Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[61653 HTAFC]

That's makes no sense to me at all, IEP layout is shown as Accessible Toilets in the Driving Trailers and Standard Toilets in the Trailer Cars, so why carn't a 319 have one Accessible Toilet and one Standard Toilet?

I don't believe there is a 'ban' on retaining some small toilets on old stock, as long as at least one accessible toilet is provided. Then again I'm not in the industry so perhaps someone with more knowledge could confirm or deny this.

Assuming this is the case with the 319s, I imagine it is just about seat/space saving, and perhaps experience with 333s (12m longer) showing that only one loo is needed. There might also be complications with installing toilets and the associated tank and gubbins in a vehicle that previously didn't have one too, though the broadly-similar 320s AIUI have had a (universal) toilet fitted where there wasn't one as-built.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Because it's another reduction in standards. Why were these "suburban" units built with 2 toilets in the first place...because they thought that would would be 'adequate'. Now all of a sudden one seems adequate.

I think that you have to look to the geographical area where the Class 319 units were originally intended to run with "a better class of personage" being the intended recipients of rail travel in these units and the "northern provinces" where a communal toilet was seen to be the norm in the back courtyards of the slum areas and where, as such, the bestowing of such extra water closet facilities on railway carriages was seen to be extravagances not fitting for the lower orders. In the land of received pronunciation, such ideas still so exist.

Does this answer your question?

 

[GatwickDepress]

I think that you have to look to the geographical area where the Class 319 units were originally intended to run with "a better class of personage" being the intended recipients of rail travel in these units and the "northern provinces" where a communal toilet was seen to be the norm in the back courtyards of the slum areas and where, as such, the bestowing of such extra water closet facilities on railway carriages was seen to be extravagances not fitting for the lower orders. In the land of received pronunciation, such ideas still so exist.

Does this answer your question?

A better class of personage?

The 319s serve Luton!

 

[Domh245]

As I understand it, the 319s have got both of their toilets at the same end of the TOSL car, so if you put in a universal toilet and wish to retain a standard toilet, it would either have to be put down the other end of the coach, which would mean reduced seating capacity and some plumbing, or putting it in another coach, which would also reduce seating capacity and require a hell of a lot more work to fit them. Of course, if you have just 1 universal toilet, you don't loose as many seats

 

[northwichcat]

I think that you have to look to the geographical area where the Class 319 units were originally intended to run with "a better class of personage" being the intended recipients of rail travel in these units and the "northern provinces" where a communal toilet was seen to be the norm in the back courtyards of the slum areas and where, as such, the bestowing of such extra water closet facilities on railway carriages was seen to be extravagances not fitting for the lower orders. In the land of received pronunciation, such ideas still so exist.

The Northern diesel services which operate as 4 carriages currently have two toilets even if a Pacer toilet is really a broom cupboard with a toilet fitted.

The 319s will also be used on services in the North where they are the fastest end-to-end option meaning people will likely be on them for longer.

 

[edwin_m]

The rule, as quoted above, is that if any toilet is provided there must be at least one accessible toilet. Whether to provide any extra toilets is down to the train operator.

The 319 was built with two non-accessible toilets, both at the same end of the non-pantograph trailer car and probably using the same water and retention tanks. There probably isn't room to provide an accessible toilet (to current standards) and another toilet next to it, so any second toilet would have to go in another part of the train. This would mean finding space for another water and retention tank, which could be quite tricky as there is probably something else occupying the corresponding place in other coaches.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

As I understand it, the 319s have got both of their toilets at the same end of the TOSL car, so if you put in a universal toilet and wish to retain a standard toilet, it would either have to be put down the other end of the coach, which would mean reduced seating capacity and some plumbing, or putting it in another coach, which would also reduce seating capacity and require a hell of a lot more work to fit them. Of course, if you have just 1 universal toilet, you don't loose as many seats

....The 319 was built with two non-accessible toilets, both at the same end of the non-pantograph trailer car and probably using the same water and retention tanks. There probably isn't room to provide an accessible toilet (to current standards) and another toilet next to it, so any second toilet would have to go in another part of the train. This would mean finding space for another water and retention tank, which could be quite tricky as there is probably something else occupying the corresponding place in other coaches.

Because of the amount of underfloor equipment on the centre coaches, no more retention tanks can be fitted there. There would be room under the DTS/DTC vehicles, but is there really any point in spending the amount of money that would be required for that?

A reduction in toilet numbers, from two to one, means that fewer 'passengers' can hide in them all journey.

 

[Class377/5]

That's makes no sense to me at all, IEP layout is shown as Accessible Toilets in the Driving Trailers and Standard Toilets in the Trailer Cars, so why carn't a 319 have one Accessible Toilet and one Standard Toilet?

I understand that trains with toilet facilities will have to provide properly accessible toilet facilities and that non-retention toilets will have to be got rid off.

I don't understand why there are apparently stricter regulations with old BR stock than new stock - I would have expected it to be the other way around. If you'd said the 319s can get away with one accessible toilet and one non-accessible toilet but the 350/3s had to be ordered with two accessible toilets then that would have made sense.

What is it you do not understand. The new stock was built with accessible toilets from the start so don't need the mods the BR stock does.

You don't have to make all loos accessible but one has to be. You cannot do this on a 319 without losing either one loo or seating. Accessible loos take more space.

I don't believe there is a 'ban' on retaining some small toilets on old stock, as long as at least one accessible toilet is provided. Then again I'm not in the industry so perhaps someone with more knowledge could confirm or deny this.

Bingo.

 

[47802]

What is it you do not understand. The new stock was built with accessible toilets from the start so don't need the mods the BR stock does.

You don't have to make all loos accessible but one has to be. You cannot do this on a 319 without losing either one loo or seating. Accessible loos take more space.



Bingo.

Everybody understands that but that not the impression you gave in your earlier posts which was that all toilets in a 319 had to be accessible

 

[childwallblues]

That I know!

I assumed that you were asking!

 

[cjmillsnun]

A better class of personage?

The 319s serve Luton!

Hahahahaha true!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A better class of personage?

The 319s serve Luton!

Even Luton is deemed to be far too nice a place to have cascades of "Newton Heath's Finest" on the Bedford to Brighton run passing through it...

 

[Whistler40145]

Very witty Mr Sidorczuk.

 

[transmanche]

Even Luton is deemed to be far too nice a place to have cascades of "Newton Heath's Finest" on the Bedford to Brighton run passing through it...

Luton makes Moss Side look a bit posh...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Luton makes Moss Side look a bit posh...

If you get a spare moment, see if any search engine can tell you all about Harperhey...

 

[Techniquest]

You lot are making Leominster sound like a really posh place!

 

[Class377/5]

Everybody understands that but that not the impression you gave in your earlier posts which was that all toilets in a 319 had to be accessible

I have never said anything other then you must have an accessible loo. My second post on the matter was quite detailed in the the choices you have.

Having toilets that are disabled accessible is a legal requirement. So the choice was....

A) remove the toilets completely
B) have two accessible toilets with a reduction of capacity
C) have one loo and not lose any seating capacity

The current situation could not be maintained by law so you can only choice one. The chosen option balancing the need for accessible toilets but protects seating capacity.

Id love to see how this could classed as misleading as you imply I did. If you assume then prepare to be wrong.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Even Luton is deemed to be far too nice a place to have cascades of "Newton Heath's Finest" on the Bedford to Brighton run passing through it...

Before Thameslink, the route that served Luton was colloquially known as the Bedpan line. Perhaps those receptacles should be provided for our beloved northern brethren in the event one lavatory proves to be not enough to stem the flow!

 

[158756]

I have never said anything other then you must have an accessible loo. My second post on the matter was quite detailed in the the choices you have.



Id love to see how this could classed as misleading as you imply I did. If you assume then prepare to be wrong.

I thought that the laws allowed non-accessible toilets if you had another which was accessible.
I.e. If 1 toilet, it must be accessible
But if 2 toilets, only the one nearest the wheelchair space must be accessible?
By accessible I mean for wheelchairs, as far as I can tell the contrast requirements for all toilets don't affect the size.
So if as you say two accessible loos were an option, was one of each not as well?
In any case I'm guessing 2 toilets of any type was ruled out on cost and capacity grounds?

 

[WatcherZero]

Class377/5 their both right, your posts did appear to suggest that it was mandatory for all loos to be accessible not just one.

 

[AM9]

As a slight aside, looking at google maps, it seems that access to Wolverton works is difficult both from the north an south. A few questions about how it's done:
1) do the 319s go south under their own power
2) where on the mail line do they reverse to take the diveunder
3) is the access wired or are they towed/pushed into the reception road(s)
Thanks if anybody can satisfy my curiosity.

 

[northwichcat]

I have never said anything other then you must have an accessible loo. My second post on the matter was quite detailed in the the choices you have.
..

I'd love to see how this could classed as misleading

That clearly said it's a choice of two accessible toilets, one toilet or no toilets.

A) remove the toilets completely
B) have two accessible toilets with a reduction of capacity
C) have one loo and not lose any seating capacity

Maybe the second toilet could be partially accessible e.g. have accessible door controls but not be wheelchair accessible?

 

[westcoaster]

As a slight aside, looking at google maps, it seems that access to Wolverton works is difficult both from the north an south. A few questions about how it's done:
1) do the 319s go south under their own power
2) where on the mail line do they reverse to take the diveunder
3) is the access wired or are they towed/pushed into the reception road(s)
Thanks if anybody can satisfy my curiosity.

1, yes both North and South
2, right to the stops at the South end dependent on length.
3, the class 08 will bring the unit onto the reception road.

This picture shows the method of working and where the ohle is https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulfuller128/9675988025/

 

[Wolfie]

That clearly said it's a choice of two accessible toilets, one toilet or no toilets.

Maybe the second toilet could be partially accessible e.g. have accessible door controls but not be wheelchair accessible?

The 319s currently have two smallish toilets in the same carriage facing each other. Replacing one of the extant toilets with a fully compliant one doesn't leave space there for the remaining non-compliant one as well. Installing a new non-compliant one elsewhere would be complex and expensive for reasons which have been previously explained... it ain't going to happen!

 

[47802]

Having toilets that are disabled accessible is a legal requirement. So the choice was....

A) remove the toilets completely
B) have two accessible toilets with a reduction of capacity
C) have one loo and not lose any seating capacity

The current situation could not be maintained by law so you can only choice one. The chosen option balancing the need for accessible toilets but protects seating capacity.

Leaving aside the practicalities of fitting X number of Toilets or reduction in seating capacity, the confusion arises from option B, where you state two accessible Toilets, where as most people understanding is that you could have one accessible toilet and one non assessable toilet.

 

[joeykins82]

OK, let me try to clear this up since it's only started to make sense in the last page or so but we're still dwelling on the same points.

The legal requirement to provide accessible toilets is definitely there. In general if toilets are being provided then at least one must be accessible; you can supply additional non-accessible toilets as well.

Specifically on the Class 319 the current location and layout of the toilets, and therefore the positions of the water and waste retention tanks, means that it is impractical to provide both accessible and non-accessible toilets; the 2 non-accessible toilets on the 319s are both at one end of the same carriage. This limits the options to the ones posted by Class377/5 (although I'm not sure that option B was ever realistic).

There is no prohibition in law for providing non-accessible toilets provided at least 1 accessible toilet is provided.

Everyone clear?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The space relieved (sorry) by one of the old toilets in the refurbed units makes a good utility area .....

(Rather nice job on those trains I think)

 

[edwin_m]

The issue of toilets may also be intertwined with the question of whether the units are eventually be shortened to 3 cars.

If this happens the car with the existing toilet(s) will be removed, so any money spent on this car now would be wasted and another accessible toilet would have to be built somewhere else (assuming the 3-car units have toilets at all). But this is the easiest/cheapest place to put an accessible toilet because some of the equipment for the existing toilet will be re-used.

If it was known that the units were going to be reduced to 3-car then it might be better to build an accessible toilet in one of the other cars, which would cost more now but save money later. But only the future franchisee can decide whether they will be shortened!

So, as so often, the lack of a long-term plan on shortening 319s or not is potentially leading to waste of money now.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Specifically on the Class 319 the current location and layout of the toilets, and therefore the positions of the water and waste retention tanks, means that it is impractical to provide both accessible and non-accessible toilets; the 2 non-accessible toilets on the 319s are both at one end of the same carriage. This limits the options to the ones posted by Class377/5 (although I'm not sure that option B was ever realistic).

Just to muddy the waters a bit (sorry...) don't the 319/2's have an accessible toilet? I seem to remember the PMS area being rebuilt upon refurbishment for the Connex Express with the accessible toilet being built on the same side as the non-accessible toilet

Oh dear, has this thread sunk to these depths now....?

 

[Class377/5]

Just to muddy the waters a bit (sorry...) don't the 319/2's have an accessible toilet? I seem to remember the PMS area being rebuilt upon refurbishment for the Connex Express with the accessible toilet being built on the same side as the non-accessible toilet

Oh dear, has this thread sunk to these depths now....?

They don't comply with the 2020 rules.