68000
Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 832
Indeed, the proverbial race to the bottom which some think is acceptable
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Lumo running train with no toilets
- Thread starter Haywain
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I know for a fact LNER have ran services without toilets on multiple occasions. As I was part of the team on duty on several occasions when it has happened.
No one is saying it's acceptable, because it isn't, but running a train with no toilets but with the provision of toilet stops is preferable to cancelling the service..
Last edited:
D1537
Established Member
Since the advent of the Azumas? I know the toilets on the IC225s used to have some issues in the past.
One thing to point out is that Lumo tweeted out the message 2 hours after the train departed Euston. Was this because the faults occurred after departure or did they send the message out too late? (Hopefully the former)
If they were out of use before departing then I would think (and sincerely hope) that passengers were warned and those needing alternative arrangements, were assisted accordingly.
If they were out of use before departing then I would think (and sincerely hope) that passengers were warned and those needing alternative arrangements, were assisted accordingly.
Gareth1990
Member
Well they are saying that, at least until the scheduled toilet stop, if even National Express can have working toilets, why shouldn’t Lumo be expected to?
This was Azumas.
Due to faults where toilets wouldn't work, due to frozen pipe work in winter, due to service disruption where sets didn't make it to depot.
All decisions based on load factor, and if unit could then be swapped out at destination for a fresh set, so that faulty set could go to depot.
68000
Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 832
Only for those who wish to travel without a toilet. What did Lumo provide for those unwilling to travel without a toilet even taking into consideration the mitigations?
I read about this earlier this morning. Theoretically could the long stop at Preston have been an opportunity for passengers needing a rest break to have it there? I have a feeling that might be the best situation even though it would certainly lead to a lot of station crowding and potentially missed trains if not managed carefully.
I've no idea, enlighten me?
Lumo didn't run this train with no toilets out of choice and it's very easy to criticize them on the internet, but what would you do if you were the one making the call?
As I've said multiple times, I'm not suggesting it's acceptable, far from it, but they have a small fleet, stretched rather thinly, the options available to them are limited.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Well, they did. They could have chosen to cancel it, at which point they would have been required under the PRO to re-route passengers onto Avanti services at their cost. I suspect they preferred not to do that.
Fair point.
Though given they are both First Group companies, you'd like to think a bit of discretion could be used, if only...
Masbroughlad
Established Member
To me, it's just such a retrograde step. It's appalling for a modern train in 2026.
A far cry from Alliance Rail's original promise of service standards for this route - catering, first class, standard class - exemplary service..... Instead a cattle truck with no bogs.
A bid for OA should deliver on their original offer - not just make up a fantasy story of luxury, to pocket millions and just sell track space.
Maybe under GBR - introduce this concept? Or even have a GBR team looking at new service opportunities, no OA. More stock flexibility, better service, no ridiculous bog stops. It's hardly forward thinking......
A far cry from Alliance Rail's original promise of service standards for this route - catering, first class, standard class - exemplary service..... Instead a cattle truck with no bogs.
A bid for OA should deliver on their original offer - not just make up a fantasy story of luxury, to pocket millions and just sell track space.
Maybe under GBR - introduce this concept? Or even have a GBR team looking at new service opportunities, no OA. More stock flexibility, better service, no ridiculous bog stops. It's hardly forward thinking......
brad465
Veteran Member
Maybe we could fit every train with a last resort "toilet", a cubical that has a hole in the floor directly leading to waste going onto the track, like what they do in India (or at least did while I was there 10 years ago).
That is still very much the case on Indian and Pakistani railways, yes.
Lumo are having a nightmare over the last week or so on the Euston to Stirling route, my wife is travelling to Larbert soon so she has been monitoring and there have been cancellations or part cancellations due to train faults most days. They do appear to have ticket acceptance in place quickly though
I was looking to book Lumo West Coast for to get me home from Scotland in a couple of weeks but I've noticed the same issues as your wife and even with ticket acceptance, I'm questioning if it's worth the trouble.
philthetube
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 4,157
usually
And have the passengers standing on later services, they were in a lose lose situation, Should that be loos loos?
Are you saying they exclusively used Twitter to communicate this. Why do we keep relying on that disgusting platform to communicate. Just put the message on their own app, email it to everyone who bought a ticket for that train from them, put it on national rail app/website, anywhere but that vile place. It’s time train companies stopped using it as a primary source of information.
I'm not saying they only used Twitter, you just assume that. I only mention it because that is where I (and pretty much the majority of us) saw the message. I'm sure others can confirm or deny whether or not they use other platforms to communicate onboard facilities
Why would they stop using Twitter anyway? It's useful to communicate quite easily there and thousands use it so they're not going to stop using it just because a few people disagree with it. There are other means of communication after all. I appreciate that I'm at risk of taking this off topic so if you want to discuss further it may be worth splitting off into a new thread
I suspect it wasn't just people neeting a 'number 2' that were racing to find somewhere to go, but people needing a 'number 1' also? Sorry, I'm probably being pedantic here! My main point is that perhaps GBR needs to seize the intiative here, and make all train operators ensure they carry back up Nappies? I think that if clear instructions were left to 'send all used Nappies to the Lumo (a.k.a/ Loo-where do I go?) Managing Director' the ensuing 'waste disposal' may stimulate a better solution?
The thing here is, any train company in the country can, and will at some point, send a train into use without any working toilets.
The fact it is allowed to happen is because there is nothing stopping them from doing so.
Now how that gets changed to stop this from happening, I do not know.
This isn't a new problem, it is just been highlighted more because it is all over social media and news websites.
To state the obvious, if the government had not thought it prudent to retain Open Access, we would not even be in this ridiculous sitation.
That said, one wonders how GBR would approach a choice of either running a service to time but without toilets, or just cancel it. Which under GBR, in the main, you would assume would only happen at very short notice or indeed part way through a journey.
There is only one right answer, if your aim is public service in 2026. You run the train, to time, so as not to inconvenience those who have paid for it and can reasonably know they will not need an on train convenience, and offer a full refund to all others.
And furthermore, appropriate compensation too, for the literal inconvenience in a situation where it's a virtual certainty the issue was avoidable.
That said, one wonders how GBR would approach a choice of either running a service to time but without toilets, or just cancel it. Which under GBR, in the main, you would assume would only happen at very short notice or indeed part way through a journey.
There is only one right answer, if your aim is public service in 2026. You run the train, to time, so as not to inconvenience those who have paid for it and can reasonably know they will not need an on train convenience, and offer a full refund to all others.
And furthermore, appropriate compensation too, for the literal inconvenience in a situation where it's a virtual certainty the issue was avoidable.
Because the service simply wouldn't exist...
We're already seeing services being cut to save money.
YorkRailFan
Established Member
I had a Voyager that had all toilets fail just over 2 weeks ago. A 4 carriage 220 from Edinburgh to Penzance, 1 toilet was working when I boarded in York. By the time the train reached Birmingham New Street, the last toilet had given up. People were desperate for the toilet, the TM said "I can't guarantee the train will still be here if you leave the platform for the toilet."
The train was then cancelled at New Street because of a track defect between Birmingham & Bristol. The train ran empty to Manchester and was put on a Bournemouth service, seemingly with all toilets still not working given the time between leaving Birmingham and being put into service in Manchester. Credit to Lumo for at least organising toilet breaks, as XC didn't.
I have twice been on Crewe to London 730 services with no working toilets. In each case a stop was made at Rugby. If the weekday 2013 from Crewe is cancelled, arriving at Euston 2244, the next LNR arrival at Euston is at 0012 and I won't be home until 2am.
It wasn't unknown for many years for 458s to have all toilets out of use.
GBR will do exactly as has always been the case and sometimes run services with no working toilets, because as bad as it is from many angles, running the train meets the greater good.
Exactly this, least worst option...
Is it therefore acceptable for Lumo to operate without toilets as often as they consider necessary or is there ever a point reached where it is reasonable to cry "foul" because of the frequency of their lack of control, so to speak?
That was the purpose of it.
RyanOPlasty
Member
I think it is likely that a significant proportion of passengers who require regular or urgent access to toilets also need assistance boarding.
For these passengers, stopping for toilet breaks may not be easy. Ramps may need to be provided to leave and re-board the train. The station facilities often require a long walk and a bridge to a different platform. At best this will take a long time; at worst it may prove almost impossible.
At a minimum, these passengers should be offered travel on the next available train regardless of operator.
For these passengers, stopping for toilet breaks may not be easy. Ramps may need to be provided to leave and re-board the train. The station facilities often require a long walk and a bridge to a different platform. At best this will take a long time; at worst it may prove almost impossible.
At a minimum, these passengers should be offered travel on the next available train regardless of operator.
- Status