GWR SERVICES. UNAVAILABILITY OF TOILETS.

[dmu fan]

I have noticed in the past couple of weeks there have been numerous messages on gwr journeycheck on the on the " other train service updates" section having shown no toilet facilities available.
Why is that? Avonmouth, weston services perhaps could get away with but I've seen Portsmouth to Cardiff pop up with 3 hour journeys, even Weymouth. Doesn't give you confidence.

 

[PHILIPE]

I have noticed in the past couple of weeks there have been numerous messages on gwr journeycheck on the on the " other train service updates" section having shown no toilet facilities available.
Why is that? Avonmouth, weston services perhaps could get away with but I've seen Portsmouth to Cardiff pop up with 3 hour journeys, even Weymouth. Doesn't give you confidence.

It seems to be Turbos mostly affected and especially the disabled toilet. I think they often try and send them out on the Severn Beach line all day to maintain short distances.

 

[fgwrich]

It seems to be Turbos mostly affected and especially the disabled toilet. I think they often try and send them out on the Severn Beach line all day to maintain short distances.

It wouldn't surprise me if it is - the robo-bog doors on those has always felt like a cheap and flimsy design (I don't know why they didn't stick to a single tried and tested design) and I've often seem them get stuck or jammed. The sooner those units are gutted and refurbished, the better.

 

[158747]

Most of the Turbos I have been on recently, if there is a toilet unavailable it is usually the non-disabled toilet.

 

[JN114]

As I understand it the suppliers for both the original/small toilets on the 166s, and the UATs on the whole of the GW Turbo fleet have both gone bust recently, meaning parts are rapidly becoming scarce, and keeping the toilets going has become much more of a workshop/self repair/fabrication affair. I believe some experiments are being conducted with the Reading-based Turbo fleet to 3D-print some parts that are no longer obtainable from original supplier.

 

[dmu fan]

As I understand it the suppliers for both the original/small toilets on the 166s, and the UATs on the whole of the GW Turbo fleet have both gone bust recently, meaning parts are rapidly becoming scarce, and keeping the toilets going has become much more of a workshop/self repair/fabrication affair. I believe some experiments are being conducted with the Reading-based Turbo fleet to 3D-print some parts that are no longer obtainable from original supplier.

That doesn't sound good at all. Think they should be looking at borrowing Northerns 153s from storage or increase Castle sets. Otherwise with increased passenger numbers situations are going to get pretty bad. Fingers crossed they get things sorted.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Fingers crossed they get things sorted.

Legs crossed if not!

Are these problems manifesting themselves at the start of service?

 

[dmu fan]

Legs crossed if not!

Are these problems manifesting themselves at the start of service?

That's a good question. I just thought the tanks needed emptying or out of water. Or perhaps the unit ended its diagram on day 1 not at a depot. So no servicing, Then went day 2 on another diagram until the depot was reached.

 

[northernbelle]

Legs crossed if not!

Are these problems manifesting themselves at the start of service?

It seems to be a mixture. The depots do everything they can to avoid putting a unit into traffic with the toilets unavailable but sometimes it is unavoidable. At Bristol, they try to concentrate those units on 'short hop' type diagrams to minimise the inconvenience.

 

[Envoy]

Recently, I started a topic under this rolling stock section about which routes/companies were most in need of new rolling stock and suggested that it was GWR’s non London trains such as these that needed replacement. This new posting regarding the toilet situation strengthens my case. Unfortunately the moderators decided to move my rolling stock thread to ‘speculative ideas’ - despite it clearly being about rolling stock. ('Speculative ideas’ only appears on the menu if you are signed in).

 

[skyhigh]

That doesn't sound good at all. Think they should be looking at borrowing Northerns 153s from storage or increase Castle sets. Otherwise with increased passenger numbers situations are going to get pretty bad. Fingers crossed they get things sorted.

153s are useless here. Train crew don't sign them, they're not PRM accessible, they have track discharge toilets (which are now banned) and as far as I'm aware they can't couple with 16x if your idea was to add them to sets to increase toilet provision...

 

[JonathanH]

This new posting regarding the toilet situation strengthens my case.

The toilets are newer than the trains. Why does availability of a toilet dictate that the rolling stock needs replacing?

Indeed, a decision has already been made that replacing the toilet was more cost effective than replacing the train.

I started a topic under this rolling stock section about which routes/companies were most in need of new rolling stock and suggested that it was GWR’s non London trains such as these that needed replacement.

Commenting on an idea of replacing rolling stock is very much speculative as there are no orders in place and replacement is not in any current plans.

 

[158747]

The toilets are newer than the trains. Why does availability of a toilet dictate that the rolling stock needs replacing?

The disabled toilets are new but the non-disabled toilets on the Turbos are the originals that they have had since when they were built.

 

[JonathanH]

The disabled toilets are new but the non-disabled toilets on the Turbos are the originals that they have had since when they were built.

The non-disabled cubicles may be as built - the toilets themselves have been replaced a number of times (and they put a stainless steel cover over the sink).

 

[py_megapixel]

Do any of the Turbos actually have non-accessible toilets now? I thought they'd all finished their PRM modification program (part of which is the removal of the original toilet cubicle and some seats to fit an accessible toilet cubicle)

 

[JN114]

Do any of the Turbos actually have non-accessible toilets now? I thought they'd all finished their PRM modification program (part of which is the removal of the original toilet cubicle and some seats to fit an accessible toilet cubicle)

The 166s, which had 2 toilets - one in each driving car - still have 1 non- PRM toilet

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Perhaps there could be rules ensuring free toilets are available at stations. Even in good conditions, using a toilet on a moving train may be disagreeable. If toilets on trains are available but are not used so much, they less often need maintenance and repair.

 

[PHILIPE]

Perhaps there could be rules ensuring free toilets are available at stations. Even in good conditions, using a toilet on a moving train may be disagreeable. If toilets on trains are available but are not used so much, they less often need maintenance and repair.

Where there are toilets at stations they are only open while the station is staffed due to vandalism`

 

[py_megapixel]

The 166s, which had 2 toilets - one in each driving car - still have 1 non- PRM toilet

Ah right - for some reason I had the idea that they'd replaced both!

 

[dmu fan]

It seems to be a mixture. The depots do everything they can to avoid putting a unit into traffic with the toilets unavailable but sometimes it is unavoidable. At Bristol, they try to concentrate those units on 'short hop' type diagrams to minimise the inconvenience.

Certainly seen a few Cardiff to Portsmouth, Bristol to Avonmouth etc with no toilets. Although I read the other day there was a weston to Worcester service that had no toilets working. And only stopped for a few minutes at Bristol before heading north. No way you could get down the stairs etc and back to use the station facilities.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2021 ==

153s are useless here. Train crew don't sign them, they're not PRM accessible, they have track discharge toilets (which are now banned) and as far as I'm aware they can't couple with 16x if your idea was to add them to sets to increase toilet provision...

Train the crew which can't be much different to a class 150/2.They could be borrowed to run St Erth to St Ives, only a 10 minute journey.release class 150/2 x2 units for somewhere else.

 

[skyhigh]

Train the crew which can't be much different to a class 150/2.They could be borrowed to run St Erth to St Ives, only a 10 minute journey.release class 150/2 x2 units for somewhere else.

Nevertheless, it's still a conversion course. Equipment is located in different positions and there's differences in the cabs. GWR had 153s previously, but the competencies would long since have lapsed. Different spares would be needed at depots compared to 150/2s. Are 153s route cleared down there? Then not to mention the fact that they will need major overhauls, as exams won't have been done on the stock if they're not needed.

Then you have the additional cost of PRM modifying them to meet current standards - GWR has 100% compliant stock now, going backwards there will be completely unacceptable. If you want a toilet, the toilet will need to go at the opposite end of the car as that's the only place there's space for the retention tanks.

It's not just as easy as saying 'well they could borrow some'.

 

[dmu fan]

Nevertheless, it's still a conversion course. Equipment is located in different positions and there's differences in the cabs. GWR had 153s previously, but the competencies would long since have lapsed. Different spares would be needed at depots compared to 150/2s. Are 153s route cleared down there? Then not to mention the fact that they will need major overhauls, as exams won't have been done on the stock if they're not needed.

Then you have the additional cost of PRM modifying them to meet current standards - GWR has 100% compliant stock now, going backwards there will be completely unacceptable. If you want a toilet, the toilet will need to go at the opposite end of the car as that's the only place there's space for the retention tanks.

It's not just as easy as saying 'well they could borrow some'.

OK fair point.

 

[Sporty60]

On a XC service to Nottingham a few years back I seem to recall the train waiting at Burton whilst someone used the station toilet as there were none working on board.

 

[TheEdge]

On a XC service to Nottingham a few years back I seem to recall the train waiting at Burton whilst someone used the station toilet as there were none working on board.

I've known XC to send toiletless 170s on the Birmingham - Stansteds...

 

[squizzler]

Whilst the non functioning of some of the onboard toilets may be inconvenient for some, I don't think it quite merits full capitalisation of the thread title!

 

[185]

Silly question but do our UK PRM rules allow for a non-motorised sliding door (with appropriate grab handles to pull it) as seen in Europe?

Whilst they are a little harder to use, they have near zero door failure / door vandalism incidences.

 

[fgwrich]

Silly question but do our UK PRM rules allow for a non-motorised sliding door (with appropriate grab handles to pull it) as seen in Europe?

Whilst they are a little harder to use, they have near zero door failure / door vandalism incidences.

I have no idea regarding a sliding door, but doesn’t the Caley Sleeper Mk5s use a manually operated bi-folding toilet door?

 

[Domh245]

Sliding (/manual) doors are allowed, subject to:

To latch or unlatch a manually operated door, for use by the public, the control device shall be operable by the palm of the hand exerting a force not exceeding 20 N.

And the other restrictions around where the controls (handle) are placed, audible signals, etc

I realise now the question is about toilet doors. The above doesn't apply to toilet doors, but there's nothing requiring the toilet door to be automatic either - it has the same restriction about a 20N max force, and indeed for the section about UATs:

The toilet access door shall provide a minimum clear useable width of 800 mm. Where the door is automatic or semi-automatic, it shall be possible to open it partially in order to allow a wheelchair user's assistant to leave and re-enter the toilet module.

which implies the existence/allowance of manual UAT doors

 

[Geeves]

If GWR are following the same rules as Northern its not just the doors that are the problem, its problems with water supply too. The Covid rules state passengers must be able to wash their hands even if the toilet its self is out of action.

 

[185]

I'd say 30-50% of disabled/universal toilet failures are door related, so if it were allowed perhaps a down-modification to a pull/ push sliding door could sharply cut failures leaving water supply / CET tank issues only.