Paralympian forced to wet herself on train without accessible toilet

[eMeS]

Radio5-Live covered the story this morning, (3/1/17) shortly before the 8:00 News.

 

[kevjs]

That depends how much more society is willing to pay to guarantee these 'minimum standards'.
And how exactly do you intend to legislate to prevent operators withdrawing toilets entirely?

Require all services operating (timetabled) journeys in excess of x minutes to have a minimum of one working toilet otherwise fine the operator - simple. The operator then ensures there is an overprovision of toilets to keep fines to a minimum and keeps the ones it has maintained to a better standard to reduce the chances of them being locked out of use.

On Shorter and Frequent stop services (e.g. commuter trains) where no toilets are available make sure the on-board information advises on where the best places to stop are - e.g. the PIS could include symbols/text indicating that
1) On Platform Toilets are available
2) On Platform Wheelchair accessible toilets are available
3) On Station Wheelchair accessible toilets are available with step free access
4) On Station toilets are available but require use of steps (e.g. due to lift maintenance).

On the newer PIS you could include more details - e.g. a symbol after each station stop indicating above so passengers can make an informed decision (e.g. using them at a bigger station with more frequent onward connections, but needing to know the lift is still working).

Where is the ramp?
Does the train crew have access to it or is it behind a locked door or in a locked cabinet?

That's not just a good enough excuse - 1) the train crews should know where they are at every station (with the new ticketing machines basically being mobile phones it should be easy enough to make that information available to the conductor even if they don't already know) and 2) all train crew should be able to unlock them (e.g. using a standardised key or code lock). Or alternatively 3) demand the same of trains as we do of buses - ensure there is a ramp on the train!

 

[PeterC]

Scotrail does not have trains scattered to hell and gone, hundreds of miles from their maintenance bases like XC does.

But they know where there trains are going so should be able to plan for these things.

 

[hounddog]

If I had been in her position and offered the chance of waiting for the next train I would have taken it and I bet she would have too. .

She says that's exactly what she was offered. You're calling her a liar.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't know whether they have to, but don't some longer distance coaches have facilities?

There's long been an established wisdom that services with frequent stops such as bus routes and metro rail services don't provide toilet facilities. That's something the Crossrail services are going to reinstate to the line from Paddington to Reading. In the days of steam and compartment stock, there were no or limited facilities. These became available on the 117s, particularly when retrofitted with gangways between units. The very similar 118s out of Marylebone never had these. The 165s and 166s continued this design.

Yes, longer distance coach services do have toilet facilities.

As for crossrail deliberately building brand new long distance trains without toilets, this is plain stupidity and I suspect the TOC will come to rue the day.

 

[asylumxl]

What is the average time between stops on the route?

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't know anything about this incident except what I've read here, but I would just like to make a couple of observations.

Cl170 toilets regularly go out of use in traffic, particularly towards the end of the day if they've had heavy use, due to the CET tanks being full or the water tanks being empty. While this is far from ideal, it's a situation that XC can only deal with at Tyseley and Cambridge, and perhaps Cardiff Canton and Nottingham Eastcroft by prior arrangement with the relevant operators. However, in all circumstances this would require the set to be taken out of traffic and moved to the relevant location, with the resultant delays and potential for cancellations.

Maintenance of the fleet is largely the responsibility of London Midland at Tyseley, therefore XC is reliant on a third party operator. My own perspective is that the standard is fairly consistent across both the LM and XC fleets, although the difference in usage does mean the XC units take more punishment from the passengers. That said, these sets leave the depot with clean toilets and are cleaned in service at Nottingham, Cardiff and Stansted Airport as much as is possible in the time available to the staff. Personally I've never particularly liked the use of airline style toilets, but they do consume less water and block less often than standard WC type loos. If a toilet is disgusting, I'm sorry to say that's largely down to the users.

XC do have fleet utilisation issues and very tight allowances meaning that not all minor faults can be fixed on the same day before the unit is returned to traffic. I'm not sugggesring that this is the case here because it's more likely that the disabled loo was out of action for more prosaic reasons. It is unlikely that any TOC will sanction the removal of a train from service due to the disabled toilet being out of action, although more guidance may now be issued to controllers and traincrew alike.

With specific regard to this incident, I'm sad that the situation was allowed to get this far. I'm not going to try and argue that the traincrew did enough, but they clearly offered an alternative arrangement. Traincrew are under presssure to maintain timekeeping and control will not always sanction a delay. I would have hoped the guard would go further, but it could be that there are details missing from this report. Not all stations on this route are blessed with toilets and it's not clear where this unfortunate lady gave in to the natural imperative. It could be that the guard was aiming for one of the principle stations where she could be catered for but she failed to make it that far. We simply don't know.

O L Leigh

 

[theironroad]

As a guardian reader, I noticed yesterday they were branding the story as top billing and with an 'exclusive' tag. Also happened to be released on the day of the annual fare increases which seems more than coincidental on the guardian's part....

Apart from sooting xc customer service comments, this is clearly only one side of actual events being presented.

I'd imagine that all stock that is designed to take wheelchairs, ie, there is dedicated wheelchair space, universal toilet and floor level alarms etc will have a ramp on board every train that the guard can access, though usually locked in a cupboard which all crew do have a key for.

Clearly a traumatic event for the lady concerned and if some good comes of this by toc management taking issues of faulty and unserviceable toilets more seriously then her public revelation won't be wasted.

 

[martinB]

1) How many disabled loos are on this type of train?
2) If more than one, could the passenger be moved from one part of the train to another at a station stop?
3) If only one, could friendly assistance be provided to passenger within a working non-disabled loo? (not ideal, I know, but I've seen it happen...)

 

[TheEdge]

1) How many disabled loos are on this type of train?
2) If more than one, could the passenger be moved from one part of the train to another at a station stop?
3) If only one, could friendly assistance be provided to passenger within a working non-disabled loo? (not ideal, I know, but I've seen it happen...)

1. 170s have one disabled toilet and normally 1 or sometimes 2 small cupboard toilets.

2. No, see above.

3. Generally I think anything like that is totally verboten for all sorts of fairly obvious reasons.

I'd be interested to know if the guard knew (I know it mentions a member of traincrew said but the New Street - Stansted services do have a trolley on for while so that may have been the traincrew in question) and the passenger had made her issue known they didn't have a quick look to see if the loo was in some sort of usable state. If it was a broken door obviously nothing to be done but something like no water or full CET (or even a blockage within reason) it could have been offered with apologies.

 

[HSTEd]

Require all services operating (timetabled) journeys in excess of x minutes to have a minimum of one working toilet otherwise fine the operator - simple.

Define 'journey' - do you mean end to end of the service?
Shenfield to Reading will take something like 1hr40.
Crossrail will have no toilets.
Even the Metropolitan Line is about 55 minutes from Baker Street to Amersham.

The operator then ensures there is an overprovision of toilets to keep fines to a minimum and keeps the ones it has maintained to a better standard to reduce the chances of them being locked out of use.

Or insists on breaking down the services in the timetable so every journey comes out less than the minimum. No more Norwich-Liverpool and such.

 

[Bantamzen]

A difficult one for the TOC this is. As distressing as it may be for the lady concerned, faults do happen en route. Now I know she was advised to alight at a suitable station to use the facilities and catch the next available service, but she was unable to alight? I assume it was the guard on the train who gave her this advice when the issue was first highlighted, so why wasn't said guard able to detrain her? I think we all have to be careful here because we don't know exactly what happened, or exactly what conversation this lady and the guard had.

There is a limit to what disabled facilities can be offered, and on some units they double up as the only operational facility on the train so high usage will be a factor in breakdowns. Even on units where more than one facility are available, I have been on services were all have been out for a considerable length of journey and meant problems for an entire train (185s on the North TP for example). So what do the train crew do? Stop the service at a station until all passengers have relived themselves (could be a while on a TPE or XC without working loos) and risk losing time as well as holding up services behind, fail the train and detrain all passengers, or ask all passengers needing the loo to detrain and await the next service? In all honesty all answers would be the wrong ones for TOCs as well as at least some of the passengers, and would almost certainly attract public criticism from one group or another.

Of course it shouldn't have come to what it did, but without knowing the exact circumstances and conversations that were had at the time, it is impossible to draw a conclusion as to what the correct solution would have been.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

When I have done toilet stops it has taken a mere 5 minutes at huddersfield and eaten in to the usual dwell time at leeds or york, thereby minimising delay

 

[Bantamzen]

When I have done toilet stops it has taken a mere 5 minutes at huddersfield and eaten in to the usual dwell time at leeds or york, thereby minimising delay

Is it similar going the other way? I'm thinking abouting after York heading for Liverpool via Picc, as this is the service I mostly use. Generally speaking we only ever seem to have a couple of minutes give to get into Picc without tripping over other services across the throat, and with the loos at Leeds being across the bridge on 12/15 (plus being a much buiser station) is it as easy at Huddersfield that way around?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Cl170 toilets regularly go out of use in traffic, particularly towards the end of the day if they've had heavy use, due to the CET tanks being full or the water tanks being empty.

In that case, the units aren't fit for purpose.

While this is far from ideal, it's a situation that XC can only deal with at Tyseley and Cambridge, and perhaps Cardiff Canton and Nottingham Eastcroft by prior arrangement with the relevant operators. However, in all circumstances this would require the set to be taken out of traffic and moved to the relevant location, with the resultant delays and potential for cancellations.

Emptying tanks obviously requires proper facilities, but retanking the water should not be difficult. If it happens regularly, then arrangements need to be made at an appropriate intermediate station for a hosepipe, operative, and yellow hazard notices. Abellio Greater Anglia do it at Bishops Stortford every hour with a train in the platform.

XC do have fleet utilisation issues and very tight allowances meaning that not all minor faults can be fixed on the same day before the unit is returned to traffic. I'm not sugggesring that this is the case here because it's more likely that the disabled loo was out of action for more prosaic reasons. It is unlikely that any TOC will sanction the removal of a train from service due to the disabled toilet being out of action, although more guidance may now be issued to controllers and traincrew alike.

With specific regard to this incident, I'm sad that the situation was allowed to get this far. I'm not going to try and argue that the traincrew did enough, but they clearly offered an alternative arrangement. Traincrew are under presssure to maintain timekeeping and control will not always sanction a delay. I would have hoped the guard would go further, but it could be that there are details missing from this report. Not all stations on this route are blessed with toilets and it's not clear where this unfortunate lady gave in to the natural imperative. It could be that the guard was aiming for one of the principle stations where she could be catered for but she failed to make it that far. We simply don't know.

I suspect control may have sanctioned a delay, or the guard just delayed the train anyway, if they knew they were going to be splashed :roll: all over the media today!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Scotrail does not have trains scattered to hell and gone, hundreds of miles from their maintenance bases like XC does.

I think it does. Think Thurso, Kyle of Lochalsh, Mallaig, Fort William, Oban, Stranraer.

They (XC) know where their trains are stabled every night, it is up to XC to make arrangements to service their trains at those locations, or to stable their trains at locations where they can be serviced.

 

[Via Bank]

I find it very hard to see there being "another side of the story" here.

Inter-city train did not have functioning toilet facilities. Nor did the station. Passenger humiliated in public.

This should never happen. Ever. A lack of available rolling stock is no excuse; toilet facilities and assistance for this lady should have been available at the intermediate station.

XC should be ashamed.

 

[Bantamzen]

I find it very hard to see there being "another side of the story" here.

Inter-city train did not have functioning toilet facilities. Nor did the station. Passenger humiliated in public.

This should never happen. Ever. A lack of available rolling stock is no excuse; toilet facilities and assistance for this lady should have been available at the intermediate station.

XC should be ashamed.

This could have happened at one of hundreds of stations, on hundreds of routes, on thousands of trains. No matter what measures a train company, station or train crew have available to them, things go wrong. it won't be the first time this has happened to someone, disabled or otherwise, and it won't be the last. And as we don't know the whole story, it would be inappropriate to second guess just exactly why this sequence of events transpired. Perhaps the train crew could have done more, perhaps they did offer this lady the option to disembark and catch a later train, perhaps help was offered to assist her to another carriage to use the standard facilities. It is always way too easy to pick up on one side of the story and assume that the other party is at fault.

Train faults happen all the time, I have lost count of the number of times I have been on a medium / long distance service that had limited or no facilities. And many stations have either long since closed on-site facilities, or are new ones without any built. I feel very sorry for this poor lady, but to claim it should never happen is asking the impossible. I would like for trains never to break down, for the wires never to come down or the lines flood in stormy weather, and I would like for the loos to work all the time. But they don't, heavy use of units, reduced numbers of facilities to maintain and repair them and often very heavy passenger use mean these things will happen. What if the loo had broken shortly after a stop with facilities with a long time to the next stop? What would you suggest? Stop the unit and reverse, request a diversion from the control team (if available)? I'm sorry if this all sounds harsh, but these are the realities of the network in the 21st century. Legislation is in place to try and reduce the issues for disabled people, but this cannot and will not guarantee zero issues in future.

 

[theironroad]

I find it very hard to see there being "another side of the story" here.

Inter-city train did not have functioning toilet facilities. Nor did the station. Passenger humiliated in public.

This should never happen. Ever. A lack of available rolling stock is no excuse; toilet facilities and assistance for this lady should have been available at the intermediate station.

XC should be ashamed.

Many things in life should never happen but unexpected faults do happen in service.

Hopefully, this incident will force tocs to ensure they have adequate contingency plans for this type of incident which covers all passengers needs.

The alternative is that if there are no facilities to service the toilet or no engineer available to remedy the fault, then the unit is withdrawn from passenger service for the rest of the day and sent to a appropriate depot.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

then the unit is withdrawn from passenger service for the rest of the day and sent to a appropriate depot.

No chance, generally all TOCs who use DMUs are short on units as it is

 

[najaB]

To me the most disturbing part of this story is that - assuming the report is accurate - a disabled person got over-carried because the train crew were either unable or unwilling to help her alight when she wanted to.

If it was 'unable' then I have to ask do they have the equipment and training needed? And if not, why not? What would have happened in a genuine emergency (of the 'fire, death, kill' variety), would they have been able to evacuate her?

If they were 'unwilling' then I have to question if it's due to their personal choice or is there a problem with the culture within XC?

The fact that the toilet was out of order is secondary to this, in my opinion. It doesn't really matter why she wanted to leave the train.

 

[Abpj17]

Depending on options, there seems to have been a collective failure of imagination
- how out of order was the disabled toilet? (Sometimes they go out of order mid-service because the doors are messed about with, sometimes due to vandalism) I.e. could it have been used, or even used a private room
- Why wasn’t a station with facilities called ahead to to ensure assistance?
- If assistance wasn’t available then could the train staff have accessed the ramps? (Some have keys which are only with the platform staff?)
- Could one of the ‘normal’ toilets be used. E.g. wheel along platform at one station. Staff assistance to use one of the smaller toilets)

None would be perfect, and still arguably undignified…but not quite as awful.

 

[theironroad]

While I'm no fan of the daily mail, it's write up of this incident suggests that the guard had no access to a ramp and that the station one wasn't available as there were no staff. It also says that passengers offered to help get her off the train but then it was realised there were no staff to take her to toilets on other side of station.

The whole episode sounds a shambles and once again doesn't reflect well for the railway.

 

[fredk]

The guard being present was a real valuable asset in this situation. Why he couldn't have stopped the train and taken her to the loo and then return her to the train is beyond me.

 

[HSTEd]

The guard being present was a real valuable asset in this situation. Why he couldn't have stopped the train and taken her to the loo and then return her to the train is beyond me.

And collapse the timetable whilst the guard manhandles the person up and down staircases?

 

[Via Bank]

And collapse the timetable whilst the guard manhandles the person up and down staircases?

Frankly, yes. Let them eat the delay minutes if they can't provide adequate staffing or toilet facilities.

 

[bramling]

Just picked this up on The Guardian. I imagine that what should have happened in the circumstances is that the train was halted at a station with adequate facilities, and that she was assisted to them by the crew. I'm intrigued as to why things got to the point that they did.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...strike-wet-herself-train-no-accessible-toilet

Yes it's unfortunate, and yes the toilet should have been working ... however if one (able-bodied or disabled) chooses to go out then unfortunately there are going to be times when facilities are not present or unavailable.

So a shout to CrossCountry and others to get their house in order, but still a bit of a non-story IMO.

 

[AlterEgo]

And collapse the timetable whilst the guard manhandles the person up and down staircases?

It is standard procedure to simply accept the delay minutes when something like this happens. As another poster said, as a guard you don't always have to ask for a toilet stop, you just do it and take the initiative.

The question here is why on earth nobody could get her off the train, toilet or no toilet.

 

[Astradyne]

Disability regulations don't just apply to people in wheelchairs. If you rip out the toilets that were already there you are setting yourself up for action based on the very obvious failure to make reasonable efforts to provide a service to those with disabilities requiring regular use of the toilet.

That might be a medical affliction, but where is it classed as a disability. Will you be classed as disabled because of it?

 

[HSTEd]

Frankly, yes. Let them eat the delay minutes if they can't provide adequate staffing or toilet facilities.

And attitudes like that will just get all the toilets taken out of use.
If this is the result of providing them then it clearly is not going to be worth it.

And what about all those other passengers? Potentially thousands that are affected by a train sitting in a platform for 20 or more minutes. Potentially forcing several other trains to stack up behind it.