No toilets on the train - ticket validity?

[TonyR]

Just a hypothetical now as it all worked out and her onward ticket was not checked. My partner was on a Crewe to London train this morning on an Advance ticket. Turned out the train had no working toilets so she had to get off part way to use the station toilets and then catch the next train to London. Strictly her Advance ticket wouldn’t have been valid for that train but was fortunately not checked. But what would be the situation if it had been? Would she have been OK or would the expectation be she should have stayed on the ticketed train in which case what are you supposed to do when there are no toilets for a 2hr journey?

Just curious too as to whether being late because nature forced you to get off the train due to lack of facilities, would you be entitled to delay repay?

 

[Acathater]

Presumably to an extent disability laws would kick in here as well......a lot of people would find a two hour wait impossible due to bladder or other medical issues

 

[AlterEgo]

There is nothing written down about this, so common sense should apply.

 

[Gareth1990]

There is nothing written down about this, so common sense should apply.

Which the railway doesn’t have a lot of…

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I would in this case try to get something signed from the guard to explain it.

 

[TonyR]

There is nothing written down about this, so common sense should apply.

Errrr……..we are talking about NRCoT here.

 

[Haywain]

Presumably to an extent disability laws would kick in here as well

Which "disability laws"?

 

[Gareth1990]

Which "disability laws"?

The equality act, if you have a condition where you need access to a toilet the railway has to make reasonable adjustments, changing an advance to a flexible ticket would certainly fall into that category

 

[Merseysider]

I'd start by asking the guard / TM if a toilet stop is planned or can be done, before leaving the train.

Eg LNWR did this at Stafford on a service I was on, and they also have an extended dwell at Northampton on the Birmingham services.

 

[lfc84]

I had this on a west midlands train very recently. I was travelling on an advance. The guard advised me to get off, go to the toilet and take the next train. I took photos to prove the on board signs displayed out of order. I didn't subsequently get a ticket check but he assured me it would be fine.

 

[Haywain]

The equality act, if you have a condition where you need access to a toilet the railway has to make reasonable adjustments, changing an advance to a flexible ticket would certainly fall into that category

I have no expertise in the equality act, other than my annual online training to ensure I am competent to (not) deal with the public as I work from home, but that would suggests that to be able to demonstrate discrimination you would also have to demonstrate that you have such a condition, not just that you needed a toilet at a particular time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have no expertise in the equality act, other than my annual online training to ensure I am competent to (not) deal with the public as I work from home, but that would suggests that to be able to demonstrate discrimination you would also have to demonstrate that you have such a condition, not just that you needed a toilet at a particular time.

Pretty much anyone over the age of about 50 will be able to demonstrate a discrimination case. It is normal to have more urinary frequency above that age, and thus it is age discrimination as well. And sex discrimination given that a male might be able to, er, use, a bottle under their coat.

If the railway is doing anything other than letting people alight to use the loo or use another train, they need hitting with some legal cases.

Yes, some trains don't have toilets. But one should be able to expect that where they are normally provided they are working, and if not arrangements to be made for any passenger needing one to use one.

"Pay a whackload extra or wet your pants" is not something it is acceptable for any business to even suggest.

 

[tram21]

Contrary to what many on here like to suggest, the absolute majority of our railway staff are fantastic and apply common sense.

In my experience if you have a genuine reason as to why you are breaching terms of a ticket, they will almost always be completely happy to allow you travel. Perhaps having some kind of proof of this would have good, even if its just a screenshot of journey check, but you would have absolutely no problem.

 

[Tetragon213]

Contrary to what many on here like to suggest, the absolute majority of our railway staff are fantastic and apply common sense.

In my experience if you have a genuine reason as to why you are breaching terms of a ticket, they will almost always be completely happy to allow you travel. Perhaps having some kind of proof of this would have good, even if its just a screenshot of journey check, but you would have absolutely no problem.

I think it's simply the case that people here see significantly more of the staff who lack common sense, hence the postings that appear in Disputes & Prosecutions, the reddit forums, and just our memories.

 

[Haywain]

Pretty much anyone over the age of about 50 will be able to demonstrate a discrimination case.

On what basis? There was no active discrimination. Everybody on the train was treated in exactly the same way. No one has provided any evidence that they were made to pay anything extra by taking an alternative train.

"Pay a whackload extra or wet your pants" is not something it is acceptable for any business to even suggest.

Has anyone suggested that it is?

 

[Bletchleyite]

On what basis? There was no active discrimination. Everybody on the train was treated in exactly the same way. No one has provided any evidence that they were made to pay anything extra by taking an alternative train.

Has anyone suggested that it is?

I don't think anyone had an actual issue in this case due to WMT's famous lack of bothering to do tickets. However, for clarity, equality law promotes equity, not simple equality. That is, giving everyone a toiletless train for two hours isn't compliant, because how much of a problem that is depends on two (possibly three) protected characteristics - age and disability (and to an extent sex, though I suspect the railway wouldn't encourage the use of bottles on board). This is called "indirect discrimination", i.e. the disabled person gets the same thing as the able bodied person but it's not usable by them.

Most people on a two hour train journey will not use the toilet. But for those who need it, they REALLY need it.

 

[TonyR]

I think it's simply the case that people here see significantly more of the staff who lack common sense, hence the postings that appear in Disputes & Prosecutions, the reddit forums, and just our memories.

I’ve certainly met a fair few in my time from the jobsworths to the ones that don’t know the NRCoT so make up their own.

 

[Segedunum]

The 17:30 King's Cross to Edinburgh last night ended up with five toilets out of use south of York due to tanks getting full (the set had outstabled then was caught up in disruption). Ticket acceptance was arranged for the next LNER service from York onwards (and was needed in any case as the TM had the train taken out of service at Newcastle with only two toilets left due to the risk of ending up with none working at all).

Common sense dictates you permit travel on the next service - at a bare minimum, the next service operated by the same company.

 

[TUC]

What is irritating is when there are no announcements at stations that a given train has no working toilets. That is unreasonable and unacceptabl.

 

[blimmo]

Contrary to what many on here like to suggest, the absolute majority of our railway staff are fantastic and apply common sense.

In my experience if you have a genuine reason as to why you are breaching terms of a ticket, they will almost always be completely happy to allow you travel. Perhaps having some kind of proof of this would have good, even if its just a screenshot of journey check, but you would have absolutely no problem.

The problem is that you don't know who you'll meet on the next train. I personally don't like being called a criminal which is (while I appreciate very unlikely) technically possible. Hence I would think the rules should be as clear as possible (ha!).

 

[Alex-B]

I have no expertise in the equality act, other than my annual online training to ensure I am competent to (not) deal with the public as I work from home, but that would suggests that to be able to demonstrate discrimination you would also have to demonstrate that you have such a condition, not just that you needed a toilet at a particular time.

Not anymore. The old "registered disabled" thing went away in 1996. There is no longer a big register held by social services of everyone who qualifies as having a disability, where they issue you with a letter you can whip out as evidence saying they have added you to the register.

I also question whether it would be reasonable or proportionate for a conductor to arrange an impromptu assessment from a doctor to verify the state of a passenger's bladder and bowels, and if their current state should be attributed to having a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect. Or to expect someone to carry their medical records around with them to go through with a conductor for the conductor to assess if the criteria in the Equality Act are met at that point on the off chance that a train that should have working toilets doesn't.

There are even rules around at what point fluctuating or progressive conditions qualify that could come into play.

 

[Skiddaw]

I have no disabilities but there's very little chance of me not desperately needing a wee on a two hour train journey. I'd probably make it but I'd be horribly uncomfortable by the time I left the train especially if there was no bog nearby. I'd be pretty furious if, having had to leave the train to use a loo, I'd been penalised for it.

 

[TonyR]

You don’t need a disability. 50% of men over 50 and 80% of men over 80 have prostate enlargement a consequence of which is the need to urinate frequently as illustrated by needing to get up multiple times in the night.

 

[styles]

Pretty much anyone over the age of about 50 will be able to demonstrate a discrimination case. It is normal to have more urinary frequency above that age, and thus it is age discrimination as well. And sex discrimination given that a male might be able to, er, use, a bottle under their coat.

This.

It is also an issue which disproportionately affects female passengers who go to the toilet more frequently than males, even more so after childbirth.

(Slight tangent, but there is a whole section in the book Invisible Women about how toilet arrangements for the public are accidentally discriminating against women wholesale, as for a very long time we basically allocated 50% of the space to males, 50% to females, but apart from males benefiting from urinals allowing more people to use that space at once, females both go to the toilet more frequently, and on average take longer to use the toilet, for a variety of reasons, and really they shouldn't be allocated on a 50-50 basis, which is clearly problematic if you've ever looked at the length of queues at theatre toilets during the interval.)

In this particular example, you've more likely discriminated against disabled passengers than female passengers, but it is a factor.

It might not be so bad on short journeys like Nottingham to Derby, but Crewe to London mentioned at the start of this post is anywhere from what 1.5-3.3h.

 

[The exile]

I think it's simply the case that people here see significantly more of the staff who lack common sense, hence the postings that appear in Disputes & Prosecutions, the reddit forums, and just our memories.

Rather it’s that the hurdle to write about bad performance is a lot lower as the writer has been inconvenienced / made to suffer. The majority of us will only single someone out for praise when extra good service by staff resolves a n otherwise difficult situation - so it needs a combination of difficult circumstance and (probably) a member of staff going the extra mile that you weren’t expecting. However good rail staff are (and the vast majority I come across are), that combination is thankfully rare.

 

[Horizon22]

What is irritating is when there are no announcements at stations that a given train has no working toilets. That is unreasonable and unacceptabl.

There's several journeys you can make in this country for over an hour where the train is not physically installed with toilets. I am aware that is not the case in the OP's query but is that also "unreasonable and unacceptable" to you?

 

[The exile]

I have no disabilities but there's very little chance of me not desperately needing a wee on a two hour train journey. I'd probably make it but I'd be horribly uncomfortable by the time I left the train especially if there was no bog nearby. I'd be pretty furious if, having had to leave the train to use a loo, I'd been penalised for it.

It’s that psychological thing where if every carriage had 3 toilets that were never engaged, you could do a 3 hour journey and not need any of them. The minute the only one on the train is OOU, you’re not going to manage 20 minutes! Then try explaining that in Italian (it doesn’t just happen here!)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2026 ==

There's several journeys you can make in this country for over an hour where the train is not physically installed with toilets. I am aware that is not the case in the OP's query but is that also "unreasonable and unacceptable" to you?

Tbh, yes. The difference is that once you’ve travelled on that line once, you know there isn’t going to be a loo and adjust accordingly. Doesn’t help first time users of course.

 

[styles]

There's several journeys you can make in this country for over an hour where the train is not physically installed with toilets. I am aware that is not the case in the OP's query but is that also "unreasonable and unacceptable" to you?

I would say yes, though appreciate you were asking @TUC

Out of interest, what are those journeys? I'm trying to picture a train I've been on, other than a heritage service etc, which hasn't had a toilet installed. Elizabeth Line and the Tube?

 

[Horizon22]

I would say yes, though appreciate you were asking @TUC

Out of interest, what are those journeys? I'm trying to picture a train I've been on, other than a heritage service etc, which hasn't had a toilet installed. Elizabeth Line and the Tube?

Elizabeth line probably the longest (Shenfield to T5 or Abbey Wood to Reading), maybe some Overground journeys. Anything on a Southeastern 376.

This probably isn't the place for a train capacity vs toilet availability debate though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would say yes, though appreciate you were asking @TUC

Out of interest, what are those journeys? I'm trying to picture a train I've been on, other than a heritage service etc, which hasn't had a toilet installed. Elizabeth Line and the Tube?

Merseyrail 777s don't have toilets, but the longest journey is about 50 minutes. I think Aldgate to Amersham is probably about the same.

You can do a journey of over an hour from Southport to Chester, but that involves changing at Liverpool Central, and there are toilets there.

I think the situation is similar with the tram-trains on the Valley Lines.

Reading to Abbey Wood is about 1h20, but the Liz is very much not intended for that sort of journey - the idea is that you would use a faster train to Paddington and change (and there are toilets there too).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2026 ==

Elizabeth line probably the longest (Shenfield to T5 or Abbey Wood to Reading), maybe some Overground journeys.

Stratford-Richmond (probably the longest) is 1h05, but again it's very much not intended for that end to end journey and the demand for it is likely to be pretty low.