No Functioning Toilet

[neilmc]

Last Friday I caught a Trans-Pennine train from Penrith to Manchester on which, we were warned, there was no functioning toilet. They were planning to stop for a toilet call at Preston but in the event they were running a few minutes late so simply told any desperate passengers to alight at Preston for the toilet and catch the train from Blackpool which was by then only a few minutes behind.

The following day (Saturday 15th October) I was waiting at Chesterfield when the southbound 15:07 was likewise reported as operating without a functional toilet - fortunately this wasn't my train, as it was going all the way to PENZANCE!!

I wonder just how many station toilet calls this train made, and how much "delay repay" and bladder suffering was incurred simply by people not being able to go to the loo. Then I surmised that this never used to happen on long-distance trains in the good old BR days, when you got, say, a Peak pulling a rake of Mark 1 coaches which would have possibly a single malfunctioning toilet, if any, but there would always be an operational one in the next carriage.

Is this getting worse and worse due to short-formed modern units, the design of modern sanitary systems on trains, or a willingness to send out units unfit for service rather than incur the costs of cancellation?

 

[sarahj]

Last Friday I caught a Trans-Pennine train from Penrith to Manchester on which, we were warned, there was no functioning toilet. They were planning to stop for a toilet call at Preston but in the event they were running a few minutes late so simply told any desperate passengers to alight at Preston for the toilet and catch the train from Blackpool which was by then only a few minutes behind.

The following day (Saturday 15th October) I was waiting at Chesterfield when the southbound 15:07 was likewise reported as operating without a functional toilet - fortunately this wasn't my train, as it was going all the way to PENZANCE!!

I wonder just how many station toilet calls this train made, and how much "delay repay" and bladder suffering was incurred simply by people not being able to go to the loo. Then I surmised that this never used to happen on long-distance trains in the good old BR days, when you got, say, a Peak pulling a rake of Mark 1 coaches which would have possibly a single malfunctioning toilet, if any, but there would always be an operational one in the next carriage.

Is this getting worse and worse due to short-formed modern units, the design of modern sanitary systems on trains, or a willingness to send out units unfit for service rather than incur the costs of cancellation?

I would say in order:

B
C
A

Toilets on trains go out of order mainly due to either the waste tank is full, or the water tank is empty. Since only certain depots can empty the tanks, and only at certain parts of the those depots, means some potter around longer than they should.

And as for getting worse. Some companies have a habbit of letting them go to pot, then getting their act together, then slowly letting go, then act together and so on and so on.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Its oft joked that XC voyagers smell like toilets but its unusual for all to be out at once, poor. TPE 185s and 350s seam to go out of service very regularly and not good enough in my view.

 

[Master29]

Its oft joked that XC voyagers smell like toilets but its unusual for all to be out at once, poor. TPE 185s and 350s seam to go out of service very regularly and not good enough in my view.

If you say No functioning toilets fast enough it sounds just like Crosscountry trains

 

[najaB]

...the design of modern sanitary systems on trains...

Given that on Mk1 and Mk2 (and most Mk3) stock the toilet is little more than a hole in the floor and a tank of water, there was a lot less to go wrong.

 

[AndrewE]

Given that on Mk1 and Mk2 (and most Mk3) stock the toilet is little more than a hole in the floor and a tank of water, there was a lot less to go wrong.

That's as maybe (& you are right, cruder older stock was more resilient) the point is that you have a group of people captive on a train (many of whom will be on tickets that are only valid on that train, and maybe subsequent connections too) who are expected to cope with this sort of thing. It's disgraceful (splutter, splutter...) Personally I would be tempted to pee on the platform and jump back on!

If Franchisees choose to try to make extra money with the kit they know they are taking on by cutting corners - diagrams too tight, tanking and emptying away from home "too expensive" - then they should be named and shamed (and punished financially.) Sadly I can't see the proponents of franchising wanting to embarrass their friends by doing this.

Once upon a time the WTT (and especially the STN (Special Traffic Notice) had "X" stops - booked calls for passengers in excursion trains of non-corridor stock to use station toilets! Hence big platforms and lots of toilets at minor stations between coastal resorts and big cities.

A

 

[route:oxford]

Given that on Mk1 and Mk2 (and most Mk3) stock the toilet is little more than a hole in the floor and a tank of water, there was a lot less to go wrong.

I'm sure when I was younger there were units where you could watch the track through the bottom of the pan...

 

[yorksrob]

Also, modern trains don't have enough toilets. Mk 1's, 2's and 3's used to have two per carriage.

Now IC trains only have 1 per carriage and most regional units have one per two carriages. I'm guessing the new TPE electrics were only built with one per two carriages, which isn't really enough for an IC service.

 

[AndrewE]

I'm sure when I was younger there were units where you could watch the track through the bottom of the pan...

That was in France, and other unenlightened places! I've never seen a british railway coach toilet that didn't have a "U"-bend...

When abroad I was amazed that "it" dropped straight on to the railhead though, I would have thought that it would exacerbate any greasy rail problems! Maybe they decided it was preferable to turds in the 4-foot or the potential extra corrosion of rail fixings.

 

[30907]

That was in France, and other unenlightened places! I've never seen a british railway coach toilet that didn't have a "U"-bend...

When abroad I was amazed that "it" dropped straight on to the railhead though, I would have thought that it would exacerbate any greasy rail problems! Maybe they decided it was preferable to turds in the 4-foot or the potential extra corrosion of rail fixings.

I have a memory of SR electric stock that was pretty basic, but nothing compared with an Austrian branch line train in 1972-4.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....The following day (Saturday 15th October) I was waiting at Chesterfield when the southbound 15:07 was likewise reported as operating without a functional toilet - fortunately this wasn't my train, as it was going all the way to PENZANCE!!

I was on that train. At Derby the notice for this train was "no accessible toilets" (or some such), whilst on the train a passenger asked a member of train crew and they were told that the toilet in that coach wasn't working, but others on the train were.

....I wonder just how many station toilet calls this train made,...

None before Bristol Parkway, that's were I alighted though, so no idea beyond that.

 

[J-2739]

Also, modern trains don't have enough toilets. Mk 1's, 2's and 3's used to have two per carriage.

Now IC trains only have 1 per carriage and most regional units have one per two carriages. I'm guessing the new TPE electrics were only built with one per two carriages, which isn't really enough for an IC service.

Two per car. Imagine how stinky that would be?

 

[yorksrob]

Two per car. Imagine how stinky that would be?

Stinkiness of bogs seems to be more linked to carriage type than carriage to bog ratio in my experience.

 

[Starmill]

The newest trains in the TransPennine fleet, which are the ones one generally finds working through Penrith, actually have three toilets in four coaches (or six toilets in eight coaches, and you can walk through the train all the way). Their older stock has two toilets in three coaches, although frustratingly you can't walk between them. Personally I do think this is insufficient.

 

[yorksrob]

The newest trains in the TransPennine fleet, which are the ones one generally finds working through Penrith, actually have three toilets in four coaches (or six toilets in eight coaches, and you can walk through the train all the way). Their older stock has two toilets in three coaches, although frustratingly you can't walk between them. Personally I do think this is insufficient.

Three in four carriages is better than I'd expected.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Toilets on trains go out of order mainly due to either the waste tank is full, or the water tank is empty. Since only certain depots can empty the tanks, and only at certain parts of the those depots, means some potter around longer than they should.

But that is an excuse. If it is necessary to provide more emptying/tanking facilities, TOCs should install them. If they won't do that off their own backs, they should be mandated to do so.

Failure to provide adequate toilet facilities on trains for reasons that are simply financial in nature is effectively disability discrimination; many people require very frequent use of a toilet, and that in my mind is no less a disability than any other.

 

[fowler9]

Didn't Mk2's and 3's have 2 toilets per carriage. 350's and 185's have 2 per train. 390's don't have 1 per carriage. Liverpool South Parkway has 3 toilets for the entire station. Don't people need to go to the bog any more?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The newest trains in the TransPennine fleet, which are the ones one generally finds working through Penrith, actually have three toilets in four coaches (or six toilets in eight coaches, and you can walk through the train all the way). Their older stock has two toilets in three coaches, although frustratingly you can't walk between them. Personally I do think this is insufficient.

Do the 350/4's have 3 toilets? I'm pretty sure they only have 2. Where is the extra one?

 

[gray1404]

I was on a LM Birmingham to Liverpool service recently, I boarded at Stafford getting off at Liverpool South Parkway. The guard saw me heading towards the toilet shortly after leaving Stafford and said he was very sorry that it wasn't working. He asked if I would him to arrange a toilet stop at Crewe. As I has an onward connection at LPY and wanted to get home in time to smash out a session at the gym that evening, I politely declined.

If the guard have had arranged such a stop, do they just basically delay the service by say 5/10 minutes while passengers use the facilities?

 

[Jd12]

I know with XC or VWC that if a 4 car Voyager or 5 car 221 has 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4 toilets locked out of use it won't be allowed off depot. If toilets fail during the day riders will be sent to try and rectify faults and get them working again. Failing that the trains generally get swapped out at Birmingham. If theyre already passed this when the failures occur there's not much that can be done, I'm sure most passengers would rather get to their destination than wait for the next service.

 

[yorksrob]

Didn't Mk2's and 3's have 2 toilets per carriage. ?

Yes, as per my previous post.

 

[DarloRich]

But that is an excuse. If it is necessary to provide more emptying/tanking facilities, TOCs should install them. If they won't do that off their own backs, they should be mandated to do so.

Failure to provide adequate toilet facilities on trains for reasons that are simply financial in nature is effectively disability discrimination; many people require very frequent use of a toilet, and that in my mind is no less a disability than any other.

In theory yes that should happen but the reality is more complex. Practically the equipment is going to have to be installed at terminal stations as with tight diagrams getting a run to the depot wont be possible. In many cases the depot will be many miles away in any event. Another TOC local depot wont be of any use unless there are contracts in place to access and use the facilities.You also need ground staff to operate the equipment and access right to install and maintain it. That's before we start looking at all the environmental permits and support infrastructure such equipment will require.

Say a TPE arrives at Newcastle and needs a tank empty in the run round time. Where & how is that going to happen?

Don't get me wrong the toilets should be working. It just isn't quite as easy as an unwillingness to invest.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In theory yes that should happen but the reality is more complex. Practically the equipment is going to have to be installed at terminal stations as with tight diagrams getting a run to the depot wont be possible. In many cases the depot will be many miles away in any event. Another TOC local depot wont be of any use unless there are contracts in place to access and use the facilities.You also need ground staff to operate the equipment and access right to install and maintain it. That's before we start looking at all the environmental permits and support infrastructure such equipment will require.

All that is available if necessary, it simply has a financial cost. That cost may be for staff, it may be for depot facilities, it may be for use of other TOCs' facilities, it may be for tanking facilities at a station, it may be for additional rolling stock to allow greater downtime, it may be for more toilets per train so usage is spread out. It is, however, just a cost.

Say a TPE arrives at Newcastle and needs a tank empty in the run round time. Where & how is that going to happen?

The tanks are very large and this should not come as a surprise. So it isn't "oops, this one is full", it's a case of planning operations such that it doesn't *get* full.

Don't get me wrong the toilets should be working. It just isn't quite as easy as an unwillingness to invest.

In the end it very much is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know with XC or VWC that if a 4 car Voyager or 5 car 221 has 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4 toilets locked out of use it won't be allowed off depot. If toilets fail during the day riders will be sent to try and rectify faults and get them working again. Failing that the trains generally get swapped out at Birmingham. If theyre already passed this when the failures occur there's not much that can be done, I'm sure most passengers would rather get to their destination than wait for the next service.

I do think that if anyone has an Advance ticket on a service that has no working toilets (including if they become non-working during the journey), or an Off-Peak where the end of the off-peak period is approaching, they should be offered the ability to turn those tickets into Anytime tickets for free and thus use a later or earlier train instead.

(Notably, though, having to ask for a ticket change or toilet stop because you have a weak bladder is embarrassing. The TOCs should not make people have to ask - the policy should be announced clearly and other staff informed)

 

[DarloRich]

All that is available if necessary, it simply has a financial cost. That cost may be for staff, it may be for depot facilities, it may be for use of other TOCs' facilities, it may be for tanking facilities at a station, it may be for additional rolling stock to allow greater downtime, it may be for more toilets per train so usage is spread out. It is, however, just a cost.

While it is just a cost it is a cost weighed against the benefit and return to the company. What do they get for their money? If the answer is nothing tangible or an improved bottom line no business will invest. If forced to by the government the passenger will pay for the upgrades

Is it the TOC responsibility or NR or the rolling stock maintainer or a joint investment by all station operators to install, maintain and operate? It isn't quite as easy as saying it is just a lack of desire to invest.

The fragmented nature of the rail industry makes these investment decision, while on the face of it quite simple, vastly complicated!

it is not insurmountable it just needs some drive/control to make it happen. Perhaps it isn't seen as a priority.

The tanks are very large and this should not come as a surprise. So it isn't "oops, this one is full", it's a case of planning operations such that it doesn't *get* full.

The obvious point is that the passengers are the ones filling the tank. More passengers mean a tank that fills up quicker

I am sure the service plans are based on average use but with several busy trains the toilets might get full. I cant imagine passengers would be happy to be told the 1456 to Manchester is cancelled so we can empty the toilets.

Anyway I think we agree the toilets should be working!

 

[Bletchleyite]

While it is just a cost it is a cost weighed against the benefit and return to the company.

Indeed, which is why I think it should become a regulatory issue, with a heavy (but less than outright cancellation) penalty.

If forced to by the government the passenger will pay for the upgrades

Which is quite right. Non-provision of toilets is discrimination against those with a disability requiring urgent toilet use. As with other disability adaptations, the cost is shared among the wider community to make it fair.

Is it the TOC responsibility or NR or the rolling stock maintainer or a joint investment by all station operators to install, maintain and operate? It isn't quite as easy as saying it is just a lack of desire to invest.

It's the TOC's responsibility to provide working toilet facilities on their trains. How they do that is frankly their problem, but it is unacceptable for them to say it's just a bit too hard to do so.

The fragmented nature of the rail industry makes these investment decision, while on the face of it quite simple, vastly complicated!

True, but again that should not be the passenger's problem.

it is not insurmountable it just needs some drive/control to make it happen. Perhaps it isn't seen as a priority.

Then legislation is needed to make it one.

TBH, I think legislation has passed (ha!) this one by more generally, in for instance not mandating Councils to provide proper public toilet facilities. We really are in danger of returning, if we haven't already, to the Victorian situation where people who might often need a toilet feared going out because there wouldn't be one where they needed it.

It's as bad as not providing properly for wheelchairs. Arguably, it's worse, as it applies to far more people than wheelchair users, and disproportionately to the elderly as well (so age discrimination), and disproportionately to women (as it is harder to use a bush in a park, for instance).

The obvious point is that the passengers are the ones filling the tank. More passengers mean a tank that fills up quicker

Just like passenger loadings are predictable, so is the amount of, umm, waste product produced.

I am sure the service plans are based on average use but with several busy trains the toilets might get full. I cant imagine passengers would be happy to be told the 1456 to Manchester is cancelled so we can empty the toilets.

True, but that means you have to just plan for a higher percentage of availability, which might mean emptying when they aren't full but is more likely to ensure that they don't *get* full.

Anyway I think we agree the toilets should be working!

Yep

 

[AndyPJG]

I do think that if anyone has an Advance ticket on a service that has no working toilets (including if they become non-working during the journey), or an Off-Peak where the end of the off-peak period is approaching, they should be offered the ability to turn those tickets into Anytime tickets for free and thus use a later or earlier train instead.

...and also claim delay repay as your journey is delayed because you had to travel on a later service?

 

[Bletchleyite]

...and also claim delay repay as your journey is delayed because you had to travel on a later service?

Good point.

 

[boxy321]

On a (narrow) boat, you moor up, they stick the pipe in, switch on and 'splurggh phht gargle spoosh blurrgh' and it's empty. You pay the person and continue on your way. Easy.

 

[All Line Rover]

Do the 350/4's have 3 toilets? I'm pretty sure they only have 2. Where is the extra one?

I'm sure that when London Midland ordered the 350/3's (I haven't travelled on a 350/4) they said they would have three toilets on board. However, they do not. The removed guards office (the only layout change from the 350/1's) has been replaced with a cramped bay of four seats (no table), not a toilet.

It is pathetic. On one of the 350/3's which is used between Crewe and London, the accessible toilet has been out of order for weeks. WEEKS! It was still out of order this morning on the 05:45 from Northampton to Crewe (which then forms the 07:55 from Crewe to London).

How does a permanently out of order accessible toilet possibly comply with disability regs? And how is having only one working toilet (if that) for a journey length that is longer than most intercity journeys possibly considered acceptable?

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is the odd other layout change from the 350/1 - there are a few more tables. But that doesn't detract from your point - it is unacceptable, and LM need to spend the money to fix their processes (or insist that Siemens do) to solve it.

 

[blue87]

Voyager ones have a habit of locking themselves out of use, normally I let the manager know and they are normaly able to get it working again by playing with the buttons in one of the cupboards.