Could radar key toilets be specced on trains?

[py_megapixel]

A common issue people have when trains are without toilets is that some disabilities require quick access to a toilet at short notice. However, I would hope that people with such disabilities should be able to get hold of a radar key, preferably at low cost or free of charge (if they can't then whatever the barriers to doing so are need to be removed).

I would therefore suggest that trains for shorter journeys where no toilets would otherwise be specced should instead be specced with a small number of toilets fitted with a radar lock. There are several reasons for this:

• Fewer users of the toilet means:
  • Less cleaning needed
  • Less pump-out of the tanks needed
  • Less chance of the toilet being occupied when needed urgently
  • Less chance of the toilet being out of service or not in a fit state for use
• Preferable to no toilets, which in most cases would be the alternative. (I don't suggest that trains that would otherwise be specced with public toilets should be specced with radar toilets only!)
• If desperately needed by a member of the public without a key, the toilet could be unlocked by a member of on-board staff

Sorry if I've missed anything here or if I appear insensitive. That is not my intention.

 

[DB]

Most trains don't have sufficient space to dedicate a toilet to what is a fairly small group of people (in the overall number of travellers).

 

[hexagon789]

A common issue people have when trains are without toilets is that some disabilities require quick access to a toilet at short notice. However, I would hope that people with such disabilities should be able to get hold of a radar key, preferably at low cost or free of charge (if they can't then whatever the barriers to doing so are need to be removed).

I would therefore suggest that trains for shorter journeys where no toilets would otherwise be specced should instead be specced with a small number of toilets fitted with a radar lock. There are several reasons for this:

• Fewer users of the toilet means:
  • Less cleaning needed
  • Less pump-out of the tanks needed
  • Less chance of the toilet being occupied when needed urgently
  • Less chance of the toilet being out of service or not in a fit state for use
• Preferable to no toilets, which in most cases would be the alternative. (I don't suggest that trains that would otherwise be specced with public toilets should be specced with radar toilets only!)
• If desperately needed by a member of the public without a key, the toilet could be unlocked by a member of on-board staff

Sorry if I've missed anything here or if I appear insensitive. That is not my intention.

Given the lack of space on modern trains that generally precludes such things as decent luggage, cycle and catering space I would suggest that if you can dedicate any space to a toilet you may as well allow indiscriminate use of it.

It will need cleaned regardless and that usually only happens once a day anyway (or at least did pre-COVID), so I don't see there's any inherent advantage in providing a toilet but heavily restricting it's use to only a very small group of people.

 

[Llanigraham]

And Radar keys are very easy to acquire!

 

[randyrippley]

So you intend banning able-bodied people from using the toilet? That isn't going to work. Guaranteed to cause strife.
In case you hadn't noticed everyone uses a toilet at some point, and how is a guard supposed to determine if a "need" is urgent or not?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The whole world and its dog have RADAR keys. They're only a fiver on eBay.

 

[mmh]

I imagine the OP doesn't realise quite how many people have keys.

Regardless of the practicality or benefit, which I'd say for both is close to zero, it would never happen as disability rights groups would never support it. It would likely destroy the key scheme outside trains.

 

[pdeaves]

I don't see the proposal, however honourable the intentions, as being any more practical to, say, locking off cycle areas usable only by people with special 'bike area keys', to prevent the space being used for luggage.

 

[DB]

I've just look

The whole world and its dog have RADAR keys. They're only a fiver on eBay.

I've just looked, and you are right - there are loads on ebay. Cheapest looks to be a couple of quid including postage.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If introduced to a network which didn't have toilets beforehand (Merseyrail, Overground, even Underground) then you're still introducing the need for tanking and watering facilities that weren't previously needed, but with the majority of passengers (unless they all buy Radar Keys off Ebay of course) unable to benefit from that investment.

 

[SussexLad]

So you intend banning able-bodied people from using the toilet? That isn't going to work. Guaranteed to cause strife.
In case you hadn't noticed everyone uses a toilet at some point, and how is a guard supposed to determine if a "need" is urgent or not?

Youre not banning them, you're simply putting up an invisible barrier to gently remind people they shouldn't be using disabled toilets!

I think it depends on the train, Thameslink trains have quite a few toilets (iirc), so saying don't use the only toilet some people can use because you don't want to walk a bit further is fine.

I've just look


I've just looked, and you are right - there are loads on ebay. Cheapest looks to be a couple of quid including postage.

The whole point of radar locks is that people think the toilet is being used so go to the correct toilet. Those that have a genuine need quickly learn about RADAR keys. Yes it is a self administered system which is a flaw. But the fact is most people can't be bothered to research it and get the point that its a disabled toilet. Plus they don't want to pay.

Side note, I bought my RADAR key for £1.99 with postage direct from a health care company

 

[Bletchleyite]

Youre not banning them, you're simply putting up an invisible barrier to gently remind people they shouldn't be using disabled toilets!

That's not how things work on the railway; there is no "disabled toilet", it is a "universal access toilet" which is intended for all users.

 

[SussexLad]

That's not how things work on the railway; there is no "disabled toilet", it is a "universal access toilet" which is intended for all users.

They've nearly all got a wheelchair sign on them to symbolise it being a disabled toilet. Its the only toilet on a train for some people. So the point still stands, you need to do something to stop people being lazy.

And before someone mentions they like the extra room of the disabled toilet, its there for wheelchairs which physically can't fit into standard toilets.

 

[pdeaves]

They've nearly all got a wheelchair sign on them to symbolise it being a disabled toilet.

No, they have a wheelchair sign on them to denote that they are accessible to wheelchair users as well.

 

[CBlue]

Solution looking for a problem here.

Good luck being the one dealing with complaints when other toilets on the train break and that's the only one left.

 

[6Gman]

They've nearly all got a wheelchair sign on them to symbolise it being a disabled toilet. Its the only toilet on a train for some people. So the point still stands, you need to do something to stop people being lazy.

And before someone mentions they like the extra room of the disabled toilet, its there for wheelchairs which physically can't fit into standard toilets.

I don't think that is correct. The extra space is for all users who require extra space. This includes, but is not restricted to, wheelchair users.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I don't think that is correct. The extra space is for all users who require extra space. This includes, but is not restricted to, wheelchair users.

Yes, most accessible toilets on the railway also include baby changing facilities, parents/guardians with young children also count as users who require extra space.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They've nearly all got a wheelchair sign on them

Correct.

to symbolise it being a disabled toilet

Incorrect. It is to symbolise that it is accessible to wheelchair users. Its use is not restricted for those not in wheelchairs. As I stated, it is a Universal Access Toilet, available to all, not a disabled toilet.

I don't think that is correct. The extra space is for all users who require extra space. This includes, but is not restricted to, wheelchair users.

It's even useful for luggage if you have lots of it that you don't want to leave unattended (as indeed you are asked not to).

It is not lazy to use it if not in a wheelchair. That is not its purpose.

In any case, given that the wheelchair space is right next to it and can't be elsewhere (as it's impossible to move wheelchairs through the train), does @SussexLad not think it'd be blindingly obvious if a wheelchair user wanted to use it at that time?

 

[SussexLad]

Correct.



Incorrect. It is to symbolise that it is accessible to wheelchair users. Its use is not restricted for those not in wheelchairs. As I stated, it is a Universal Access Toilet, available to all, not a disabled toilet.



It's even useful for luggage if you have lots of it that you don't want to leave unattended (as indeed you are asked not to).

It is not lazy to use it if not in a wheelchair. That is not its purpose.

In any case, given that the wheelchair space is right next to it and can't be elsewhere (as it's impossible to move wheelchairs through the train), does @SussexLad not think it'd be blindingly obvious if a wheelchair user wanted to use it at that time?

The primary / only reason the toilets exist is for passengers with reduced mobility, it was required by law so they had to do it. Given that reduced mobility doesn't disappear once their off the train, vast majority of people already have RADAR keys.

Using it just because you have luggage is lazy. Its perfectly acceptable to tuck it out the way for a bit. Hence why luggage racks are still on trains!!!

Yes sometimes it is obvious, other times it might be an urgent sudden need when people are taking 10 mins in the toilet on their phone.

Also part of the problem is people with stoma bags need a very clean environment to do their thing. When the toilet is being used by every man and his wife it ends up like a dirty swamp. A further problem is people in wheelchairs are inherently unsteady on their feet. When people piss on the floor and leave their rubbish their it makes it genuinely dangerous to use the toilet.

The ignorance people on here are showing for the real struggles disabled people have everywhere is astounding. Has anyone even considered that when a wheelchair user needs the toilet and that is their only choice and it's broken their forced to wet themselves? All becuase lazy people don't want to use a normal sized toilet. It happens everywhere with toilets that aren't RADAR locked.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The primary / only reason the toilets exist is for passengers with reduced mobility, it was required by law so they had to do it.

Again incorrect. The primary reason the toilets are large is that. But if the requirement didn't exist, there would probably be a small toilet there instead, it would not simply be absent.

The situation is simply not in any way like toilets on "land" where there is usually separation - but not always. Should able bodied people not use the toilet in a branch of Subway, where it is always a single accessible facility?

Should only wheelchair users use the toilets on Voyagers, as there are only accessible facilities, no "small" ones? Same with Classes 150, 156, 319.....?

Your argument is based on a totally false premise.

Has anyone even considered that when a wheelchair user needs the toilet and that is their only choice and it's broken their forced to wet themselves? All becuase lazy people don't want to use a normal sized toilet.

How does people using a toilet for its intended purpose cause it to be broken?

Yes sometimes it is obvious, other times it might be an urgent sudden need when people are taking 10 mins in the toilet on their phone.

What has that got to do with accessible toilets on trains? Someone with say Crohn's can use the small one if it is engaged just like someone without. I do know someone with Crohn's who carries a RADAR key, but he only tends to use it when there is no open "normal" facility as is often the case in towns etc.

 

[Domh245]

The primary / only reason the toilets exist is for passengers with reduced mobility, it was required by law so they had to do it. Given that reduced mobility doesn't disappear once their off the train, vast majority of people already have RADAR keys.

The 'large' toilets are "Universal Toilets", defined thusly (5.3.2.4): A universal toilet is a toilet designed to be used by all passengers including all persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility.

Which I think is pretty conclusive...

 

[SussexLad]

The 'large' toilets are "Universal Toilets", defined thusly (5.3.2.4): A universal toilet is a toilet designed to be used by all passengers including all persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility.

Which I think is pretty conclusive...

Exactly, that explicitly says for all persons with disabilities and reduced mobility. Not any person regardless of ability or mobility.

Again incorrect. The primary reason the toilets are large is that. But if the requirement didn't exist, there would probably be a small toilet there instead, it would not simply be absent.

The situation is simply not in any way like toilets on "land" where there is usually separation - but not always. Should able bodied people not use the toilet in a branch of Subway, where it is always a single accessible facility?

Should only wheelchair users use the toilets on Voyagers, as there are only accessible facilities, no "small" ones? Same with Classes 150, 156, 319.....?

Your argument is based on a totally false premise.



How does people using a toilet for its intended purpose cause it to be broken?



What has that got to do with accessible toilets on trains? Someone with say Crohn's can use the small one if it is engaged just like someone without. I do know someone with Crohn's who carries a RADAR key, but he only tends to use it when there is no open "normal" facility as is often the case in towns etc.

You admit the toilets are only large because of that, so when they are next to a wheelchair space and their is a viable alternative for everyone else it should be RADAR locked. You could have a sign saying please use an alternative toilet or ask train staff to unlock if needed. But to be honest most people probably won't read it and assume it is being used so go and use another toilet.

The example you use of Subway, I dont agree that the only toilets are disabled toilets. But given the fact they are and their is no viable alternative, it should be accesible to all. That said Starbucks in London generally only have disabled toilets that are RADAR locked, they are tucked away and those that need the toilet either ask the barristers to unlock or go next door or something.

In the case of a voyager, at least one toilet next to the wheelchair spaces should be RADAR locked. Where the toilet is next to first class, it will have reduced usage so less of a problem their.

More people using a disabled toilet means more chances of it being broken. The less people that use it, the less likely it is to be blocked or vandalised. Meaning disabled people can actually use the only toilet that they can use. One example of someone with Chrons is not a conclusive evaluation of every disabled person.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly, that explicitly says for all persons with disabilities and reduced mobility. Not any person regardless of ability or mobility.

Can I suggest you re-read what he posted, as you read what you wanted it to say, not what it does say.

The example you use of Subway, I dont agree that the only toilets are disabled toilets

It is an indisputable fact that in all the main (non-garage) branches of Subway in Milton Keynes there is one toilet which is of the accessible type (except possibly the Xscape one which I don't think has any). I don't recall having seen any other type of arrangement in any other Subway branch anywhere else, either, though maybe there's the odd one.

But given the fact they are and their is no viable alternative, it should be accesible to all. That said Starbucks in London generally only have disabled toilets that are RADAR locked, they are tucked away and those that need the toilet either ask the barristers to unlock or go next door or something.

I very much dislike the "miss, miss, can I go for a wee" approach taken by Starbucks. One should not have to declare one's toilet needs to anyone, whether disabled or not. It's not a primary school.

The reason they do it is to stop people walking in, using the loo and walking back out, but putting a door code on the receipt is a better way to do that.

In the case of a voyager, at least one toilet next to the wheelchair spaces should be RADAR locked. Where the toilet is next to first class, it will have reduced usage so less of a problem their.

So there would be one toilet remaining to be used by all non-wheelchair-using passengers. Can you even contemplate how ridiculous that would be? Or are you just trolling?

 

[lachlan]

A common issue people have when trains are without toilets is that some disabilities require quick access to a toilet at short notice. However, I would hope that people with such disabilities should be able to get hold of a radar key, preferably at low cost or free of charge (if they can't then whatever the barriers to doing so are need to be removed).

I would therefore suggest that trains for shorter journeys where no toilets would otherwise be specced should instead be specced with a small number of toilets fitted with a radar lock. There are several reasons for this:

• Fewer users of the toilet means:
  • Less cleaning needed
  • Less pump-out of the tanks needed
  • Less chance of the toilet being occupied when needed urgently
  • Less chance of the toilet being out of service or not in a fit state for use
• Preferable to no toilets, which in most cases would be the alternative. (I don't suggest that trains that would otherwise be specced with public toilets should be specced with radar toilets only!)
• If desperately needed by a member of the public without a key, the toilet could be unlocked by a member of on-board staff

Sorry if I've missed anything here or if I appear insensitive. That is not my intention.

Every train should have toilets, I agree that trains without toilets are not good enough accesibility wise. But space is at a premium and locking away a toilet so only a small set of people can use it is not a good idea. The issues around cleanliness can be minimised by more frequent cleaning and perhaps messaging asking passengers to avoid the disabled toilet unless other toilets are full.

Locking the disabled toilet would also exclude baby changing.

 

[Domh245]

Exactly, that explicitly says for all persons with disabilities and reduced mobility. Not any person regardless of ability or mobility.

I managed to bold the wrong "all persons", whoops. I meant to highlight the first one, ie:

A universal toilet is a toilet designed to be used by all passengers including all persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility.

 

[SussexLad]

Can I suggest you re-read what he posted, as you read what you wanted it to say, not what it does say.



It is an indisputable fact that in all the main (non-garage) branches of Subway in Milton Keynes there is one toilet which is of the accessible type (except possibly the Xscape one which I don't think has any). I don't recall having seen any other type of arrangement in any other Subway branch anywhere else, either, though maybe there's the odd one.



I very much dislike the "miss, miss, can I go for a wee" approach taken by Starbucks. One should not have to declare one's toilet needs to anyone, whether disabled or not. It's not a primary school.

The reason they do it is to stop people walking in, using the loo and walking back out, but putting a door code on the receipt is a better way to do that.



So there would be one toilet remaining to be used by all non-wheelchair-using passengers. Can you even contemplate how ridiculous that would be? Or are you just trolling?

Ok yes re read it. Part of my point is it shouldn't be universally accesible, it has awful consequences for disabled people.

Saying you dislike having to ask for it to be unlocked is ridiculous, disabled people (a lot of sarcasm coming up) dislike having to urinate themselves, or falling over because the floors wet, or getting an infection due to dirtyness. You tell me which is worse? Oh wait you won't because that doesn't support your point...

Further, in the example of a voyager, the disabled toilet in coach F should be locked, because their is another one directly opposite oach D, everyone goes to that one. Given coach A is first class and thus less passengers, it does not need to be locked.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ok yes re read it. Part of my point is it shouldn't be universally accesible, it has awful consequences for disabled people.

No, it doesn't.

Saying you dislike having to ask for it to be unlocked is ridiculous, disabled people (a lot of sarcasm coming up) dislike having to **** themselves, or falling over because the floors wet, or getting an infection due to dirtyness. You tell me which is worse? Oh wait you won't because that doesn't support your point...

If an establishment has a toilet facility they need to clean and maintain it properly. That solves your problem properly.

Further, in the example of a voyager, the disabled toilet in coach F should be locked, because their is another one directly opposite oach D, everyone goes to that one. Given coach A is first class and thus less passengers, it does not need to be locked.

Nonsense.

 

[CBlue]

Ok yes re read it. Part of my point is it shouldn't be universally accesible, it has awful consequences for disabled people.

Saying you dislike having to ask for it to be unlocked is ridiculous, disabled people (a lot of sarcasm coming up) dislike having to piss themselves, or falling over because the floors wet, or getting an infection due to dirtyness. You tell me which is worse? Oh wait you won't because that doesn't support your point...

Further, in the example of a voyager, the disabled toilet in coach F should be locked, because their is another one directly opposite oach D, everyone goes to that one. Given coach A is first class and thus less passengers, it does not need to be locked.

Crikey. You appear to be so focussed on winning this argument that you haven't stopped to consider one thing:

Fitment of radar keys and locking off train toilets as you suggest is very, very unlikely to happen.

I also suggest that you're preaching to the wrong audience - while there may be plenty of forum members from the industry on here, policy at that level doesn't get decided just because someone posted so on a web forum.

Write to the TOC's with your concerns rather than wasting your time trying to prove a point on here?

 

[SussexLad]

Crikey. You appear to be so focussed on winning this argument that you haven't stopped to consider one thing:

Fitment of radar keys and locking off train toilets as you suggest is very, very unlikely to happen.

I also suggest that you're preaching to the wrong audience - while there may be plenty of forum members from the industry on here, policy at that level doesn't get decided just because someone posted so on a web forum.

Write to the TOC's with your concerns rather than wasting your time trying to prove a point on here?

Quite possibly the wrong audience. I know people that have written to TOCs and MPs to say this. One response tried saying its financial districimination to require dosabled people to buy a £2 key. Despite the fact that the disability doesn't disappear when they get off a train.

Guess what those people do now? They don't bother with the trains.