No toilets - Crosscountry cardiff - nottingham

[randyrippley]

it just proves that carriages without opening windows are a bad idea.

 

[6Gman]

So some improvements to toilet and/or disposal design are necessary, then.

Perhaps we could just have (basically) a hole in the floor discharging onto the p-way?

No tanks that fill up and need emptying. Simple technology.

Oh!

Seriously, I think the provision of the advertised toilet provision should form part of the franchise agreement with penalties for non-compliance. But the required standard cannot be 100% - so what should it be? And should it vary?

 

[Llanigraham]

Or perhaps AXC could arrange to empty the toilet tanks at a correct interval such that they don't get full?

You are making the presumption that they weren't, Neil.
As has been said a unit may have been in use all day and the toilets used by lots of people, resulting in the tanks being full.
What do you suggest they do? If you don't want the toilets "out of use" the only option is to take the unit off, thereby delaying the passengers.
I presume you wouldn't want that either?
There is no simple answer, other than what the company suggested, and that they would arrange "toilet stops" at suitable stations, and risking loosing their paths.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Really? If it's not the TOC who arranges the emptying who does? If the tanks are filling up regularly they're not being emptied often enough. It's not rocket science.

And how are they going to do that?
Do you realise what is involved in emptying a poo-tank?

 

[Crossover]

185's are pretty notorious for it due to somewhat oversensitive sensors. As has been mentioned upthread, if the non-accessible one gets full, it will stay in service but probably won't flush and will eventually overflow (I have heard warnings of that one having a pretty wet floor before now in a last ditch attempt to keep one toilet in service)

The retrofits on the ScotRail 320's are also pretty abysmal and I have seen a fair few of them go out of service (which the computer has decided, of course)

Contract an on-call provider of toilet emptying services to conduct this at a suitable location should it be required.

Install toilet emptying facilities at more locations.

Arrange a prompt repair of the faulty toilet, thus allowing the other one to be used with its spare capacity.

It is all about planning and proper incident management.

I'm fairly sure that the equipment involved in "tanking" a CET tank is a fairly major bit of kit and I can't imagine it being done anywhere near a station being a pleasant experience for anyone, plus the issue of getting rid of a few hundred kg or so (how much do they actually hold?) from wherever you've pumped it to

 

[DarloRich]

Tickets should be priced such that the basic service provided is adequate.
Time toilet provision was added to the franchise agreements, then.

It must be nice to live in the simple black and white world you inhabit. Clearly toilets should be provided and should working. It seems a minimum level of facility was provided here. It just didn't work very well. That could be for all manner of reasons from the tanks being full to projectile waste having soiled the compartment to such an extent it needed a deep clean or something as simple as a blocked toilet.

Contract an on-call provider of toilet emptying services to conduct this at a suitable location should it be required.

Install toilet emptying facilities at more locations.

Arrange a prompt repair of the faulty toilet, thus allowing the other one to be used with its spare capacity.

It is all about planning and proper incident management.

Again you show how you live in a black and white world. It sadly isn't that simple and I think you know that.

I'm fairly sure that the equipment involved in "tanking" a CET tank is a fairly major bit of kit and I can't imagine it being done anywhere near a station being a pleasant experience for anyone, plus the issue of getting rid of a few hundred kg or so (how much do they actually hold?) from wherever you've pumped it to

Correct and something Neil doesn't seem to grasp. While the technology shouldn't be to difficult to mount on a road wagon ( I am sure one of those drain whales would do) getting the road wagon to the train might prove difficult for reasons anyone who has ever been in a railway yard will easily recognise.

How, for instance, do you get the road wagon to Bletchley Carriage sidings?

 

[ComUtoR]

Do you realise what is involved in emptying a poo-tank?

You need access to below the sole bar (or where the CET access is located) The access pipe is one sided so needs to be birthed accordingly.

You then attach it to a rather large suction pipe. (very smelly, can be messy)

It is then pumped/sucked into a large tank.

Water is pumped into the train tanks to refill the flush. This is the easiest step as its a simple stick the hose on and fill her up. There is usually an overflow so people usually fill till it leaks out.

Not sure how the chemicals are added.

It's not a quick process and requires specialist equipment as well as trained staff, COSHH regulations etc. etc.


Units are booked for CET tanking on a regular basis. The tanks are checked on prep and reported (for our traction) if found to be at 75%


It's not that they are filling up too quick or on a regular basis. The biggest fault that occurs is they simply run out of water so do not flush. Next I would say is blockage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again you show how you live in a black and white world. It sadly isn't that simple and I think you know that.

A "black and white world" would take the view "there must always be a working toilet".

My view is that there is far *too often* no working toilet, to an unacceptable level. Particularly on off-peak LM services formed of a single unit.

Correct and something Neil doesn't seem to grasp. While the technology shouldn't be to difficult to mount on a road wagon ( I am sure one of those drain whales would do) getting the road wagon to the train might prove difficult for reasons anyone who has ever been in a railway yard will easily recognise.

How, for instance, do you get the road wagon to Bletchley Carriage sidings?

So provide another type of facility there.

It costs money, but so does anything. My opinion is firmly that provision is inadequate at present.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's not that they are filling up too quick or on a regular basis. The biggest fault that occurs is they simply run out of water so do not flush. Next I would say is blockage.

In that case, an improvement would be provided by having more maintenance crews available such that some fixes can be rendered without a return to the depot.

Is a delay justified for this? Yes, as providing toilet stops will incur a delay.

It depresses me how some members of this forum feel the railway is incapable of improvement, or that such improvement is somehow an unreasonable concept. All businesses should always strive to improve.

 

[DarloRich]

A "black and white world" would take the view "there must always be a working toilet".

That is perfectly agreeable as a working concept and i am happy to support that. However, You cant always provide a working toilet. Hell mine broke at home over the week and took 2 days for me to fix.

My view is that there is far *too often* no working toilet, to an unacceptable level. Particularly on off-peak LM services formed of a single unit.

So provide another type of facility there.

Indeed: but taking LM into account do all their stabling locations have the required facilities to empty toilets. Bletchley? Camden? Northampton? I don't think so. It isn't simply a case of slopping out, there is a great deal of storage tanking, treatment and disposal required

Using Bletchley as an example: A rail locked set of sidings crucial to LM. How to you add the facilities there without reducing the number of roads available?

This is what not being black and white means in the real world.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

.

It depresses me how some members of this forum feel the railway is incapable of improvement, or that such improvement is somehow an unreasonable concept. All businesses should always strive to improve.

It isn't about the railway being incapable of improvement - just that it isn't as easy, as many forum members seem to think, as shouting make it so! You have to understand the constraints involved in making business decisions.

 

[ComUtoR]

In that case, an improvement would be provided by having more maintenance crews available such that some fixes can be rendered without a return to the depot.

How do you fix a toilet outside a depot ? Seriously Neil do you really believe its that simple to fix a toilet without access to tools, equipment and replacement parts as well as being able to remove panels etc on the train ?

Is a delay justified for this? Yes, as providing toilet stops will incur a delay.

Even if it took 2 hours to fix ?

It depresses me how some members of this forum feel the railway is incapable of improvement, or that such improvement is somehow an unreasonable concept. All businesses should always strive to improve.

You hear what you want to believe. We all want the railway to improve and I have continually mentioned this to you. From an insiders point of view we just see the reality of what happens. This very forum has taught me that things are not what they seem and that the smallest of change required a mountain of effort and its always much much more complicated.

What depresses me is that there is a refusal to accept that complications and the reality doesn't exist and everything should be solved overnight.

 

[DelayRepay]

I would rather the train had a working loo, but I accept some times it won't.

If it doesn't then I would hope that:
1) This would be announced at stations, so passengers could go before boarding
2) If someone didn't want to travel on a train with no loo, their ticket would be endorsed to travel on the next service at no extra cost

I would rather that than having the train cancelled or have a huge delay while it goes off to the depot to be emptied.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What depresses me is that there is a refusal to accept that complications and the reality doesn't exist and everything should be solved overnight.

I don't think it can be solved overnight - but it has been a problem for many, many years. Indeed, it has been a problem ever since CETs started being the norm (and with regular toilets before that on occasions).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would rather the train had a working loo, but I accept some times it won't.

If it doesn't then I would hope that:
1) This would be announced at stations, so passengers could go before boarding
2) If someone didn't want to travel on a train with no loo, their ticket would be endorsed to travel on the next service at no extra cost

Given how much embarrassment asking for that may cause, I would suggest an improvement would be that, in such an event, all ticket restrictions should be removed for those who are booked (with Advances) to travel on that train, at the very least, without anyone having to ask. Similarly for the main flows involved, Off-Peak restrictions should be eased to the next train, again without anyone having to ask.

Similarly, a longer stop should be provided for toilet purposes at a suitable location again without anyone having to request it.

 

[PHILIPE]

And people blocking them up with paper.

 

[ComUtoR]

I would rather the train had a working loo, but I accept some times it won't.

If it doesn't then I would hope that:
1) This would be announced at stations, so passengers could go before boarding
2) If someone didn't want to travel on a train with no loo, their ticket would be endorsed to travel on the next service at no extra cost

I fully support both of those options. Sensible, and on the surface quite workable.

 

[causton]

You could say that about anything at all that costs money to fix, though.

The point is that it is not acceptable for this to be happening regularly (yes, you, LM), therefore a solution has to be found such that it is a rarity.

This thread isn't about LM yet you still manage to bash them again...

 

[AndrewE]

And people blocking them up with paper.

This isn't Greece you know... I thought soiled paper was supposed to go down them! Maybe you mean people using paper to dry their hands after the pathetic warm-air "driers" have failed to satisfy.

We obviously have a problem with either diagrams with over-long intervals between tanking stops, or inadequate tank volumes for the services being run (2 sides of the same coin.) How long does it actually take? IMHO this needs a strategic look at the timetable and the installation of facilities at appropriate stations and/or a re-design/re specification for the next generation of rolling stock.
A

 

[Via Bank]

Given how much embarrassment asking for that may cause, I would suggest an improvement would be that, in such an event, all ticket restrictions should be removed for those who are booked (with Advances) to travel on that train, at the very least, without anyone having to ask. Similarly for the main flows involved, Off-Peak restrictions should be eased to the next train, again without anyone having to ask.

Similarly, a longer stop should be provided for toilet purposes at a suitable location again without anyone having to request it.

Hear, hear. This would be particularly helpful for people with weak bladders, pregnant people or similar, who should not have to embarrass themselves to request a toilet stop or an endorsement for the next train.

On a related note, I struggle to see why tanking facilities are not provided at terminus stations. Why should a passenger have to rely on a train being timetabled to return to a depot to be able to use the loo? It's a basic human function, and on long distance journeys, it's simply unacceptable to not cater for it (as seems to be happening quite routinely.)

 

[TH172341]

I would rather the train had a working loo, but I accept some times it won't.

If it doesn't then I would hope that:
1) This would be announced at stations, so passengers could go before boarding
2) If someone didn't want to travel on a train with no loo, their ticket would be endorsed to travel on the next service at no extra cost

I would rather that than having the train cancelled or have a huge delay while it goes off to the depot to be emptied.

That sounds a good idea.

These problems do happen occasionally and it is rare for both toilets to be OOU.

I accept on an intercity service it is a pain for them to be OOU and the aforementioned recommendation would be the best resolution to the issue. If it were possible a unit change would be preferable, however with the high fleet utilisation these days and the difficulty potentially in trying to swap a unit, swapping isn't always an option. E.g Here you'd more than likely have to get a unit prepped at Tyseley, get a staff member to get it to a congested New Street, potentially delaying other services as a path has to be inserted into the system, then swap everyone off from the previous unit, luggage and all, onto the next one. Then you'd have to get the defect unit back to Tyseley, again having to use a valuable path, and adding up the dead mileage. It's a hassle - in an ideal world it'd be great to just swap a unit when the toilets all pack up, but the logistics on a congested and strained railway make it a hassle now. It's easier to take the other option of letting passengers know beforehand to use the toilet, or having a stop.

And if there is no spare unit, better to have a train out there working than passengers then moaning that there's a train cancelled. Best practice would be informing everyone of the issue, and having a toilet break at a stop or informing customers before boarding.

 

[AndrewE]

On a related note, I struggle to see why tanking facilities are not provided at terminus stations. Why should a passenger have to rely on a train being timetabled to return to a depot to be able to use the loo? It's a basic human function, and on long distance journeys, it's simply unacceptable to not cater for it (as seems to be happening quite routinely.)

I think it's really to do with the spacing between platform lines, the intensive use of adjacent lines and the fact that it's not acceptable to be down on closely-spaced tracks between trains any more (if one of them might move)...
A

 

[Cliveblackpool]

One compromise could be for the retention tanks retain the solids, and the excess water to drain onto the tracks. On these long CC routes, a hose to top up the toilets with fresh water at one or two stations when necessary.
For new trains they could fit toilets with a vacuum type evacuation, and spray a fraction of the water into the pan compared with conventional toilets - Vastly increase capacity, cost of water and emptying.

 

[DarloRich]

One compromise could be for the retention tanks retain the solids, and the excess water to drain onto the tracks. On these long CC routes,

Any discharge is becoming unacceptable and rightly so. Ask anyone who has worked on the track about "the cloud"

a hose to top up the toilets with fresh water at one or two stations when necessary.

time is the killer

For new trains they could fit toilets with a vacuum type evacuation, and spray a fraction of the water into the pan compared with conventional toilets - Vastly increase capacity, cost of water and emptying.

They already are
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hear, hear. This would be particularly helpful for people with weak bladders, pregnant people or similar, who should not have to embarrass themselves to request a toilet stop or an endorsement for the next train.

Agreed - no one should have to embarrass themselves.

n a related note, I struggle to see why tanking facilities are not provided at terminus stations. Why should a passenger have to rely on a train being timetabled to return to a depot to be able to use the loo? It's a basic human function, and on long distance journeys, it's simply unacceptable to not cater for it (as seems to be happening quite routinely.)

I assume you are aware of the equipment required to empty a CET toilet and store the effluent. I am sure you will have noticed that this can be an unpleasant job. Do you really want that done in terminus station? Not sure i do..........
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would rather the train had a working loo, but I accept some times it won't.

If it doesn't then I would hope that:
1) This would be announced at stations, so passengers could go before boarding
2) If someone didn't want to travel on a train with no loo, their ticket would be endorsed to travel on the next service at no extra cost

I would rather that than having the train cancelled or have a huge delay while it goes off to the depot to be emptied.

very sensible, and if this doesn't happen it should.

 

[randyrippley]

one help may be to fit zero-water use urinals as used in McDonalds restaurants. Cuts water use, so cuts the retention tank fill rate. Theres room in many toilet compartments to fit them alongside the WC.

The other improvement would be to stop taps dripping, and WCs running continuously. Even a slow drip can rapidly empty a storage tank

 

[Llanigraham]

So provide another type of facility there.


It depresses me how some members of this forum feel the railway is incapable of improvement, or that such improvement is somehow an unreasonable concept. All businesses should always strive to improve.

Perhaps you would be happy if we went back to the old system of just dumping it on the tracks?

On a moving vehicle they aren't many options; you either provide a poo-tank that if used a lot gets filled up quickly and can't be just emptied anywhere or you could provide a composting system that many people cannot use because they do not understand them, and/or find distasteful.

It therefore seems that the only system is the current poo-tank system, and the only way to increase capacity is to fit bigger tanks, but on most units that also isn't possible.

You quite obviously have no experience of pump-out toilets and the equipment needed to empty their tanks. It is equipment that cannot be fitted anywhere as it needs vacuum pumps. Even with "drop-through" tanks you have to have special reception areas into special holding tanks. Therefore units have to be taken out of service for emptying, but that is something you will not accept.

Perhaps there are people here actually do know more than you about the systems used, and have looked at finding an improvement, but haven't found one.

Still, another excuse to criticise the railway and it's workers!

 

[cjmillsnun]

I think it's really to do with the spacing between platform lines, the intensive use of adjacent lines and the fact that it's not acceptable to be down on closely-spaced tracks between trains any more (if one of them might move)...
A

Plus the fact that the smell of raw sewage would not be welcome.

 

[Llanigraham]

On a related note, I struggle to see why tanking facilities are not provided at terminus stations.

How?
Read about how these tanks need to be emptied.

I can see the passengers being really happy when someone removes 500 litres of poo-tank contents in a station!

 

[cjmillsnun]

one help may be to fit zero-water use urinals as used in McDonalds restaurants. Cuts water use, so cuts the retention tank fill rate. Theres room in many toilet compartments to fit them alongside the WC.

The other improvement would be to stop taps dripping, and WCs running continuously. Even a slow drip can rapidly empty a storage tank

Is there? Most train toilets are rather cramped as it is (and I doubt that a woman would appreciate it), and the accessible toilet has to be accessible (ie have room for a wheelchair or for someone on crutches to safely move around). Add to that the accessible toilet can also have baby change facilities and the available space is severely curtailed.

Many train toilets seem to have these automated taps now (you just stick your hand under and they work, you pull your hand away and they stop,) and none have continuous flush as far as I'm aware.

 

[Llanigraham]

One compromise could be for the retention tanks retain the solids, and the excess water to drain onto the tracks. On these long CC routes, a hose to top up the toilets with fresh water at one or two stations when necessary.
For new trains they could fit toilets with a vacuum type evacuation, and spray a fraction of the water into the pan compared with conventional toilets - Vastly increase capacity, cost of water and emptying.

You are joking!!
Would you like to be stood trackside getting showered in someones urine?

 

[Poolie]

Not wanting to be antagonistic..............but what would happen if a 'comfort' break was not available to a member of a train crew? Would the service be cancelled?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Not wanting to be antagonistic..............but what would happen if a 'comfort' break was not available to a member of a train crew? Would the service be cancelled?

A toilet stop? A bit like the OP was offered??

 

[causton]

Not wanting to be antagonistic..............but what would happen if a 'comfort' break was not available to a member of a train crew? Would the service be cancelled?

There would be no 'not available'. Nobody can force them to not go to the toilet, if they need to go they will stop the train and go at the first available opportunity! If there are no toilets they will just have to hold it in until they get to that opportunity I guess...

 

[al78]

Regardin a toilet stop, would this be guarenteed to be at a station where the toilets are free to use? If not, what happens if the passenger does not have the correct money to go through the barrier to access the toilet?