South Wales 'Metro' updates

[Tomos y Tanc]

Tanni Grey-Thompson has weighed in, mainly in support of the TfW plans. She seems to agree with Prof Barry that the promises on level access are far more important than toilet provision on the vehicles.

Baroness Grey-Thompson, who has spina bifida, said: "They are buying trains for the next 30 years - if they don't get it right, they are creating problems for that long."

She said trams without toilets were standard in other cities and people in Wales would need a "change of mindset".

"Step-free trains would make life miles better if you can get off, the toilet is unlocked, the station is manned and you can get to it," she added.

"If it was step free and there were accessible toilets at the stations, I would probably take that."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49775475
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49775475

 

[Dai Corner]

Tanni Grey-Thompson has weighed in, mainly in support of the TfW plans. She seems to agree with Prof Barry that the promises on level access are far more important than toilet provision on the vehicles.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49775475

As a wheelchair user (possibly without toilet-related disabilities?) I can see that level access is more important to her. It's a balancing act that TfW can never win unless they have much greater funding.

 

[Robertj21a]

It's a tram, frequent and a maximum trip of 50 mins. It really doesn't need a toilet any more than the bus does.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

As a wheelchair user (possibly without toilet-related disabilities?) I can see that level access is more important to her.

She is a member of the House of Lords and an informed campaigner on disability issues.

It's frankly insulting for you to assume her opinion is based on her own needs rather than the issues involved. How dare you speculate about what her own disabilities may be?

She is an expert on these issues and yet you see only her disablilty rather than her expertise.

 

[Paul Dancey]

I was just looking at a Stadler rail document about their city link tram train series, and when you expand the illustrated layout it appears to include something suspiciously like a toilet.
https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/ttvms0116e.pdf
No idea whether that meets accessibility requirements, but it does suggest that it may be technically possible to include a toilet as an option in their city link range, if the customer asks for one.

 

[Dai Corner]

She is a member of the House of Lords and an informed campaigner on disability issues.

It's frankly insulting for you to assume her opinion is based on her own needs rather than the issues involved. How dare you speculate about what her own disabilities may be?

She is an expert on these issues and yet you see only her disablilty rather than her expertise.

I'm pretty expert on my own invisible disability, which is mitigated by on-train toilets and has been largely ignored in these discussions.

 

[MarkWiles]

None of the Manchester Metrolink stops have lavatories, or the vehicles, and they travel over former rail routes to places like Oldham and Rochdale which used to be served by identical trains to what are being replaced in the valleys. Granted some of the termini on the SWM proposals, like Treherbert and Merthyr are over 20 miles from Cardiff whereas Rochdale is just under 15 miles from Manchester by Metrolink, but inner suburban trains around London, such as the 315s which run out of Liverpool Street, or for that matter the 313 units which run from Portsmouth to Brighton and Seaford along the south coast, lack toilets and many intermediate stations on the Coastway lack toilets as well.

So, again, why is this an issue in Cardiff but not in Greater Manchester where all public transport between large towns like Rochdale, Bury and Oldham into Manchester are toilet free? I'm sure there are proportionally just as many people in the Greater Manchester area with colitis, Crohns, diabetes and other hidden but debilitating lifestyle changing conditions that require careful planning for trips. Just like I have to living in a rural area where the local council has closed most public toilets when driving any distance. It's not always the case you can nip into a shop, petrol station or other public facility to use the loo in rural Wales as they just aren't there.

I understand where people are saying that in a civilised society toilet provision should be a basic right. I have diabetes and I have extra toilet needs which I have to plan carefully when making trips in a county which has largely closed all their public toilets and no, saying a loo is available in a shop or pub is not good enough, I don't want to have to go into a pub at all, just to have a pee. So I can sympathise with those with even more chronic conditions like Crohns or colitis who see their lives being ever more disrupted by the widespread (not confined to Wales) removal of public conveniences because they are a non-statutory function and a quick way of saving a few grand for local authorities who provide them. However, toilets are hardly ever provided on high frequency urban Metro type operations even when they travel some considerable distance, like the Metropolitan line in London. The provision of a high frequency fast congestion free Metro service that takes people into the city centre, with step free access, and aids for those with visual or hearing impairment, is going to transform accessibility for a far greater number of people than those who will be disadvantaged by a lack of on board toilet.

I'm sorry to have to say this but people really are lashing out at something which has already happened in other parts of the country without similar levels of press interest. It would be interesting to have some data (if it exists) as to the level of toilet use on the Valley Line trains, the number of trains where the only loo is locked out of use for repair, the level of damage or abuse of toilet facilities on the Valley network (I once saw a photo online of a couple clearly engaged in sexual activity in the toilet of a 143 who were completely oblivious to the fact the large frosted glass window didn't obscure what they were doing to those on the platform opposite at Cardiff Central) to see if the facilities are as vital as some seem to say.

Ultimately do people want a modern frequent turn up and go which accesses the city centre or a slower, less frequent service that sticks to the current station patterns, precludes any further extensions to areas not currently served by rail where alignments may need to run on street or fit into the existing built environment, but which are fitted with fully accessible toilets, with enough tank space to take a day's effluvia, or face having to be taken out of service for de-tanking frequently, increasing costs, fleet requirements and possibly introducing a new source of unreliability?

 

[Dai Corner]

Ultimately do people want a modern frequent turn up and go which accesses the city centre or a slower, less frequent service that sticks to the current station patterns, precludes any further extensions to areas not currently served by rail where alignments may need to run on street or fit into the existing built environment, but which are fitted with fully accessible toilets, with enough tank space to take a day's effluvia, or face having to be taken out of service for de-tanking frequently,

Ideally, we'd like a high frequency service with toilets on board. Personally, I'd be happy to pay a bit more tax or a higher fare for it.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Ideally, we'd like a high frequency service with toilets on board. Personally, I'd be happy to pay a bit more tax or a higher fare for it.

You've ignored the important point. You can quite trivially replace all the existing trains with new DMUs fitted with toilets. That would mean you would have shiny new trains, and maybe enough capacity to handle current passenger demands. That's it. You'd have no extra frequency, no extensions, no innovations like complete step-free access at all stations.

Normal passengers don't really know what's possible with transport systems. It's easy for someone to just want what they have today, but a little bit better. It's also then easy to get them riled up about a single change like the removal of toilets, as they're just imagining the network of today minus a useful feature. When you actually start to roll out some of the possibilities of a lighter metro system, you're going to find you won't be able to persuade people that going backwards but getting their toilets back is a good idea.

 

[Dai Corner]

You've ignored the important point. You can quite trivially replace all the existing trains with new DMUs fitted with toilets. That would mean you would have shiny new trains, and maybe enough capacity to handle current passenger demands. That's it. You'd have no extra frequency, no extensions, no innovations like complete step-free access at all stations.

Normal passengers don't really know what's possible with transport systems. It's easy for someone to just want what they have today, but a little bit better. It's also then easy to get them riled up about a single change like the removal of toilets, as they're just imagining the network of today minus a useful feature. When you actually start to roll out some of the possibilities of a lighter metro system, you're going to find you won't be able to persuade people that going backwards but getting their toilets back is a good idea.

What 'normal people' , the ones who make up 99% of passengers and potential passengers, are asking is why they can't have extra frequency, extensions, step-free access AND toilets. The answers given seem to elaborate ways of saying 'we won't spend the money and they manage elsewhere so tough'.

Let's have a better transport system than Manchester, not a cheap imitation!

 

[NotATrainspott]

What 'normal people' , the ones who make up 99% of passengers and potential passengers, are asking is why they can't have extra frequency, extensions, step-free access AND toilets. The answers given seem to elaborate ways of saying 'we won't spend the money and they manage elsewhere so tough'.

Let's have a better transport system than Manchester, not a cheap imitation!

I would also like a unicorn, but it isn't going to happen. This is not about Wales not getting enough money, or that money not being correctly spent on public transport provision. Toilets are not fundamentally necessary on a metro system like the Valley Lines. The reason you have them today is that the 2nd gen DMU fleet all had toilets fitted so that the same train could be used for anything from a local stopping service to the 5 hour trek from Glasgow to Mallaig. Now that train fleets are quite rightly fragmenting and becoming better suited for local conditions, there is little case for toilets to be fitted on board.

Fitting toilets to trains costs money upfront and throughout the lifetime of the unit. That money has to come from somewhere, and if it is spent on one thing, it can't be spent on another. This applies even in a high-resource strategy of funding public transport. There are always economic choices which have to be made. Money spent on toilets is money that can't be spent on running more services, or having more capacity, or staffing stations or any number of other things.

As Tanni Grey-Thompson says, toilets are not the be-all and end-all of provision for disabled people. Many of the problems experienced by disabled people with public transport in general are more of a symptom of lower frequency and service, and harder accessibility, than the conditions on board trains. For instance, it's inevitable that there will be cases when there isn't enough space on board for someone in a wheelchair. This happens with buses too with the whole pushchair-in-wheelchair-space debacle from a few years ago. The real story about why that case, and others like it, were hard to resolve was that the next bus wasn't for another half an hour or more. You don't hear cases like this in more developed transport systems because the inevitable times when there's not enough space for a wheelchair passenger are covered by the fact that they only have to wait a few minutes for the next service, which is exceedingly likely to have the space required. When services are more frequent, then the inevitable cancellations are less important because you can just wait for another service, which will then be more likely to be able to handle the extra passengers. People who need a toilet out and about are going to be a lot happier about a world where they are going to get from point A to B faster and more reliably, and thus make them less likely to need a toilet in the first place, than one where they have a slower journey and a greater risk of toilet need co-inciding with one being unavailable.

 

[Dai Corner]

I would also like a unicorn, but it isn't going to happen. This is not about Wales not getting enough money, or that money not being correctly spent on public transport provision. Toilets are not fundamentally necessary on a metro system like the Valley Lines. The reason you have them today is that the 2nd gen DMU fleet all had toilets fitted so that the same train could be used for anything from a local stopping service to the 5 hour trek from Glasgow to Mallaig. Now that train fleets are quite rightly fragmenting and becoming better suited for local conditions, there is little case for toilets to be fitted on board.

Fitting toilets to trains costs money upfront and throughout the lifetime of the unit. That money has to come from somewhere, and if it is spent on one thing, it can't be spent on another. This applies even in a high-resource strategy of funding public transport. There are always economic choices which have to be made. Money spent on toilets is money that can't be spent on running more services, or having more capacity, or staffing stations or any number of other things.

As Tanni Grey-Thompson says, toilets are not the be-all and end-all of provision for disabled people. Many of the problems experienced by disabled people with public transport in general are more of a symptom of lower frequency and service, and harder accessibility, than the conditions on board trains. For instance, it's inevitable that there will be cases when there isn't enough space on board for someone in a wheelchair. This happens with buses too with the whole pushchair-in-wheelchair-space debacle from a few years ago. The real story about why that case, and others like it, were hard to resolve was that the next bus wasn't for another half an hour or more. You don't hear cases like this in more developed transport systems because the inevitable times when there's not enough space for a wheelchair passenger are covered by the fact that they only have to wait a few minutes for the next service, which is exceedingly likely to have the space required. When services are more frequent, then the inevitable cancellations are less important because you can just wait for another service, which will then be more likely to be able to handle the extra passengers. People who need a toilet out and about are going to be a lot happier about a world where they are going to get from point A to B faster and more reliably, and thus make them less likely to need a toilet in the first place, than one where they have a slower journey and a greater risk of toilet need co-inciding with one being unavailable.

I think you've just made my point for me.

 

[Cardiff123]

My concern with this toilet debate, is that toilets at stations will be locked, or become unusable due to vandalism. I was at a popular public park in Cardiff last week. The male toilets had no toilet paper as the holders had been vandalised, no soap as the soap dispensers had been broken, and the floor was swimming with urine.
I can't see stations bring staffed from first to last service 7 days a week to prevent this from happening.

So the only solution I can see is say charging 10p a time to use the toilets to prevent vandalism. And making sure accessible toilets (which are for any disabled person, including people with unseen disabilities and chronic health conditions, not just someone who looks obviously physically disabled) are fitted with RADAR locks, which are common on public accessible toilets to prevent vandalism.

Failing any of that, have a team of roving cleaners/inspectors that rotate between the stations with toilets from first to last service to continually check the toilets throughout the day, 7 days a week.

 

[Dai Corner]

If you're going to have a roving team of toilet cleaners why not put toilets on the trains so they have something to do while they're travelling? They could also sell/check tickets to protect revenue, assist passengers and perhaps even have a safety role?

 

[transmanche]

Let's have a better transport system than Manchester, not a cheap imitation!

I'm really puzzled why people are getting so riled about the lack of on-board toilets.

On the National Rail network, none of these services have on-board toilets:

• Great Northern - Northern City line services
• London Overground
  
• Merseyrail
  
• Scotrail - class 314-operated services
• Southeastern - Metro services
• Southern - Metro and Coastway services
• South Western Railway - Metro and Island Line services
• TfL Rail

Other networks (which incorporate former parts of the national network) that don't have on-board toilets include:

• Docklands Light Railway
• London Underground
• London Tramlink
• Manchester Metrolink
• Tyne and Wear Metro
• West Midlands Metro

The vast majority of rail journeys are on trains that do not have on-board toilets. What's so special about South Wales that it must have on-board toilets?

 

[Dai Corner]

What 'normal people' , the ones who make up 99% of passengers and potential passengers, are asking is why they can't have extra frequency, extensions, step-free access AND toilets. The answers given seem to elaborate ways of saying 'we won't spend the money and they manage elsewhere so tough'.

Let's have a better transport system than Manchester, not a cheap imitation!

I'm really puzzled why people are getting so riled about the lack of on-board toilets.

On the National Rail network, none of these services have on-board toilets:

• Great Northern - Northern City line services
• London Overground
  
• Merseyrail
  
• Scotrail - class 314-operated services
• Southeastern - Metro services
• Southern - Metro and Coastway services
• South Western Railway - Metro and Island Line services
• TfL Rail

Other networks (which incorporate former parts of the national network) that don't have on-board toilets include:

• Docklands Light Railway
• London Underground
• London Tramlink
• Manchester Metrolink
• Tyne and Wear Metro
• West Midlands Metro

The vast majority of rail journeys are on trains that do not have on-board toilets. What's so special about South Wales that it must have on-board toilets?

I think you've also made my point for me.

 

[transmanche]

I think you've also made my point for me.

I really don't think I have...

On-board toilets are not needed for metro-style services. In the same way that on-board toilets are not needed on buses.

 

[Dai Corner]

I really don't think I have...

On-board toilets are not needed for metro-style services. In the same way that on-board toilets are not needed on buses.

I do. You're saying 'they manage elsewhere, so tough'

It would still be good to have them, and some potential passengers have said they can't / won't use the new trains without them. We have no idea how many are not using the lines you list for the same reason.

 

[Robertj21a]

I do. You're saying 'they manage elsewhere, so tough'

It would still be good to have them, and some potential passengers have said they can't / won't use the new trains without them. We have no idea how many are not using the lines you list for the same reason.

I can't think of any trams, across Europe, that have toilets on board. Nor do the metro services or buses. A 50 mins (max) journey is hardly life threatening is it ?

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

I understand both sides in this debate.

What would help is if TfW were more forthcoming about their plans for toilet provision and station improvements. Some stations on the valleys network really are of a third world standard including some that have high passenger usage. Porth, for example, caters for 350,000+ passengers a year yet has no facilities at all apart from a part-time ticket office and a ticket machine. No toilet. No waiting rooom. No refreshment facility.

A station that busy really should be able to support a commercially viable refreshment service and once you have that vandalism, locked toilets etc are likely to be far less of a problem as there are people around to keep an eye on things.

 

[S-Bahn]

This whole "you should plan your toilet breaks better" and "other areas lost their toilets, so you should lose yours" argument is as flawed as and up there with "your neighbour's house was burgled, so your house has to be burgled too in the interests of equality" for its crassness and stupidity.

I'm pretty sure the new installation of station toilets won't be much more than a building site portacabin and the costs of maintenance, security and cleaning will be as much of an annoyance on the balance sheet for TFW as it will be for the passenger experience.

They can't stop the drunks urinating in the passenger rail shelters on Platform 5 at Cardiff Queen Street and that's a staffed station with proper toilets. Last time I set foot in there the smell was appalling.

Toilets on trains can potentially be used by any passenger for a large number of scenarios. I'm sure there are incidents of vandalism, but at least the train has a Train Manager on patrol and CCTV, which might discourage some, and said vandalism is not a reason to say toilets should be withdrawn altogether.

I assume the TFW and WAG media teams will have their press releases ready for when the media report on incidents of poor passengers having lack-of-toilet-accidents on these trams, preferably with the First Minister with his marigolds on and a mop and bucket having to do the clean up as penance.

Also;

The Pontypridd to Cardiff commuter will lose their toilet on the train for the sake of tram-trains.
The Caerphilly to Cardiff commuter won't as they are getting FLIRT's.

If toilets are not necessary on the Valley Lines, then why not standardise tram-trains for the whole network?
Why are we getting two different types of trains?
Why not remove the toilets from the FLIRT's and have more passenger space if toilets are not a necessity?

The reality is that the WAG is more concerned with the headline grabbing "trams in the Bay" and no toilets on the trams is one of the trade-offs.

After all, if this is really about extensions for on-street running, why aren't there extensive concrete plans to re-connect off-grid towns like Hirwaun, Abertillery, Nelson, Creigiau, Sully, etc. etc.

Instead it's about doing the redevelopment on the cheap and having 100m of street running to a new station nearer the Millennium Centre. Nothing more.

 

[transmanche]

I do. You're saying 'they manage elsewhere, so tough'.

No, I'm saying that they don't see the need for them on short journeys elsewhere. In the same way that bus companies don't see the need to fit them either.

We have no idea how many are not using the lines you list for the same reason.

Literally millions of journeys are made every day on these services. Up to five million a day on London Underground alone - which includes trains serving far-flung places such as Amersham (60 mins to the City), Epping (50 mins to the West End) and Heathrow Airport (50 mins to the West End). Then add in the 190 million pa using London Overground, 120 million pa using the DLR, 40 million pa using Merseyrail. And so on. Yes, clearly people are avoiding these services in droves.

I'm still puzzled as to why South Wales is unique to metro operations and needs on-board toilets for short journeys, where nowhere else does.

 

[duffield]

Every time toilets are removed, this further reduces the journey opportunities for people with such conditions as chronic IBS who may need a toilet *urgently*.
Oh, but they have to put up with no toilets on buses/trams/some metro trains already? Well, in many cases they won't be able to use such transport (or there may be mitigations e.g. with urban buses/trams they may be able to get off and go in a pub within - literally - a few minutes - which won't apply on these train services) .

Some people are effectively saying 'because such people already have to accept that buses and trams are often unsuitable for their needs, they should also accept that additional train routes which they *can* currently use will in future become unusable.

I was talking to a retired ex-colleague yesterday and he has chronic IBS and has to plan his day around where he can get to a toilet within minutes. It's one thing to say that the whole world can't be designed around such needs; it's entirely another thing to have a journey he can do now without issues and to say that in future he'll have to stop making that journey or risk soiling himself.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

This whole "you should plan your toilet breaks better" and "other areas lost their toilets, so you should lose yours" argument is as flawed as and up there with "your neighbour's house was burgled, so your house has to be burgled too in the interests of equality" for its crassness and stupidity.

That's a straw man arguement. No one is saying "other areas lost their toilets, so you should lose yours". People are comparing like for like transport systems. The new network is not the old network without toilets. It's a rapid urban transit system and it makes sense to look at similar systems elsewhere to see what's best practise.

I'm pretty sure the new installation of station toilets won't be much more than a building site portacabin and the costs of maintenance, security and cleaning will be as much of an annoyance on the balance sheet for TFW as it will be for the passenger experience.

You have no evidence for this but, as I said before, TfW should be more forthcoming about their plans.

The reality is that the WAG is more concerned with the headline grabbing "trams in the Bay" and no toilets on the trams is one of the trade-offs. After all, if this is really about extensions for on-street running, why aren't there extensive concrete plans to re-connect off-grid towns like Hirwaun, Abertillery, Nelson, Creigiau, Sully, etc. etc. Instead it's about doing the redevelopment on the cheap and having 100m of street running to a new station nearer the Millennium Centre. Nothing more.

Time will be the judge on that. It makes sense to convert the current netwrork before planning any extentions but they're far more likely to happen with tram-train technology.

I happen to agree with you that there's a 'stunt' element to the Cardiff Bay extention but it also crates a station capable of acting as a terminus for through trains from the central valleys, something which will be very welcome to many thousands of commuters.

 

[S-Bahn]

That's a straw man arguement. No one is saying "other areas lost their toilets, so you should lose yours". People are comparing like for like transport systems. The new network is not the old network without toilets. It's a rapid urban transit system and it makes sense to look at similar systems elsewhere to see what's best practise.
You have no evidence for this but, as I said before, TfW should be more forthcoming about their plans.

I'll re-phrase the quote to "Other areas may have had toilets on their services in the past, but don't now. Therefore, concerns around the loss of toilets on Valley Lines trains are unfounded".

 

[S-Bahn]

I happen to agree with you that there's a 'stunt' element to the Cardiff Bay extention but it also crates a station capable of acting as a terminus for through trains from the central valleys, something which will be very welcome to many thousands of commuters.

I'm not convinced that there are actually that many valleys commuters going to the Bay. The re-developments around Cardiff Central will mean a significant increase in demand at Central and some of the new Metro services won't be calling there as they are being diverted to the Bay (rather than relying on the existing Queen Street - Bay shuttle) - which is to say that 10 years from now, the demand for services from Cardiff Central to the valleys will have grown more than demand for Bay services.

 

[PHILIPE]

I'll re-phrase the quote to "Other areas may have had toilets on their services in the past, but don't now. Therefore, concerns around the loss of toilets on Valley Lines trains are unfounded".

Class 116s First Generation DMUs which were the mainstay of the Valleys ploughing up and down all day until 1987 didn't have toilets

 

[Robertj21a]

It's 50 mins max for goodness sake !

Are people really unable to plan loo visits around such a short period of time ?

It's as if some people just can't cope with the idea of a more frequent service of trams instead of some clapped out DMUs !!

 

[S-Bahn]

Class 116s First Generation DMUs which were the mainstay of the Valleys ploughing up and down all day until 1987 didn't have toilets

Yes, I remember them. They were replaced with Sprinters and Pacers with toilets. It's called progress. What did British Rail know that TFW don't?

Also the 116's were built in '57-'61, when many people in the Valleys still had coal fires and an outhouse in the back garden.

We now have far more people commuting distances in and out of Cardiff to work in offices and the services sector and think improving living standards, such as a flush-able toilet, is a necessity not a luxury.

 

[S-Bahn]

It's 50 mins max for goodness sake !

Are people really unable to plan loo visits around such a short period of time ?

It's as if some people just can't cope with the idea of a more frequent service of trams instead of some clapped out DMUs !!

What about people suffering from acute diarrhoea or vomiting? Does TFW have any contingency for the inevitable accident?