Lumo running train with no toilets

[Russel]

For those that missed it in the clamour to post criticism, extra toilet stops were planned and allowed. It was mentioned in the news article.

So no different to when the likes of LNER and LNWR do it.

 

[Coleridge]

For those that missed it in the clamour to post criticism, extra toilet stops were planned and allowed. It was mentioned in the news article.

Toilet stops are a desperate and unsatisfactory means of rectifying a serious problem. Getting off the train and looking for a toilet, all the time very worried whether the train will go without you, or whether your possessions on the train will be there when you get back, must be extremely stressful, and for some people with limited mobility or sight not something they can do at all.

How does the train operating company ensure that everyone is back on board before setting off again?

I support the suggestion that passengers not wishing to travel on a train without toilets be allowed to take the next Avanti train, at Lumo's expense.

 

[pint]

I suppose you could pop the door open for a "wild wee" onto the passing track, when youve got to go youve go to go.

 

[styles]

For those that missed it in the clamour to post criticism, extra toilet stops were planned and allowed. It was mentioned in the news article.

I don't think it's "clamouring" to point out that a train with a 2.5h+ gap between stations for toilet breaks isn't good service, and in fact indirectly discriminates against many disabled passengers. It's all well and good saying we'll take a break at Preston but when the previous stop was MK, that's been over 2.5h between stops for a toilet break. This indirectly discriminates against disabled passengers and female passengers.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I would rather my train ran, even if it was delayed by stops on the way to allow use of station facilities, than was cancelled outright. Which is likely the choice that was faced here.

When you get to my age with a weak bladder to match you'll think differently!

 

[BJames]

Toilet stops are a desperate and unsatisfactory means of rectifying a serious problem. Getting off the train and looking for a toilet, all the time very worried whether the train will go without you, or whether your possessions on the train will be there when you get back, must be extremely stressful, and for some people with limited mobility or sight not something they can do at all.

How does the train operating company ensure that everyone is back on board before setting off again?

I support the suggestion that passengers not wishing to travel on a train without toilets be allowed to take the next Avanti train, at Lumo's expense.

Does it work a bit like "the time is now 16:00, this train will remain here for 25 minutes and depart at 16:25, please ensure you are back on the train before this time". Or is this done a different way? I'd be comfortable to hop off the train and use the loo if I knew the exact time of departure, rather than 'please be as quick as you can!'

Nonetheless - agreed with all of the above that this is not a great look for a new service. (Yes - I know these trains are not new, but to the paying public this is seen differently)

 

[TheSmiths82]

Does it work a bit like "the time is now 16:00, this train will remain here for 25 minutes and depart at 16:15, please ensure you are back on the train before this time". Or is this done a different way? I'd be comfortable to hop off the train and use the loo if I knew the exact time of departure, rather than 'please be as quick as you can!'

Nonetheless - agreed with all of the above that this is not a great look for a new service. (Yes - I know these trains are not new, but to the paying public this is seen differently)

When I used to get the coach to Spain even though it had a toilet we had frequent rest breaks around every 3 hours. We were told what time to be back on the coach. In reality the driver did check that we all got back on, but you can't really do that on a train. It will be a case of the train is departing at 16:15 regardless if you all make it back! I suppose as well a train station isn't as remote as a some service station in the middle of France on the toll motorway network at 3:30am in the morning!

 

[68000]

It is unacceptable to run that service without working toilets. The arrogance of them to think they could get away with it.

 

[D1537]

When 1P04 ran with toilet stops on Tuesday it actually delayed other services at Nuneaton. I don't know if that was the case today.

If today's culprit was 222604, then that's a second unit with problems, because Tuesday was 222603.

 

[styles]

Does it work a bit like "the time is now 16:00, this train will remain here for 25 minutes and depart at 16:25, please ensure you are back on the train before this time". Or is this done a different way? I'd be comfortable to hop off the train and use the loo if I knew the exact time of departure, rather than 'please be as quick as you can!'

Nonetheless - agreed with all of the above that this is not a great look for a new service. (Yes - I know these trains are not new, but to the paying public this is seen differently)

Not sure if they did it differently but if you got the EMT service to London which had a wait at, erm, Market Harborough or Kettering or somewhere in that area, they'd give you a time to be back. If you weren't back in time, that was your problem. It's not feasible with trains to check everybody has returned really.

 

[Russel]

It is unacceptable to run that service without working toilets. The arrogance of them to think they could get away with it.

It's obviously a bad situation, but they put mitigation measures in place, the other option would be to cancel the service.

They are going to be criticized either way, but if I was meant to be traveling on said train, I know which option I'd prefer...

 

[68000]

It's obviously a bad situation, but they put mitigation measures in place, the other option would be to cancel the service.

They are going to be criticized either way, but if I was meant to be traveling on said train, I know which option I'd prefer...

Did they offer passengers alternative travel to their destination?

 

[Russel]

Did they offer passengers alternative travel to their destination?

No idea.

But I doubt I'd be alone in wanting the train to run with toilet stops in place.

LNER, LNWR and I've even known XC run long distance services with no working toilets, but I don't see them being singled out.

 

[D1537]

No idea.

But I doubt I'd be alone in wanting the train to run with toilet stops in place.

LNER, LNWR and I've even known XC run long distance services with no working toilets, but I don't see them being singled out.

Because it's happened multiple times on what is a very small number of services. Having four trains to run four diagrams probably doesn't help.

 

[Brightonboy]

This is simply not good enough. Those passengers were expecting toilets and some of us have conditions which mean that we can’t go more than a couple of hours without going. Where do passengers such as myself stand as to ticketing? Surely reasonable adjustments need to be made?

And some people have conditions where the need to go can escalate from 'sometime soon' to 'right now' very quickly and if that happens even a 20 min wait for the next emergency relief stop can be too long. I would be very reluctant to embark on such a trip with no access on board.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

I really do question the reliability of the toilets across the network, mostly I suspect it's not being emptied frequently enough/missing overnight when short staffed - not just a lumo issue.
I've been on trains with 2 or 3 non working toilets at 7am come straight from the depot/ overnight parking next to the depot which is just poor maintenance in my book.

 

[Oxfordblues]

When I go to festivals I always take an empty Lenor bottle for that urgent 4am need to visit the toilet when it's raining outside the tent. I'd recommend such a measure for Lumo passengers!

 

[Russel]

Because it's happened multiple times on what is a very small number of services. Having four trains to run four diagrams probably doesn't help.

I get that and I'm not suggesting it's right, but as I said, they've put measures in place, it's not like they are just saying tie a knot in it...

 

[Bayum]

It is an absolute disgrace.

I imagine some of the station loos were after this…

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2026 ==

When I go to festivals I always take an empty Lenor bottle for that urgent 4am need to visit the toilet when it's raining outside the tent. I'd recommend such a measure for Lumo passengers!

Do the toilets not lock out of use to prevent passengers using them whilst full?

 

[ainsworth74]

When you get to my age with a weak bladder to match you'll think differently!

Fair!

 

[jbqfc]

And some people have conditions where the need to go can escalate from 'sometime soon' to 'right now' very quickly and if that happens even a 20 min wait for the next emergency relief stop can be too long. I would be very reluctant to embark on such a trip with no access on board.

I have colitis than means I go from been ok to needing to poo in less than a minute so loo stops would be no good for me

 

[styles]

No idea.

But I doubt I'd be alone in wanting the train to run with toilet stops in place.

LNER, LNWR and I've even known XC run long distance services with no working toilets, but I don't see them being singled out.

I don't think I've ever had an LNER, LNWR, or XC train with zero working toilets, but for the avoidance of doubt I would level the same criticism at them as Lumo are receiving for the same thing. It's not an acceptable long-distance travel experience. Some scheduled station stops may seem fine on paper but as I mentioned with the Lumo instance, that can still be over 2.5 hours between loo breaks. I don't think that's acceptable.

 

[Russel]

I don't think I've ever had an LNER, LNWR, or XC train with zero working toilets, but for the avoidance of doubt I would level the same criticism at them as Lumo are receiving for the same thing. It's not an acceptable long-distance travel experience. Some scheduled station stops may seem fine on paper but as I mentioned with the Lumo instance, that can still be over 2.5 hours between loo breaks. I don't think that's acceptable.

LNWR 730s Are probably the worst, for the first few months in service it wasn't uncommon for an set to have no working toilets, though they seem to be getting on top of it now to be fair to them.

 

[GoneSouth]

When I go to festivals I always take an empty Lenor bottle for that urgent 4am need to visit the toilet when it's raining outside the tent. I'd recommend such a measure for Lumo passengers!

I’d recommend definitely not doing this. If the toilets aren’t working the doors are locked and I don’t really want to watch my fellow passengers peeing into bottles.

 

[Amaranthe]

I’d recommend definitely not doing this. If the toilets aren’t working the doors are locked and I don’t really want to watch my fellow passengers peeing into bottles.

Sadly some of us would have no option

 

[GordonT]

As O.Wilde might have said "To lose one toilet, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose all toilets looks like carelessness." Arguably a breach of H&S legislation notwithstanding "comfort breaks". Was there latitude granted in their submission to operate the service to run with no spare units? Which regulatory body would have the power to terminate their right to operate until they get their house in order?

 

[GoneSouth]

LNER, LNWR and I've even known XC run long distance services with no working toilets, but I don't see them being singled out.

Yes, let’s do that, it’s clearly not acceptable for any operator but it does seem to be a more common problem for LooNo at the moment.

I think I read they dumped people short of their destination too. Did they arrange ticket acceptance or just adopt the usual open access trick of leaving people stranded and/or out of pocket for buying a new ticket to their final destination.

It’s time open access was closed I think.

Back to calling out the other operators. XC looks like a concerning one given their journeys can take you from Plymouth to Edinburgh. Do you have specifics of which services the other operators have had this situation?

 

[aar0]

I’d recommend definitely not doing this. If the toilets aren’t working the doors are locked and I don’t really want to watch my fellow passengers peeing into bottles.

I don’t know about 222s but the GWR 800s’ non-accessible loos have a manual door that will allow you to enter and then discover that it won’t flush and you can’t wash your hands… but you would have privacy.

 

[800001]

Yes, let’s do that, it’s clearly not acceptable for any operator but it does seem to be a more common problem for LooNo at the moment.

I think I read they dumped people short of their destination too. Did they arrange ticket acceptance or just adopt the usual open access trick of leaving people stranded and/or out of pocket for buying a new ticket to their final destination.

It’s time open access was closed I think.

Back to calling out the other operators. XC looks like a concerning one given their journeys can take you from Plymouth to Edinburgh. Do you have specifics of which services the other operators have had this situation?

if you are referring to them terminating the train at Motherwell, they arranged ticket acceptance with Scotrail.

Lumo are usually very good at arranging acceptance when things go wrong, but yeah let's close open access down because a train ran with no toilets, the same problem that normal TOCs also experience.

 

[Russel]

Back to calling out the other operators. XC looks like a concerning one given their journeys can take you from Plymouth to Edinburgh. Do you have specifics of which services the other operators have had this situation?

LNER Were mentioned earlier in the thread, as for XC, I've been on few Voyagers with no working toilets over the years, but of course I have no specific service details, why would I?