Kicking up a stink - non retention toilets.

[yorksrob]

Part of me thinks they'd be better off spending the money on fitting colostomy bags to all the local doggies in the area.

 

[RJ]

They were all removed before 1999 (I cant find my books before then) so more than 'a couple of years ago', especially as they were only built in 1990.

The 456s all had functioning toilets until around 2012 or so, their removal meant one less place for fare bunkers to hide. On the flipside, people just used the area between the carriages instead. Glad they've gone, even if they did have more comfortable seats than the 455s on our side.

 

[yorksrob]

Don't underestimate the power of the media on this one.
What was acceptable for a century or more is increasingly unacceptable today.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the factor which finally caused Northern stock to be replaced was triggered by the "health" issues with non-retention stock.
The HSTs/Mk3 stock might just get by until IEPs turn up, but they are on borrowed time.
The lady Ministers at the DfT are not impressed.

Or maybe Splash Gordon !

 

[Parallel]

Which operator is the worst for having stock that dumps waste over the tracks then? FGW have got to be pretty bad with all those HSTs, 150s, 153s, 143s and 158s. I assume the 180s have retention tanks, but do the 165s and 166s? Northern have got to be quite high up on the list too, and possibly ATW (are their 158s now fitted with retention tanks?)

 

[cjmillsnun]

Which operator is the worst for having stock that dumps waste over the tracks then? FGW have got to be pretty bad with all those HSTs, 150s, 153s, 143s and 158s. I assume the 180s have retention tanks, but do the 165s and 166s? Northern have got to be quite high up on the list too, and possibly ATW (are their 158s now fitted with retention tanks?)

I thought all the 158s have retention tanks now and most other sprinter classes have been converted.

Dunno about the pacers.

 

[158747]

I thought all the 158s have retention tanks now and most other sprinter classes have been converted.

Dunno about the pacers.

FGW 158s are not fitted with retention tanks.

 

[Starmill]

The 456s all had functioning toilets until around 2012 or so, their removal meant one less place for fare bunkers to hide. On the flipside, people just used the area between the carriages instead. Glad they've gone, even if they did have more comfortable seats than the 455s on our side.

I think somebody wrote a letter to a railway magazine about this, saying that it had caused corrosion on the couplers and taken a 455 out of service for a time!

It sounds worse than disgusting - but people will go out drinking and get the last train of the night from Waterloo and if it's half an hour before you reach your stop...

 

[dangie]

Surely in this day and age we shouldn't be running any rolling stock that spews its effluent to the outside world.

 

[sprinterguy]

I thought all the 158s have retention tanks now and most other sprinter classes have been converted.

The Northern 158s have been fitted with retention tanks, as have the Scotrail and SWT units. Not sure about the EMT or ATW fleets.

The only other Sprinter type to have been fitted with retention tanks to date are the small number of 156s currently being refurbished for Greater Anglia.

 

[Murph]

Surely in this day and age we shouldn't be running any rolling stock that spews its effluent to the outside world.

Just pop a blank cheque in the post to DfT (as long as you've got a billion pound overdraft limit), and they will be happy to arrange that for you!

It may be icky, but it's been that way for over 100 years without causing plague and pestilence. The empirical evidence doesn't appear to support any real urgency to eliminate the practice, but new stock uses retention tanks and some older stock is getting converted during deep refurbs, so the emissions are gradually reducing.

All of the media reports are highly biased scaremongering, as far as I can see. This latest one from the BBC was frankly shameful in the way they misused their expert to confirm risk without quantifying the risk. Of course there's a non-zero risk, but there's a distinct lack of anyone showing real evidence of a significant risk that needs urgent attention.

 

[jon0844]

I think that the risk is lower when the train dumps under the train directly onto the track. Not nice for rail workers, obviously, but I am sure they're aware. And it is a problem that WILL solve itself as new trains are introduced.

I still think the bigger problem is when people on platforms are sprayed, or that substance is drawn in through open windows of older stock when another train passes in a tunnel. And that's preventable because it's retention tanks overflowing, so you simply make it so those toilets are locked out of use when full or emptied more regularly.

But the BBC programme didn't mention that at all. It either didn't know, or didn't care, but I recorded the show and didn't think there was much value from it at all. The lady that got her back garden covered was the final icing on the cake (not very tasty icing by the sound of it!).

Meanwhile, EC is still happy to let trains travel that spray on curves and nobody seems to care.

 

[185143]

I think 158s had retention tanks but 156s didn't, so anything built prior to the 158 probably doesn't have them unless retro-fitted.
Easiest way to tell is if there is a notice asking you not to flush when stopped at a station...

This notice is like a moth to a flame. People just can't help themselves it would seem looking at the sludge which lines the track in most busy stations.

if you really have to go, at least wait until you've left the station to flush,

 

[Welly]

Meanwhile, EC is still happy to let trains travel that spray on curves and nobody seems to care.

One afternoon several years ago I hung around Retford to photograph a 325 on a daytime southbound working. A mark 4 rake came pass north
bound bowling me! To add insult to injury, it sprayed crap water on me!

 

[a1a.a1a]

The 456s all had functioning toilets until around 2012 or so,

Cheers RJ, I knew it wasnt that long ago, glad to see our drivers do care about what's behind them JOKE!!!

 

[cjmillsnun]

if you really have to go, at least wait until you've left the station to flush,

There will still be some splashing when you dump your load.

 

[Starmill]

There will still be some splashing when you dump your load.

Maybe that wasn't what he had in mind?

 

[455driver]

Cheers RJ, I knew it wasnt that long ago, glad to see our drivers do care about what's behind them JOKE!!!

I have never driven a 456, SERIOUS! :roll:

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Surely in this day and age we shouldn't be running any rolling stock that spews its effluent to the outside world.

No new trains do. It's been like that for about twenty years (maybe longer?) but there are still carriages which were built before that spew onto the track.

The question is what do you do? The current solution is the most sensible one, when stuff is life expired then new trains come in with retention tanks, the number of carriages which drop sewerage onto the tracks in declining and has been for a long time. We've over a century of history with this being a thing and nobody has caught the plague, in fact there is no evidence that I am aware of that it's even spreading disease, it certainly spreads far fewer germs than the umpteen piles of dog crap which infest our streets, parks and other places where it is far more likely to be stepped in or touched by children.

Alternatives? Withdraw all carriages now and retrofit new toilets? What do we do in the meantime when hundreds of trains are cancelled every day? Apologise that the 08:32 has been cancelled because poo in the four foot is "icky" for some people? Apologise that station improvements, electrification projects or other engineering works have had to be cancelled because the money was spent on new toilets for old trains instead?

It's not ideal that sewerage is on the tracks but once you get past the shock factor and realise that in terms of a being a health risk it's pretty minimal if the last century is anything to go by then you have to concede it is a very low priority.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Maybe that wasn't what he had in mind?

As something enters the toilet bowl, be it liquid or solid, it will push some liquid through the U bend and out onto the track.

 

[Aictos]

Part of me thinks they'd be better off spending the money on fitting colostomy bags to all the local doggies in the area.

They're actually done that to the horse and cart services in Great Yarmouth Well they did a few years ago I was there....

 

[yorksrob]

They're actually done that to the horse and cart services in Great Yarmouth Well they did a few years ago I was there....

That's interesting. Although for some reason, I find horse dung generally less offensive to the eyes and nostrils (perhaps it's something to do with the herbivorous diet).

 

[Ingleborough]

FGW has made a commitment to fit all it's DMU fleet with CET toilets. Work has already started, three 166s have them and the first 150/2 is due back from Wolverton very soon. CET facilities are being put in at Exeter Depot, on D road at SPM and by the new DMU servicing shed adjacent to Victoria Sidings. If HST is life extended it will also get them.
It is not a five minute job and has to be carried out at a facility where it is possible to cut big holes in the bodywork and roof. When it comes to the mark 3 structure of the 150s that comes with risks that the structure loses rigidity unless supported by very good jigs.
Sleeper stock already has it. Laira, Penzance, OC and Reading already have emptying facilities and will have them extended where requires. In Exeter's case an entire new, and much larger depot is proposed.

 

[455driver]

In Exeter's case an entire new, and much larger depot is proposed.

And a Sainsburys!