Class 185: Both toilets locked out of use!

[61653 HTAFC]

Yesterday, travelled from from Huddersfield to Manchester Oxford Road in the 1726 Liverpool service. The small toilet was locked out, as was the accessible one at the far end. The guard seemed unaware of the problem with the larger toilet though it was already locked- do the 185s have some sort of system that automatically locks the toilets when there's a problem? Also, how likely is it that the hot weather was a factor in this? It wasn't a major problem on a fairly short journey (I only required the toilet to inject my insulin- which I did in my seat instead) but I imagine on the Scotland-Manchester services it could get very uncomfortable!

 

[WatcherZero]

Tanks full?

 

[ValleyLines142]

This is the 1548 Scarborough to Liverpool service, which is 3 hours and 13 minutes! Not good that toilets weren't working!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Tanks full?

Quite possible- I was just slightly surprised to see both OOU- I assume they have independent tanks, being almost 2 whole car-lengths apart!

As much as anything I wondered how often this sort of thing occurs on the 185s, as they are worked pretty hard during the week, with little or no opportunity to empty the tanks between trips. Suppose it's one of the downsides of retention tanks (albeit still better than dropping onto the track!).

 

[edwin_m]

On an afteroon journey from Manchester to Glasgow a couple of months back they announced that both toilets were out of use. After the conductor failed to get either of them working, there was a slightly longer stop in the back platform at Carlisle for anyone who needed to use the facilities there.

 

[boing_uk]

Been on a similar one before a year or so ago. The guard arranged a 20mins toilet stop at Doncaster, which was handy.

 

[sd0733]

I assume the 185s system is the same as that on a 350 which frequently lock themselves out if water levels become too low or the tanks become full. They certainly don't seem to take kindly to heavy use and at LM its such a regular occurance we are issued with lists of stations where toilet stops are practical.

 

[12CSVT]

It's not just 185s. This seems to be the case on most 319s and 377/5s.

 

[185]

Big one will lock itself out if poop tank is 85% full.

Small one is manual locked.

Both have a blockage clearer (reverse flush). Eww

Some units which were stabled out (eg Scarboro, Hull, Barrow etc) have been in service for 2 days without being tanked. Poor planning and pennypinching by FTPE.

 

[D6975]

Big one will lock itself out if poop tank is 85% full.

Small one is manual locked.

Both have a blockage clearer (reverse flush). Eww

Some units which were stabled out (eg Scarboro, Hull, Barrow etc) have been in service for 2 days without being tanked. Poor planning and pennypinching by FTPE.

I didn't realise that the stabling facilitites at these outposts don't have even the most basic of servicing requirements. How long has this been the case?

 

[Solent&Wessex]

The toilets on the 185's also become blocked incredibly easily. All that is needed is someone to put a bit too much paper in at once and it becomes blocked. Unblocking it can be a very messy experience and isn't advised en-route.

 

[WatcherZero]

Also blindingly obvious but when one toilets full the second will then fill twice as fast.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

The LM website is often reporting "Toilets not available" on services operated by class 350s, it really is poor.

 

[Crossover]

Been on a 185 most of the way from Edinburgh to Manchester without any working toilets. The extended call in Newcastle was useful for people to use facilities, plus at Newcastle, the unit doubled up...but it didn't help people stuck on our part of the train....

 

[yorkie]

Some people feel that if there are no toilet facilities available, it should be NATIONAL news. I think that is taking things a bit far! (See the lack of accessible toilets thread)

Been on a 185 most of the way from Edinburgh to Manchester without any working toilets. The extended call in Newcastle was useful for people to use facilities, plus at Newcastle, the unit doubled up...but it didn't help people stuck on our part of the train....

Ah yes, that train. The guard to York was rude to passengers and did not announce the toilet problems between Newcastle and York, he could have informed people that if they travelled in the front 3 coaches there were working toilets. Passengers for Chester-le-Street were over-carried, due to lack of effective communication. Probably the worst TPE guard there is; the vast majority are so much better than that!!

As for the 185 toilet problems, sounds like this Class 185 didn't have any problems in that area...

 

[ainsworth74]

As for the 185 toilet problems, sounds like this Class 185 didn't have any problems in that area...

Ha! I'd forgotten about that Perhaps 185s with toilet issues should divert that way?

 

[185143]

As for the 185 toilet problems, sounds like this Class 185 didn't have any problems in that area...

Is there actually a 185 running around with that??!! If so, which one is it!!

 

[455driver]

As for the 185 toilet problems, sounds like this Class 185 didn't have any problems in that area...

Thats just a bog standard announcement!

 

[Class377/5]

At least with the 350/4 you get an extra loo.

 

[ainsworth74]

At least with the 350/4 you get an extra loo.

185s have two toilets so will 350/4s have three? Seems a bit excessive for a four-car unit.

 

[Class377/5]

185s have two toilets so will 350/4s have three? Seems a bit excessive for a four-car unit.

Not if they are for intercity service which is what the Manchester-Scotland service is.

 

[northwichcat]

Also blindingly obvious but when one toilets full the second will then fill twice as fast.

Not necessarily.

Some standard class passengers won't be aware of the accessible toilet on the 185s as the toilet signs all in standard class all point to the non-accessible one.

Then if they're made aware of the other toilet there could be a long queue so some passengers who'd be more comfortable after using the toilet opposed to those who are desperate might decide they can hang on until where they alight.

 

[12CSVT]

185s have two toilets so will 350/4s have three? Seems a bit excessive for a four-car unit.

Let's not forget proper coaches which used to run on this route (ie, Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3) had two toilets per coach. And they didn't have a habit of self-locking when some dimwit stuffed a load of bog roll down them.

 

[northwichcat]

185s have two toilets so will 350/4s have three? Seems a bit excessive for a four-car unit.

Not if they are for intercity service which is what the Manchester-Scotland service is.

Intercity services getting new trains usually get carriage lengths of 23.5m to 26m these days, which gives more capacity per carriage than the 20m carriages on the 350s.

 

[Drsatan]

Having read this thread, it seems unacceptable that 185s often run in service with both toilets OOU.

I don't want to think of what happens on TPE services on Friday and Saturday nights with lots of drunks on board who want to get rid of excessive bodily fluids...

 

[Nym]

Having been on these services, I can say I was glad I was in 1st class...

And I'd expect that TPE would not bother running trains and routinely put in rail replacement coaches

 

[Class377/5]

Intercity services getting new trains usually get carriage lengths of 23.5m to 26m these days, which gives more capacity per carriage than the 20m carriages on the 350s.

As a temporary solution its a stop gap measure. Ideas of 6 car 390 type units is best in the long run and this is what the service deserves.

Having read this thread, it seems unacceptable that 185s often run in service with both toilets OOU.

I don't want to think of what happens on TPE services on Friday and Saturday nights with lots of drunks on board who want to get rid of excessive bodily fluids...

When your fleet has to take over a service without an increase of nits you don't always have the chance to have ideal situations. This is on example. Most passengers would be happier with the train running than not.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

The LM website is often reporting "Toilets not available" on services operated by class 350s, it really is poor.

That is because they are a rubbish design, don't suck much out at once, and have a stupid lot of pipework for the waste to bend its way through, and get stuck in, on the way to the retention tank.

 

[1e10]

Big one will lock itself out if poop tank is 85% full.

Small one is manual locked.

Both have a blockage clearer (reverse flush). Eww

Some units which were stabled out (eg Scarboro, Hull, Barrow etc) have been in service for 2 days without being tanked. Poor planning and pennypinching by FTPE.

Why 85%? Seems like a waste of the remaining 15% capacity.

You'd think it would be better to have toilets fail-over to dropping onto the track when the tanks are full. It wouldn't be that much unacceptable given there are still trains in service which do this all of the time.

 

[Nym]

Why 85%? Seems like a waste of the remaining 15% capacity.

You'd think it would be better to have toilets fail-over to dropping onto the track when the tanks are full. It wouldn't be that much unacceptable given there are still trains in service which do this all of the time.

Or have a function that can dump part of the retention tank onto the track at the control of the guard / driver?