What's more logical is having mobile retention tank emptying carts at stations were units have layovers, they can tank the water supply and empty the tanks quickly / easily.
Not least the fact that dropping toilet waste also covers the underside of the train - so it's a hazard for trackworkers and maintenance staff. It'd also be lovely trying to lay assistance protection in the middle of this "drop zone". Having finally got rid of non-retention toilets bringing them back is the last thing we need!
Of course, increasing the access to fresh water would (with increased usage) just take the toilets nearer to needing the retention tanks emptied so it would just be a temporary fix.
Almost every train built since privatisation has vacuum toilets and the 195s are no exception. They should only require a small amount of water to clean the toilet bowl as the majority of the actual force to flush the toilet is provided by the suction, so presumably the majority of the fresh water usage is from hand washing. Maybe once the water tank is nearly empty the tap should stop working so that the toilet can still be flushed until there is none left. A dispenser of hand gel could be provided for use in these circumstances.
That would probably not be allowed under equality rules.
I'd think yorksrob means as well as toilets, not in lieu of.
That doesn't make any difference unless the urinals are taken out of service as soon as their water runs out. As far as using more precious on-board space for an extra appliance per toilet or worse, extre cubicles goes, best of luck with that! How is it that other comparable countries manage to make adequate toilet provision on their railways, (unless somebody knows of SNCF rolling stock running around with a cast iron pissoir on board).
There is an effort being made to address this - for example through trains are now tanked fairly frequently at Leeds where required. A couple of cleaners roll up with a portable hose, fill the unit up with fresh water and off you go.
Unfortunately there is not space to convert the 195 toilets to have two doors, there is equipment in the space that would be needed as a void for the door. I don't think a single door has any inherent unreliability though - the ones on the 333s for example seem to work fairly well. The main issue is cheap components (the toilet doors on a lot of the CAF stuff have warped out of the original shape which has been quite a problem- they are slowly getting replaced by higher quality components which is helping to improve reliability).
The issue with CAF is everything seems to take an age - but improvements are slowly filtering through. Compare a 195 to how they were when they first came into service, they have improved dramatically (though they are unfortunately still limited by the CAF build quality...)
Why couldn’t they have just used higher quality components in the first place which would have avoided these problems…
Ask CAF...
Well the design engineer should simply tell the bean counter that what they ask cannot be done without sufficient beans
I don’t think it’s specifically 195s, just the Northern PIS is awful at pronouncing station names, which is exaggerated by the wide variety of stations on Northern’s network, leading to much inconsistency, all for the sake of a generic northern accent.
Interesting, one of my gripes is the announcements on them are generally too loud.
Yeah, that’s it- P17. About time this was sorted out. 2 car trains is not good enough between 3 large cities.
The same thing happens on 331s as well.
