Class 185: Both toilets locked out of use!

[1e10]

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

Yes, anything like that would work.

Infact that may be better because the guard/driver would then be able to dump it when the train is out in the sticks rather than a passenger being able to pull the flush whilst in a station.

 

[transmanche]

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

Is it just water, paper and, er, 'natural waste' that's in the tank? Because if there are chemicals too, then there might be a problem with just dumping it on the track.

 

[WillPS]

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

I thought it was down to upcoming environment legislation (possibly EU) which suggests toilet waste can't just be dumped on track? Hence why Sprinters have been retrofitted?

 

[Blindtraveler]

Which just goes to show often or rather the opposit the E U Beurocrats go anywhere by train. Retention tanks and legislation are fine in theory but as we are seeing in practice the idea is cr*p, no pun intended!↲

i have to say, thinking about all known classes with tanks, if theres one good thing about the bogs on voyagers its there capacity. Its rare for me to find more than 1 OOU even at the end of a days work.↲
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
example, the late evening Aberdeen to Edinburgh. The unit forming this has come from Plimoth and is a bit stinky but still mainly working↲

 

[harz99]

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

Yes they will, which is one of the reasons the extra carriage will only yeald 30 additional standard class seats over the number 185s have.

From memory I think there is a bit about "new trains" on the FTPex website.

 

[Blindtraveler]

plenty extra standing space though, thatl suite TPE down to the ground!

 

[northwichcat]

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.

There is nothing set in stone about the 350/4s being replaced. The 350/4s are not being sub-leased from LM as a lot of people seem to think, they are being ordered for TPE as an add-on to a LM order, in the same way the Chiltern 172s were ordered for Chiltern not LM.

Also a lot of people think the 350/4s replacing 321s or providing extra capacity for LM is a almost certainty. However, IEP plans for commuter IEP includes an option for replacing 350s on Northampton-Euston so LM may have surplus 350s rather than requiring more.

There is a proposal for Liverpool-Scotland services to work as portion workings with Manchester-Scotland services (which will obviously require more rolling stock) but at present that is a proposal and has not been approved to go ahead.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Splitting and attaching at Preston? Off topic here

 

[jon0844]

I thought it was down to upcoming environment legislation (possibly EU) which suggests toilet waste can't just be dumped on track? Hence why Sprinters have been retrofitted?

Dumping on the track cannot be a good idea for any part of the network, and whether it is UK or EU legislation, I can only see it as a good thing.

I've been sprayed with this stuff many times (As have loads of unsuspecting passengers and staff) when MK4 tanks overflow. Having the toilet go out of order automatically seems like a far more sensible action, than having trains spraying this stuff when it goes around some tight curves.

But, if it means toilets are being run out of service more than very rarely, there's an issue of how these things aren't being emptied and serviced often enough. And that is what needs to be addressed, rather than us moaning about crazy new rules.

This could mean building more places to drain the tanks and refill the water. Let's bear in mind that some trains may run with 'working' toilets that aren't shut, but they'll have likely run out of water and toilet paper or be blocked up now they can't flush. Is that a better alternative to being out of use? No, both scenarios are unacceptable in my opinion.

 

[Crossover]

Further to my last post, I have also been on another 185 service with both toilets out of order, on a Scarborough - Liverpool. In fairness, the boards at Scarborough (as in station boards) had a message up about it (Sunday so long layover and the station has facilities) and we were set swapped at York.

I suspect had the aforementioned (previous post) service not had another unit attached at Newcastle, we may have also been set swapped at York, but we weren't (and who knows how long it continued for in service before it was sorted!)
They could have still made it clearer to passengers though

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

Is it just water, paper and, er, 'natural waste' that's in the tank? Because if there are chemicals too, then there might be a problem with just dumping it on the track.

I'm fairly certain they are chemical, so dumping would most likely be out of the question (flushing with loads of water would just fill the tanks quicker and exhaust the water supply quicker)

 

[jon0844]

Newer trains use a chemical (blue or purple I think) but older trains will just use water.

I am not sure if a 317, say, has two tanks for flushing and for the sink? In my view, we need trains refilled and empties more often, not a 'solution' of just letting it dump on the track somewhere. That still doesn't solve the problem of having water for people to wash their hands.

 

[Class377/5]

There is nothing set in stone about the 350/4s being replaced. The 350/4s are not being sub-leased from LM as a lot of people seem to think, they are being ordered for TPE as an add-on to a LM order, in the same way the Chiltern 172s were ordered for Chiltern not LM.

Also a lot of people think the 350/4s replacing 321s or providing extra capacity for LM is a almost certainty. However, IEP plans for commuter IEP includes an option for replacing 350s on Northampton-Euston so LM may have surplus 350s rather than requiring more.

There is a proposal for Liverpool-Scotland services to work as portion workings with Manchester-Scotland services (which will obviously require more rolling stock) but at present that is a proposal and has not been approved to go ahead.

Nothing set in stone but keeping a fleet of 10 units when TPE is electrified isn't the most sensible thing especially as the opinion seems to be they'd be better off with three car EMU's.

Is IEP still on the cards for Northampton as I was under the impression its been dropped alongside the King's Lynn idea.

But as you state, there's many unknowns yet to truly know what's going to happen.

 

[northwichcat]

Is IEP still on the cards for Northampton as I was under the impression its been dropped alongside the King's Lynn idea.

I understand DfT looked at alternatives to commuter IEP for practically all the routes commuter IEP was looked at for but no option has been committed to at this stage.

 

[Class377/5]

I understand DfT looked at alternatives to commuter IEP for practically all the routes commuter IEP was looked at for but no option has been committed to at this stage.

Typical DfT thinking, will make mind up at some point in the future.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Nothing set in stone but keeping a fleet of 10 units when TPE is electrified isn't the most sensible thing especially as the opinion seems to be they'd be better off with three car EMU's.

Whose opinion is this? Presumably only DfT/Treasury bean-counters or anyone who has yet to travel on FTPE...

 

[northwichcat]

Whose opinion is this? Presumably only DfT/Treasury bean-counters or anyone who has yet to travel on FTPE...

I'm assuming Class377/5 was meaning the Scotland services would all be 6 car north of Preston but some would split in to separate Liverpool and Manchester services at Preston. However, I'm not sure that would leave enough capacity on the Manchester services which split and run as 3 car between Preston and Manchester.

8 car should be fine for the busiest Scottish services, it's the stopping services between Manchester and Preston via Bolton where 4 car EMUs may cause issues - too many passengers on some services for a 4 car train, while 8 car trains would be too generous at present and have platform length issues.

 

[Class377/5]

Whose opinion is this? Presumably only DfT/Treasury bean-counters or anyone who has yet to travel on FTPE...

I was actually talking about on multiple forums where I believe its worth turning the north into an eight car railway in peak and four car off peak on the major routes with frequencies increased where possible. 1/2tph on many routes isn't enough.

I've stood enough times between Leeds and Manchester on 'off peak' times to know it needs more capacity.

I'm assuming Class377/5 was meaning the Scotland services would all be 6 car north of Preston but some would split in to separate Liverpool and Manchester services at Preston. However, I'm not sure that would leave enough capacity on the Manchester services which split and run as 3 car between Preston and Manchester.

8 car should be fine for the busiest Scottish services, it's the stopping services between Manchester and Preston via Bolton where 4 car EMUs may cause issues - too many passengers on some services for a 4 car train, while 8 car trains would be too generous at present and have platform length issues.

Replying to bold part, yes 8 cars is too much now according to many but we have a serious opportunity here with the electrification/Northern Hub works to actual step up the North's rail to a good standard to see the service fit for more than just todays needs. Indeed by the time an eight car rail could be built we may already need it on some areas/routes.

 

[northwichcat]

Replying to bold part, yes 8 cars is too much now according to many but we have a serious opportunity here with the electrification/Northern Hub works to actual step up the North's rail to a good standard to see the service fit for more than just todays needs. Indeed by the time an eight car rail could be built we may already need it on some areas/routes.

If the platforms at stations served by stoppers were long enough for 8 car operation or the 319s had SDO then I'd say using them in 8 car formation on some services would be fine as overall it would probably be the most cost-effective option in the short term and the extra capacity may be needed long term.

However, considering we'd have to lengthen platforms at some stations when other stations are more in need of platform lengthening and a platform lengthening program may still exclude certain stations meaning peak time trains could be unable to call at some stations, it doesn't sound like the best option at this time.

 

[Class377/5]

If the platforms at stations served by stoppers were long enough for 8 car operation or the 319s had SDO then I'd say using them in 8 car formation on some services would be fine as overall it would probably be the most cost-effective option in the short term and the extra capacity may be needed long term.

However, considering we'd have to lengthen platforms at some stations when other stations are more in need of platform lengthening and a platform lengthening program may still exclude certain stations meaning peak time trains could be unable to call at some stations, it doesn't sound like the best option at this time.

But if done alongside the works I outlined then you start with TPE routes which is getting new stock so will have SDO built in. Then you start building up the length of stations until the 319's get replaced themselves in 15 years or so when they are at the end I their working lives.

This way you do it in a steady way that will allow for better cost controls. 15 years sounds like a long time but we're talking about by 2030 for an eight car railway which with ever rising passenger numbers may not be enough.

 

[Eagle]

It wouldn't be that much unacceptable given there are still trains in service which do this all of the time.

I think there's probably a difference between dumping a single toilet visit's deposit and dumping half the contents of the tank in one place.

 

[jon0844]

Grandfather rights presumably allow trains to still dump on the track, but it doesn't mean you then argue that if some can still do it, you might as well let others do it.

Dumping s**t on the track is not nice, especially if it's mixed with chemicals and comes out as a spray that can hit people all over the place.

 

[WillPS]

Dumping on the track cannot be a good idea for any part of the network, and whether it is UK or EU legislation, I can only see it as a good thing.

I've been sprayed with this stuff many times (As have loads of unsuspecting passengers and staff) when MK4 tanks overflow. Having the toilet go out of order automatically seems like a far more sensible action, than having trains spraying this stuff when it goes around some tight curves.

But, if it means toilets are being run out of service more than very rarely, there's an issue of how these things aren't being emptied and serviced often enough. And that is what needs to be addressed, rather than us moaning about crazy new rules.

This could mean building more places to drain the tanks and refill the water. Let's bear in mind that some trains may run with 'working' toilets that aren't shut, but they'll have likely run out of water and toilet paper or be blocked up now they can't flush. Is that a better alternative to being out of use? No, both scenarios are unacceptable in my opinion.

I agree entirely. Sorry if my post came across as skeptic.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I was actually talking about on multiple forums where I believe its worth turning the north into an eight car railway in peak and four car off peak on the major routes with frequencies increased where possible. 1/2tph on many routes isn't enough.

I've stood enough times between Leeds and Manchester on 'off peak' times to know it needs more capacity.

Ideally, the North TP route needs 5car off-peak and 10car in the peak, with a mini-buffet like the 444s rather than a trolley. 4/8 is more realistic though- perhaps with static catering in 50% of the trainsets (though that creates diagramming issues of course).

Replying to bold part, yes 8 cars is too much now according to many but we have a serious opportunity here with the electrification/Northern Hub works to actual step up the North's rail to a good standard to see the service fit for more than just todays needs. Indeed by the time an eight car rail could be built we may already need it on some areas/routes.

If the platforms at stations served by stoppers were long enough for 8 car operation or the 319s had SDO then I'd say using them in 8 car formation on some services would be fine as overall it would probably be the most cost-effective option in the short term and the extra capacity may be needed long term.

However, considering we'd have to lengthen platforms at some stations when other stations are more in need of platform lengthening and a platform lengthening program may still exclude certain stations meaning peak time trains could be unable to call at some stations, it doesn't sound like the best option at this time.

Of course, once the 'Hub' and electrification is done, the service pattern on the core of North Transpennine will change radically. The current HUD-MCV stoppers are limited to 2 (theoretically 3, but almost all stock used is 2-car units) which means currently only one unit in use East of Greenfield. The Northern Hub plans include platform extensions at Slaithwaite and Marsden, presumably to 4x20m. These services will be replaced by electric semi-fast services though- so if these are to be operated with the same stock as the 'fast' TPE services that will affect the specifications of what new or second-hand stock will be suitable.

Getting back on topic, there seems to be a need for investment in facilities to empty the tanks at more locations along the Transpennine route. Scarborough being a tricky one as it will be losing the TPE service anyway.

 

[northwichcat]

Of course, once the 'Hub' and electrification is done, the service pattern on the core of North Transpennine will change radically. The current HUD-MCV stoppers are limited to 2 (theoretically 3, but almost all stock used is 2-car units) which means currently only one unit in use East of Greenfield. The Northern Hub plans include platform extensions at Slaithwaite and Marsden, presumably to 4x20m. These services will be replaced by electric semi-fast services though- so if these are to be operated with the same stock as the 'fast' TPE services that will affect the specifications of what new or second-hand stock will be suitable.

No. Long enough for a class 380, a pair of 2 car 170s or any other train with a 23 point something carriage length in 4 car formation. Also note one semi-fast may continue to Hull which may not be electrified at the time the semi-fasts start operating.

Platform lengthening at the stations identified :
 4x 24m car length at Mossley Down, Greenfield Down, Marsden, Slaithwaite, Mouldsworth, Delamere, Cuddington, Greenbank, Plumley Down, Ashley Down, Hathersage and Grindleford
 4 x 23m car length at Dove Holes, Chapel-en-le Frith, Middlewood, Woodsmoor, Humphrey Park, Glazebrook Down, New Lane, Bescar Lane, Moses Gate, Hall i’th’wood, Darwen, Ramsgreave & Wilpshire, Langho, Whalley and Clitheroe
 6 x 24m car length at Liverpool South Parkway Up and Down fast platforms, Widnes, Warrington Central and Newton-le-Willows
 3 x 23m car at Bamber Bridge Up

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...e plans/overarching cp5 enhancements plan.pdf

While nothing has been said about where the 185s will go after TPE electrification the 6 x 24m car length proposed at Liverpool South Parkway, Widnes and Warrington Central possibly gives a clue about where some may be going.

 

[Starmill]

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...

Having seen what happened to one guy when I was coming home from Newcastle one Saturday evening... you really don't want to think too much about it!

 

[455driver]

Originally Posted by 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...

It doesnt matter if the trains have toilets (working or not) some people would just rather pee in between the coaches/over the seats "because they can".

Obviously if the toilets are OOU it would seem you would rather the service was cancelled!
If its a question of train with no toilets or no train at all what else do you suggest?

 

[transmanche]

As an aside, I note that Southern post a very detailed Toilet Availability Report on their website [linked from this page]. Sadly, although it says it's 'updated throughout the day', it doesn't appear to have been updated since 27 June. It even shows which units are 'at risk'; i.e. have nearly full/nearly empty tanks (as appropriate).

It's a very good idea. I hope that one day they can link this in to the real time train info.

They also have a similar monthly HVAC report on the same page.

 

[185]

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.

Has to be 85% for some reason as the cheap junk FTPE bought apparently can and does fracture under the weight. Has happened several times, evident from the carpet and in two or three cases, drivers walking off the job when effluent went beyond the carpet into the cab.

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

Ohyeah..... just think.... Garforth.... 85mph.... Peak Hour packed platform..... BOMBS AWAY!!!!!

 

[Starmill]

Has to be 85% for some reason as the cheap junk FTPE bought apparently can and does fracture under the weight. Has happened several times, evident from the carpet and in two or three cases, drivers walking off the job when effluent went beyond the carpet into the cab.

Reeeeealy? I mean I rarely see a train carpet that's clean but are you sure? And what, they just stopped the train where it was and left it?

And as for the toilet units... are they not fairly standard? I.e. its the same accessible toilet inside a 350 as a 185? What did TPE do wrong here (I mean, they do lots of stuff wrong... but I'm not quite sure how you can blame them for this!).

 

[northwichcat]

I mean I rarely see a train carpet that's clean

The 185 carpets do look clean overall compared to the Northern carpets on the 156s. The conductor's ticket hole punching devices dropping orange circles on the 185s seems to be the main thing that makes the 185 carpets not appear clean.