What does that have to do with the thread?
But I don't understand what your preferred flushing mechanism (personally I do not have a preference in this field, but each to their own!) or Northern trains have to do with either the incident in this thread or the legislation that you started complaining about.
Good for her. This is one of those things that should never, ever be allowed to happen - especially not to a paying customer.An update to this story now, thanks to the mods for re-opening the thread. The lady in question has won a payout.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-42084435
I once boarded a train at Gatwick Airport. It was a Reading bound train. I knew I'd need the loo but I didn't have to go right then. Eventually train departed and I went to find the loo. It was locked. So was the other. I mentioned it to guard who seemed to act as if they already knew. If they did, they could have at least told us in advance. They didn't sound to bothered by the situation.Presumably the train crew knew the toilet was out of use when the poor traveller was assisted on to the train in the first place, or do these things go out of service on their own during the journey? If they did know, they could have informed her and suggested the next train might be better. If they did know but did not tell her then that is a poor show. Those of us who are lucky enough to be able to get around without assistance have many more options, including getting off at the next station.
If the toilet did go out of service during the journey it would be a courtesy to inform the disabled traveller of this and ask if she need to get off part way at one of the bigger stations (e.g. Leicester).
Very large fines for TOCs for disabled toilets out of service might encourage more maintenance effort (and perhaps better designs) to prevent the problem in the first place.
I'm not disabled myself, but I do think that proper and reliable provision for those who are is a mark of a civilised society. Spend a day in a busy hospital and then give thanks for how lucky you are.
I wouldn't say trains should be taken out of service without a loo but I do think all new rolling stock should be built with one.One of the Cardiff to Portsmouth sets did 2 round trips today without a toilet
I don't recall complaining about any legislation ? The point is, you can have a fully accessible flush toilet whilst meeting the legislation. The difference is you can still use a flush loo, even if they've not filled the cistern tank and its not flushing, whereas the slightest sign of trouble, these vacuum ones are locked out.
I wouldn't say trains should be taken out of service without a loo but I do think all new rolling stock should be built with one.
Good for her. This is one of those things that should never, ever be allowed to happen - especially not to a paying customer.
If the toilet tank is full, the loo will lock out of use.
If the toilet is blocked, it will be locked out of use.
If the loo will not flush then it will be locked out of use.
If the loo is damaged it will be locked out of use.
What do you expect them to do?
And if you haven't realised it loos that "dump" on the tracks are now being phased out since they are a health hazard and illegal in all new trains.
There's nothing wrong or inappropriate about 2 car 170s on Birmingham / Cambridge services.
Mark 4's and some 158's have flush lavatories with retention tanks.
Mark 4s can best be described as having 'retention' tanks. When they get full they spill over, particularly when going around corners.
Many people who go lineside react/shield themselves much more to a Mark 4 set going past than a traditional tankless train. I have heard said 'if an HST goes past and someone pulls the chain you get that one person's dooings, if its a Mark 4 you may well get some from everyone onboard!'
It's a minimum requirement to install a toilet that meets the accessibility requirements by 2020. I think we have been over this...
So, could this court case result in TOCs removing toilets in future designs?IF one is provided. Having one at all is not required.
So, could this court case result in TOCs removing toilets in future designs?
You're joking right?
I'm lucky enough not to regularly need to travel on Cross Country services, but whilst waiting at Leicester for my usual EMT service to Nottingham I see just how rammed the Birmingham/Cambridge services are.
It's pretty disgusting that an inter-regional service that serves so many popular destinations gets such short shrift with the choice of stock, but it seems minimal effort is the policy of Cross Country.
Just being pedantic; the Pullman cars operating out of Baker Street, withdrawn in the early years of WWII, were fitted with a toilet.London Transport trains have never offered these . . .
Do the new PRM changes mean that both need to be locked out of use for equality?
There does seem, however, to be a continuing theme there based on ownership.
The fact that EMT (as managers of Leicester station) did not have staff available to assist with de-training a disabled passenger makes them just as culpable as XC in my opinion.
By quickly reading posts earlier in the thread that implied an all-or-nothing approachWhere the hell would anyone get that insane idea from?
Because for some people, it’s apparently an exceptional effort to (a) arrange toilet stops at stations when the universal loo is broken, (b) tank the toilets adequately in the first place.Where the hell would anyone get that insane idea from?
Because for some people, it’s apparently an exceptional effort to (a) arrange toilet stops at stations when the universal loo is broken, (b) tank the toilets adequately in the first place.
Whenever a person or organisation says this, they’re effectively saying “OK, we’ll treat everyone like we treat disabled people, and see how they like it.” The fact this is a bad thing arguably shows more about their attitude to disabled people than they intended.
The train had a guard. What was he doing?
Or have we reached the point where guards aren't allowed to use platform ramps? In which case the railway needs its collective heads banging together (or an on board ramp on every single train).
And what has that got to do with XC? You'd be stuck with them regardless of who had the franchise...Cross Country really is a very poor TOC. There does seem, however, to be a continuing theme there based on ownership.
But no, there is nothing suitable about a 2-car DMU on anything other than a country branch line, and these days not even all of those.