did wonder. If your interpretation of the response is correct, and I don't doubt it is, then XC deserve the bad press they get. My TOC is far, far from perfect, but heads would absolutely roll over an incident like this.
 

brompton rail

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2009
Messages
754
Location
Doncaster
I did wonder. If your interpretation of the response is correct, and I don't doubt it is, then XC deserve the bad press they get. My TOC is far, far from perfect, but heads would absolutely roll over an incident like this.

Yet XC didn't put up a spokesperson for Radio Five Live, nor for Channel Four News last night, I understand. "No comment" /"No spokesperson " is an appalling Public Relations blunder.
 

trainophile

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2010
Messages
6,186
Location
Wherever I lay my hat
I read it that the reason she wasn't de-trained at the intermediate station might have been because, in the absence of any station staff (hence the lack of ramp assistance), the station might have been closed, and the toilets locked, so therefore even if she had been taken off the train it wouldn't have helped her situation.

Very brave lady to tell her story in public, and I hope it does some good.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
Yet XC didn't put up a spokesperson for Radio Five Live, nor for Channel Four News last night, I understand. "No comment" /"No spokesperson " is an appalling Public Relations blunder.

It isn't always.

If your position is completely indefensible to the public then you would certainly not accept a broadcast bid.

Not offering a comment or interview limits the content of the news story and can have the effect of making it go away quicker. As always, a judgement call should be made.
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
This talk of no ramps is getting pretty confusing. 170s carry ramps, the guard will know how to use a ramp so this situation of being unable to get off sounds really odd.

The more I think about it the more I get the impression the guard may have had no idea what was happening. My experience of the XC guards on that route is they are fairly proactive and tend to be up and down the train. I have a feeling (obviously not confirmed) the ubiquitous "member of train crew" was the trolley person who then hasn't bothered to tell the guard.
 

trainophile

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2010
Messages
6,186
Location
Wherever I lay my hat
This talk of no ramps is getting pretty confusing. 170s carry ramps, the guard will know how to use a ramp so this situation of being unable to get off sounds really odd.

The more I think about it the more I get the impression the guard may have had no idea what was happening. My experience of the XC guards on that route is they are fairly proactive and tend to be up and down the train. I have a feeling (obviously not confirmed) the ubiquitous "member of train crew" was the trolley person who then hasn't bothered to tell the guard.

Or, as I posted above, if the station was unstaffed then the toilets might have been locked anyway, so there would have been no point taking the lady to them. If she commenced her journey at 17:22 then it would be getting quite late by the time this situation arose, and it is quite likely that the station had locked the toilets for the night. They do that at my local station, even though services are still running.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
I have a feeling (obviously not confirmed) the ubiquitous "member of train crew" was the trolley person who then hasn't bothered to tell the guard.
That's what I was thinking, but it doesn't square with the quote from the article:
This would have delayed her journey home but in the event there were no staff at the station to help her so she was unable to get off the train.
Unless they made up porkie pies after the event?
 

jamesontheroad

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2009
Messages
2,032
It now appears that Ms Strike was not the only disabled passenger to be inconvenienced over recent weeks. This has just been published by the Guardian.

'I feared for my health': disabled actor tells of nightmare train journey

Samantha Renke, who starred in Maltesers ads, says accessible toilet and disabled area were blocked with luggage during two-and-a-half-hour trip

A disabled actor has told the Guardian that she was left “really upset” and fearful for her health after a train company failed to provide easy access to her reserved space and an accessible toilet during a two-and-a-half hour train journey.

Samantha Renke, who recently starred in high-profile adverts for Maltesers, has brittle bone disease, which means she is susceptible to injury and has to use a wheelchair. She was travelling from Preston to London on Virgin Trains on 27 December and was unable to take her seat because the disabled area she had reserved was filled with bags.

The Lancashire-born actor, who lives in Shoreditch in east London, said she was travelling alone after visiting family and struggled to get on the train at Preston. When she went to take up the area she had reserved it was blocked with luggage. She told the Guardian she was then asked to move to the next carriage, where the disabled area was also filled with bags so she was asked to return to her original place.

“There was no consensus at all between the staff what should be done, whether people should have to move their bags or not, it was me who had to step in and point to the sign that says there has to be disabled access in that area by law,” she said.

The bags were eventually moved to enable Renke to take her place, but being surrounded by baggage there was “absolutely no way” of her getting to the toilet on the train, she said. “I couldn’t have a sip of water or a coffee. To be honest, it was so stressful I would have liked a glass of wine, but there was no way.”

It comes after the Guardian revealed that the awardwinning Paralympic athlete Anne Wafula Strike was left to urinate on herself because CrossCountry trains failed to provide an accessible toilet on a three-hour journey.

...story continues here
 

jamesontheroad

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2009
Messages
2,032
I have a feeling (obviously not confirmed) the ubiquitous "member of train crew" was the trolley person who then hasn't bothered to tell the guard.

Possibly, and (assuming it was a weekday?) given it was rush hour and this service is usually standing room only from Leicester.

However the third party contractors who provide the catering service on this service have to leave the train themselves to get one of the ramps stored on the platforms at Peterborough when they leave the train.

(This can be quite frantic, as they occasionally arrive in PBO at the wrong end of the train, and have to leave a stocked trolley and locked cash drawer to scarper up to the platform stairs to retrieve the ramp.)
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
Or, as I posted above, if the station was unstaffed then the toilets might have been locked anyway, so there would have been no point taking the lady to them. If she commenced her journey at 17:22 then it would be getting quite late by the time this situation arose, and it is quite likely that the station had locked the toilets for the night. They do that at my local station, even though services are still running.

The only station that would make sense for is March, its the only station en route with toilets and shorter staffing hours. And that doesn't make a great deal of sense as March is only ~15m from Peterborough and ~20m from Ely which are both start to finish stations.

More logical is between Leicester and Peterborough where you have an hour between stations with facilities.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
And attitudes like that will just get all the toilets taken out of use.
If this is the result of providing them then it clearly is not going to be worth it.

And what about all those other passengers? Potentially thousands that are affected by a train sitting in a platform for 20 or more minutes. Potentially forcing several other trains to stack up behind it.

Thus forcing the rail operators to tackle the issue.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
Thus forcing the rail operators to tackle the issue.

Probably by just removing all the on-board toilets, then they could say that disabled passengers aren't disadvantaged. Does the disabled bay of a Turbostar have a call-for-aid button?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Probably by just removing all the on-board toilets, then they could say that disabled passengers aren't disadvantaged.

People whose disability requires frequent access to toilet facilities are. Why do people persist in thinking "disabled = wheelchair"? I would suggest that those with continence/urgency issues are far more common than wheelchair users, and even if it is not legally a disability it is one in practice.

Indeed, I find it hypocritical that it is acceptable for public toilet provision to be continually eroded while everywhere has to provide wheelchair access. Both are required, as otherwise some people will increasingly be housebound and unable to enjoy things like public parks due to lack of facilities.
 

amcluesent

Member
Joined
19 Dec 2010
Messages
877
Many years back I purchased a disabled toilet key from Ebay, which has often come in handy
 

LeylandLen

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2013
Messages
779
Location
Leyland Lancs
The young lady in question has done TV interviews on regional TV for London , ITV then BBC.Yes the BBC did show library footage of a Cross Country train .
In a statement,XC trains said 'this has never happened before ' which I found hard to believe..
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
The young lady in question has done TV interviews on regional TV for London , ITV then BBC.Yes the BBC did show library footage of a Cross Country train .
In a statement,XC trains said 'this has never happened before ' which I found hard to believe..

I can't remember anyone ever soiling themselves in those circumstances on a train in five years on the railway. I can certainly imagine it's never happened on XC since they took the franchise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top