377/5: other problems reflecting bad build quality?

[thelem]

A wheelchair takes up a few seats. Put seats there, and it's still a negligible increase in capacity.

How about catering for everyone, rather than "the majority" or "the minority"? Everyone can use the disabled toilets..what's the issue?.

It's not negligible if you get a seat when otherwise you would not have.

We're not talking about having space for wheelchairs (which I absolutely agree there should be), we're talking about having 3 accessible toilets on a train.

I'm struggling to find train layouts for reference, so this is from memory and what I can make out from photos. On a class 377, between the carriage doors and carriage ends in 2 + 2 standard class you will either have:

• 16 seats, including 2 tables
• 12 seats, two tables and a small toilet
• 4 seats, no table, accessible toilet and floorspace for wheelchairs or bikes

The seats near the accessible toilet are not good seats either, they are not together and have no tables, not even fold-down (see bottom left pic at http://www.southernelectric.org.uk/features/sn377int01.html ).

If you replace the toilet with a non-accessible one, then you could have 4 seats with a table in front of it to the left of the corridor. You could keep the floor space to the right of the corridor, probably with 2 fold down seats at each end, which would give a much more usefully shaped area, with an unobstructed corridor. I think you'd be able to comfortable accommodation a larger number of bikes and/or wheelchairs.

 

[90019]

In that case, lets have no toilet at all. You'll get 16 seats and two tables.
If there's no need to provide a disabled toilet, then I see no need to provide any toilets at all.

 

[asylumxl]

In that case, lets have no toilet at all. You'll get 16 seats and two tables.
If there's no need to provide a disabled toilet, then I see no need to provide any toilets at all.

I agree.

I really don't get why a few seats outweigh the need for an accessible toilet.

Thelem, Surely you'd be happy to go to the loo in a larger space rather than something esque to a cupboard?

 

[thelem]

I suppose on a short distance stopping service I do consider a toilet a luxury. I would leave a smaller toilet because they do get the use to justify them, but if the route was particularly crowded then I think it would be reasonable to remove the toilet for the extra space.

On longer distance service then a toilet is important, which is why I am advocating one disabled toilet on a Pendo.

 

[90019]

I suppose on a short distance stopping service I do consider a toilet a luxury. I would leave a smaller toilet because they do get the use to justify them

So, disabled people are less important than everyone else, and don't require the same facilities?

On longer distance service then a toilet is important, which is why I am advocating one disabled toilet on a Pendo.

And for those who cannot reach them?

And if that's the case, why not remove the other toilets, since all that extra seating will be much more valuable to the people travelling on the train, and they can obviously all cope with just one toilet.

 

[jon0844]

Getting back on topic, if Bombardier have made the toilet doors so badly that they fail in two months, then perhaps there will effectively be NO toilets on the 377/5s anyway (at least the disabled ones).

 

[thelem]

So, disabled people are less important than everyone else, and don't require the same facilities?

I never said they are less important, but cost/benefit does need to be considered.

To give an example using my earlier figures, the cost of a small toilet is 4 seats + plumbing, and the benefit is convenience (no pun intended) to lots of passengers.

To expand that to a disabled toilet the cost is 4 more seats, and the benefit is convenience to a small number of passengers. The cost per additional passenger is very high. IMHO, for a long distance service the inconvenience to a disabled passenger of not having a toilet outweights the cost, but for a stopper service it does not.

It's unfortunate that the financial cost is not more obvious and transferable, because then I could advocate moving that funding to provide more step-free access and disabled toilets at stations, which I think would provide a bigger benefit for the cost.

And for those who cannot reach them?

The disabled space would be near the disabled toilet, so they could reach it.

And if that's the case, why not remove the other toilets, since all that extra seating will be much more valuable to the people travelling on the train, and they can obviously all cope with just one toilet.

The average train has what, 100-200 seats per toilet, yeah? When was the last time you saw 100 disabled people on the same train?

 

[90019]

The disabled space would be near the disabled toilet, so they could reach it.

So they can't be in first class if it's in standard or they have to be in first class if it's there?
Pretty fair system.

I wonder if you would have the same views if you were disabled. I somewhat doubt it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The average train has what, 100-200 seats per toilet, yeah? When was the last time you saw 100 disabled people on the same train?

When was the last time you saw 100-200 people all trying to go to the toilet at the same time on the train?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I never said they are less important, but cost/benefit does need to be considered.

As do disability regulations.

To expand that to a disabled toilet the cost is 4 more seats, and the benefit is convenience to a small number of passengers. The cost per additional passenger is very high. IMHO, for a long distance service the inconvenience to a disabled passenger of not having a toilet outweights the cost, but for a stopper service it does not.

Well then, remove the normal toilet and keep the disabled one. Only 4 more seats are lost, which in a train with a capacity of approx. 250, is less than 2%. and if we were to remove any other toilets, I'm sure we could make up for this massive loss of 4 seats.

 

[MCR247]

the elm: lets look at it from the other way round

Hi, I'm disabled, I just got off a delayed FCC 377, and the loos didnt work, I really need to go, I was on all the way from gatwick. I dont have time though to go in brighton, I have to catch my train to seaford. I've got on. No disabled loo. Some idiot said there didnt need to be

Now incase you dont get the point I'm trying to say is; not everyone may have been able to go before or after their '30 minute journey to Seaford'. So a 30 minute journey justifies a tiolet as much as a London - Glasgow.I agree with 90019 saying why should there be a small one, but not disabled

 

[jon0844]

I'm interested now to see how the 395s have done it - if they have a manual door system (which is less likely to fail) but can still accommodate a wheelchair. Surely this is an ideal solution?

I'm no expert on the regulations, but a 365 has a wheelchair accessible toilet and it isn't as big as some trains - so as long as it has been designed properly, you can still fit seats around it. On a 365, I believe there are a total of 8 seats AND a table - although 2 or 4 seats fold-up for a wheelchair or bike.

If you're going to have a toilet, why not make it accessible anyway? The non-accessible toilets are incredibly cramped even for an able bodied person - and they still take up around 4 seats.

 

[asylumxl]

I'm interested now to see how the 395s have done it - if they have a manual door system (which is less likely to fail) but can still accommodate a wheelchair. Surely this is an ideal solution?

I'm no expert on the regulations, but a 365 has a wheelchair accessible toilet and it isn't as big as some trains - so as long as it has been designed properly, you can still fit seats around it. On a 365, I believe there are a total of 8 seats AND a table - although 2 or 4 seats fold-up for a wheelchair or bike.

If you're going to have a toilet, why not make it accessible anyway? The non-accessible toilets are incredibly cramped even for an able bodied person - and they still take up around 4 seats.

Agreed.

 

[WillPS]

I prefer to use Disabled Toilets where I can. I'm not claustrophobic, I just prefer having more room.

 

[johnb]

I'm interested now to see how the 395s have done it - if they have a manual door system (which is less likely to fail) but can still accommodate a wheelchair. Surely this is an ideal solution?

The 395s have one standard accessible toilet (with electric door & lock) and one standard non-accessible toilet (with manual door & lock).

 

[A60K]

Back to build quality for a minute: at least the problems with 377s are nothing compared to the trouble the Danish (DSB) have with the IC4 units from Ansaldo Breda

 

[thelem]

I'm going to leave this argument here because I think all the points have been made at least once.

my opinion: there is a cost to everything, and that needs to be weighed against the benefits.
others opinions: disabled people should enjoy all the same facilities as the able bodied.

 

[90019]

others opinions: disabled people should enjoy all the same facilities as the able bodied.

And you disagree with this?

Basically, what you're saying is that discrimination is fine if it means more money.

 

[jon0844]

Aside from whether anyone thinks there should be disabled facilities, the fact is the law states there must be. Just as there must be passenger information screens and audible announcements on all new rolling stock. Many old trains are now being, or have been, retro-fitted.

The bigger issue is whether the facilities can be used if the train doors don't work properly, or the locking systems.

 

[90019]

the fact is the law states there must be.

And getting rid of just the disabled toilets whilst keeping other toilets contravenes section 46 of the disability discrimination act 1995.

 

[jon0844]

A disabled toilet may take up the space of 4-6 seats, while a normal toilet takes up that of 4 seats.. hardly a major loss of seats.

If you're leaving room for a wheelchair or two (or even a bike or three) in that area then it's not actually taking away valuable seating space anyway. The area is either for a bike, wheelchair or some much needed standing room.

Few people like to sit near the toilet anyway. If anything, it seems unfair for a wheelchair to be plonked immediately outside - especially if the toilet is smelly!

 

[nick hunn]

I boarded what I think was FCC 377 507 yesterday with a colleague who was trying out the service for the first time as an alternative way to get to Gillingham.

We sat by the disabled toilet and while we were at Farringdon (nice long dwell time as it changed power and 'rebooted') to head south, I jokingly opened the toilet door. The door struggled to open and stuck open. Oops.

I wondered if I'd messed it up by opening the door during the shutdown/restart - and we had to go in to press the close button and then run out. It then tried for a while to close, before giving up.

So, off the train went to Gillingham with the toilet door stuck open.. and I got off at Blackfriars and sniggered that he now had a nice view of the bog for the whole journey home!

He said today that the door started to close when it went around a bend, but got stuck further along.

Obviously this isn't a serious problem - but how can a brand new train have a door that doesn't close? I mean, it was sticking and making a noise when it was sliding open - and surely a sliding door is designed to cope with open/close movements and the need to work for many, many years!

It really makes me wonder about the quality of engineering at Bombardier. Are they rushing the trains out at ANY cost? FCC, and then Southern, are going to be left with trains that are going to cause problems all the time.

my son was in a disabled toilet the door was jammed shut after closing slowly . it opened a few inches and then wouldnt budge. the conducter couldnt open it and son was taken 25 miles stopping at 6 stations before being released at new street and handed to btp charged with criminal damage.
It appears from your thread that this may be a common fault, any feedback would be appreciated.
ps is it ok for the train to continue on its journey when a passenger is trapped? what if it crashed?

 

[jon0844]

How the hell could be charged with criminal damage?! If true, it beggars belief that anyone would call them - let alone BTP actually bothering to turn up!

I can only presume that he was attempting to open the door, which anyone would do if trapped and this was perceived to be an attempt at damaging the door? There is an alarm inside the toilet, so I'm also surprised that the train wasn't stopped.

What service/operator and train was this? FCC don't have conductors, so I presume this isn't directly related to the 377/5 problem that I mentioned.

 

[MCR247]

Was this London Midland, or XC? (just guesing)

 

[nick hunn]

hi thanks for feedback yes it was london midland. i have written to bombadier regarding the issue will let you know result.

 

[90019]

hi thanks for feedback yes it was london midland. i have written to bombadier regarding the issue will let you know result.

You sure it was a Bombardier train?
When you first said it, I wondered if it was a Desiro.

 

[MCR247]

what train was it? A 170? Wouldnt it be best writing to best writing to LM

 

[73110]

Going back slightly (if I dare) on topic, I drove 377501 a few days ago and at speeds of 85mph+ the rubber bit around the middle door that goes through to another train (if connected) started to vibrate a lot.

The noise coming from it was what I can describe as a mooing cow which got louder the faster I went!!!

 

[Fincra5]

I'm sure the blind passengers appreciate the Braille that invites them to check which light is illuminated...

HAHA. How are blind people gonna see that it is locked?

 

[westcoaster]

Going back slightly (if I dare) on topic, I drove 377501 a few days ago and at speeds of 85mph+ the rubber bit around the middle door that goes through to another train (if connected) started to vibrate a lot.

The noise coming from it was what I can describe as a mooing cow which got louder the faster I went!!!

cows about that then a BD driver doing some work? only joking, went pas on one the other day and the air con must have been on artic mode it was that cold in the drivers cab + 1st class, but as soon as you went into std it was much warmer, could this be to do with space rather than the air con?

 

[delt1c]

Give me a good old fashioned manual hinged door , always have a fear that there I am sitting reading the Sun as one does in the loo and for no apparent reason the door opens revealing me in all my glory to all in the coach with my trousers round my ankles.
Yes there should be disabled toilets on all trains but why cant it have a manual door (sliding or hinged) less to go wrong so less chance of no loo.

 

[jon0844]

I don't know why it can't be a manual door. Disabled toilets in any venue are always normal doors, and the locks are always manual too (usually much larger and easier to use).

Our downstairs WC also has a disabled access door (seriously - it's in the building regulations!) and thats - obviously - a normal door, but much wider.