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!
Both of you are making it out like it’s a very simple thing to do. It does not work like that at all, and just refilling them a little would be an extremely inefficient and ultimately wasteful way of doing things considering how water-hungry the 701 toilets are.
It isn’t like there’s many water browsers in the first place. There are only a few, and the sheer number of units that have at least one toilet locked out due to insufficient water levels means realistically it would be very difficult to attend to each unit considering the suburban turnaround times
Realistically the only way things change is they either need to commit to investing in some more browsers, or to find a type of browser that can refill (and move) much quicker. Easier said then done, but the water browser guys do their very best to try do what they can with the resources at hand.
So we passengers should just shut up and accept that a brand new fleet of trains will be running without functioning toilets for much of the day, because "the railway" can't find a way to make them work properly?
If you ever suffer bladder or prostate problems, you may realise just how callous and inhumane that response is. Perhaps SWR should offer free SWR-branded incontinence pants to passengers, as a daily reminder of the way they've failed their less fortunate customers.
So we passengers should just shut up and accept that a brand new fleet of trains will be running without functioning toilets for much of the day, because "the railway" can't find a way to make them work properly?
If you ever suffer bladder or prostate problems, you may realise just how callous and inhumane that response is. Perhaps SWR should offer free SWR-branded incontinence pants to passengers, as a daily reminder of the way they've failed their less fortunate customers.
So we passengers should just shut up and accept that a brand new fleet of trains will be running without functioning toilets for much of the day, because "the railway" can't find a way to make them work properly?
If you ever suffer bladder or prostate problems, you may realise just how callous and inhumane that response is. Perhaps SWR should offer free SWR-branded incontinence pants to passengers, as a daily reminder of the way they've failed their less fortunate customers.
That isn’t my point at all. If you want to take my comments like that then good for you. All I’m trying to do is describe and explain the issues from within. I’ve already said the toilet situation is not good, but I’m also trying to demonstrate that it isn’t so simple to fix as suggested on here currently for a few reasons. Is it good enough? No it isn’t. Frankly it is wholly unacceptable. This is coming from a member of onboard staff who has to constantly apologise to passengers who ask me if the toilets are working. So there aren’t many more people than me who want this issue sorted out ASAP.
Having said that, I will reiterate it isn’t so simple to employ more staff or order more browsers and get them at some of the outer terminuses. That’ll require more staff - who would need sufficient training of not just how to operate the water browser - but also the safety element, as the use of a browser requires a ‘Not to be moved’ sign to be placed, so they would need to be trained on that. Would SWR be happy to fork out the money for this? Highly doubt it. Should they, yes but let’s be realistic. Then you have to consider not every suburban service sits at the outer terminus for very long. For instance, between Monday-Saturday Shepperton services don’t dwell at either end for anything more than 8 minutes for instance. That’s assuming it arrives on time. Are you then doing to delay the train to refill the toilets? I don’t think those running the operation would give that a thought. Should they? Probably, but that’s a different question altogether.
It is going to be the staffing costs that will kill that idea. Furthermore it SHOULD not be a reactive task but one where the tanks are topped up often enough. But it depends how time consuming it is to connect the water supply and disconnect the water supply. It occurs to me that it is also a safety consideration before the train sets off !.
Exactly. The mere idea this would need way more staff to build this up means it’s almost certainly not going to happen. In my view they need to invest in a browser that can refill much faster, because that would be low-hanging fruit. It wouldn’t solve the whole problem but you’d have way less trains running about without at least one working toilet.
Not having a go at you for reporting the issues, but it all comes across as the standard railway excuse that everything's far too complicated to be able to do anything about it.
This should all have been thought of years ago with a plan in place to ensure that tanks are kept sufficiently topped up.
If SWR really is claiming that introducing trains with toilets replacing ones without, and promoting this feature, but then saying that it's too complicated to keep the toilets in use on a day-to-day basis, then that is beyond incompetent.
Regarding the 10 min required to fill the tanks, the vast majority of Windsor lines services have at least 15 minutes at Waterloo, yet toilet availability is just as bad.
I agree the company should have thought things out way sooner so a fix could be made. I’m not defending the company here, merely trying to point out the obstacles. Considering the trains are what, 5-6 years late, and they still haven’t completed the roll out or re-introduced the pre-Covid suburban services, the idea from upstairs has been to put all effort into getting the new trains out at the expense of focusing on redoing the PIS, or the toilet situation so that capacity during rush-hour and ‘comfort’ - this is debatable but for instance the air-con despite being inconsistent is a big plus compared to the class 455 they are mainly replacing on the mainline side - is improved. Should they be able to juggle all this, yes of course, but again I’m just trying to explain how it is.
Yes you are right there is more turnaround time on the Windsor services. At present there is only one browser by the international platforms, as they cannot be manned up the ramp from the main concourse. This naturally is not enough at all. That would need, like I’ve mentioned above, more browsers and staff.
Last I checked, 701’s have realtime reporting. So in theory, the Waterloo team can monitor the status of the toilets on a train departing Clapham Junction. Identify which toilet has is OOO and the have plenty of time to move the bowser to the correct platform and location to fill that tank.
Better yet, a simple alert from the train could be triggered to the Waterloo team when toilets are OOO so they are ready for it at Waterloo.
This is already in place. There is an internal app where you can report locked out toilets. The issue is, like I’ve already mentioned, is that there are only a couple of browsers and trained staff who can operate them. The browsers are very slow to move as well, and with the toilets being at opposite ends of the trains it’s a difficult one at the moment. This also means getting the browsers up and down P1-6 to meet most of the trains that need it is impossible and highly unrealistic. And there isn’t ’plenty of time’ when normally filling both toilets of a train without any working one with the current browser with the typical turnaround time at Waterloo is incredibly difficult. That leads back to the idea of having them at the outer ends, but then you have to employ more staff etc. That is obviously a discussion for the company to consider but I wouldn’t hold my breath regarding that.
Going to combine both these points. Yes. The tanks are way too small. It’s laughable and that is a question that can also be posed to the company that built the trains.
It is not just a matter of the tanks that hold the water being not big enough, but also that the toilet/sink are pretty water hungry I’ve been reliably told. This means they run out quicker than what they really should, and thus the toilet is able to automatically lock itself out of use once it realises the water levels in the tank has reached an ‘insufficient level’.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
What's interesting is how this flows through to passenger information at stations and online.
Currently on a 701 with both toilets out of use.
SWR's Journeycheck page simply says "Accessible toilet facilities are reduced," which one could reasonably (but incorrectly) interpret as one out of two toilets being out of use.
There's also no mention of this on departure boards.
In contrast SouthEastern will very clearly say on their announcements and departure boards where there's no available toilet facilities.
In the control messages there is an option to display ‘No accessible toilets on this train’. Why they don’t use it more I don’t know, especially as I have asked that to be displayed on customer information screens particularly on trains I know are going to be extremely busy or if it is a rugby day at Twickenham. But I’d say there should also be an option to display ‘No working toilets on this train’ since the average passenger won’t know the only two toilets on a ten-car 701 are both fully accessible ones, and that there aren’t any standard ones at all.
Going to combine both these points. Yes. The tanks are way too small. It’s laughable and that is a question that can also be posed to the company that built the trains.
True, but ultimately it is SWR as the customer who should be the ones doing the testing and due diligence on what they have bought. Another WorstGroup failure to add to the lengthy rap sheet...
This also means getting the browsers up and down P1-6 to meet most of the trains that need it is impossible and highly unrealistic. And there isn’t ’plenty of time’ when normally filling both toilets of a train without any working one with the current browser with the typical turnaround time at Waterloo is incredibly difficult. That leads back to the idea of having them at the outer ends, but then you have to employ more staff etc. That is obviously a discussion for the company to consider but I wouldn’t hold my breath regarding that.
There is some historic irony, roughly at one coach length from buffers at Waterloo platform 1-6 there is a huge water pipe sticking up between each pair of tracks, which current has blanking plates bolted to it (formerly had water cranes, which is why the area is sloping solid to take away water spills).
It is clearly beyond the wit of anyone to swap these blanks for a new piece with couple of taps and hoses. From memory the third rail has side shields in this area to allow staff access to train sides. Why they think has to be filled from slow bowsers instead of off the mains nowadays I do not understand, although I do realise trackside access rules have been tightened up for safety reasons in recent decades
I grew near Bournemouth back in era of 4VEPs using the bay platform, and they managed to fill both toilet tanks with hoses (platform side) during the turnaround. Sometimes I start to think the railway has lost knowledge over the years.
Of course stations like Hampton Court use to have extra platforms, so trains could be serviced, whilst different unit went out. Clearly there was zero proper planning in the 9 years since trains were ordered. 701s need tank refills during the day, but no one in SWR decided to provide the facility or timetable to do it
So we passengers should just shut up and accept that a brand new fleet of trains will be running without functioning toilets for much of the day, because "the railway" can't find a way to make them work properly?
If you ever suffer bladder or prostate problems, you may realise just how callous and inhumane that response is. Perhaps SWR should offer free SWR-branded incontinence pants to passengers, as a daily reminder of the way they've failed their less fortunate customers.
This is the point. With a 455 I knew there was no toilet and planned accordingly. A train that might or might not have a toilet is worse. I only trust long intercity units, or older trains such as 158s, to have a toilet that works.
Whilst I will defend those in planning circles today, having been there myself, and as such I understand todays planners are not to blame for any higher level decisions made that result in such situations as per the apparent 701 bog issues that many are talking of, I concur with your point about 455's.
I use to visit an old mate at 'Rasberry Mound' - Strawberry Hill to most - some years ago, so had a half hour run from Waterloo on a 455, one way or other, but that was my limit on a planned basis, given the 10 minute walk at the end as well.
For the younger readers it's an unfortunate fact of later life, when 'one' has to think more carefully about one's travel decisions!
Whilst I will defend those in planning circles today, having been there myself, and as such I understand todays planners are not to blame for any higher level decisions made that result in such situations as per the apparent 701 bog issues that many are talking of, I concur with your point about 455's.
I use to visit an old mate at 'Rasberry Mound' - Strawberry Hill to most - some years ago, so had a half hour run from Waterloo on a 455, one way or other, but that was my limit on a planned basis, given the 10 minute walk at the end as well.
For the younger readers it's an unfortunate fact of later life, when 'one' has to think more carefully about one's travel decisions!
Indeed. At 66 years of age I factor into a journey itinerary where likely loos will be. It is a bad thing when an expected loo is unexpectedly out of order.
Imagine turning up at a motorway service station and finding there are no loos !.
But the people on the ground have to work and plan with what they have and quite likely share the frustration that passengers no doubt feel.
But the railway seems to operate for its own convenience (note choice of words), rather than passengers. I am in my 60s and finding toilets out of service is a pain in the backside bladder.
Is it a case of all 701s entering service have filled tanks, or are some entering service from stabling locations with quarter full tanks so inevitably going to run out.
Clearly if tanks are not big enough to last all day, they all need to be scheduled/timetabled for an early afternoon pause to allow refill. If that means having a different unit in adjacent platform to take over diagram then that needs to be allowed for, as does having sufficient bowsers to actually refill all units at some time during the day.
When compiling 701 diagrams really ought to have learnt after a couple of years they need a pause at termini early afternoon for water refill. Does seem that managing known problems and allowing for a fix, is beyond management here.
Would an intermediate solution be to use the Waterloo bowsers to fill the tank at the buffer end only to try to make sure that trains had at least one functioning toilet. Moving it from platform to platform would be quicker if the distances were reduced and might make better use of it and its staff. Not ideal but maybe better than what we have now.
There is some historic irony, roughly at one coach length from buffers at Waterloo platform 1-6 there is a huge water pipe sticking up between each pair of tracks, which current has blanking plates bolted to it (formerly had water cranes, which is why the area is sloping solid to take away water spills).
It is clearly beyond the wit of anyone to swap these blanks for a new piece with couple of taps and hoses. From memory the third rail has side shields in this area to allow staff access to train sides. Why they think has to be filled from slow bowsers instead of off the mains nowadays I do not understand, although I do realise trackside access rules have been tightened up for safety reasons in recent decades
I certainly hope those pipes are blanked off elsewhere to avoid dead leg standing water in the mains to the rest the station which is a Water Bylaws contravention.
secondly you are not allowed by the Water Byelaws to have pipework laying on the ground or connecting to a dirty inlet connection on a train without feeding though an air gapped inlet break tank or double check valve for the same anti contamination reasons.
Would an intermediate solution be to use the Waterloo bowsers to fill the tank at the buffer end only to try to make sure that trains had at least one functioning toilet. Moving it from platform to platform would be quicker if the distances were reduced and might make better use of it and its staff. Not ideal but maybe better than what we have now.
I wonder how often the 701s were originally expected to need to get their tanks filled. Maybe less frequently than daily.
Istr two days being "normal" in Mk1 days but has it turned out that water use is higher than expected on 701s (down to higher than expected loo use or more water wasted) ?.
Or smaller tanks ?.
I can imagine that there are so many parameters involved in diagramming stock (crew, congested lines/stations, junctions, maintenance) that taking into account re-filling tanks might be hard to fit in (as in cycling units through stations and other convenient locations for water replenishment). Given a lot of the old diagrams would have been built around stock with no loos (455s, 456s & 707s?) I suspect some radical timetable changes need to happen.
I agree the Kingston rounders would only need replenishing at Waterloo at one end (but both sides of the station). That would probably be plenty for those.
Is this a problem that will reduce once fleet utilisation is easier (when all the 701s are in service) ?.
Is this a problem that is awaiting an engineering solution ?.
How are fleets of other Aventras coping ?.
I am thinking of 720s out of Liverpool Street (not Fenchurch Street because I suspect the utilisation is too low to stretch them).
We’ve had a lot of toilet based activity in this thread, so to get things back on topic I’ve just started a new thread to discuss the wider issues, which is here.
I wonder how often the 701s were originally expected to need to get their tanks filled. Maybe less frequently than daily. Istr two days being "normal" in Mk1 days but has it turned out that water use is higher than expected on 701s (down to higher than expected loo use or more water wasted) ...
We’ve had a lot of toilet based activity in this thread, so to get things back on topic I’ve just started a new thread to discuss the wider issues, which is here.
I wonder how often the 701s were originally expected to need to get their tanks filled. Maybe less frequently than daily. Istr two days being "normal" in Mk1 days but has it turned out that water use is higher than expected on 701s (down to higher than expected loo use or more water wasted) ...
Are they covering 458 or 450/444 diagrams, or is it that morning and evening peak halves of diagrams have been allocated different units? Or mid-traffic unit swaps?
Are they covering 458 or 450/444 diagrams, or is it that morning and evening peak halves of diagrams have been allocated different units? Or mid-traffic unit swaps?
I don't know, but two diagrams I wasn't expecting to see were those starting with 2D50 (701011) and 2R51 (701022), both of which started late afternoon. Looks like 2R51 is usually formed from incoming 2V45, but that was cancelled today "due to faulty traction equipment", so may well have been a late substitution
I don't know, but two diagrams I wasn't expecting to see were those starting with 2D50 (701011) and 2R51 (701022), both of which started late afternoon. Looks like 2R51 is usually formed from incoming 2V45, but that was cancelled today "due to faulty traction equipment", so may well have been a late substitution
It looks like the whole of the 2D50 diagram, starting with 2F02, has gone over to 701 from 2*450 as of today (the 47th diagram). The balancing working being 1F83 0033 Waterloo - Guildford formed with the set off 2K71. 2V45 was allocated 701022 at lunch time, so perhaps the traction fault was with 701022 itself which was subsequently rectified?
Real-time train running information for 2J09 0706 departure from London Waterloo to Hampton Court on 09/06/2026. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.
701001 - In Passenger Service (2 Mar 26) 701002 - In Passenger Service (18 May 26) 701003 - Software testing duties at Derby Litchurch Lane 701004 - SWR preparing for passenger service 701005 - In Passenger Service (27 Aug 25) 701006 - In Passenger Service (6 Mar 26)
701007 - In Passenger Service (24 Feb 26)
701008 - In Passenger Service (31 Mar 26)
701009 - In Passenger Service (17 Oct 25)
701010 - In Passenger Service (22 Dec 25)
701011 - In Passenger Service (26 Feb 26)
701012 - In Passenger Service (21 Jul 25)
701013 - In Passenger Service (28 Jul 25) 701014 - In Passenger Service 9 Jun 26) 701015 - Training duties 701016 - In Passenger Service (4 Jun 26)
701017 - In Passenger Service (25 Nov 24)
701018 - In Passenger Service (6 Jul 25) 701019 - In Passenger Service (18 Apr 26)
701020 - In Passenger Service (8 Oct 25)
701021 - In Passenger Service (15 Sep 25)
701022 - In Passenger Service (9 Feb 26)
701023 - In Passenger Service (7 Apr 26) 701024 - Training duties 701025 - In Passenger Service (24 Jun 25)
701026 - In Passenger Service (3 Nov 25) 701027 - SWR preparing for passenger service 701028 - Training duties 701029 - SWR preparing for passenger service 701030 - In Passenger Service (9 Dec 25)
701031 - In Passenger Service (28 Oct 24)
701032 - In Passenger Service (15 May 26)
701033 - In Passenger Service (26 Nov 25)
701034 - In Passenger Service (18 Mar 25)
701035 - In Passenger Service (28 May 25)
701036 - In Passenger Service (7 Mar 24)
701037 - In Passenger Service (9 Jan 24)
701038 - In Passenger Service (5 Feb 26)
701039 - In Passenger Service (10 Jan 24) 701040 - SWR preparing for passenger service 701041 - In Passenger Service (17 Jun 25)
701042 - In Passenger Service (21 May 25)
701043 - In Passenger Service (16 Jan 24)
701044 - In Passenger Service (5 Feb 25)
701045 - In Passenger Service (10 Apr 26)
701046 - In Passenger Service (17 Mar 25)
701047 - In Passenger Service (31 Dec 25)
701048 - In Passenger Service (8 Nov 25) 701049 - In Passenger Service (20 Mar 26)
701050 - In Passenger Service (17 Nov 25)
701051 - In Passenger Service (14 Jul 25)
701052 - In Passenger Service (23 Dec 25)
701053 - In Passenger Service (26 Aug 25)
701054 - In Passenger Service (3 Jan 26)
701055 - In Passenger Service (6 May 26)
701056 - In Passenger Service (8 Sep 25)
701057 - In Passenger Service (13 Aug 25)
701058 - In Passenger Service (11 Aug 25)
701059 - In Passenger Service (5 Dec 25)
701060 - In Passenger Service (1 Nov 25)
In Passenger Service: 52/60 Training duties: 3/60 (028 briefly served passengers before training duties) SWR preparing for passenger service: 4/60 Software testing duties at Derby Litchurch Lane: 1/60
701501 - Stored at Derby Litchurch Lane
701502 - Stored at Derby Litchurch Lane 701503 - SWR preparing for passenger service
701504 - SWR preparing for passenger service 701505 - Stored at Derby Litchurch Lane
701506 - Stored at Bicester
701507 - Stored at Derby Litchurch Lane
701508 - Stored at Derby Litchurch Lane 701509 - SWR preparing for passenger service
701510 - SWR preparing for passenger service 701511 - Stored at Derby Litchurch Lane 701512 - SWR preparing for passenger service 701513 - Stored at Bicester
701514 - Stored at Derby Litchurch Lane
701515 - Stored at Bicester
701516 - Stored at Bicester 701517 - SWR preparing for passenger service 701518 - Stored at Bicester 701519 - SWR preparing for passenger service
701520 - SWR preparing for passenger service 701521 - SWR preparing for passenger service
701522 - SWR preparing for passenger service 701523 - Stored at Bicester
701524 - Stored at Derby Litchurch Lane
701525 - Stored at Bicester
701526 - Stored at Bicester 701527 - SWR preparing for passenger service 701528 - SWR preparing for passenger service
701529 - SWR preparing for passenger service 701530 - Stored at Bicester
In Passenger Service: 0/30 SWR preparing for passenger service: 13/30 Stored at Derby Litchurch Lane: 8/30
Stored at Bicester 9/30
52 now in passenger service. 040 rumoured to be close as well and I can’t see SWR continuing to require three units for training, given the conversion courses are now substantially completed.
Are the /0s going to be sufficient to see off all the 458/4s? I presume the /5s will then be used to remove any remaining 450s from suburban/Windsor side work.
