Surely if the passenger was told at the time of booking or buying the ticket that there was a toilet on board then these facilities should be provided one way or the other , be that in the usual form on board or if that is not available then via a station stop .
If we where talking about a service where public toilet facilities are not advertised like the London underground then obviously the onus is on the passengers to make arrangements for themselves as they are aware that the underground trains do not have loos .
Customers deserve a level of service, I know from your posts on here that you're in love with shareholders and think everybody whether staff or customer should take whatever they're given and thank the almighty shareholder but it's a basic human requirement and the bare minimum a customer should be provided with.
If they can't provide it on board then they should provide it elsewhere and if that costs them delays then tough
I completely agree with this ,I think there should be rules meaning that if a journey is over a certain length and no Loo is provided on board due to a fault the train should have to stop for a rest stop .
As a guard myself if I was working a long journey and the passengers want a toilet break then regardless of what control the signaler or the driver say the train is stopping for a toilet break . If they dont like it they can come and be the one to inform passengers and work the train onwards from there .
I suppose following Moonshots usual logic we should ask
"what is the minimum number of passengers that need a toilet break before one should be organized" :roll:
Any passenger that has an issue with the train stopping and being delayed for a toilet break is more than welcome to excercise their right to break the journey and catch the next train .
Even murderers in prison get a loo . Can we at least treat our passengers as well as murderers
Come back to us when you have some decent detail, it would be interesting to see as I do like hard facts to back up an argument.
This is an area where detail facts and statistics are irrelevant .Even if 100% of stations had toilets and 0.0001% of passengers ever used the toilet on the train and 0.00000001% of trains run without a functioning toilet trains without working toilets should still be making a toilet stop to cater for that minority .
I as a guard could not refuse even a single passenger on a train with 1000 people on a break to use the toilet under those circumstances . It is a basic human need .
Just in case you are not aware , I actually work in this industry on the front line. As I made clear, I applied how the railway industry would apply their logic and ways of working to this situation.
Wrong again , refusing passengers such a basic human need because of faults with a unit is not actually the way railway logic is applied
Look at the small number of passengers we carry who are disabled and yet we go above and beyond to assist them . Why isv this , because commercially carrying a ramp on every train and at every station and training and insuring guards and station staff to use the ramps is not commercially worthwhile , nor is paying for the delays that extra dwell times due to loading and unloading disabled passengers causes . By your logic we should stop carrying disabled pax because there is such a small number and they cause knock on delays .
you are not applying logic at all you are trying to assert your shareholder loving view of the railway as a method of just shifting people from A-B with no regard for their preferences as long as the shareholder is happy and getting paid massive dividends .
I ll just repeat what I asked .....
Just out of interest, if you were intending to travel and you were aware that the train you wanted to catch had toilets that were out of service, would you travel on that train?
Just a simple yes or no please ....
so misguided , :roll:
This is so obviously not a question that just requires a yes or no answer I dont actually know if I should take your question seriously or not
there are so many variables . journey length , ticket type , the personal characteristics of the passenger , the weather conditions , the facilities at the station they have boarded at .
Perhaps you would accept it if one of your frail elderly relatives was told the only way they where going to be using the toilet on a long journey is if they lugged all of their luggage off the train , and waited around an hour for the next service to their destination . But I would not take kindly to this , any member of rail staff that refused a customer this basic need should be disciplined IMO .
If I was traveling from Manchester Victoria to Bolton with my rucksack . I would board a train with no working toilets , or if I needed the toilet there and then use the ones at Vic and then board a later train to Bolton given the frequency
If I was travelling from Manchester Airport to middlesbrough on an Advance ticket as a lone man with my 2 children and 3 suitcases , I would have to board the train due to the advance ticket . But here I would expect either to have my ticket endorsed so I could use another train so I could make a toilet break myself . Or more prefereably I would much rather the train make a toilet break stop off . Especially owing to the fact that I have children and lots of luggage with me
If I was making that same Airport to middlesbrough journey but on my own with a small holdall and an open ticket that allowed me to use any train I would probably board the train but would have a break of journey if I needed the toilet .
What about people that are transfering from other services . What if I arrive at pic from the airport on a TPE and 5 minutes later I am due out on a virgin service . Here I have complied with the minimum connection times but would not have time to use the facilities at the station if virgin did indeed inform me prior to boarding that the toilets where out of order .
And indeed passengers might not have use for the toilets before getting on a train but an hour into my journey they might
Ok ....so if you were aware that a longer distance train you intended to travel on had no functioning toilet, would you travel on that train, yes or no?
If the answer to that question was no would you then be happy that every single passenger that refused to travel due to lack of toilet was offered compensation as if the train was cancelled .
I think any passenger that does not make their journey due to lack of toilets on the uni should be entitled to compensation . what do you think about that Moonshot ?
