Long distance and toilet facilities

[Starmill]

But the western side of Crossrail isn't a metro service, with quite a lot of through journeys from London, taking around an hour.

I agree it is a inappropriate work for that type of train to be doing in general, but I did provide the caveat for that by calling them "so-called" 'metro' services.

 

[cuccir]

I'm mildly surprised that this isn't covered by legislation, either from a healthy & safety perspective or as an interpretation of the Equality Act. Allowing a service to run for over a given length of time without operating toilets, or some other provision, would sound to me like indirect discrimination against people with disabilities, and potentially (though maybe a weaker case) against women too based on the extra needs that women have during periods. Requiring disabled people to delay their journey probably would class as discrimination, particularly on services which operate infrequently.

Of course, I also recognise the problem: we'd all rather a service run without toilets, than be cancelled. The obvious compromise is to mandate that in the event of a service running without toilets for more than a given length of time (90 minutes? 2 hours?), there must be a toilet stop at a station with sufficient facilities included.

Maybe my reading of the Equality Act is wrong here - it all depends what's counted as a "reasonable" adjustment - but I think that there'd be a case to be made against a TOC in circumstances where services run without toilets, and to take the next service would result in an unreasonable delay.

 

[Hadders]

I’ve seen drivers at On a station call at York nip out of the cab and into the gents before.

There was a driver who made an unscheduled call at Potters Bar to visit the loo and apologies to passengers for having to answer a call of nature. We had a thread about it a couple of years ago.

Ideally trains shouldn’t have their toilets out of use but occasionally it happens, particularly if there’s been disruption and maybe trains haven’t had the opportunity to be de-tanked. On balance it’s better to run the train without toilets than cancel it altogether (a cancellation would increase the passenger numbers on the next train, putting more use on its toilets and the risk of them going out of service too....)

I understand why toilet stops sometimes need to be made but they’re not without issue. On busy lines they cause delay not only to themselves but following services. I one missed a connection at Rugby due to a toilet stop being made at Milton Keynes!

 

[PeterC]

But the western side of Crossrail isn't a metro service, with quite a lot of through journeys from London, taking around an hour.

I thought that the original plan was a metro service as far as Maidenhead. Was the extension down to TfL or political pressure?
If the latter than "be careful what you wish for".

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think we would all agree that a missed connection is preferable to even one passenger having to soil themselves.

 

[trainophile]

What concerns me about toilet stops is whether the passengers who leave the train are all accounted for before it sets off again. Unless you can be confident of this you would have to take all your luggage off with you, which would cause further delays.

 

[FtoE]

I did Glasgow Queen Street to Inverness on a 3 car 170 and both toilets were out of use. I asked the conductor why they were out of use and got told 'they just are.'

Happened to me in the other direction. Only one working on leaving Inverness (we were told) and on leaving Aviemore the other locked out. The guard tried to arrange an extended stop at Pitlochry, but the station closed at 6:30 (or something like that) so it was “hold on” until Perth. The train wasn’t held at Perth so pax needing to ‘go’ had to wait for the next train Per to Queen Street

 

[hexagon789]

Random question but what happens when a long distance driver needs the loo?

During a journey I'd guess they go when stopped at a station or a signal if they have to and can.

 

[mmh]

What concerns me about toilet stops is whether the passengers who leave the train are all accounted for before it sets off again. Unless you can be confident of this you would have to take all your luggage off with you, which would cause further delays.

"We'll be here for ten minutes, please make sure you're back by then."

Then it's up to the individual depending on their own confidence or worry.

I miss the days of the cigarette break at Crewe on North Wales to London trains. (The fag break gave them an opportunity to swap locos, I'm sure it was that way around

Different people behaved differently - most would retreat to the back of the platform, some would sit down. Others wouldn't move more than a foot away from the door, or would stand next to a window staring at their seat.

 

[yorksrob]

South Eastern still seems to suffer more from this problem, even compared to Northern, where many of their units are intensively diagrammed with one vacuum toilet.

Perhaps it is a hangover from the tragic accident a few years ago. If so, it's not really acceptable. South Eastern should have made the necessary changes by now to run a service with appropriate toilet provision.

 

[SECR263]

I'm mildly surprised that this isn't covered by legislation, either from a healthy & safety perspective or as an interpretation of the Equality Act. Allowing a service to run for over a given length of time without operating toilets, or some other provision, would sound to me like indirect discrimination against people with disabilities, and potentially (though maybe a weaker case) against women too based on the extra needs that women have during periods. Requiring disabled people to delay their journey probably would class as discrimination, particularly on services which operate infrequently.

Of course, I also recognise the problem: we'd all rather a service run without toilets, than be cancelled. The obvious compromise is to mandate that in the event of a service running without toilets for more than a given length of time (90 minutes? 2 hours?), there must be a toilet stop at a station with sufficient facilities included.

Maybe my reading of the Equality Act is wrong here - it all depends what's counted as a "reasonable" adjustment - but I think that there'd be a case to be made against a TOC in circumstances where services run without toilets, and to take the next service would result in an unreasonable delay.

When discharge toilets were abolished it should have been written into contractual obligations that a train should not run without a working toilet. This might prompt buying of standby stock sadly lacking these days. Scenario. Turn up at a station busting for a leak, do you defer to a later service or take pot luck with the resultant consequences of as non working loo and how do you tell if the train loo is working anyway?? I used to catch the trains from Pad to Southall before the new TFL fleet was introduced and invariably the disabled loo was out of order at 10.30 in the morning on numerous occasions, Why? Now you have no loo! A backward step I think. (you also do not seemingly have rubbish bin on the new fleet?) Who are the trains run for, us the passengers, or the TOC's to maximise revenue by running trains lacking facilities.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Tanking facilities cost money.

So no tanking facilities.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

It happened on a 395 High Speed service from St Pancras to Dover Priory this evening, I heard the two OBMs do handover and then our OBM announcing that both toilets were already full when the service arrived into St Pancras and would continue to be all the way to Dover!
It's a case this time of year the trains are well used, they're advising people to drink plenty on the trains and sadly the tanks aren't large enough to sustain that level of abuse

 

[yorksrob]

It happened on a 395 High Speed service from St Pancras to Dover Priory this evening, I heard the two OBMs do handover and then our OBM announcing that both toilets were already full when the service arrived into St Pancras and would continue to be all the way to Dover!
It's a case this time of year the trains are well used, they're advising people to drink plenty on the trains and sadly the tanks aren't large enough to sustain that level of abuse

Isn't it two toilets on a six carriage train ? There's your problem.

 

[Spartacus]

Wasn't there an interview in RAIL/LIAR with whatever MD it was explaining that the main reason that new trains were ordered without toilets was that if they had a toilet it would have to been a wheelchair accessible one, which would take up the space of far more seats than a standard cubicle one, which simply couldn't be justified, so instead of a small number of people not being able to use the loo, nobody could?

I could see his point that it's no use being able to go to the loo on a train if you can't get on it in the first place because of the size of the thing, but it's sad when equality means lowering the provision instead of raising it.

 

[Antman]

South Eastern still seems to suffer more from this problem, even compared to Northern, where many of their units are intensively diagrammed with one vacuum toilet.

Perhaps it is a hangover from the tragic accident a few years ago. If so, it's not really acceptable. South Eastern should have made the necessary changes by now to run a service with appropriate toilet provision.

Yes Southeastern seem to be the worst for toilet non availability affecting not only passengers but staff as well, it's a long haul from Ramsgate to London and turnaround times can be minimal.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes Southeastern seem to be the worst for toilet non availability affecting not only passengers but staff as well, it's a long haul from Ramsgate to London and turnaround times can be minimal.

You have my sympathies !

 

[Mountain Man]

I think almost everyone would agree that two hours plus with no toilet is not really appropriate,

I don't think it's ideal. But equally it's far better than cancelling the service (and following services because of out of place units and staff).

 

[trainophile]

I don't think it's ideal. But equally it's far better than cancelling the service (and following services because of out of place units and staff).

In this situation there should be an official understanding that Advance tickets are valid on alternative trains, and this should be communicated clearly both before the service starts and at every station en route.

 

[Mountain Man]

In this situation there should be an official understanding that Advance tickets are valid on alternative trains, and this should be communicated clearly both before the service starts and at every station en route.

I'll be honest, I disagree.

I think you end up in a massive mess of an argument because then people who may need to eat regularly will say the same should be the case if a buffet is shut.

Or someone who struggles to stand will say the same on a busy peak train.

It's a Pandora's box I wouldn't go near

 

[CarltonA]

I've experienced some very good service on the Cotswold Line by GWR staff a while ago. A 165 was used to cover for an unavailable HST one weekend. The only toilet was out of service on an overcrowded train. The guard informed us all about this and at some stations unlocked the station toilets for passengers to get off and use if needed.

 

[trainophile]

I'll be honest, I disagree.

I think you end up in a massive mess of an argument because then people who may need to eat regularly will say the same should be the case if a buffet is shut.

Or someone who struggles to stand will say the same on a busy peak train.

It's a Pandora's box I wouldn't go near

The difference there is that if you need to eat regularly you can (and probably would, regardless of catering expectations) bring food with you. If you’re unable to stand you would ask the guard for assistance if the seat reservations aren’t working.

If you need the loo there’s not much you can do about it, other than wear Tena pants!

 

[Mountain Man]

The difference there is that if you need to eat regularly you can (and probably would, regardless of catering expectations) bring food with you. If you’re unable to stand you would ask the guard for assistance if the seat reservations aren’t working.

If you need the loo there’s not much you can do about it, other than wear Tena pants!

Or get off the train.

I think it's a can of worms, and you'd end up in an endless argument of people wanting their special circumstances considered.

Far better on the very rare occasions as has already been suggested to hold the train at a station than get into some very complicated minefield about removing ticket restrictions, which doesn't actually solve the problem anyway

 

[Spartacus]

Or get off the train.

I think it's a can of worms, and you'd end up in an endless argument of people wanting their special circumstances considered.

Far better on the very rare occasions as has already been suggested to hold the train at a station than get into some very complicated minefield about removing ticket restrictions, which doesn't actually solve the problem anyway

Another can of worms might be whether ticket restrictions could be applied to any service booked to be operated by a train with no toilet at all, no doubt you'd get some saying they needed the loo as an excuse to get any train they fancied.

 

[fowler9]

At the end of the day absolutely everyone needs to pee and poo, it isn't a special medical requirement. Someone mentioned that toilets are occasionally locked out of use, it isn't occasionally, London Northwesterns 350's heading out of Liverpool frequently have both toilets locked out of use.

 

[Mountain Man]

Another can of worms might be whether ticket restrictions could be applied to any service booked to be operated by a train with no toilet at all, no doubt you'd get some saying they needed the loo as an excuse to get any train the fancied.

Good point.

And would it be a total de-restriction of Advance tickets? Or just those being held for a journey time over x minutes, plenty of people for example on the Barrow route cited do intermediate stop journeys. On a Barrow to Mancheste, a tiny minority do a 2 hour plus trip, most do under an hour such as Barrow to Lancaster or Preston to Manchester

 

[Meerkat]

I'll be honest, I disagree.

I think you end up in a massive mess of an argument because then people who may need to eat regularly will say the same should be the case if a buffet is shut.

Or someone who struggles to stand will say the same on a busy peak train.

It's a Pandora's box I wouldn't go near

Not really the same - you can bring your own food with you, bringing a Porta potty might be frowned upon, and there are priority seats.
On metro services the theory is that you get off, hope the station toilet is working, and by the time you are done the next train will be coming in for you.
But that doesn’t help if your train doesn’t have toilets and gets stuck out on the line......
I dread to think what happens when a crushloaded tube gets stuck for hours - must be a shattering experience for anyone who can’t hold out.

 

[trainophile]

Regarding lifting Advance ticket restrictions, I was thinking more along the lines of if someone has to leave the train at a station when it’s not an official toilet stop (perhaps they are unwell and can’t even wait half an hour), they should be allowed to resume their journey on the next service by the same operator.

Theoretically people should be informed before boarding in adequate time to use the station facilities, so the chances of hoards of people deciding to use a different service would be pretty slim.

 

[AM9]

Wasn't there an interview in RAIL/LIAR ...

What is RAIL/LIAR?

 

[Spartacus]

What is RAIL/LIAR?

Train comic