Minilad
Established Member
In that case facilities to empty the tanks at terminals would be a great (and relatively low cost) improvement.
It really wouldn't be low cost at all. And would be pretty much impossible I would imagine.
In that case facilities to empty the tanks at terminals would be a great (and relatively low cost) improvement.
I don't know if it would be low cost - it would involve the installation of a lot of plumbing and storage tanks/macerators - basically duplicating the setup in the depots. I also suspect that emptying the tanks and refilling the water supply would add significantly to the turnaround time at the terminal.In that case facilities to empty the tanks at terminals would be a great (and relatively low cost) improvement.
In that case facilities to empty the tanks at terminals would be a great (and relatively low cost) improvement.
In that case facilities to empty the tanks at terminals would be a great (and relatively low cost) improvement.
I don't know if it would be low cost - it would involve the installation of a lot of plumbing and storage tanks/macerators - basically duplicating the setup in the depots.
I take back what I said earlier - there are mobile CET servicing machines, so the plumbing requirements aren't as big a deal as I thought. However, I still think it would add too much time to turnarounds at terminal stations.I would expect a major terminal station to be connected to mains drainage, so no need for storage tanks. What would it need other than a length of hose to connect the train to a drain?
I would expect a major terminal station to be connected to mains drainage, so no need for storage tanks. What would it need other than a length of hose to connect the train to a drain?
Why do you want to run them in pairs?
But your proposal was that "there should be sufficient additional new stock built that they can mostly run in pairs" - if you're building new stock then build intermediate carriages so that the end result is the same number of longer sets. No wasted end vehicles.Pure pragmatism - they exist, and reforming to a sensible length results in wasted end coaches.
You are more likely to win/compromise on a jostle for knees space against another person than a seat backSeats at tables?
Utterly awful. I've got no desire whatsoever to sit opposite a random and jostle for knee space.
You would need pumps and space to store said pumps - ideally in the gap between track pairs, but that might be impossible in some locations, but you might be able to get away with it at a station like paddington. It would not be feasible to have pumps on the platform because a) the smell from them, b) any spillages from them, c) they would take up a lot of space and d) The port from which the tanks are drained are underneath the body, which would render them inaccessible from the platform.
It might be possible to put the CET equipment in a pit underneath the platforms, reaching to the tracks to give access to the outlets on the trains. However this would involve digging out the entire platform and building a new one over the pit, which would be hugely expensive and disruptive, and probably not acceptable at the more historic stations or anywhere that sits on a structure.
There are two issues being discussed: the pervasive smell which you correctly say needs a design change, and the issue were - particularly on XC services - one or more toilets will be out of use because the tanks are full. The idea of servicing the trains at stations would deal with the latter issue.And wouldn't actually address the fundamental problem that the issue on Voyagers - and Pendolinos - is with the design and layout of the toilet system on board the trains...
You are more likely to win/compromise on a jostle for knees space against another person than a seat back
The Toilet CET Tanks can only be emptied overnight at Depots so if they are running around all day there is no opportunity to perform this task.
This is exactly why there should be either none or very few tables. People shouldn't be expected to fight a stranger for knee space.
(I always wear steel-toe cap leather brogues with my suit so likely to win in a fight)
This is exactly why there should be either none or very few tables. People shouldn't be expected to fight a stranger for knee space.
(I always wear steel-toe cap leather brogues with my suit so likely to win in a fight)
This is exactly why there should be either none or very few tables.
The Voyagers could be improved by converting them as much as possible into Meridians.
However it would be very costly, at least change the seats for the type in the meridian
But your proposal was that "there should be sufficient additional new stock built that they can mostly run in pairs" - if you're building new stock then build intermediate carriages so that the end result is the same number of longer sets. No wasted end vehicles.
You are more likely to win/compromise on a jostle for knees space against another person than a seat back
This is exactly why there should be either none or very few tables. People shouldn't be expected to fight a stranger for knee space.
(I see no reason you should need two guards, they can move from unit to unit at stations just like they do on the South East commuter services with guards and no gangways).