Lumo running train with no toilets

[Sorcerer]

That was the purpose of it.

I thought the long stop at Preston was because of a crew change and to allow an Avanti service to pass by (though maybe that's only in the Up direction) since the ORR didn't want the contracted operator to have it's services held up by the slower trains. I didn't think it was about giving passengers long toilet breaks. Does Lumo not hang about when travelling to Stirling like it does travelling to London?

 

[Some guy]

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.

All 5 units are now available which should make the service much better with a spare unit. They haven’t had time for alstom to give them some maintenance as they came straight from EMR to Widnes to be reconfigured and refurbished

 

[Farigiraf]

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..

One could say the same about running a train/plane with no disabled access. But that's what the Equality Act is there for. There are non-negotiables in the business of transporting passengers long distances, and If FirstGroup think that on top of being able to run trains on constrained public infrastructure and profit while they're at it, they can also work around these things, they're severely mistaken. Though it's not great to have no loos on coaches either, with informal (often stressful/confusing) breaks at service stations, a coach does have a lot more flexibility than a train to pull over or delay the trip for a few minutes without causing network congestion.

While I recognise that by no means this is comparable (yet) to e.g. Ryanair proposing charging for loo visits or removing seats, it's not a good idea to dismiss such occurences as a one-off misfortune either - this shouldn't have happened, and if it happens again then I reckon the ORR will have to intervene. You can't legislate better practice at Lumo; if they're too disorganised, incompetent, or simply unlucky to manage to avoid ending up with a 222 with no working toilets, then it is what it is. But if they're determined to run the train, to keep the reliability stats up and the ORCATS revenue banked, then it's GBR's responsibility to organise ticket acceptance on Avanti services, it's not like the few dozen Lumo passengers would result in overcrowding on the Pendolinos. Should do the same with GC/HT on the ECML really, nonsense that people on advances are stranded for hours at York when LNER trains go by.

 

[Spaceship323]

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 always carry an empty Tropicana bottle in my bag "for emergencies" - Never had to use it but you never know...

 

[Jimini]

Wasn't there a case not so long ago, where a bloke on a stranded train was forced to soil himself (pee), because there was a police officer on board and he'd have been arrested for public indecency if he'd have got his fella out in public and peed in the corner?

 

[AlterEgo]

Wasn't there a case not so long ago, where a bloke on a stranded train was forced to soil himself (pee), because there was a police officer on board and he'd have been arrested for public indecency if he'd have got his fella out in public and peed in the corner?

May be this story (but no "police officer" bit which sounds like a later addition for a pub story!) https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/25165633.norwich-man-wet-greater-anglia-train-london/

(It's also not illegal to pee in a corner with no intent to be seen.)

 

[KHCT]

I've been laughing my head off at some of the over-the-top comments on this thread. It's at times like this where this forum almost becomes a parody of itself with a level of foaming at the mouth outrage that wouldn't be out of place in the Daily Mail comments section, written by people who probably think that newspaper is the epitome of evil.

I doubt that anyone at Lumo is happy with this situation or the negative publicity it's given them, but to suggest it's somehow an Open Access only issue or that Lumo should be closed down is utter tripe. I've been on XC services without working toilets (as have others) as well as LNER trains with no working air con and where the water tanks are empty. I've been on a flight where all the toilets packed up half way through the journey. These things are less than ideal but they happen. It really isn't a big issue.

 

[RGM654]

I've been laughing my head off at some of the over-the-top comments on this thread. It's at times like this where this forum almost becomes a parody of itself with a level of foaming at the mouth outrage that wouldn't be out of place in the Daily Mail comments section, written by people who probably think that newspaper is the epitome of evil.

I doubt that anyone at Lumo is happy with this situation or the negative publicity it's given them, but to suggest it's somehow an Open Access only issue or that Lumo should be closed down is utter tripe. I've been on XC services without working toilets (as have others) as well as LNER trains with no working air con and where the water tanks are empty. I've been on a flight where all the toilets packed up half way through the journey. These things are less than ideal but they happen. It really isn't a big issue.

It is a big issue for some of us. I agree that the train should run, for those passengers who are willing to forego the availability of a toilet, but the situation must be made clear before departure, with assurance of ticket availability on an alternative service.

 

[Davester50]

I've been laughing my head off at some of the over-the-top comments on this thread. It's at times like this where this forum almost becomes a parody of itself with a level of foaming at the mouth outrage that wouldn't be out of place in the Daily Mail comments section, written by people who probably think that newspaper is the epitome of evil.

I doubt that anyone at Lumo is happy with this situation or the negative publicity it's given them, but to suggest it's somehow an Open Access only issue or that Lumo should be closed down is utter tripe. I've been on XC services without working toilets (as have others) as well as LNER trains with no working air con and where the water tanks are empty. I've been on a flight where all the toilets packed up half way through the journey. These things are less than ideal but they happen. It really isn't a big issue.

They should be offering ticket acceptance on other operators if they're going to put defective stock in to service.
I can accept toilets failing during a journey, that happens, but saying hold it for a couple of hours isn't acceptable as the only alternative.

 

[Trainguy34]

In a similar vein to this, albeit slightly off topic, I was on a crush-loaded EMR 158 from Skegness to Nottingham where all luggage for Nottingham was kept stacked in (part of) the rear carriage, and I believe most of the toilets were either out of use or simply inaccessible due to the amount of people in the way.

Around 45 minutes into the journey, we heard through word of mouth that a young girl had apparently soiled herself in another carriage, but they could not access their luggage for a change of clothes due to the luggage arrangement. Assuming they couldn't access it until Nottingham, that was probably about an hour and a half at a guess?

 

[King Lazy]

I get it is a big issue especially for those with health conditions to not have access to a toilet.

But for those saying the train should’ve been cancelled or open access got rid of. If we extend that logic to most other things we’d hardly ever run everything.

I used to guard trains with a single toilet on rural routes where the journey would be 2-3.5 hrs. If the toilet was rendered unserviceable 20 minutes into a journey should those trains be cancelled too? What if it’s the last one of the night. Especially as rural areas aren’t usually hotspots for bus services or the ability to source taxis easily.

I understand this train appears to have started service without a working toilet which makes the option to cancel easier but should cancelling a train really be the go to option if the train is otherwise able to run?

Yes, we could use road transport as an alternative. But what if congestion means people may be forced to hold their bladder longer than usual between services stations. Or if a service station has to close unexpectedly.

I do get that in the 21st century we need to take care of disabled people and provide them the same access as anyone else. But is isn’t really possible to protect them, or anyone else 100% of the time or have a simple “if they can’t, no one can approach”. There will always be something that some individuals cannot do. On a busy train able bodied individuals may not be able to access the only working toilet if aisles are blocked. Again, is cancelling the train the best option?

Some might think so, others who have pressing issues to attend to might prefer it to run.

I took an elderly relative to a medical practice today. It has 3 sites. One has no parking nearby and a steep access. Should I demand it be closed to everyone as my relative can’t use it? It’s still useful to a lot of people.

I’ve been on flights where the seatbelt sign has been illuminated for turbulence for a long time. And even for me who is fortunate enough to be in good health it’s been very uncomfortable. Maybe no one should fly?

The lifts were out of order at a major station the other day. Should it have been closed to everyone until the lift was repaired.

Let’s be clear, Lumo have not done well here. There are big questions over the maintenance and information provision. And the default position should be that where possible trains shouldn’t run without facilities. But the idea that a train should not run and hundreds of people should be piled onto other services because of a lack of a toilet is IMO a bit of a stretch just as closing any facility because its ability to service some of its customers is compromised.

Where would we end it? A supermarket sells out of gluten free bread so closes until the next delivery?

Edit: This isn’t a pop at the more reasonable suggestions here. Arranging ticket acceptance for those who want for example. If people pay for a service expecting a toilet as part of it then that to me is completely fair. But those calling for Lumo to be stopped running. You’d have to call for probably all franchised TOCs to do the same.

As for toilet stops as some asked upthread. Whenever I’ve done it we’ve usually called the signaller either via control or directly to be routed to a platform with a toilet. And usually after some time staff would check the toilets in case anyone was still using them. If not then everyone on the platform would be told to reboard if travelling.

In rural areas late at night with trains of mainly drunks, I’ve seen it where people hide in bushes or whatever.

Anyone who’d left the station for a cigarette or to go to a shop is really doing something they wouldn’t have had chance to if the journey was running normally so may be left behind.

 

[Coleridge]

Lumo have not done well here. There are big questions over the maintenance and information provision. And the default position should be that where possible trains shouldn’t run without facilities. But the idea that a train should not run and hundreds of people should be piled onto other services because of a lack of a toilet is IMO a bit of a stretch just as closing any facility because its ability to service some of its customers is compromised.

There is a great deal of whataboutery in your post, which I won't respond to.

But, yes, I believe that a train that has no (or insufficient) working toilets should be taken out of service. It's nothing to do with the rights of disabled passengers, but is a general baseline level of decent service that passengers have a right to expect.

If train companies were forced to do this, and to make alternative arrangements for the passengers affected, I have no doubt that they would magically find a way to keep their trains maintained rather better than they currently do. It's simply a matter of taking pride in your product, which the TOCs rarely do.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I mean all of this should be a moot point. Yes dealing with the situation when it happens has its complexities. But surely the core problem is that its got toc this point? If you have one toilet on a small unit then yeah fair enough but on a train with 5 toilets and them all failing - thats beyond abysmal.

As for when it does happen. Give passengers the choice. Travel on the service but add toilet stops, offer alternative transport, get ticket acceptance on other services or dont travel and get a full refund.

It really isn't a big issue

Maybe not for you no. But for lots people it absolutely is.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I've been laughing my head off at some of the over-the-top comments on this thread. It's at times like this where this forum almost becomes a parody of itself with a level of foaming at the mouth outrage that wouldn't be out of place in the Daily Mail comments section, written by people who probably think that newspaper is the epitome of evil.

I doubt that anyone at Lumo is happy with this situation or the negative publicity it's given them, but to suggest it's somehow an Open Access only issue or that Lumo should be closed down is utter tripe. I've been on XC services without working toilets (as have others) as well as LNER trains with no working air con and where the water tanks are empty. I've been on a flight where all the toilets packed up half way through the journey. These things are less than ideal but they happen. It really isn't a big issue.

I guess from this that you're young.
Once you are older you will find it very likely that your wife/partner will have difficulties. Even men develop them as they age.
It is interesting that any reduction of facilities for most disabilities is met with howling rage but something that mainly affects the aged is dismissed. I guess people don't think they'll ever get old. Personally, I prefer it to the only other alternative.

 

[800001]

There is a great deal of whataboutery in your post, which I won't respond to.

But, yes, I believe that a train that has no (or insufficient) working toilets should be taken out of service. It's nothing to do with the rights of disabled passengers, but is a general baseline level of decent service that passengers have a right to expect.

If train companies were forced to do this, and to make alternative arrangements for the passengers affected, I have no doubt that they would magically find a way to keep their trains maintained rather better than they currently do. It's simply a matter of taking pride in your product, which the TOCs rarely do.

So based on this we have to withdraw all
Of the Elizabeth line trains? Some of those
journeys are over an hour if people use other throughout.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

So based on this we have to withdraw all
Of the Elizabeth line trains? Some of those
journeys are over an hour if people use other throughout.

Eh? The Lumo service from London Euston to Stirling is 6+ hours!

 

[Western Gaffer]

So based on this we have to withdraw all
Of the Elizabeth line trains? Some of those
journeys are over an hour if people use other throughout.

That's a bit of a strawman - it's a known fact that those trains (like plenty of other metro-style operations, albeit EL is maybe the longest) don't have toilets, and passengers can plan journeys accordingly.

Perhaps time for a spin-off trivia thread about which is the longest UK mainline (or TfL?) journey scheduled to operate with toiletless stock...?

 

[WelshBluebird]

So based on this we have to withdraw all
Of the Elizabeth line trains? Some of those
journeys are over an hour if people use other throughout.

The Elizabeth line runs mostly through an urban environment with stations relatively close to each other and is mainly used for short journeys. That means if you are caught out, getting off to use the loo is a lot easier there compared with an intercity train that ia used for long distance travel, goes through the entire countryside and has long stretches without station stops.

 

[liamf656]

That's a bit of a strawman - it's a known fact that those trains (like plenty of other metro-style operations, albeit EL is maybe the longest) don't have toilets, and passengers can plan journeys accordingly.

Perhaps time for a spin-off trivia thread about which is the longest UK mainline (or TfL?) journey scheduled to operate with toiletless stock...?

Already on it!

Longest journey in the UK to run with stock that lacks toilet facilities

That's a bit of a strawman - it's a known fact that those trains (like plenty of other metro-style operations, albeit EL is maybe the longest) don't have toilets, and passengers can plan journeys accordingly. Perhaps time for a spin-off trivia thread about which is the longest UK mainline (or...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[trainophile]

People should definitely have been informed before the train departed, to allow them to make the choice. I'd imagine that passengers who were only travelling one or two stops would have gone ahead, but those going further would want to reconsider their options.

And btw Lenor bottles and suchlike are no good for females, and females tend to have more pressing needs in the toilet department. Especially pregnant ones.

 

[GordonT]

So based on this we have to withdraw all
Of the Elizabeth line trains? Some of those
journeys are over an hour if people use other throughout.

Probably not the best analogy. The EL operator does not profess to provide toilets on their trains. A multi-stop highish frequency service gives a passenger in need the opportunity of breaking their journey for toilet purposes.

 

[KHCT]

I guess from this that you're young.
Once you are older you will find it very likely that your wife/partner will have difficulties. Even men develop them as they age.
It is interesting that any reduction of facilities for most disabilities is met with howling rage but something that mainly affects the aged is dismissed. I guess people don't think they'll ever get old. Personally, I prefer it to the only other alternative.

Then your guess would be wrong. Plus, I have a hidden disability which can cause me to need the loo. On the times where this has been a particular concern of mine, I've made provision in case facilities aren't available. My disability also causes me pain if I have to stand for extended periods of time, which has happened to me several times during rail disruption, but I just grit my teeth and get on with it. If I knew I couldn't tolerate standing for a long period of time, I wouldn't board the train or would just book a coach in the first place.

But I still maintain that this being completely blown out of all proportion. If I turned up for a long journey and toilet access wasn't available, I'd ask if there was a plan B before departure. If there wasn't, I'd make one myself and complain afterwards. Nobody is forcing anyone at gunpoint to travel on such a train if they really don't want to.

 

[Farigiraf]

Nobody is forcing anyone at gunpoint to travel on such a train if they really don't want to.

Most people intending to travel on Lumo's service will have bought tickets in advance though, not knowing that there weren't going to be any toilets on board. You can't rely on passengers hearing station announcements either, so most people on the train only found out after it already left Euston. Had there been somebody onboard with a (not uncommon) medical condition, who didn't know beforehand about the lack of toilets onboard, the 33 minutes to Milton Keynes Central may have been too long to wait, let alone the 1+ hour between some of the other stops. Lumo got somewhat lucky in that respect, as it could've been an even worse incident.

With no ticket acceptance on other operators, your only other options are to not travel at all, or pay for a new ticket, both of which aren't acceptable solutions to something that's Lumo's responsibility.

 

[GordonT]

Nobody is forcing anyone at gunpoint to travel on such a train if they really don't want to.

But the proverbial "reasonable man (or woman) on the Clapham omnibus" would expect that purchase of a ticket on a London-Stirling train would confer admission to at least one working on-board toilet (a provision first extended 140 years ago to include 3rd class passengers according to Google).

 

[Davester50]

So based on this we have to withdraw all
Of the Elizabeth line trains? Some of those
journeys are over an hour if people use other throughout.

An intensive metro service, with toilets at stations every few minutes, and a thrice a day mainline Inter-City service?
That's completely comparable.

 

[Falcon1200]

But, yes, I believe that a train that has no (or insufficient) working toilets should be taken out of service.

So if the toilet on a unit which only has one is unavailable it should be withdrawn from service, and if there is no replacement, every train on the rest of that day's diagram should be cancelled?

 

[Masbroughlad]

It is the argument of having enough reliable trains and / or means to fix them, versus profit.

In 2026, whether a long distance train can provide toilets, should not even be an issue. Whether you can hold it in, or need to go often - the facilities should be there.

 

[AlterEgo]

So based on this we have to withdraw all
Of the Elizabeth line trains? Some of those
journeys are over an hour if people use other throughout.

Almost nobody is travelling for an hour on the Elizabeth Line. Running a 6 hour intercity service with no toilets is unacceptable.

 

[Coleridge]

In 2026, whether a long distance train can provide toilets, should not even be an issue. Whether you can hold it in, or need to go often - the facilities should be there.

Precisely. I can't believe that some people are defending train operating companies choosing to operate long-distance trains without toilet facilities.

 

[dk1]

I always carry an empty Tropicana bottle in my bag "for emergencies" - Never had to use it but you never know...

Prefer Lucozade personally