Trains with no working disabled toilet won't be allowed to run? True or false?

superkev · 9 Jul 2019

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #12 originally in this thread.

Bletchleyite said:
I suspect the only consultation was of the bean counters.

Personally, because of the unreliability of CETs, particularly automatic-door ones, I would say that all units that have any toilets should have a minimum of two, of which at least one must have a conventional manual door.

This can sit with the lack of floor-level luggage racks as a design error.

On the subject of toilets someone told me that after 31st Dec trains with no working disabled toilet will not be allowed to run. Is this true?
K

RailUK Forums

Bovverboy · 9 Jul 2019

superkev said:
On the subject of toilets someone told me that after 31st Dec trains with no working disabled toilet will not be allowed to run. Is this true?
K

I think the situation is that after 31st December any train with a toilet which is not accessible to all will have to have that toilet locked out of use. That isn't likely to go down very well, but I don't think there's a law which says trains have to have toilets - lots of them don't.

Pete_uk · 9 Jul 2019

That can't be the case surly? I can't imaging a 800 having it's loos' locked because one disabled toilet is broke!

WesternLancer · 9 Jul 2019

Bovverboy said:
I think the situation is that after 31st December any train with a toilet which is not accessible to all will have to have that toilet locked out of use. That isn't likely to go down very well, but I don't think there's a law which says trains have to have toilets - lots of them don't.

No - I think it's that if a train has toilets it has to meet DDA regs (or get a dispensation as obv some fleets like EMT HSTs are going to miss this deadline). That would mean at least 1 disabled access toilet, not that all the other toilets can no longer be used just because they are not 100% accessible, or that ALL toilets suddenly have to be DDA compliant. And indeed train requires other DDA facilities like screens for stop info to help deaf people for example, not just audible announcements.

Of course the issue that will emerge is no access to a disabled toilet due to a fault / full tank etc etc, or any toilet where a train has just the one, DDA, compliant toilet, and the extent to which this breaches the regs in spirit or fact, with the potential to then see the train taken out of service and resulting cancellations etc, in a worst case scenario.

Bit more info here
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accessible-rail-transport/accessible-rail-transport

Bletchleyite · 9 Jul 2019

Pete_uk said:
That can't be the case surly? I can't imaging a 800 having it's loos' locked because one disabled toilet is broke!

That is not the rule.

The rule is that all trains running after 31/12/19 must be fitted with a compliant accessible toilet. It can have other toilets, but it must have at least one of the former. If it does not have one fitted, it will either need a derogation, or it is allowed to have no toilets (which would mean permanent locking out of say a Pacer toilet). There is not a requirement to lock the small bogs if the large one is simply out of order, though "reasonable adjustments" would be needed if it was, e.g. a bog stop for a wheelchair user who couldn't use one of the others.

Bovverboy · 9 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite said:
That is not the rule.

The rule is that all trains running after 31/12/19 must be fitted with a compliant accessible toilet. It can have other toilets, but it must have at least one of the former. If it does not have one fitted, it will either need a derogation, or it is allowed to have no toilets (which would mean permanent locking out of say a Pacer toilet). There is not a requirement to lock the small bogs if the large one is simply out of order, though "reasonable adjustments" would be needed if it was, e.g. a bog stop for a wheelchair user who couldn't use one of the others.

Who is going to decide whether or not a train is going to be allowed to have no toilets?

Bletchleyite · 9 Jul 2019

Bovverboy said:
Who is going to decide whether or not a train is going to be allowed to have no toilets?

The TOC, when it decides whether trains on a given route will have toilets or not. Or the franchise agreement, if it specifies anything on the matter.

Bovverboy · 9 Jul 2019

Bovverboy said:
I think the situation is that after 31st December any train with a toilet which is not accessible to all will have to have that toilet locked out of use. That isn't likely to go down very well, but I don't think there's a law which says trains have to have toilets - lots of them don't.

Bletchleyite said:
That is not the rule.

The rule is that all trains running after 31/12/19 must be fitted with a compliant accessible toilet. It can have other toilets, but it must have at least one of the former. If it does not have one fitted, it will either need a derogation, or it is allowed to have no toilets (which would mean permanent locking out of say a Pacer toilet). There is not a requirement to lock the small bogs if the large one is simply out of order, though "reasonable adjustments" would be needed if it was, e.g. a bog stop for a wheelchair user who couldn't use one of the others.

Bovverboy said:
Who is going to decide whether or not a train is going to be allowed to have no toilets?

Bletchleyite said:
The TOC, when it decides whether trains on a given route will have toilets or not. Or the franchise agreement, if it specifies anything on the matter.

Ah, so if a train has an accessible toilet it can also have non-accessible ones, which, of course, isn't what I said - but if it has only non-accessible ones, they will have to be locked out.

Bletchleyite · 9 Jul 2019

Bovverboy said:
You seem to be agreeing with me that trains aren't required to have toilets. Are you saying (you may well be right on this) that in order to convert a train from a toilet-fitted one to a toiletless, it is not sufficient to simply lock any existing toilet(s) out of use, it is necessary to physically remove them altogether?

I would say it is probably adequate to permanently lock them out of use (e.g. remove handles). However, I would prefer a time-limited and realistic derogation with significant financial penalties for failure to follow that timeline, as toilet urgency is effectively a disability which is overlooked by this obsession about every disability involving a wheelchair. I would include in such a derogation a requirement for a toilet stop to be provided on demand for anyone unable to use the small bog - with the decision on whether someone is unable to use it defined purely as a person stating they can't use it.

The point of all of this is not to cause serious overcrowding if units are taken out of service, nor to have old people and children wetting themselves because a perfectly good toilet that they could use is locked out to satisfy a technicality. The point is to get the properly accessible stock in place as soon as is possible - and to give TOCs a slap if they fail to achieve that.

superkev · 9 Jul 2019

Bovverboy said:
Post withdrawn temporarily. Reviewing the situation.

Mod. Perhaps this discussion on as to if trains can or cant run without a dda compliant toilet etc should be a new thread.
K

Bovverboy · 9 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite - I amended my post #2245 before I had seen your post #2246..

Bletchleyite · 9 Jul 2019

Bovverboy said:
Bletchleyite - I amended my post #2245 before I had seen your post #2246.

OK, sorry

172006 · 11 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I would say it is probably adequate to permanently lock them out of use (e.g. remove handles). However, I would prefer a time-limited and realistic derogation with significant financial penalties for failure to follow that timeline, as toilet urgency is effectively a disability which is overlooked by this obsession about every disability involving a wheelchair. I would include in such a derogation a requirement for a toilet stop to be provided on demand for anyone unable to use the small bog - with the decision on whether someone is unable to use it defined purely as a person stating they can't use it.

Exactly. Accessibility isn't only about mobility-impaired passengers. Locking the toilets don't make the train more accessible to anyone, but it becomes less accessible to some people. See this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-153-after-2020.100706/

hexagon789 · 11 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I would say it is probably adequate to permanently lock them out of use (e.g. remove handles). However, I would prefer a time-limited and realistic derogation with significant financial penalties for failure to follow that timeline, as toilet urgency is effectively a disability which is overlooked by this obsession about every disability involving a wheelchair. I would include in such a derogation a requirement for a toilet stop to be provided on demand for anyone unable to use the small bog - with the decision on whether someone is unable to use it defined purely as a person stating they can't use it.

The point of all of this is not to cause serious overcrowding if units are taken out of service, nor to have old people and children wetting themselves because a perfectly good toilet that they could use is locked out to satisfy a technicality. The point is to get the properly accessible stock in place as soon as is possible - and to give TOCs a slap if they fail to achieve that.

While every effort should be made to ensure as many trains as possible have the provision of an accessible toilets by the deadline it seems rather perverse that non-compliant trains will have any toilets lovked-put of use rather than allowing them to continue in service but perhaps imposing a financial penalty against the TOC.

Bletchleyite · 11 Jul 2019

hexagon789 said:
While every effort should be made to ensure as many trains as possible have the provision of an accessible toilets by the deadline it seems rather perverse that non-compliant trains will have any toilets lovked-put of use rather than allowing them to continue in service but perhaps imposing a financial penalty against the TOC.

I'd agree, they should have to do both of:
- Pay a substantial financial penalty
- Make reasonable adjustments for anyone with a disability on those trains, be that toilet stops or a taxi instead.

hexagon789 · 11 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I'd agree, they should have to do both of:
- Pay a substantial financial penalty
- Make reasonable adjustments for anyone with a disability on those trains, be that toilet stops or a taxi instead.

I would fully support that proposal, it just seems a bit ridiculous to penalise the majority of people because TOCs/ROSCOs or whatever couldn't get their act together quickly enough.

Bletchleyite · 11 Jul 2019

hexagon789 said:
I would fully support that proposal, it just seems a bit ridiculous to penalise the majority of people because TOCs/ROSCOs or whatever couldn't get their act together quickly enough.

Or worse, to penalise the very large number of people whose disability is the requirement for urgent access to a toilet in order to placate the very small minority who have both that *and* need a wheelchair. Short term, provided the stock is on order to replace it, it makes more sense to provide them a suitable alternative.

hexagon789 · 11 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Or worse, to penalise the very large number of people whose disability is the requirement for urgent access to a toilet in order to placate the very small minority who have both that *and* need a wheelchair.

There is that as well, it is totally unacceptable that trains with toilets are not all equipped with at least fully accessible facility but penalising everyone else is going to cause arguably as many issues, likely more.

Right Away · 11 Jul 2019

My understanding is that in the event that all of the Persons with Reduced Mobility (PRM) accessible toilets are unavailable on a train with only non PRM accessible toilets as the only alternative, there is a prescribed amount of time that the train is allowed to continue in service before the train must be taken out of service if the fault hasn't been rectified. This is a sensible approach, however I do not know how long the trains will be allowed to remain in service for in such an eventuality, although I have heard 48 hours mentioned to allow for the fact that a train may be on a diagram that sees it outstable overnight away from a depot with no opportunity to swap it onto a diagram with a depot finish without causing a cancellation.

Bikeman78 · 13 Jul 2019

Pete_uk said:
That can't be the case surly? I can't imaging a 800 having it's loos' locked because one disabled toilet is broke!

I've been on an 800 without any working toilets.

Trains with no working disabled toilet won't be allowed to run? True or false?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member