• 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!

Toilet Retention Tanks. Why bother?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Morpethcurve

Member
Joined
26 Jun 2012
Messages
156
Good Day All,

I've tried a few searches - numerous mentions of tanks in passing, couldn't find a thread specific to the issue.

Can someone make the penny drop (ha ha - think about it...) for me please. Although dropping toilet waste on the sleepers seems a bit unsavoury per se, how much of a big deal is it in practical terms?

At any speed, the product is effectively atomised as it hits the ground, and who is affected, apart from railway staff walking on the tracks?

Do said staff need a high level of protection compared to, say, sewer workers, who spend much more time in much closer proximity to the substance?

What about farmers, who spend much of their working lives walking about in animal effluent?

How about dog owners cleaning up their gardens (and me, flinging cat poo over the back fence every few days)? Loads of people allow dogs and cats to lick their faces. The potential for indirect fecal contact is surely considerable.

What medical evidence is there for rail workers becoming ill from contact (and I wonder what the comparative stats are for sewer workers and farmers)?

I am eager to be educated here. Am I being naïve in thinking that the only real downside with the way we've done things for over a century is the occasional souvenir left on the track in a station due to passenger thoughtlessness or desperation?

The cost of designing/installing tanks, plus the infrastructure needed to empty them, is massive. Justifiable?

Thanks - Morpethcurve
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

CosherB

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2007
Messages
3,041
Location
Northwich
I don't think you'll find much sympathy with your point of view on here. Quite the opposite in fact ..... :roll:
 

185

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
4,972
I see both arguments.

For - These are considered key by some trackworkers to protect them from airborne poop during flushing, and poop in the fourfoot. The tanks ensure the line is clearer for proper inspections to take place. They reduce horrific smells on station platforms.

Against - Trains stink when tanks become full, or occasionally fractured. Toilets can lock out after less than half a day's use. Many other trackworkers consider them a nightmare, if you are on the outside curve of a high speed line, on track or platform, the retention tanks become un-retention tanks at 125mph and the centrifugal force of the curve turns a HST into a super-soaker of jet-poop.
 

trainmania100

Established Member
Joined
8 Nov 2015
Messages
2,566
Location
Newhaven
The last thing i'd want is to be sat at a level crossing and s### come flying at my windscreen or even my face as its jettisoned at high pressure from beneath the train
 

47513 Severn

Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
163
Take a wander along the Eastern side platforms at Liverpool Street and you will see the problem is far from an "occasional souvenir". Passengers ignoring the notices and cleaners having to deal with unflushed toilets make for a very unpleasant environment, especially on hot days.

I can understand the track worker argument as well. In this day and age it really is unacceptable for anyone to be at risk of being sprayed with atomised effluent while doing their job. Farmers are shielded inside their tractors and sewer workers wear protective suits (and breathing apparatus, going by the Heathrow Airport series I am watching at the moment). Neither is practical for track workers and we have a solution in the form of retention tanks.

The main issue would appear to be the robustness of the equipment and capacity of the tanks, both of which are largely cost driven. Aircraft vacuum toilets seem better in this respect but the very expensive consequences of multiple toilets being out of action on a long flight probably ensure that they are built to higher standards.
 
Last edited:

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
6,457
Location
Somewhere
At any speed, the product is effectively atomised as it hits the ground, and who is affected, apart from railway staff walking on the tracks?

Is that not enough for you then?:roll:




Do said staff need a high level of protection compared to, say, sewer workers, who spend much more time in much closer proximity to the substance?

I'm sure they don't get sprayed with the stuff and if they do or are in such close proximity I am sure the will have proper PPE to account for it. Track workers generally have to wear the same uniform throughout the day.

What about farmers, who spend much of their working lives walking about in animal effluent?

Animal effluent as found on farms has a different make up to that of humans and is generally considered good for the environment...at least as far as fertilization.

How about dog owners cleaning up their gardens (and me, flinging cat poo over the back fence every few days)? Loads of people allow dogs and cats to lick their faces. The potential for indirect fecal contact is surely considerable.

Yes and they shouldn't do, but that is not an argument against retention tanks.

What medical evidence is there for rail workers becoming ill from contact (and I wonder what the comparative stats are for sewer workers and farmers)?

Why does there HAVE to be evidence of workers becoming ill? Why can't we do something about it before that happens?

Crap on the track is archaic and has no business being in the 21st century any more than it should be floating down your street.

Edit. Being reduced to a spray does not kill the bacteria and only serves to blanket a wider area.
 
Last edited:

alxndr

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2015
Messages
1,467
At slower speeds, for example just after a station where everyone seems to want a dump, it's most definitely not "atomised". Points in station areas are invariably coated in the stuff, which then needs to be cleaned off. Being on your hands and knees, armed with a rag and a brush, in a minefield of droppings isn't pleasant in any from, especially at night when it's harder to see.

It's perhaps not deadly, there are gloves and hand wash facilities in the vans, and people just crack on and do it, but at this point you'd think that we'd had moved past that sort of thing. Gloves and hand wash stuff doesn't help much when you get a face full of high speed flush though, that's just a case of turning round as quick as possible and trying to forget.

The p-way have it harder in some respects, I know of one issue where a station are needs kango packing, but they're refusing to do it because of the years of excrement that's soaked into the ballast and will be thrown up as soon as they start.
 

goblinuser

Member
Joined
12 May 2017
Messages
292
It is also nicer not to have raw sewage seeping down onto pedestrians from rail bridges.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
Human effluent carries a high risk of Hepatitis amongst other things. Animal waste is generally not nearly as bad in this respect. You would also expect sewage workers and relevant farm workers to suit up quite heavily, and spend a lot of time decontaminating areas before they do various tasks. Track workers don't have time to spend doing the decontamination in short possessions and will struggle to perform a lot of their tasks if suited up like sewage workers.

Retention tanks being full is definitely a problem, but the solution is likely to be more in-service emptying of tanks at terminus stations rather than just spraying the contents around the place.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
You should have seen the fly-on-the-wall documentary about life at Laira depot in Plymouth.
Somebody there has the job of scraping the underside of HSTs to remove the plastered-on effluent around the toilets.
Not nice.
Anybody praising the "iconic" design of the HST should remember this massive defect, which also applies to loco hauled Mk3s.
CET upgrades (and powered external doors) have been very slow in coming, but any Mk3 stock retained after 2020 will have to have them fitted.
 

Morpethcurve

Member
Joined
26 Jun 2012
Messages
156
Thanks for all responses to my provocative original thread starter. I am enlightened in that:-

1) I didn't realise human produce was rather more harmful to humans than animal waste. I've been on farms and walked around in cow biers, pig sheds and chicken sheds and thought little of it, because farmers do it day in, day out.

2) I failed to progress my argument about waste atomising on the tracks on impact, to the consequences for trackside bystanders. I had not thought of the airborne spray implications. My (volunteering) role in infrastructure/track maintenance at a heritage railway hardly exposes me to the same unpleasantness.

I hope the industry will not end up spending gazillions only to swap one problem for others (the above-mentioned tank emptying requirement, and potential for previously non-existent technical problems).

Personal objective achieved - I am educated. Thanks again.

Regards - Morpethcurve
 

NickBucks

Member
Joined
17 May 2013
Messages
183
Perhaps the OP could , for investigative purposes, remove all sanitary fittings from his home and convert the W.C. into a spare bedroom. He could then arrange for all the human waste produced by his family to be spread upon his garden. He could then advise us if he has any neighbours still talking to him after about six months.
 
Joined
19 May 2011
Messages
128
I have to assume that one of the reasons London Liverpool Street consistently smells like fresh, raw sewage is because of the lack of retention tanks. In warm weather it's particularly unpleasant.
 

ScotTrains

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2014
Messages
376
Location
Scotland
One solution to address some of the problems with retention tanks could be to have special waste pits under the tracks at key locations along the route. The tanks could empty automatically when the train travels over the pit. This would keep trackside workers happy, Keep the track cleaner, reduce the need for toilets to be locked out and reduce onboard smell. It would also mean depot staff wouldn't need to empty the tanks themselves. The pit could be connected to the sewer system/ treatment works and be located in a tunnel or covered over out of sight. Just a thought.
 

GW43125

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2014
Messages
2,045
There's always a certain smell of effluence when you open a droplight window...
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
The main issue would appear to be the robustness of the equipment and capacity of the tanks, both of which are largely cost driven. Aircraft vacuum toilets seem better in this respect but the very expensive consequences of multiple toilets being out of action on a long flight probably ensure that they are built to higher standards.

Aircraft also have masses of space under the passenger section for tanks etc. Indeed I seem to recall on a programme about the A380, that the waste products from the toilets are fired at some massive speed (100mph) to a central tank!
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
We've been fitting controlled emission toilets to trains since the 90s. The sleeping mark 3s and the 159s had them from new didn't they? Why go back on the policy now?
 
Last edited:

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
Say you had portable tanks the size of bogie tankers, could they be used to empty onboard CETs into, being swapped out when near full with the full ones taken away to be emptied at a suitable location, then ready to be swapped out with full ones?
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
Aircraft also have masses of space under the passenger section for tanks etc. Indeed I seem to recall on a programme about the A380, that the waste products from the toilets are fired at some massive speed (100mph) to a central tank!

And there's me thinking that Billy Connelly's "jobbie wheecher" was a true story! :D
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
We've been fitting controlled emission toilets to trains since the 90s. The sleeping mark 3s and the 159s had them from new didn't they? Why go back on the policy now?

Civilisation. The march of progress. The OP's proposition is ridiculous.
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
2,880
Location
Lancashire
One solution to address some of the problems with retention tanks could be to have special waste pits under the tracks at key locations along the route. The tanks could empty automatically when the train travels over the pit. This would keep trackside workers happy, Keep the track cleaner, reduce the need for toilets to be locked out and reduce onboard smell. It would also mean depot staff wouldn't need to empty the tanks themselves. The pit could be connected to the sewer system/ treatment works and be located in a tunnel or covered over out of sight. Just a thought.

Except the tanks have to be sucked out using vacuum they don't have opening bottoms!!
 

GW43125

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2014
Messages
2,045
You've opened the doors on a HST? Ever wondered what the brown stuff on your fingers is?

Just look out of the window, see that brown stuff up the end of the carriage and all over the door (and that cloud of spray from the other end of the train whilst you're heading along)?

Not good.

(Call me OCD if you wish, but this is part of the reason I often use gloves when opening HST doors...)
 

sheepy1991

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2009
Messages
32
One point that doesnt appear to have been mentioned at all is the corrosive and damaging nature of just dumping waste to both infrastructure and on train equipment.

That was the main reason for a push for CET units being fitted to trains originally combined with the much reduced required water capacity which has a cost and weight saving. Now working conditions have been looked into thats what has sealed the fate on non CET units but that was never the original push...

Ive lost count of the amount of times a brake cylinder slack adjuster would fail on the brake rigging closest to the waste pipe requiring a complete brake cylinder change, amongst other routine tasks. It was never a pleasant experience doing any kind of underframe work on the toilet coaches or the adjacent vehicles... im so glad that those jobs for myself are now very few and far between...
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
That was the main reason for a push for CET units being fitted to trains originally combined with the much reduced required water capacity which has a cost and weight saving. Now working conditions have been looked into thats what has sealed the fate on non CET units but that was never the original push...

It's going to be interesting to see what affect it has on charter stock which is mostly mk1s which afaik have never, ever had CET tanks

Ive lost count of the amount of times a brake cylinder slack adjuster would fail on the brake rigging closest to the waste pipe requiring a complete brake cylinder change, amongst other routine tasks. It was never a pleasant experience doing any kind of underframe work on the toilet coaches or the adjacent vehicles... im so glad that those jobs for myself are now very few and far between...

Would the area around the bit to be worked on ever get jet washed before hand to at least get rid of the worst of the crap before work starts?
 

Mordac

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2016
Messages
2,303
Location
Birmingham
It's going to be interesting to see what affect it has on charter stock which is mostly mk1s which afaik have never, ever had CET tanks
I'm guessing the GA Mk3s will all be picked up by charter operators once they get replaced by the FLIRTs. This should allow a lot of the older coaches to be taken out of service. Of course they won't be able to cover everything, but they'll certainly help.
 

Pacerpilot

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2010
Messages
346
I used to hate running a loco round a train at Bristol Parkway. You'd be guaranteed to be stood amongst the 'bangers and mash' when it came to coupling back on at the other end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top