Why don't the Class 345s have toilets?

[Bigman]

Why would you want to build a new train but not have at least 1 toilet onboard? Aren't the 345's supposed to be quite long distance, eg Reading-Shenfield?

moderator note : posts #1 - #3 originally in this thread:

Northern Unit Refurbishments | RailUK Forums (railforums.co.uk)

 

[Halish Railway]

Why would you want to build a new train but not have at least 1 toilet onboard? Aren't the 345's supposed to be quite long distance, eg Reading-Shenfield?

Most journeys on the 345s will be roughly 20 minutes long. Besides, most stations along the route will have a toilet, so you passengers go there, freeing up space for seats/standing space on the train.

 

[Domh245]

freeing up space for seats/standing space on the train.

That's the main reason - Crossrail is a large diameter tube line that happens to run out to Shenfield and Reading on some services. Onboard toilets are not necessary for the vast majority of flows and take up valuable floor space that could be used for passengers

 

[D365]

Aren't the 345's supposed to be quite long distance, eg Reading-Shenfield?

345s won't be operating Reading to Sheffield. It's either Reading to Abbey Wood, or Paddington to Shenfield.

 

[supervc-10]

That's still quite a distance. It's especially notable because they're 9-car units, which have massive space efficiency over the trains that predated them, so there is more space for a toilet. Especially for those who have medical conditions where access to a toilet is pretty important.

 

[colchesterken]

As an older person I think the regulator should have insisted on toilets either at stations or on the trains
As an East Londoner when I return to my roots I have to restrict tea consumption, toilets at local stations were removed about 10 yrs ago and to make it worse Newham have closed public toilets in the area

 

[jopsuk]

when they were specified, they weren't going to Reading, they were going no further than Maidenhead, which is closer to central London than Amersham or Chesham on the Underground. They're over-sized tube trains.

We've had the discussion several times before on this forum

 

[D365]

Especially for those who have medical conditions where access to a toilet is pretty important.

If Crossrail was the only service from Reading to London, it might be a different story. But GWR is, and will remain, the primary operator between the two.

 

[Gulf1159]

345s won't be operating Reading to Sheffield. It's either Reading to Abbey Wood, or Paddington to Shenfield.

I think that’s incorrect. Proposed timetable shows 2 trains an hour in both directions. Journey time is 1 hour 40 minutes Shenfield to Reading

 

[_toommm_]

345s won't be operating Reading to Sheffield

Indeed, they might struggle to reach Sheffield...

 

[JonathanH]

I think that’s incorrect. Proposed timetable shows 2 trains an hour in both directions. Journey time is 1 hour 40 minutes Shenfield to Reading

The idea of Reading to Abbey Wood and Paddington to Shenfield is that it prevents disruption on one part of the national network from affecting another. No through running from Shenfield to Reading (or Heathrow).

 

[D365]

I think that’s incorrect. Proposed timetable shows 2 trains an hour in both directions. Journey time is 1 hour 40 minutes Shenfield to Reading

Nope, I am correct. See above.

Indeed, they might struggle to reach Sheffield...

I corrected my auto-correct in the second instance, but not the first!

 

[Gulf1159]

I think that’s incorrect. Proposed timetable shows 2 trains an hour in both directions. Journey time is 1 hour 40 minutes Shenfield to Reading

The idea of Reading to Abbey Wood and Paddington to Shenfield is that it prevents disruption on one part of the national network from affecting another. No through running from Shenfield to Reading (or Heathrow).

Thanks Jonathan for correcting me.

 

[hwl]

Thanks Jonathan for correcting me.

On the Crossrail website there will a tiny tiny asterisk with some small text stating change in needed.

 

[theageofthetra]

That's still quite a distance. It's especially notable because they're 9-car units, which have massive space efficiency over the trains that predated them, so there is more space for a toilet. Especially for those who have medical conditions where access to a toilet is pretty important.

I'm surprised that more isn't made of this under DDA legislation.

 

[matt_world2004]

The reason why they don't have toilets. Is when the trains were ordered there was a predicted peak passenger density of 5 passengers per square meter by 2025 between old oak common and West Drayton this level of loading would cause people to be left behind if there were toilets on board.

I can't find the tube map showing crowding levels predicted for the Elizabeth line but by 2031 the Elizabeth line is predicted to carry 237 million passengers annually. In contrast. Prior to covid Northern Rail carried 97 million passengers annually.

Loading predictions have changed now.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm surprised that more isn't made of this under DDA legislation.

If more was made of it, it would cripple metro-style public transport in this country. There are plenty of bus journeys lasting well over an hour with no toilets available without getting off, and doing so might mean an hours wait for the next bus. Likewise there are longer tube and tram journeys too. Beware the unintended consequences.

In any case, there's no issue with DDA legislation because everyone is accorded equal treatment if there are no toilets for anyone.

Toilets would also be a weak point for preventing terrorism- a bomb stashed in a toilet could go unnoticed until detonated. On this basis it's surprising that the 700s have toilets given that in the core they'll be used just the same as the SSL stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm surprised that more isn't made of this under DDA legislation.

I completely agree. Provision of public toilet facilities generally is woeful in this country, and due to the nature of who tends to get issues requiring frequent toilet use and the practicalities thereof it is discriminatory on all three of age, gender and disabililty - does anything else at all get three in one go? Yet it is overlooked.

 

[KC1]

345s won't be operating Reading to Sheffield. It's either Reading to Abbey Wood, or Paddington to Shenfield.

So am I correct in saying that anyone coming in from Essex and East London will not have an unbroken journey from Shenfield beyond Paddington? So no Heathrow direct services either?

 

[Horizon22]

That's still quite a distance. It's especially notable because they're 9-car units, which have massive space efficiency over the trains that predated them, so there is more space for a toilet. Especially for those who have medical conditions where access to a toilet is pretty important.

Very few people will be doing that full journey. The max journey length for a average traveller - probably say someone from Maidenhead to the eastern section of the core - is around 60 minutes. They are not the only units running on the NR network not to have toilets, nor the only new stock. Not sure how much space a toilet would take up on a 345 - maybe room for about 50-75 passengers (with about 75% standing)?

 

[Grumbler]

I'm surprised that more isn't made of this under DDA legislation.

I agree entirely. I am one of those who now have to make sure to be close to the facilities on trains, so the Elizabeth line services would be out of bounds for me.

 

[matt_world2004]

So am I correct in saying that anyone coming in from Essex and East London will not have an unbroken journey from Shenfield beyond Paddington? So no Heathrow direct services either?

Except during disruption engineering works or to balance the service in someway there will be no timetabled services from shenfield to stations west of paddington.

Likewise Ealing Broadway on the central line gets no regular service to Epping. And west Ruislip gets no service to Hainault

 

[Grumbler]

Very few people will be doing that full journey. The max journey length for a average traveller - probably say someone from Maidenhead to the eastern section of the core - is around 60 minutes. They are not the only units running on the NR network not to have toilets, nor the only new stock. Not sure how much space a toilet would take up on a 345 - maybe room for about 50-75 passengers (with about 75% standing)?

No need for a toilet that large! Only one or two would be required per train, seats nearby being prioritised for the needy.
BTW I suggest that toilet-less trains be given the nickname "Sherlocks".

 

[Horizon22]

No need for a toilet that large! Only one or two would be required per train, seats nearby being prioritised for the needy.
BTW I suggest that toilet-less trains be given the nickname "Sherlocks".

It was a rough calculation so maybe a bit extreme, but you're taking out a chunk of seats and the surrounding standing room. It would need to be one of the larger DDA compliant toilets as well.

 

[matt_world2004]

How large is a toilet on a train 3sqm-4sqm?

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

If a toilet is provided, does it have to have disabled access? That takes a lot more room
Really, a train should have two toilets at least, one could break down anytime, and really at least two with disabled access, IMHO

Interesting factoid: EVAC of Wedel near Hamburg is a leading maker of train toilets

 

[Horizon22]

If a toilet is provided, does it have to have disabled access? That takes a lot more room
Really, a train should have two toilets at least, one could break down anytime, and really at least two with disabled access, IMHO

Interesting factoid: EVAC of Wedel near Hamburg is a leading maker of train toilets

If the question is accessibility of toilets and DDA, there would be no point installing a non-DDA toilet on the train. And yes you're right, something that is the length of a 9 car train would probably need at least 2.

 

[Paul Jones 88]

I think that the decision not to include toilets on the 345s will be regretted once the pubs and clubs are back to capacity, the poor sods that have to clean these trains will have a terrible time.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Reminds of an occurrence on a train Somewhere in England

The toilets were not working, the train manager handed out vouchers as compensation
..
Vouchers for drinks

 

[D365]

If a toilet is provided, does it have to have disabled access? That takes a lot more room
Really, a train should have two toilets at least, one could break down anytime, and really at least two with disabled access, IMHO

Interesting factoid: EVAC of Wedel near Hamburg is a leading maker of train toilets

Maybe it’s just me, but your post seems to be self-contradicting...

I don’t know who EVAC are.

I think that the decision not to include toilets on the 345s will be regretted once the pubs and clubs are back to capacity, the poor sods that have to clean these trains will have a terrible time.

Surely no more so than any Underground train?