Toiletless trains blamed for forced door openings

[Bikeman78]

There are many commutes from the edges of the underground network which may take over an hour - but most people see why it wouldn't be practical to have toilets on the tube. It's unusual for high capacity metro services to have toilets.

The real fault here is how long the evacuation took.

How long does London Underground typically take to evacuate a stranded train? For that matter, how often does it happen? I've never experienced any major delay in 40 odd years. The worst I have had is station closed, please go away. Which is easy enough to work round in most scenarios, certainly in zone 1.

 

[blueberry11]

One thing for sure, at least the Elizabeth line trains don't use carpeted flooring.

But I don't think it would be pleasant for a train to have a toilet if it's going to be underground for a significant period of time. Plus those going from London to Reading or Shenfield are encouraged to use the fast GWR/Greater Anglia services respectively, and the Elizabeth line was initially going to terminate at Maidenhead.

Maybe the old 315s didn't have toilets too?

 

[NSEWonderer]

The amount of capacity that would be lost with the required toilets, let alone where those tanks go and what would have to be traded out, etc., for the type of hybrid work the units do, just in my opinion, would not work.

Then again, just adding toilets is the least of the problems that this brings. People do not exactly leave public railway toilet facilities in a great state.

Adding extra batteries with drag capabilities would be more useful in a stranded situation than some toilets that would completely wreck the capacity of which these trains are very packed as they are now, especially in the central operating section.

 

[Bikeman78]

I've not tried to get hold of a staff RADAR keyholder to use one of the locked ones yet, but perhaps all of us with stroppy prostates should make a point of doing so when need arises. However, I don't imagine it's going to be quick enough to allow nipping off one train intending to get back on the next train for the same destination, which was part of the logic (if not the public justification) of not putting them on the trains.

The gents at Acton Town was out of action recently. The lady at the barriers was more than happy to let me in the universal access toilet. To be honest, it seems a bit odd that they are locked. They are not universal access if only key holders can use them.

 

[AM9]

It was pointed out on this forum before the line opened that not having toilets on these trains was a mistake that would be regretted.

Reading to Shenfield is not an inner-suburban hop. One can only sympathise with the cleaners who need to service this fleet.

And what proportion of the passengers using the line travel from Shenfield to Reading? Indeed, how many trains do actually run from Shenfield to Reading?

 

[TUC]

To be fair, even if there was one universal toilet in that circumstance it would quickly have become full.

The priority, rightly or wrong, is conveying passengers over short distances, sometimes with crush loads. They did add extra toilets at stations on the route.

There was discussion on the matter of toilets on Elizabeth Line trains at the time of the original disruption - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...wn-near-paddington.258947/page-7#post-6532741

That approach seems to miss the point that there are lines in other parts of the country that are also crush loaded with commuters at peak times-a number of Leeds and Manchester services for example-but they nevertheless have toilets.

 

[Falcon1200]

Which is why people will be treading gingerly, not bounding up the six-foot with abandon.

Most people have no understanding of the hazards of a railway line, will be desperate (often for the very reason this thread exists!) to get off the train, and it may well be dark as well; As indeed it was during the Paddington incident.

If the railway prioritises it's own convenience over passengers it better not be surprised if said passengers give it an FU response and take action which suits them. Frankly in such circumstances l would almost advocate passenger legal action for unlawful detention.

In a situation where multiple trains are stranded there is no possible way to evacuate every passenger from every train immediately; There are not, and never will be, the staff to organise and carry this out. So some delay is inevitable; Unless the procedure becomes to immediately release the doors and tell passengers to jump off and head for the nearest station, in which case the railway would be liable for any injuries resulting.

it was prioritised removing the wires from the train that brought them down rather than getting trains evacuated

Perhaps it was thought that making the damaged overheads safe would have allowed the area to be (partly, at least) re-energised to get trains moving, a far quicker and better way of helping passengers? Difficult to know what was decided and why based, as you yourself said, on a 'small amount of information'.

 

[greyman42]

Not so easy if the driver is not male!

Good point.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Aug 2024 ==

Unless they have a "she-wee" or similar.

Still not a pleasant thing to have to do.

 

[yorksrob]

And what proportion of the passengers using the line travel from Shenfield to Reading? Indeed, how many trains do actually run from Shenfield to Reading?

What about those travelling from Reading/Shenfield to the centre ?

Rationalise it as much as you like, however its still a major step backwards in terms of passenger comfort.

 

[Haywain]

What about those travelling from Reading/Shenfield to the centre ?

What about them? The journey time isn't so long.

 

[yorksrob]

What about them? The journey time isn't so long.

I used to live in Reading. It's long enough.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I find myself regularly using the loo on the train from Victoria to/from East Croydon - and that is only 17 minutes. So we can argue until the cows come home about pros and cons of loos.

But for me the real issue is not the presence of absence of a train loo but getting stuck for too long on a stranded train.

 

[Skiddaw]

I used to live in Reading. It's long enough.

I agree.

 

[jbqfc]

What about them? The journey time isn't so long.

not all of us can wait that long due to health problems

 

[Haywain]

not all of us can wait that long due to health problems

Ultimately, you will have to make different choices about your travel then. It isn't ideal for you but there is no chance of those trains being retrofitted with toilets anytime soon.

 

[yorksrob]

Ultimately, you will have to make different choices about your travel then. It isn't ideal for you but there is no chance of those trains being retrofitted with toilets anytime soon.

We're not denying that retrofitting them is unlikely, however it should be acknowledged that not specifying them with toilets was a mistake and a retrograde development.

We aspire to a supposedly accessible railway, yet in response to the most basic human need, the answer is "go by car".

 

[NSEWonderer]

What about those travelling from Reading/Shenfield to the centre ?

Rationalise it as much as you like, however its still a major step backwards in terms of passenger comfort.

This assumes the Toilets are in working conditions in the first place let alone in rush hour you'd get in the train which now has reduced capacity due to the added toilets.

I've seen the crowding first hand to know it would be quite hard to even move to the toilets even if they were vacant.

If you're taking a long journey from either of those two points to London wouldn't you take into account how long you'd be able to hold your bladder especially if you have health conditions? From either of those stations you have the GWR and GA which both have Toilets and are faster to the center.

 

[Via Bank]

One thing for sure, at least the Elizabeth line trains don't use carpeted flooring.

But I don't think it would be pleasant for a train to have a toilet if it's going to be underground for a significant period of time. Plus those going from London to Reading or Shenfield are encouraged to use the fast GWR/Greater Anglia services respectively, and the Elizabeth line was initially going to terminate at Maidenhead.

Maybe the old 315s didn't have toilets too?

This is exactly the point, people getting onto a toiletless train for what should’ve been a “short hop” and then being stuck for 3-5 hours with no access to facilities at all.

Whether that should be fixed by retrofitting the trains with toilets or a faster evacuation process is what’s up for debate, but it’s frankly not good enough to work on the basis that everyone getting on the train should be able to hold it for the best part of 6 hours. Like it or not, people need to pee and poo.

 

[daveo]

Have any passengers been prosecuted compensated as a result of this incident? For example, by urinating inside the train or disembarking from the train without permission after the doors were forced open.

Fixed that for you

 

[yorksrob]

This assumes the Toilets are in working conditions in the first place let alone in rush hour you'd get in the train which now has reduced capacity due to the added toilets.

I've seen the crowding first hand to know it would be quite hard to even move to the toilets even if they were vacant.

If you're taking a long journey from either of those two points to London wouldn't you take into account how long you'd be able to hold your bladder especially if you have health conditions? From either of those stations you have the GWR and GA which both have Toilets and are faster to the center.

By the time you need the loo, you might be getting to the outer reaches of the line by which time the train will have emptied out a bit.

This is no different from any other medium distance line with busier commuter times.

 

[Laketop]

From my understanding, stranded trains on the East and West Coast mainline have 'thunderbird' trains to rescue them. In this case, 4 hours is just an hour less than what it takes for a train to go from King's Cross to Edinburgh, surely in this case to omit these situations of stranded trains with no working toilets for over an hour to be rescued and moved to the next available station?

 

[NSEWonderer]

By the time you need the loo, you might be getting to the outer reaches of the line by which time the train will have emptied out a bit.

This is no different from any other medium distance line with busier commuter times.

It's quite different... the Class 345s are expected to act as a high capacity unit in the central operating section whilst then a medium distance commuter when out of it. There will be some sacrifice as a result of that.

The Elizabeth line is very noticeably busy for longer periods of times than the acclaimed "other medium distance line"

The original context here was the article somewhat infers that toilets would have helped with the stranded issue to a high degree. The passenger self egressing of several southeastern trains in Lewisham on March 2018, occurred on some trains which actually had toilets.

 

[yorksrob]

It's quite different... the Class 345s are expected to act as a high capacity unit in the central operating section whilst then a medium distance commuter when out of it. There will be some sacrifice as a result of that.

The Elizabeth line is very noticeably busy for longer periods of times than the acclaimed "other medium distance line"

The original context here was the article somewhat infers that toilets would have helped with the stranded issue to a high degree. The passenger self egressing of several southeastern trains in Lewisham on March 2018, occurred on some trains which actually had toilets.

It's not a good sacrifice for outer suburban passengers IMO.

 

[NSEWonderer]

It's not a good sacrifice for outer suburban passengers IMO.

Fair enough. I guess this all depends on what passengers prioritise, more onboard facilities at the cost of less passenger standing / seating capacity or more standing and seating capacity at the cost of little to none onboard facilities.

 

[AM9]

This is no different from any other medium distance line with busier commuter times.

I agree, Epping to Oxford Circus, - 50 mins, or Upminster to Victoria - 58 mins., so Reading to Bond Street under the hour is quite reasonable - those with abnormal comfort needs there's GWR services to Paddington and C2C fasts from Upminster to Fenchurch St.. no easy option for tho se that prefer their toilets to be at linespeed, but they could make it to Stratford in 2 mins, and have the luxury of a class 720 loo. for 6 minutes.

 

[Bikeman78]

And what proportion of the passengers using the line travel from Shenfield to Reading? Indeed, how many trains do actually run from Shenfield to Reading?

The answer to the second question is zero. However, Brentwood to Heathrow is around 75 minutes which is a journey that probably is made every day. Though Cockfosters to Heathrow is longer.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Aug 2024 ==

I've seen the crowding first hand to know it would be quite hard to even move to the toilets even if they were vacant.

If the alternative is soiling yourself in front of lots of people, I think you would try very hard to get to that toilet. The fact that people broke out of trains on to the track in the dark gives some clue as to the level of desperation. After three hours, almost everyone will be reaching the point that they need to go.

 

[NSEWonderer]

If the alternative is soiling yourself in front of lots of people, I think you would try very hard to get to that toilet. The fact that people broke out of trains on to the track in the dark gives some clue as to the level of desperation. After three hours, almost everyone will be reaching the point that they need to go.

People broke out the SE trains near Lewisham that had toilets. Now in those cases the toilets were actually open but we're assuming even if the lizzy line trains had toilets that people wouldn't have eventually broken out of the trains for non toilet specfic purposes.

 

[AM9]

The bottom line is that there's a very unlikely but ultimately possible risk of being trapped in a crowded train, which in the case of metro services is likely to be without toilet facilities. The fact that billions of journeys are completed without any such mishap, justifies the general practice across of no provision across the world. As others have said, even if a 'normal' train toilet provision has been made, a crush load of passengers is unlikely to enable those who need to use them much of a chance.
Those with special ial needs must make reasonable adjustments as much as the providers of the service.

 

[Bikeman78]

People broke out the SE trains near Lewisham that had toilets. Now in those cases the toilets were actually open but we're assuming even if the lizzy line trains had toilets that people wouldn't have eventually broken out of the trains for non toilet specfic purposes.

I don't doubt it but people will tolerate being stuck on a train with toilets and lights for longer than one without. Without them, you've probably got about an hour before people will start reaching for the egress handles.

 

[cool110]

The existence of toilets is a bit of a red herring here, other aspects of the trains and service patterns need to be considered as well to extend the time trapped passengers can tolerate.