Lumo running train with no toilets

[Dr Hoo]

Is no toilets regular on Lumo ? From reports on this thread it appears so. Are there penalties for sub standard service ?

The phrase ‘accessible toilets’ applies to the large ‘universal’ toilets, rather than the smaller facilities as well.
(I am not claiming that the absence of toilets suitable for some users is acceptable.)

 

[Sorcerer]

It was a longer stop on this run because of the toilet issue.

Well in that case I think Lumo made the right choice. For what it's worth there wasn't much they could do if toilets weren't working and they had passengers to take care of.

 

[Segedunum]

So it begs the question, Are train crew able to refuse to work a train with no working toilets? And do different TOCs have different policies as to whether a train is allowed to run in service without a working toilet?

I've had an LNER TM have control arrange ticket acceptance on the following service a few months ago when a nine-car Azuma ended up down to three toilets then made the decision to have it cancelled at Newcastle (on the way to Edinburgh) when it was down to one.

In this case it was a combination of the set being outstabled and a fault.

 

[LCC106]

Unless I’ve overlooked a comment I find it quite ironic that we are 8 pages into a discussion about whether or not it’s acceptable to run a service without working toilets without mentioning on board crew and their needs. Especially when many of the general public don’t take the need for train drivers to have access to toilet facilities within four hours as seriously or class it as just as important.

 

[Haywain]

Especially when many of the general public don’t take the need for train drivers to have access to toilet facilities within four hours as seriously or class it as just as important.

It's not the general public's role to know or care about such things. It is not an unreasonable assumption that part of providing a service as advertised has taken into account the needs of the staff required to provide that service. And if that hasn't happened it's up to the company, those staff and their representatives to work something out.

 

[GoneSouth]

Unless I’ve overlooked a comment I find it quite ironic that we are 8 pages into a discussion about whether or not it’s acceptable to run a service without working toilets without mentioning on board crew and their needs. Especially when many of the general public don’t take the need for train drivers to have access to toilet facilities within four hours as seriously or
class it as just as important.

Well said. I guess the company just said join the queue with everyone else at Nuneaton or Preston or wherever they decide to stop that day. Not fair in them at all. At least if they join the back of the queue the train won’t leave anyone behind I suppose.

It's not the general public's role to know or care about such things. It is not an unreasonable assumption that part of providing a service as advertised has taken into account the needs of the staff required to provide that service. And if that hasn't happened it's up to the company, those staff and their representatives to work something out.

Whilst the travelling public shouldn’t have to care about the working conditions of the people providing them a service, I genuinely think we should all be a little more savvy about how things are made/delivered including welfare of the people making the goods or providing the service. Yes in this case it’s down to the company and unions to work out the issues but why should people not care, that’s an awful thing to say.

 

[AlterEgo]

The general public are not going to give a second thought to crew toilet needs, and they aren't bad people if they don't. They're just customers wanting to go to their destination. It also doesn't make someone a bad person to point this out. It is simply true.

 

[Falcon1200]

Unless I’ve overlooked a comment I find it quite ironic that we are 8 pages into a discussion about whether or not it’s acceptable to run a service without working toilets without mentioning on board crew and their needs.

The Traincrew could however, for their needs, stop the train at a toileted location not suitable for public use, ie due to short platforms or dispatch issues?

 

[8ace]

Don't they crew change at Preston anyway?

 

[sprunt]

The driver's toilet needs are presumably never going to be met by on-train toilets anyway, presumably, given that they can't just get up and go when the train's moving, so they're always going to take their breaks when the train's stopped be it at staff facilities or public facilities - as such I don't see how that's relevant to this thread. Obviously, their employer should ensure that the timetable allows this.

 

[Merle Haggard]

The driver's toilet needs are presumably never going to be met by on-train toilets anyway, presumably, given that they can't just get up and go when the train's moving, so they're always going to take their breaks when the train's stopped be it at staff facilities or public facilities - as such I don't see how that's relevant to this thread. Obviously, their employer should ensure that the timetable allows this.

Drivers have booked Physical Needs Breaks where a lavatory (amongst other facilities) must be provided. PNBs required after specified hours of duty.
Nothing similar for customers, though.

 

[LCC106]

It's not the general public's role to know or care about such things. It is not an unreasonable assumption that part of providing a service as advertised has taken into account the needs of the staff required to provide that service. And if that hasn't happened it's up to the company, those staff and their representatives to work something out.

So why should the train driver or conductor care about the passenger’s needs? Not being funny but quid versus quo, surely.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2026 ==

The driver's toilet needs are presumably never going to be met by on-train toilets anyway, presumably, given that they can't just get up and go when the train's moving, so they're always going to take their breaks when the train's stopped be it at staff facilities or public facilities - as such I don't see how that's relevant to this thread. Obviously, their employer should ensure that the timetable allows this.

This is entirely relevant. Passengers are in uproar about a service without a toilet for several hours, quite rightly so in my opinion. OK to expect a driver, whether freight or passenger, to equally not have access to a toilet? Ridiculous!

 

[Haywain]

So why should the train driver or conductor care about the passenger’s needs? Not being funny but quid versus quo, surely.

Because it's their job? So definitely not the same.

 

[Forty29]

They should rename the company either NoLoumo or Noshomo.
Sorry about my toilet humour l'm surprised no one's mentioned it before(apologies if someone has didn't mean to upstage you)

 

[styles]

They should rename the company either NoLoumo or Noshomo.
Sorry about my toilet humour l'm surprised no one's mentioned it before(apologies if someone has didn't mean to upstage you)

Poono East Coast

 

[AlterEgo]

So why should the train driver or conductor care about the passenger’s needs? Not being funny but quid versus quo, surely.

That isn't how a relationship works between the employee of a business and its customers. This is a very silly line of argument, and as has already been explained, the crew change at Preston and drivers have mandated off-train PNBs.

Whether your toilet needs are met is between you/your union and your employer. It isn't the preserve of the paying customer to care any more than it is your prerogative to care about how long the cleaning staff work when you stay in a hotel. It is reasonable to assume staff needs are being met if you are turning up and paying for a service.

 

[GordonT]

Lumo's current seemingly daily problems are not all toilet-related.
From today's www.journeycheck.com/lumo
08:50 Stirling to London Euston due 15:00 was cancelled.
Looks like the 1636 ex Euston-Stirling may (or may not) operate.

08:50 Stirling to London Euston due 15:00 has been cancelled.
This is due to a problem currently under investigation at Stirling.
Additional Information
Due to an issue with the windscreen this train has been cancelled at Stirling.
Further Information
Passengers travelling from Crewe, Nuneaton and Milton Keynes are advised to travel with London Northwestern on the 13:13 Crewe to Euston service.

16:36 London Euston to Stirling due 22:32 may be cancelled.
This is due to a fault on this train at Stirling.
Additional Information
Due to a fault with the train earlier today this service is subject to alteration today.
Last Updated:14/08/2026 11:58

 

[Furrball]

But you will now be able to order pizza...

Get Domino's Pizza delivered to your London - Scotland train seat!

Trainline, Domino's and Lumo have teamed up to offer a first-of-its-kind offering this Bank Holiday Weekend. The Train Thru delivery service will see Lumo passengers be able to order their favourite pizza direct to their train seat. Lumo says that 63% of train travellers have wanted to have a hot…

www.railadvent.co.uk

 

[dk1]

But you will now be able to order pizza...

Get Domino's Pizza delivered to your London - Scotland train seat!

Trainline, Domino's and Lumo have teamed up to offer a first-of-its-kind offering this Bank Holiday Weekend. The Train Thru delivery service will see Lumo passengers be able to order their favourite pizza direct to their train seat. Lumo says that 63% of train travellers have wanted to have a hot…

www.railadvent.co.uk

All forgiven now

 

[Falcon1200]

But you will now be able to order pizza...

The box might come in handy......

 

[CR165022]

But you will now be able to order pizza...

Get Domino's Pizza delivered to your London - Scotland train seat!

Trainline, Domino's and Lumo have teamed up to offer a first-of-its-kind offering this Bank Holiday Weekend. The Train Thru delivery service will see Lumo passengers be able to order their favourite pizza direct to their train seat. Lumo says that 63% of train travellers have wanted to have a hot…

www.railadvent.co.uk

Very ambitious to assume anyone will actually get their order considering you're more than likely to be delayed or cancelled.

 

[JonathanH]

Pizza is amongst the more off-putting hot food smells for passengers not taking up the option.

 

[Towers]

Would a tie-up with “Pizza Express” not have been more apt?!

 

[dk1]

Would a tie-up with “Pizza Express” not have been more apt?!

I wasn’t sure if they deliver but apparently they do.

 

[GoneSouth]

The box might come in handy......

Nice!



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 20:24 ==

When I first started reading I thought how the hell are they going to deliver those in a 2 minute station stop, forgot they had a 20 minute toilet stop now.

Maybe Papa Johns would be more appropriate.

Stopping for the John…? don’t forget your Papa Johns pizza

 

[Haywain]

Would a tie-up with “Pizza Express” not have been more apt?!

Given the reliability of the units, and the impact of one cancellation on the next service, perhaps Domino's.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I wasn’t sure if they deliver but apparently they do.

Do they use Deliverpoo?

 

[Towers]

Given the reliability of the units, and the impact of one cancellation on the next service, perhaps Domino's.

 

[Darandio]

The first-of-its-kind offering comes as new research reveals 57% of train travellers are hungry for more food options while travelling.

If only there was a way to solve this......

 

[aaronspence]

Hope dominos get paid first, Cash on delivery might not be very reliable...