I didnt say it was to reduce complaints about overcrowding at all so I dont know where you inferred that from. What I did say however is that it would increase complaints about overcrowding. Especially as introducing, at vast expense I may add, toilet facilities to stock that maybe doesnt have any or does not have enough, will also have to make them DDA complaint too. Thats not a bad thing just pointing it out.
-
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!
Availability of train toilets
- Thread starter ryan125hst
- Start date
- Status
I didnt say it was to reduce complaints about overcrowding at all so I dont know where you inferred that from. What I did say however is that it would increase complaints about overcrowding. Especially as introducing, at vast expense I may add, toilet facilities to stock that maybe doesnt have any or does not have enough, will also have to make them DDA complaint too. Thats not a bad thing just pointing it out.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Section please.
GatwickDepress
Established Member
Some people can hold it in, but nobody wants to hold a full bladder for an hour. Young children for one, can't hold it in. Nobody wants a carriage stinking of urine (fans of Voyagers excepted
) and nobody wants the stench as a parent changes a baby's nappy on an Electrostar table.Some can't hold it in for medical reasons too. I believe there were a few vocal complaints when Southern were planning to introduce 313s on the Portsmouth - Brighton service (Roughly 80 minutes each way) on those grounds . Speaking of 313s, remember that one that was stranded in the snow for a few hours, forcing passengers to urinate out of the doors? To Southern's credit, on their website they do supply a list of stations en route with toilet facilities. To Southern's discredit, they neglect to mention Brighton's facilities require payment.
Some people like to enjoy a drink on the train too. Now, we're not talking about those yobbos who guzzle down Fosters like it might actually get them drunk, but perhaps someone that drank coffee bought at the station and it passed right through, or someone on their way to work after a hurried breakfast who can't afford to waste time on a toilet stop.
Toilets really should be on all trains.
was referring to the first part that said:
as Gatwick has posted - there are lots of people who for no fault of their own can not hold in needing to pee for an hour.
A-Driver picked an example that supports his argument, however there are many, many more examples of people who need to use the toilet frequently, most (all?) of whom are coverd by equality legislation.
They include:
The elderly
People with colostomy bags
People who take tablets the side effects of which is the 'sudden, urgent need to urinate'
You have repeatedly asserted that "equality legislation" or "the equality act" requires TOCs to provide toilet facilities for [insert group of people] but failed or refused to specify the appropriate section of an in-force law in the UK. Please do so, or withdraw your assertion.
Look at the services run by units with no toilets. You will find faster services to most of the final destination run by trains with toilets.
313s to letchworth have a journey of over an hour but anyone going beyond watton wi get a faster train from finsbury park with a toilet.
376s to dartford-a semi fast 465 service is avaliable semi fast to gillingham (and dartford is under an hour anyway).
Southern metro services are generally under an hour or services extending beyond east Croydon also have the mainliners from London-east Croydon which have toilets.
SWT has a similar argument to southern.
I have been driving suburban trains for many years and am yet to come across people wetting themselves because their bladders can't wait when they travel! Sorry but all those arguments are a lot of rubbish. If it was as serious a problem as people on here seem to think it is then something would have been done but there arnt scores of people wetting themselves on trains every day. Yes it's uncomfortable being caught short-we have all been there, but it dosnt mean you are going to have an accident. I'm sure people have been in meeting longer than am hour or sat through a film in the cinema for 2 hours without having to pop out for the loo?
Most people can hold on and those who can't will be aware of the problem and take extra precautions/plan their journey around it. And that's not me discriminating/being unPC or what ever else you want to accuse me of, anyone with a disability or medical condition will be aware of it and plan their life's around that. If you are in a wheelchair you will avoid stations with no step free access. If you have severe bladder weakness you will avoid long train journies which involve using the last train of the day so at least if the toilet is out of order or it is a non toilet train you can get off and catch the next one. And I'm not saying the railway shouldn't be doing things to help those with disabilities, but everything costs money and installing lifts and toilets isn't always as easy as it seems.
The majority of people who use suburban 'toilet less' trains are onboard for a short time only-often well under an hour, normally not even 30mins (most suburban trains empty out very quickly-the 313 services loose the vast majority of passengers by potters bar and Gordon hill). I will say what I said earlier and got shot down for again-any ABLE BODIED person can last over an hour between visiting the toilet. If you can't then it is a sign of bladder weakness and you should be seeking medical advice as there may be treatment avaliable. I am middle aged and certainly don't have the strongest bladder but can go an hour and a bit without needing the toilet, even with a flask of tea on the go which I always do have at work.
As for trains which have toilets but are locked out of use, its simple a choice between cancelling a train altogether or running it without toilets. Swapping units isn't always possible or as easy as it sounds and whilst they diagram units to take toilet emptying and water filling into account things go wrong-delays, essential unit swaps meaning a train misses tanking and vandalism is all to common causing a toilet to become in usable.
313s to letchworth have a journey of over an hour but anyone going beyond watton wi get a faster train from finsbury park with a toilet.
376s to dartford-a semi fast 465 service is avaliable semi fast to gillingham (and dartford is under an hour anyway).
Southern metro services are generally under an hour or services extending beyond east Croydon also have the mainliners from London-east Croydon which have toilets.
SWT has a similar argument to southern.
I have been driving suburban trains for many years and am yet to come across people wetting themselves because their bladders can't wait when they travel! Sorry but all those arguments are a lot of rubbish. If it was as serious a problem as people on here seem to think it is then something would have been done but there arnt scores of people wetting themselves on trains every day. Yes it's uncomfortable being caught short-we have all been there, but it dosnt mean you are going to have an accident. I'm sure people have been in meeting longer than am hour or sat through a film in the cinema for 2 hours without having to pop out for the loo?
Most people can hold on and those who can't will be aware of the problem and take extra precautions/plan their journey around it. And that's not me discriminating/being unPC or what ever else you want to accuse me of, anyone with a disability or medical condition will be aware of it and plan their life's around that. If you are in a wheelchair you will avoid stations with no step free access. If you have severe bladder weakness you will avoid long train journies which involve using the last train of the day so at least if the toilet is out of order or it is a non toilet train you can get off and catch the next one. And I'm not saying the railway shouldn't be doing things to help those with disabilities, but everything costs money and installing lifts and toilets isn't always as easy as it seems.
The majority of people who use suburban 'toilet less' trains are onboard for a short time only-often well under an hour, normally not even 30mins (most suburban trains empty out very quickly-the 313 services loose the vast majority of passengers by potters bar and Gordon hill). I will say what I said earlier and got shot down for again-any ABLE BODIED person can last over an hour between visiting the toilet. If you can't then it is a sign of bladder weakness and you should be seeking medical advice as there may be treatment avaliable. I am middle aged and certainly don't have the strongest bladder but can go an hour and a bit without needing the toilet, even with a flask of tea on the go which I always do have at work.
As for trains which have toilets but are locked out of use, its simple a choice between cancelling a train altogether or running it without toilets. Swapping units isn't always possible or as easy as it sounds and whilst they diagram units to take toilet emptying and water filling into account things go wrong-delays, essential unit swaps meaning a train misses tanking and vandalism is all to common causing a toilet to become in usable.
No I haven't. I said that the existence of the equality act is, in effect, making people more aware of issues around availability and provision of services for people who are not as able as most of the population. It's becoming less acceptable for people to make no adjustments (whether mandated by legislation or not) for people with diabilities.
Another example is anti-smoking legislation. A lot of people I know stopped smoking in their houses after the smoking ban came in. There was nothing in the legislation to say that you couldn't smoke in your own house, but my friends got used to going outside for a fag when they were out for the evening and carried on smoking outside when they got home. In fact now, none of my friends who smoke do so in their house. Most of them smoked in their houses a few years ago.
But as ever we're way off topic. The original issue isn't around provision of toilets on all services, but how the TOCs can keep the toilets they have in working order.
Well read the end of my post above-I have listed a few if the problems which can cause a train to run without a working toilet and the reasons that very little can be done about it apart from cancelling the train altogether.
I think the issue a lot of people have is that often it sems that the door is just shut on the problem and it's left. As with a most things on the railway it's more complicated than it seems, but at the point of friction there seems to be little TOCs do (compared to what they could do) to explain those issues. You wind up coming on a site like this to understand the issues.
It dosn't need to be complicated. A simple sign on the door that says - I'm sorry this toilet has developed a fault (or been vandalised, is full, whatever) and can not be fixed until: we get back to depot / we fill up with more water / someone comes along with a plunger would go a long way to helping people understand the issues.
We know that the TOCs are pretty bad a communicating in general, and basically operating as a monopoly with a largely captive customer base means they have little encouragement to improve.
The point I'm making is that in the grand scheme of London overcrowding, the inclusion of a toilet in a four car unit isn't going to make a huge impact compared to the added comfort to passengers throughout the rest of the day. Think of the Dusty Bins which manage to operate crowded peak services as well as providing a quality environment at other times. Admittedly with DDA you're talking about 1 toilet rather than two, but the point still stands.
And I agree that there's no point in retrofitting them to trains that only have five years left, but think that new trains should have them fitted as standard.
Some people can hold it in, but nobody wants to hold a full bladder for an hour. Young children for one, can't hold it in. Nobody wants a carriage stinking of urine (fans of Voyagers excepted
Some can't hold it in for medical reasons too. I believe there were a few vocal complaints when Southern were planning to introduce 313s on the Portsmouth - Brighton service (Roughly 80 minutes each way) on those grounds . Speaking of 313s, remember that one that was stranded in the snow for a few hours, forcing passengers to urinate out of the doors? To Southern's credit, on their website they do supply a list of stations en route with toilet facilities. To Southern's discredit, they neglect to mention Brighton's facilities require payment.
Some people like to enjoy a drink on the train too. Now, we're not talking about those yobbos who guzzle down Fosters like it might actually get them drunk, but perhaps someone that drank coffee bought at the station and it passed right through, or someone on their way to work after a hurried breakfast who can't afford to waste time on a toilet stop.
Toilets really should be on all trains.
Well said!
To many people a disability only exists if they can see it! Apparently, one in seven will have some sort of bowel or bladder disorder before they die, some live with conditions such as IBS for many years but their conditions are increasingly ignored by many, in particular the railway companies who often show a couldn't care less attitude.
That's a particularly poor example, given that the 465's are suburban units which were built with toilets to replace toiletless EPB's.
Generally I feel that the compromise on space required to include toilets on trains is a rather better compromise than expecting elderly residents on the Tattenham Corner and Caterham branches, for example, to hop on and off of of trains at Croydon just to use the loo as a matter of course.
To be honest I agree with everything surrounding toilets as A-driver has said really. nAnd its the reason why the Overground was never fitted with them.. No need for short journeys
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Thats rather a bold statement given the TOCs dont purchase the trains in the first place and have very little say apart from the decor in how they are fitted out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Thats rather a bold statement given the TOCs dont purchase the trains in the first place and have very little say apart from the decor in how they are fitted out.
So how many old people on the tattenham and caterham branches wet themselves onboard the trains? I think people on here are creating problems which don't exist.
If you have bladder weakness then you will be aware of it and will make provisions for it, like with any disability or medical condition. This may mean planning shorter journeys with breaks in between.
Plus every platform at east Croydon has a toilet so if anyone is that desperate they can get off there, use the toilet and then wait for the next train (if going to London then they won't have much more than a few minutes to wit either).
I take it that no one arguing for loos on suburban trains have ever seen 313s going into moorgate in the morning, or a southeastern leaving lewisham towards London bridge or some of the trains off of clapham junction? Absolutely rammed. You couldn't fit a toilet on them.
As I say, any evidence to suggest that this is actually a problem in suburban trains would be appreciated as at the moment it's just a case of people making up a problem that actually dosnt exist, as I said before, if you can't go an hour without feeling very uncomfortable then its worth going to see your GP as there is probably something wrong with you.
bronzeonion
Member
You could just leave them open to be honest if the area isn't bad, I doubt you'll have gangs making drug deals and smashing it all up on the West Highland Line etc
The majority of stations that are currently unstaffed in built up areas should really have a member of staff but its all about money these days.
Are the services you mention more rammed than the Networkers going into London Bridge? Thameslink? The various trains going into Paddington from Reading of a rush hour?
Didn't think so. Whilst there will always be problems with toilets running out of water etc, I think the issues cited against ensuring that new trains on local routes are built with tpilets are overstated - because it's already been done.
Moorgate trains off of finsbury park are certainly more crowded than thameslink/FGW etc-to the extent the doors won't close as too many people are rammed in!
They won't put toilets in unless the journey length requires it which most suburban journies of an hour or so don't. This is going around in circles but once more...if you can't last an hour without needing the loo then you have a problem and shod be seeking medical help, not criticising the railways for not providing for you!
burneside
Member
Many (possibly the majority) of the Southeastern metro trains that serve Lewisham DO have toilets on them.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Agreed. I'm 31 so not 'old' (unless you ask my girlfriend!) but I have had type-1 diabetes since the age of nine- I often make use of toilets on trains to do my injections, and in my area all trains have toilets fitted at least. Sometimes the toilet will be OOU or simply in a terrible state but if that's the case and I need to inject, I will do so in my seat. This might mean going out of sequence with injection sites (I wouldn't drop my kecks on a 507 or in the 'saloon' of a 150, for example!) but to an extent, there are certain things about life that we just have to live with and adapt to.
The full DDA accessibility legislation comes in in 2019 I think, and I'm absolutely in favour of all stations being made accessible to those of limited mobility and think the cost of such things is not a valid reason to not provide it. But toilets on trains have inherent problems as mentioned by other posters. Suburban trains with frequent stops and services on busy routes are used by the majority of passengers in the same way that bus, tram or light-rail services are used- for short hops: so a balance has to be struck between providing a full DDA-compliant toilet, and providing space for all those who wish to travel.
Ideally stations should be provided with toilets if possible, but with our restrictive loading gauge space is at a premium, so maybe for high-density commuter stock the lack of toilets is a sacrifice worth making. For stock on longer-distance services toilets aboslutely should be provided, and perhaps some of the money saved by not having to clean and repair toilets that are repeatedly trashed by idiots could be put towards the cost of increasing the availability of facilities to empty the CET tanks more regularly on those trains that still require toilets.
Last edited:
I don't agree with the observation that suburban services are mostly used for short hops. Most suburban routes are radial, which means that the majority of people will be travelling from all points along it to the end. By it's nature, this means that you will have a larger proportion of people travelling from stops near the outer end to the metropolitan terminus than would be the case for a true metro system.
But we are still talking short journies of an hour or less. As I say-you can last an hour without needing the loo.
To make all stations DDA compliant would cost billions. The average accessible bridge cost about £2m. Who pays for it?
asylumxl
Established Member
While this is true, it isn't necessary for every station. Some could be as simple as adding a ramp in the place of stairs at a single platform station.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Technically, we all should, because a world with equal opportunity and accessibility for all will be a better world for all of us. Clearly 2019 is too soon to achieve it, but it should certainly be an aspiration. There are plenty of things that are less deserving of that investment (Trident, Tax cuts for the rich, or IEP for example) but I'll avoid drifting further away from the topic!
martybabes
Member
This seems to be saying that you don't have to comply with the law if you can't afford to. This will be very convenient when I next have to MOT my car!
Does this excuse work in all situations?
What other Countries are going for DDA as much as this Country is?
Most European railways arent thats for sure.
The DDA has been repealed, but as far as I know the replacing legislation says that reasonable accommodations do not include going to great expense on its own. If you are doing work, you must make it accessible, but if you are not doing work for another reason you don't have to do anything.
- Status