Could train toilet tanks be made to overspill onto the track when full?

[Peter Wilde]

Regarding a comment that "the toilets are likely to be working as designed i.e. lock out of use when full - the alternative would be extremely unpleasant!”:

Surely that is a design flaw?

Yes, toilet tanks should be fitted and of course should normally take all the waste. But if there is some reason the tank is full, why not allow an overflow to the track? Maybe with a dye marker so track workers can know to avoid it till cleared up or disinfected? Surely better in a last resort than requiring passengers to soil themselves because the advertised toilet on a long distance service is suddenly un-available, an agonising position for those with bladder etc disabilities?

Agree that if the train is defective at the start of the journey, it should not be taken into service and if waiting for the next train from that operator is more than (say) 30 minutes, the operator should be required to pay for ticket validity on whatever the next service is. This is what GBR should be about - frequent services available to all, and so good there is little scope for open-access infrequent services to muscle in and get paths on main routes.

Final thought - if it’s a reasonable passenger expectation that aircraft will always have working toilets, why can’t trains?

 

[JonathanH]

Yes, toilet tanks should be fitted and of course should normally take all the waste. But if there is some reason the tank is full, why not allow an overflow to the track?

The railway has only just got to a point where toilets now all have retention tanks, and isn't going to go back on that progress.

 

[JonathanH]

Agree that if the train is defective at the start of the journey, it should not be taken into service and if waiting for the next train from that operator is more than (say) 30 minutes, the operator should be required to pay for ticket validity on whatever the next service is. This is what GBR should be about - frequent services available to all, and so good there is little scope for open-access infrequent services to muscle in and get paths on main routes.

Indeed, the limited resources of open access operators do somewhat conflict with a future railway which is better able to cope with disruption.

However, perhaps the other thing that the railway is not investing in is the travelling fitter / cleaner who can deal with issues such as failed or blocked toilets and get them back into use on the move. This is something that privatisation has not helped with and a single railway could better provide.

Final thought - if it’s a reasonable passenger expectation that aircraft will always have working toilets, why can’t trains?

Do airplane crew have to unblock toilets in flight if passenger action renders them out of use?

 

[43096]

Yes, toilet tanks should be fitted and of course should normally take all the waste. But if there is some reason the tank is full, why not allow an overflow to the track? Maybe with a dye marker so track workers can know to avoid it till cleared up or disinfected?

The toilet waste on the track is only part of the problem. Do you want to stand trackside as a train passes at 125mph as it discharges toilet waste? This is the 21st century, such practices - and the obvious health hazards that go with them - are completely unacceptable.

 

[181]

The toilet waste on the track is only part of the problem. Do you want to stand trackside as a train passes at 125mph as it discharges toilet waste? This is the 21st century, such practices - and the obvious health hazards that go with them - are completely unacceptable.

I accept than in the world we live in this suggestion is never going to happen and the only solution is for the railway to design, maintain and empty its toilets properly so the situation doesn't arise; but if passengers can't wait, to put it bluntly, the track is a better place than the floor inside the train. And an overflowing tank should only be an occasional situation, and my understanding is that working on the track next to moving trains now happens less than it used to, so both things happening at once will be even rarer.

Maybe the plumbing should be redesigned so the water from the washbasin goes onto the track rather than filling up the tank (or does it already work like that?) -- provided that isn't used as an excuse to empty the tank less often.

 

[brad465]

There have been proposals to fit bioreactor toilets which heavily treat the waste then dump it. If it works this would be solution that both prevents toilet tanks becoming full while dumping "cleaner" waste, though whether this is publicly acceptable still is another matter.

Could train toilets dumping onto track return in a "friendly" way?

A colleague of mine, now working in a different part of the country in waste management, revealed that they have been collaborating with a TOC in this country looking at getting permission to allow toilet waste to be dumped on the track, after having been through a bioreactor toilet. Despite the...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Egg Centric]

In principle I'm with you under a very specific circumstance - there being no other option. So with the recent Lumo incident where it was known in advance, absolutely not - passengers (like me) who need the toilet a lot should be informed to take another service.

But in a circumstance where the retention tanks go out of service I think that this a better solution that having to go in a corner or whatever, absolutely. The posts above seem to be about preventing it under any circumstances so that it doesn't happen under lessened circumstances but I don't like this sort of logic (and it's precisely the kind of thing that ends up with treating eg disabled and unemployed people awfully which I would hope those inclined towards it think about)

 

[Trainbike46]

There have been proposals to fit bioreactor toilets which heavily treat the waste then dump it. If it works this would be solution that both prevents toilet tanks becoming full while dumping "cleaner" waste, though whether this is publicly acceptable still is another matter.

Could train toilets dumping onto track return in a "friendly" way?

A colleague of mine, now working in a different part of the country in waste management, revealed that they have been collaborating with a TOC in this country looking at getting permission to allow toilet waste to be dumped on the track, after having been through a bioreactor toilet. Despite the...

www.railforums.co.uk

The 701s and many trains in the Netherlands and Switzerland Saturday have bioreactor toilets, they work and are publicly acceptable. If it is acceptable in SWR-land, why not in the rest of the country?

Fully accessible bioreactor Controlled Emission Toilets (CET), including for those using wheelchairs, will be available across the entire fleet. These types of toilets are the first to be rolled out on an entire UK fleet and are used in Europe, including the Netherlands and Switzerland.


CET toilets biologically and thermally treat waste to produce wastewater which is compliant with EU bathing water standards. Once the trains are introduced, there will be 1 toilet per every 5-car train and 2 per every 10-car train.

source: https://www.southwesternrailway.com/travelling-with-us/our-trains/arterio

 

[Zomboid]

The 701s and many trains in the Netherlands and Switzerland Saturday have bioreactor toilets, they work and are publicly acceptable. If it is acceptable in SWR-land, why not in the rest of the country?




source: https://www.southwesternrailway.com/travelling-with-us/our-trains/arterio

Do they dump the result onto the tracks, though?

I can't imagine a universe in which it's acceptable to restart dumping raw sewage onto the track (someone's workplace, remember), creating a fine mist which coats the whole train (in particular the door buttons). Some solution where the output is demonstrably "clean" might be worth discussing, though even that should be a last resort.

And what would happen if the bioreactor were to fall?

 

[Trainbike46]

Do they dump the result onto the tracks, though?

They treat the waste, retain the solids (which, at least in the Netherlands, go in a separate tank that needs emptying ~4 times per year; the system works the same for the 701s and in Switzerland, but emptying frequency may vary), and dump the treated, sterilised, liquid on the track.

I can't imagine a universe in which it's acceptable to restart dumping raw sewage onto the track (someone's workplace, remember), creating a fine mist which coats the whole train (in particular the door buttons). Some solution where the output is demonstrably "clean" might be worth discussing, though even that should be a last resort.

As above, these systems don't dump raw sewage. They've been in use for many years, including in the UK.

And what would happen if the bioreactor were to fall?

The train needs to go for maintenance to get it fixed? My understanding is that these systems are very reliable though.

 

[Zomboid]

They treat the waste, retain the solids (which, at least in the Netherlands, go in a separate tank that needs emptying ~4 times per year; the system works the same for the 701s and in Switzerland, but emptying frequency may vary), and dump the treated, sterilised, liquid on the track.

As above, these systems don't dump raw sewage. They've been in use for many years, including in the UK.

The train needs to go for maintenance to get it fixed? My understanding is that these systems are very reliable though.

If 701s are dumping clean water then that's a precedent, though it would only apply to trains with that system. Even if it goes to a tank, presumably that could be emptied more easily than a conventional tanked toilet.

Though a failed reactor would probably need to render the toilet inoperable.

(I wasn't suggesting that these dump raw sewage, but no system that does will ever be accepted again - probably should have ordered my post differently).

 

[SynthD]

Do you want to stand trackside as a train passes at 125mph as it discharges toilet waste? This is the 21st century, such practices - and the obvious health hazards that go with them - are completely unacceptable.

How near can a track worker be to a passing train at 125mph? Probably no nearer than I can be at Reading station.

The 701's bioreactor toilets still go out of use it seems. https://www.railforums.co.uk/search/8080398/?q=toilet&t=post&c[thread]=148717&o=relevance

The other obvious answer is a bigger tank, but it probably already fills the available space or has other limits, such as at the point of emptying.

 

[NCT]

Ending the dumping of toilet waste on the track was a landmark piece of legislation by Baroness Kramer. It’s too much of a sacred cow to be rowed back, and for very valid reasons.

 

[bahnause]

They treat the waste, retain the solids (which, at least in the Netherlands, go in a separate tank that needs emptying ~4 times per year; the system works the same for the 701s and in Switzerland, but emptying frequency may vary), and dump the treated, sterilised, liquid on the track.

As above, these systems don't dump raw sewage. They've been in use for many years, including in the UK.

The train needs to go for maintenance to get it fixed? My understanding is that these systems are very reliable though.

All systems are very reliable as long as you don't throw trash into them (diapers, sanitary pads, teddy bears, gym bags, clothes, cell phones, and other electronic devices). These items cause more than 80% of all malfunctions.

 

[35B]

All systems are very reliable as long as you don't throw trash into them (diapers, sanitary pads, teddy bears, gym bags, clothes, cell phones, and other electronic devices). These items cause more than 80% of all malfunctions.

And, in the real world where people do throw trash into the loo, what is the actual level of reliability attained?

As the core issue identified in the OP is keeping on top of routine maintenance, so that tanks don't overfill, I'd also then be interested to know how much of the waste being put down the loo is "misuse", and how much the bins being too full to put their sanitary pad/diaper/nappy wipes into?

 

[AndrewE]

I would say no to the original question, because as soon as that is formalised it will become the default and we are back with sewage routinely dropped on the tracks, even though we are still shifting all the weight and expense of the tanks round the country...

(BR modernisation plan diesels had engine-bed sumps to catch oil leaks with stop-taps in the drains . The idea was that they would be drained down at maintenance sheds. What happened was that the taps were left open so that a depot job was eliminated... the downside was that he amount of oil on the underframes caused loco fires when sprayed with brake-block sparks.)

 

[Snow1964]

And, in the real world where people do throw trash into the loo, what is the actual level of reliability attained?

As the core issue identified in the OP is keeping on top of routine maintenance, so that tanks don't overfill, I'd also then be interested to know how much of the waste being put down the loo is "misuse", and how much the bins being too full to put their sanitary pad/diaper/nappy wipes into?

It's a good point about full bins.

If a person has something that needs to be disposed of, then taking away the recommended alternative, which is going to cause misuse.

It starts with design though, if a service is many hours and full, have to expect the toilet to be used dozens of times, so need to provide the capacity.

And if it hasn't got capacity to do another journey, shouldn't be putting it in service so it fails or locks out on route. These things really need to be part of the pre service checks, with alternative stock available where they regularly need sorting.

Maybe some terminus need a toilet servicing siding, in similar place to old loco headshunt sidings, because taking to/from a depot takes too long. Nearly all have some disused siding space which is just a weed patch alongside their approaches

 

[bahnause]

And, in the real world where people do throw trash into the loo, what is the actual level of reliability attained?

Somewhere above 98% if you keep repairing them quickly.

As the core issue identified in the OP is keeping on top of routine maintenance, so that tanks don't overfill, I'd also then be interested to know how much of the waste being put down the loo is "misuse", and how much the bins being too full to put their sanitary pad/diaper/nappy wipes into?

Every single item that is not human waste or toilet paper is considered a system misuse. Infrastructure, sewage networks (not only on trains), and septic tanks are strictly engineered to only process the "3 Ps": pee, poo, and toilet paper. Flushing an unflushable item is a behavioral choice driven by convenience or an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality. You are responsible for your own waste: If the bin in the toilet is full, you do not get a free pass to break the plumbing. The only correct, civilized option is to wrap the item up, put it in your bag or pocket, and carry it with you until you find an empty bin. Most toilets on trains automatically shut when the water tanks are empty or the waste tanks are full, so they don‘t overfill.

 

[35B]

Somewhere above 98% if you keep repairing them quickly.

Thanks

Every single item that is not human waste or toilet paper is considered a system misuse. Infrastructure, sewage networks (not only on trains), and septic tanks are strictly engineered to only process the "3 Ps": pee, poo, and toilet paper. Flushing an unflushable item is a behavioral choice driven by convenience or an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality. You are responsible for your own waste: If the bin in the toilet is full, you do not get a free pass to break the plumbing. The only correct, civilized option is to wrap the item up, put it in your bag or pocket, and carry it with you until you find an empty bin. Most toilets on trains automatically shut when the water tanks are empty or the waste tanks are full, so they don‘t overfill.

I'm well aware and agree in principle, but this answer blames the user. The quid pro quo is that, in the interests of the operator, there need to be decent bins so people don't have to do that with foul waste (and, yes, in my time I've had to deal with really foul nappies where the toilet provider has had inadequate facilities, and have bagged and removed).

 

[Snow1964]

The only correct, civilized option is to wrap the item up, put it in your bag or pocket, and carry it with you until you find an empty bin.

To be fair to customers, fitting things like baby change trays, then not fitting bins that can hold a decent number of disposable nappies is just stupidity and lack of thinking. Your idea that someone would want to put a bundle of poo in their pocket (in a not provided bag) is weird

It also doesn't help when Operators employ contractors to go through trains collecting empty cups and wrappers, but leave bins overflowing.

 

[bahnause]

To be fair to customers, fitting things like baby change trays, then not fitting bins that can hold a decent number of disposable nappies is just stupidity and lack of thinking. Your idea that someone would want to put a bundle of poo in their pocket (in a not provided bag) is weird

It’s foolish to use a train or any other space-constrained object as a suitable container for trash disposal. Everyone is responsible for their own trash. We consciously buy plastic waste for the sake of convenience. It wouldn’t be too much to ask to also give some thought to how we can dispose of it properly. By the way, this also applies to unsightly items like diapers. It’s certainly not possible to dispose of them everywhere, I can’t remember ever “disposing” of them in the woods or a park out of convenience just because the nearest trash can was full or not nearby. I wouldn’t call that weird; rather, it’s simply basic human decency in a reasonably civilized world.

(And I don‘t think for a second a full bin is the main reason for people throwing trash into the toilet and therefore one of the main problems for the availability of working loos.)

 

[35B]

It’s foolish to use a train or any other space-constrained object as a suitable container for trash disposal. Everyone is responsible for their own trash. We consciously buy plastic waste for the sake of convenience. It wouldn’t be too much to ask to also give some thought to how we can dispose of it properly. By the way, this also applies to unsightly items like diapers. It’s certainly not possible to dispose of them everywhere, I can’t remember ever “disposing” of them in the woods or a park out of convenience just because the nearest trash can was full or not nearby. I wouldn’t call that weird; rather, it’s simply basic human decency in a reasonably civilized world.

(And I don‘t think for a second a full bin is the main reason for people throwing trash into the toilet and therefore one of the main problems for the availability of working loos.)

We are in the real world; if we want people to comply, we need to make it straightforward for them to do so. When my children were in nappies, I of course bagged and carried when necessary. But it was always a second preference to disposing responsibly at the point of use.

And, no I don't assume for one moment that full bins are the only reason for misuse of loos - just that the demand for compliance is much more plausible when the compliance is supported rather than just demanded.

 

[Peter Wilde]

No argument that dumping poo etc on the track is uncivilised and in an ideal world should never happen. However:

There needs to be a way, in extremis, to deal with personal-hygiene issues on trains where the advertised and usually available toilets are unavailable;

Mere non-availability of water due to empty tanks should not cause toilets to be locked out of use;

Any emergencies-only system to help passengers would be inadmissible if it depended on staff being there to hand out nappies, direct people to an elsan in the guard’s space, or anything else. Why? because there might be no staff available.

One other thing. Toilet waste was as a matter of course dumped on tracks for about a hundred years, as a matter of course. And that included express trains at, for those days, high speeds so yes, the exteriors must have been coated in it. Don’t think there is any evidence of widespread ill health among staff as a result? It is more of an amenity issue. The (laudable) pressure to make such routine practices unacceptable surely came from unions trying to secure better working conditions for their members; and managers hoping to make recruitment easier too.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that if we're concerned about waste tank capacity, the better approach would be to drain sink water onto the track, rather than allowing toilet overflow.

There's also the question as to how often train toilets actually lock themselves out due to the waste tank filling, rather than running out of flushing water etc.

(That said, I have seen occasions of the bowl full and sloshing).

The bio-reactor toilet is my preferred way forward.

 

[Nammer]

On the Desiro Class 444/450s the water from the sink is discharged straight to the tracks. I used to empty the toilet tanks at a SWT depot. The amount of blockages caused by flushing of items such as knickers, sanitary towels, cuddly toys etc... down the toilets was incredible! That is why the stickers were put on the toilet lids to try and make people think about doing it. It could also bung up any of the CET machines at the depot, which rendered it out of use, until someone could get into it and remove offending item. All on train toilets could be emptied of waste and full of water to flush and still be out of use due to suction faults. The tanks were supposed to last approximately 48 hours on normal flush usage.