No working toilet on the train.

[Starmill]

There was an item on TV the other day about lorry drivers being cautioned/arrested for having a P (edit: not P as in parking!) in lay-bys. A little harsh if there's no facilities provided I thought. A few years ago during the stack-ups to/from Dover ferry port they were all having to do it as service areas were all closed due to lockdown.

In this country anyone would think relieving oneself was some sort of optional entertainment, not a biological necessity. It defies belief.

It is very poor. The number of times I've been changing buses and no facilities are available either council-run or in the bus station, so I've ended up having to use the ones in Wetherspoon as it's the only place that's open! And now no facilities at all are available at Bradford Interchange either.

Still at least the loos at Liverpool Central and Chester won't be so gross any more.

 

[Krokodil]

Am i right in thinking that there is still a separate law of "urinating in public"?

No, only local byelaws. Talking of byelaws, you could be refused travel if your clothing is soiled.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, only local byelaws. Talking of byelaws, you could be refused travel if your clothing is soiled.

Supposedly some Councils have been attempting to prosecute it as littering. Which is a bit dubious for #1, but I can see the point for #2 whether human or dog.

 

[Krokodil]

Supposedly some Councils have been attempting to prosecute it as littering. Which is a bit dubious for #1, but I can see the point for #2 whether human or dog.

Damage to stonework has been a concern in some areas. I don't suppose that those councils had usable public toilets available?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Damage to stonework has been a concern in some areas. I don't suppose that those councils had usable public toilets available?

No doubt they didn't.

 

[infobleep]

There was an item on TV the other day about lorry drivers being cautioned/arrested for having a P (edit: not P as in parking!) in lay-bys. A little harsh if there's no facilities provided I thought. A few years ago during the stack-ups to/from Dover ferry port they were all having to do it as service areas were all closed due to lockdown.

In this country anyone would think relieving oneself was some sort of optional entertainment, not a biological necessity. It defies belief.

What was outcome? A fine? Court apparence?

 

[trainophile]

What was outcome? A fine? Court apparence?

I think it was a general pre-warning that this could happen.

 

[Zamracene749]

Not true, look at the relevant legislation:

Sexual Offences Act 2003

An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

My underlining. The law requires intent to be proven.

That's a relief (literally) to hear, I suspect what my policeman m8 was getting at is that an arrest is possible, even likely. I suppose the proving of intent etc would perhaps come later in court?

 

[Krokodil]

That's a relief (literally) to hear, I suspect what my policeman m8 was getting at is that an arrest is possible, even likely. I suppose the proving of intent etc would perhaps come later in court?

There's also the common law offence of "outraging public decency" which doesn't require that the offender intends someone to see it (so long as at least two people do). Discreetly urinating into a bottle is not going to get a conviction on that charge.

 

[inkyadrian]

There's also the common law offence of "outraging public decency" which doesn't require that the offender intends someone to see it (so long as at least two people do). Discreetly urinating into a bottle is not going to get a conviction on that charge.

The various TOCs, must stop at a railway station when there are no toilets working on any train. A suitable station, with toilets, should be chosen by the guard and class it as an 'L' stop.

 

[Krokodil]

The various TOCs, must stop at a railway station when there are no toilets working on any train. A suitable station, with toilets, should be chosen by the guard and class it as an 'L' stop.

And when no station (with unlocked toilets) exists? On some routes it's easily possible to be an hour between staffed stations.

 

[MichaelTrains]

The last WBQ to LDS had no working toilet tonight. A journey time of just over two hours.

Completely disgraceful from Northern.

 

[yorksrob]

The various TOCs, must stop at a railway station when there are no toilets working on any train. A suitable station, with toilets, should be chosen by the guard and class it as an 'L' stop.

That assumes that the said station doesn't refuse to unlock the toilet (cough, Maidstone East, cough).

 

[infobleep]

What about trains that have toilets out of service but the stock is being used on a route that usually has rolling stock with no toilets?

You also get routes where they use to be toilets but then due to wider rolling stock issues they switch to units with no loos on board.

I also got caught out once when thr last train of the night from Waterloo to Guildford was a class 455 and booked to be so as standard. I wasn't expecting it as all other train were either 450 or 444. There may also have been one 458. All of which have loos.

I joined it either at Vauxhall or Clapham Junction.

 

[Zamracene749]

Dumping sewage onto tracks is horrible for trackworkers. Toilets should of course be serviced and available. But, with my risk assessment head on, perhaps allowing a tank to overflow for the last few hours of a diagram onto hopefully remote tracks that may not be visited by a worker for weeks? vs Punters and carriage cleaners having to deal regularly with train interiors that have been urinated on? Thoughts?

 

[gabrielhj07]

Dumping sewage onto tracks is horrible for trackworkers. Toilets should of course be serviced and available. But, with my risk assessment head on, perhaps allowing a tank to overflow for the last few hours of a diagram onto hopefully remote tracks that may not be visited by a worker for weeks? vs Punters and carriage cleaners having to deal regularly with train interiors that have been urinated on? Thoughts?

Or even just send stuff from the sink overboard.

 

[skyhigh]

Or even just send stuff from the sink overboard.

195s already do...

 

[43066]

The various TOCs, must stop at a railway station when there are no toilets working on any train. A suitable station, with toilets, should be chosen by the guard and class it as an 'L' stop.

What on earth is an “L” stop?

It’s certainly possible for trains with u/s loos to make stops to access toilet facilities, albeit these are usually just longer dwells at scheduled stops, with passengers requiring them being requested to make themselves known to the guard in advance.

 

[Krokodil]

What on earth is an “L” stop?

It’s certainly possible for trains with u/s loos to make stops to access toilet facilities, albeit these are usually just longer dwells at scheduled stops, with passengers requiring them being requested to make themselves known to the guard in advance.

Only where those faclities exist. You can easily be an hour from an open station toilet.

 

[duffield]

Dumping sewage onto tracks is horrible for trackworkers. Toilets should of course be serviced and available. But, with my risk assessment head on, perhaps allowing a tank to overflow for the last few hours of a diagram onto hopefully remote tracks that may not be visited by a worker for weeks? vs Punters and carriage cleaners having to deal regularly with train interiors that have been urinated on? Thoughts?

At the very least, retention tanks should have an emergency "dump to track" release under staff control for use in defined circumstances (such as a lengthy stranding).

 

[Wolfie]

At the very least, retention tanks should have an emergency "dump to track" release under staff control for use in defined circumstances (such as a lengthy stranding).

Given that raw sewage is legally a biohazard and disposal of such items is very tightly legally controlled that idea is fraught with all sorts of complications. The amount being dumped in one location would be vastly more than the old flush to the tracks toilets. A TOC who permitted it could find themselves facing a very expensive clean up job.

Disregarding that for the sake of discussion l also assume that the other problem in your proposal would likely be how long the train water tanks lasted in such a scenario.

 

[185]

The last WBQ to LDS had no working toilet tonight. A journey time of just over two hours.

Completely disgraceful from Northern.

TFW doing the same sending 2-car sets on 3 hour journeys to Manchester with one toilet that locks itself out.

The solution is retrofitting bioreactor toilets. They becoming proven in Europe and only require water, and empty only water onto the track with the err... compostable brickettes being emptied every two-three months.

 

[Goldfish62]

TFW doing the same sending 2-car sets on 3 hour journeys to Manchester with one toilet that locks itself out.

The solution is retrofitting bioreactor toilets. They becoming proven in Europe and only require water, and empty only water onto the track with the err... compostable brickettes being emptied every two-three months.

That's what the 701s have. Pity they're not actually in service, but that's for another thread...

 

[yorksrob]

I guess it also comes down to whether they're being locked out due to the waste tank being full or the clean water tank being empty. If the latter, non flushing urinals could save a lot of water.

 

[infobleep]

Well the 19:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading service tonight has no working loo.

I boarded it at Redhill unaware of this. Even Journey Check doesn't mention it. That obviously requires someone to inform someone and someone to have time to do the update. The Journey Check Web site can be found at https://www.journeycheck.com/greatwesternrailway/

Fortunately I should be OK to reach Guildford. Apart from Reigate, no other station has loos, as they were all closed years ago, assuming they all had loos, usually when the station buildings were demolished.

 

[IanXC]

The various TOCs, must stop at a railway station when there are no toilets working on any train. A suitable station, with toilets, should be chosen by the guard and class it as an 'L' stop.

There's no "must" about it - TOC's choice.

I'm fairly sure 'L' stop has no meaning.

 

[TheTallOne]

There's no "must" about it - TOC's choice.

I'm fairly sure 'L' stop has no meaning.

L for Loo?

 

[Old Yard Dog]

Still at least the loos at Liverpool Central and Chester won't be so gross any more.

The new toilets at Liverpool Central are suffering from teething problems (see other thread under Infrastructure & Stations) while those at Moorfields (the old ones at least) are also often closed and even when not, require staff to open them. The toilets on the main Lime Street concourse are the best bet for Wirral Line passengers.

The only toilets currently open at Chester are outside the gate so passengers changing trains have to go through the barriers twice.

Liverpool Central toilets closing 15th Jan for 12 weeks for refurb

Saw this on Facebook a couple of days ago. Not sure if it has reached this forum but posting here in case it hasn't. Not sure how to attach the photo, will give it a try but apologies if it goes wrong... Apparently we are to use James Street or Lime Street if needed! Moorfields seems not...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Starmill]

The new toilets at Liverpool Central are suffering from teething problems (see other thread under Infrastructure & Stations) while those at Moorfields (the old ones at least) are also often closed and even when not, require staff to open them. The toilets on the main Lime Street concourse are the best bet for Wirral Line passengers.

The only toilets currently open at Chester are outside the gate so passengers changing trains have to go through the barriers twice.

Liverpool Central toilets closing 15th Jan for 12 weeks for refurb

Saw this on Facebook a couple of days ago. Not sure if it has reached this forum but posting here in case it hasn't. Not sure how to attach the photo, will give it a try but apologies if it goes wrong... Apparently we are to use James Street or Lime Street if needed! Moorfields seems not...

www.railforums.co.uk

Yes it's disappointing agreed, but they also couldn't stay as they were in either case because they were foul. So hopefully both will be fixed shortly...