• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Paralympian forced to wet herself on train without accessible toilet

Status
Not open for further replies.

TUC

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2010
Messages
3,566
1. 170s have one disabled toilet and normally 1 or sometimes 2 small cupboard toilets.

And that's part of the problem-that too many of XC's trains have too few toilets fitted generally. If there were more, including two accesibile toilets, this kind of issue would be less likely to arise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It does raise a wider communication issue. In this day and age, surely it is possible where a train has no toilets working/no catering trolley on board etc. for a message to be sent to be added to station announcements for that train, so that passengers can be aware before deciding whether to board.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
And that's part of the problem-that too many of XC's trains have too few toilets fitted generally. If there were more, including two accesibile toilets, this kind of issue would be less likely to arise.

Of course if we are talking about a 2 car 170, how many loos could you really fit without severely impacting on capacity?

It does raise a wider communication issue. In this day and age, surely it is possible where a train has no toilets working/no catering trolley on board etc. for a message to be sent to be added to station announcements for that train, so that passengers can be aware before deciding whether to board.

I think the comms is key. I know when TPE 185s have issue with the loos, usually it seems the disabled compliant one, guards have tried on occasions to communicate this information to passengers. This at least means that if you know you are going to struggle, then you have the option of jumping off at a station with facilities, or at least seek advice from the guard. But that of course is when they have been aware of the problem. I've no idea if there are any alerts to the crew when a toilet is shown out of use, and if not (which I imagine is the case) it can be difficult for the crew to know this if the unit they are working is full to standing. I might suggest some kind of signage in the disabled area next to the comms button (assuming one exists) to notify disabled passengers to contact the train crew in the event of a failure and urgent need for them to use it. However I just know that this would encourage misuse, and waste lots of crew time.

Unfortunately, this is not an easy problem to solve. Ensuring 100% availability of loos is not going to be possible, failures, blockages and even vandalism are going to happen sadly. And retro-fitting all trains with additional alert systems to ensure crew are aware of a problem won't be cheap, and in some circumstances wouldn't be able to alert the crew anyway. And if trains are rammed solid, crews can't get to the areas to check / deal with issues, and so cannot communicate that there are issues. It all comes down to that one simple issue with much of our network, not having enough capacity to seat most/all passengers. If we did then crews could be more proactive on busy services, instead of being stuck in the cabs unable to get down the train. But then we'd be told that we would also risk trains running around transporting fresh air by some, so we don't need all that extra capacity, etc etc....
 

221129

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2011
Messages
6,520
Location
Sunny Scotland
It does raise a wider communication issue. In this day and age, surely it is possible where a train has no toilets working on board etc. for a message to be sent to be added to station announcements for that train, so that passengers can be aware before deciding whether to board.

Generally it is. Looking at our work emails right now I can see that one of our trains currently has the First Class Disabled toilet locked out. And that any wheelchair customers are to travel in the Standard Class wheelchair space or on the next available train.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Of course if we are talking about a 2 car 170, how many loos could you really fit without severely impacting on capacity?

The real answer is that no inter-regional services should be operated using 2-car DMUs - 4-car is the sensible minimum for these services. Then there's plenty of room for a couple of extra bogs.
 

OneOffDave

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2015
Messages
453
Giving a cheaper and legal option of making no provision encourages closure.

It's the same with new stations and footbridges. If a new footbridge with lifts is required, this discourages the opening of new stations.

It's a trade off. If facilities with disabled access are too expensive to provide, the outcome will be no facilities at all.

Welcome to our world. So would your remedy be for the disabled rights movement to just shut up and go back to their special schools and residential homes and not bother the rest of society?

Under the legislation, if the facilities are too expensive to provide then they fail the reasonable adjustments test and therefore non-provision isn't a breach so why would they remove existing facilities? It's more a case of looking to save money in any way they can and pulling all the facilities is easiest
 

MarlowDonkey

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2013
Messages
1,094
so why would they remove existing facilities? It's more a case of looking to save money in any way they can and pulling all the facilities is easiest

Crossrail on the Great Western main line is a case in point. The existing 165 and 166 trains are being partly replaced by the new Crossrail trains on local services. An effect of this is the withdrawal of on train toilet facilities.
 

47271

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2015
Messages
2,983
But then we'd be told that we would also risk trains running around transporting fresh air by some, so we don't need all that extra capacity, etc etc....

Cross Country would have to add an awful lot of extra carriages to their nasty crammed services before there was any risk of this becoming a problem. :(
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Cross Country would have to add an awful lot of extra carriages to their nasty crammed services before there was any risk of this becoming a problem. :(

It's funny how an error made by Virgin about 16 years ago is still blighting these services. Especially given that the only thing required to solve it is more rolling stock (of near enough any kind[1] depending on how you cast the services), not any infrastructure changes.

[1] OK, not 230s...but you could, if you split the Manchester services at Birmingham, use refurbished second-hand 100mph EMUs, for instance, and there are about to be loads of those on the market. Fit nice seats in 2+2 with tables and proper 2+1 First Class (which some already have anyway, the 319 First is very nice indeed), couple them up in 8-car formation and away you go.
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
It's funny how an error made by the DfT about 16 years ago is still blighting these services.
Fixed that for you. The DfT wrote the initial franchise spec and even after Virgin specified the size of the fleet to meet that spec, the DfT would've had to sign off their plan.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Fixed that for you. The DfT wrote the initial franchise spec and even after Virgin specified the size of the fleet to meet that spec, the DfT would've had to sign off their plan.

I don't think that was actually true of the initial franchises - TOCs had much more freedom than they do now.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
The real answer is that no inter-regional services should be operated using 2-car DMUs - 4-car is the sensible minimum for these services. Then there's plenty of room for a couple of extra bogs.

Surely what should (and largely does) happen is that an appropriate sized unit is used for the journey.

Just because a journey is 'x' length or 'y' distance shouldn't dictate what is an appropriate unit. It should be based on several factors.

There's nothing wrong or inappropriate about 2 car 170s on Birmingham / Cambridge services.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Yes there is - they are inadequate in capacity. 3 at a push, but 2 is completely insufficient.

Especially with space taken up with accessible toilets, cycle space etc.

2 cars was just about okay on some of the Sprinter designs such as 156s or 158s where space was used very efficiently to maximize seating capacity. However since then we have things such as accessible toilets which take up a lot of space.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
How do Northern get away with not having an accessible toilet on their Pacers?

Quite simply because it isn't 2020 yet, and retrofitting them now (particularly given that their Pacers aren't long for this network) would be pretty stupid.
 

TUC

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2010
Messages
3,566
Generally it is. Looking at our work emails right now I can see that one of our trains currently has the First Class Disabled toilet locked out. And that any wheelchair customers are to travel in the Standard Class wheelchair space or on the next available train.

My point was that such information should be reflected in station announcements, not just available to staff.
 

221129

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2011
Messages
6,520
Location
Sunny Scotland
My point was that such information should be reflected in station announcements, not just available to staff.

That is down to the operator of the station. We can provide the info, whether they use it for anything useful is down to them. On train then yes I agree something should have been announced and for whatever reason, it wasn't. Not really any excuse for that.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
[1] OK, not 230s...but you could, if you split the Manchester services at Birmingham, use refurbished second-hand 100mph EMUs, for instance, and there are about to be loads of those on the market. Fit nice seats in 2+2 with tables and proper 2+1 First Class (which some already have anyway, the 319 First is very nice indeed), couple them up in 8-car formation and away you go.

I've often thought it would be a good idea to do this with the Manchester - South West trains, because in the current timetable they 2/3 only go to Bristol Temple Meads. I would be concerned that there might not be platform capacity at Birmingham New Street though. I'd be very concerned if you tried to do that to the Manchester - Bournemouth as well. Also a 319 may struggle to match Voyager timings because of the lower top speed and pretty rubbish acceleration. A 379 on the other hand...
 
Last edited:

221129

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2011
Messages
6,520
Location
Sunny Scotland
I've often thought it would be a good idea to do this with the Manchester - South West trains, because in the current timetable they 2/3 only go to Bristol Temple Meads. I would be concerned that there might not be platform capacity at Birmingham New Street though. I'd be very concerned if you tried to do that to the Manchester - Bournemouth as well. Also a 319 may struggle to match Voyager timings because of the lower top speed and pretty rubbish acceleration. A 379 on the other hand...

Although they are being extended to Exeter in December...
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I've often thought it would be a good idea to do this with the Manchester - South West trains, because in the current timetable they 2/3 only go to Bristol Temple Meads. I would be concerned that there might not be platform capacity at Birmingham New Street though. I'd be very concerned if you tried to do that to the Manchester - Bournemouth as well. Also a 319 may struggle to match Voyager timings because of the lower top speed and pretty rubbish acceleration. A 379 on the other hand...


I think most people would accept a slight slowdown in exchange for a higher comfort level - or, this being XC, a seat and a luggage rack.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

TUC

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2010
Messages
3,566
That is down to the operator of the station. We can provide the info, whether they use it for anything useful is down to them. On train then yes I agree something should have been announced and for whatever reason, it wasn't. Not really any excuse for that.

Who is responsible adding such information to the menu of automated announcements and display screens (e.g. 'there is no working accessible toilet on this train' or 'there is no catering on this train today') and who is responsible for activating such announcements for a given train?
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
I think most people would accept a slight slowdown in exchange for a higher comfort level - or, this being XC, a seat and a luggage rack.

Funny. The last time I suggested splitting XC routes into diesel and electric portions with guaranteed interchanges I attracted a storm of ire from people saying it shouldn't be allowed. Times change, I guess.

O L Leigh
 

sk688

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2016
Messages
780
Location
Dublin
If you were to use secondhand BR EMU's , they would need much more soundproofing , along with a heavy refurb , air con and they would probably need to sort out the doors , and the effect that passing trains have on them , because using them in their current states ( esp the 319s ) , people would have complaints ( I know a refurb has been mentioned ) . Air con too , because it should be expected now on long journeys
 

trainophile

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2010
Messages
6,186
Location
Wherever I lay my hat
I have never used a toilet on a bus, but I should imagine that would be even more hazardous if it suddenly goes round a corner or roundabout. At least the curvature on rail tracks is a bit less sharp! Besides, they always have grab rails in train toilet cubicles don't they? Or at least the edge of a washbasin within reach.
 

221129

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2011
Messages
6,520
Location
Sunny Scotland
I think most people would accept a slight slowdown in exchange for a higher comfort level - or, this being XC, a seat and a luggage rack.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think you would be wrong, and it almost certainly won't happen anytime soon.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Who is responsible adding such information to the menu of automated announcements and display screens (e.g. 'there is no working accessible toilet on this train' or 'there is no catering on this train today') and who is responsible for activating such announcements for a given train?

That would be the responsibility of whoever runs the stations. (Which we don't manage any.) The responsibility of activating the announcements would be whoever controls the CIS at a particular station. We can only provide the info, we can't force the station operators to make the announcements or update the screens.

Although on train announcements are the responsibility of the Senior Conductor (as in this case) or the Train Manager.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
I think that's needlessly bleak.

There is no suggestion that the provision of footbridges with lifts is discouraging the opening of new stations.
O L Leigh

Sadly I believe it does as it increase the cost and therefore the BCR reduces. Ask yourself why Polesworth doesn't get a better service northbound and particularly no service southbound as the platform is closed. To re-open according to some requires a footbridge and lifts. Yet one could argue that there is a roadbridge (albeit too narrow for some) at one end of the station why not just build a wheelchair accessible footpath from said bridge?

Its what the PTEs did in years gone by they used existing structures and built stations adjacent to them, for example Cross Gates.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,674
Location
Redcar
An update to this story now, thanks to the mods for re-opening the thread. The lady in question has won a payout.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-42084435

A Paralympian has been compensated after wetting herself on a train when the disabled toilet was not working.

Anne Wafula-Strike, 48, was on a three-hour CrossCountry train from Nuneaton to Stansted in December with an out-of-order accessible loo.

The wheelchair racer, from Harlow, said train staff knew she needed to use the toilet but when they reached a station it was too late.

CrossCountry has apologised and made a confidential payment.

A CrossCountry spokesman said since what happened on 8 December, a "thorough review" had been undertaken.

He added: "While we have apologised for the events that day, a lot of good has also resulted from this, with the whole rail industry looking at ways to make Britain's railways a more accessible environment, alongside the Department for Transport's ongoing consultation on an Accessibility Action Plan."

The deadline for the Accessibility Action Plan's consultation ends on Wednesday.

Kenya-born Mrs Wafula-Strike, who is a board member of UK Athletics and has an MBE for services to disability sport, has said disabled travellers need the "support of the Government to hold transport companies to account".

Mrs Wafula-Strike had been returning from a UK Athletics board meeting when she needed to use the toilet and asked the ticket master if they could let her off at the next stop after seeing the out-of-order sign.

However, Mrs Wafula-Strike said there was nobody to help her at that station and on the way to the following station she "ended up wetting" herself, which was "humiliating".
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
An update to this story now, thanks to the mods for re-opening the thread. The lady in question has won a payout.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-42084435

"While we have apologised for the events that day, a lot of good has also resulted from this, with the whole rail industry looking at ways to make Britain's railways a more accessible environment, alongside the Department for Transport's ongoing consultation on an Accessibility Action Plan."


Presumably this includes Northern Rail ripping out all of its robust flush lavatories with vacuum ones which lock themselves out of use at the drop of a hat.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
It's a minimum requirement to install a toilet that meets the accessibility requirements by 2020. I think we have been over this...
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
It's a minimum requirement to install a toilet that meets the accessibility requirements by 2020. I think we have been over this...

And there's absolutely nothing to stop that being a robust flush lavatory as you well know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top