• 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!

RMT announcement regarding sewage on tracks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
1,369
So much heated language. You could think that no union ever did anything any good. Why so much visciousness around trying to look after the health and welfare of workers, and in this case innocent bystanders too?

BTW- I'm still hoping to see an answer to my earlier question- how long have 'they' had to comply with the law? (whether this TOC or that or someone else- liability has been there). If someone buys an old car 'they' know it will need an MoT on or by such-and-such a date.

I'm still finding it hard to go with the 'excuses' and the sympathy and understanding people have for them over those who have to put up with the result.

And for the avoidance of doubt if that means not running non-compliant trains so be it.

I see upthread refs to 'a plan'- can someone provide a link to it? I know I would be less heated myself if I knew it would only be for a short and defined time, even if it should have been sorted ages back.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,645
Location
Northern England
So much heated language. You could think that no union ever did anything any good. Why so much visciousness around trying to look after the health and welfare of workers, and in this case innocent bystanders too?
Because the way they are doing it is appalling. The unions press departments, and more generally the media at large, need to learn that misleading and lying to the public is not an acceptable way of making the public agree with them.

BTW- I'm still hoping to see an answer to my earlier question- how long have 'they' had to comply with the law? (whether this TOC or that or someone else- liability has been there). If someone buys an old car 'they' know it will need an MoT on or by such-and-such a date.
The DfT and ROSCOs have had as long as the regulations have been around. Unfortunately the DfT are completely incompetent with franchise conditions and therefore TOCs weren't required to have the mods done until the last franchise award for each relevant franchise. Because previous TOCs had no incentive to have the mods done the current ones are left with too little time to get them done. This means that the effective amount of time available is equal to when the relevant noncompliant rolling stock last transferred to a different TOC.

I'm still finding it hard to go with the 'excuses' and the sympathy and understanding people have for them over those who have to put up with the result.
I don't understand.... are you complaining about people being sympathetic?

And for the avoidance of doubt if that means not running non-compliant trains so be it.
Do you expect passengers to just not be able to travel? Because that's what you seem to be advocating.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,422
So much heated language. You could think that no union ever did anything any good. Why so much visciousness around trying to look after the health and welfare of workers, and in this case innocent bystanders too?
People are frustrated by the inaccuracies in the RMT's press release and how one sided the story is with no acknoledgement that all the rolling stock is planned to be fitted or replaced and that a lot of the trains which dump on the tracks have had tanks fitted or been replaced already.
 

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
1,369
are you complaining about people being sympathetic?
I'm surprised by and remarking on 'sympathy' for 'the powers-that-be' ( 'the bosses'/ 'profiteers'/ 'big business'/ 'sympathetic government' allowing/ prolonging transgression)

Do you expect passengers to just not be able to travel? Because that's what you seem to be advocating.
I expect 'alternative and compliant provision' to be made. I dislike 'bustitution' too. If my car's out of commission for whatever reason I have to take a taxi or not go.
Where there's a will ... and that's at least part for the problem- there is no, or insufficient 'will'.
Shorter trains; locked toilets; trains made up with ONE compliant toilet; not ideal but legal.

all the rolling stock is planned to be fitted or replaced and ...

If my car has no MoT that's MY fault- no excuses; it shouldn't be driven, no matter what my plans.

I'm sure that the media will be happy to receive rebuttals or responses from anyone or any organisation which wishes to respond to a piece published on this important topic.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,422
If my car has no MoT that's MY fault- no excuses; it shouldn't be driven, no matter what my plans.
An MOT is required so your car is in good working order, CETs are not required for the train to be functional as they have been fine without them for years although they should be fitted.

The blame should be with the DfT, if they required CETs to be fitted much earlier on we wouldn't be stuck with this issue.
 

Spekejunction

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2014
Messages
53
Have to say I agree with the workforce on this one.
With COVID 19 about no trains with dump toilets should be allowed on the network..
Or if they must ...close off all dump toilets..
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,645
Location
Northern England
Have to say I agree with the workforce on this one.
With COVID 19 about no trains with dump toilets should be allowed on the network..
Or if they must ...close off all dump toilets..
I'm unsure if that would be feasible under current circumstances.
What about passengers who need to travel in a safe manner?
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
I find this whole discussion rather perverse.

Firstly, RMT quote the source of the material in their press release as answers to Parliamentary Questions (PQs). If RMT are using material directly from those answers (and we are not told when they were given) then amending or qualifying it would arguably be inappropriate.

Secondly, what RMT have done is likely directly consistent with what those who drafted the answers to those PQs did. I've drafted some (not transport related) and been routinely told to answer the question posed and not volunteer additional information or seek to clarify. If the PQs asked how many and which TOCs were using stock without retention toilets at the time the question was posed the most likely answer would be the total number of TOCs and the name of the TOCs. The number of trains/carriages and proportion of the TOCs fleet they represent is not in scope of the question.

Thirdly, what those of you who moan about RMT are actually saying is "shut up, things are in hand to resolve the situation, sometime, eventually, in the meantime you enjoy your pooh and pee showers". That would be an epic H&S fail in any other workplace (except working in sewers where PPE would be worn) so why is it ok to continue on the railways? It wasn't RMT which failed to make the deadline.
 

eldomtom2

On Moderation
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
1,508
The number of trains/carriages and proportion of the TOCs fleet they represent is not in scope of the question.
The proportion was not mentioned, the numbers of carriages however was asked and answered:
Out of a national fleet of over 14,000 carriages there are approximately 350 that still discharge waste to the track and all of these will be refurbished or replaced.
The RMT evidently decided not to include this information in their press release.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,645
Location
Northern England
The proportion was not mentioned, the numbers of carriages however was asked and answered:

The RMT evidently decided not to include this information in their press release.
Probably because it wouldn't help their case to admit that this issue affects less than 3% of rolling stock on the network. But hey, who cares about truth and completeness when you have an agenda to push?
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
Probably because it wouldn't help their case to admit that this issue affects less than 3% of rolling stock on the network. But hey, who cares about truth and completeness when you have an agenda to push?
If, and l concede that isn't the case here, that 3% was concentrated in one area though...

Eldomtom2 thanks for the digging.
 

Speed43125

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
1,131
Location
Dunblane
If, and l concede that isn't the case here, that 3% was concentrated in one area though...

Eldomtom2 thanks for the digging.
Well, certainly MML has quite a lot, enough to properly ruin your day multiple times I'd imagine.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640
So much heated language. You could think that no union ever did anything any good. Why so much visciousness around trying to look after the health and welfare of workers, and in this case innocent bystanders too?

BTW- I'm still hoping to see an answer to my earlier question- how long have 'they' had to comply with the law? (whether this TOC or that or someone else- liability has been there). If someone buys an old car 'they' know it will need an MoT on or by such-and-such a date.

I'm still finding it hard to go with the 'excuses' and the sympathy and understanding people have for them over those who have to put up with the result.

And for the avoidance of doubt if that means not running non-compliant trains so be it.

I see upthread refs to 'a plan'- can someone provide a link to it? I know I would be less heated myself if I knew it would only be for a short and defined time, even if it should have been sorted ages back.

From a quick search, it looks like the plan to have all the stock replaced by the end of 2019 was announced in 2017 (from articles such as https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/10/train-toilets-to-no-longer-empty-on-to-tracks ). It’s not clear that there’s actually a law involved, it seems to be more an agreement between the DfT and RDG. Franchises from that point will have had the requirement in their contracts and as far as I’m aware they’ve all ordered suitable stock but their suppliers have let them down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top