Railway operators told 'keep it clean'

[yorkie]

Its not feasable to fit retention tanks to older stock. Shouldnt the farcement therefore get their act together and build some bloody trains?

It is feasible. Or, at least, it would have been during the refurbishment.

It's probably too expensive to justify now as a project on it's own.

 

[Broken Viking]

Hail All!
I'd always thought that - With the exception of heritage stock running on preserved lines (Where pre-privatisation rules would still apply) - That it would've been a legal requirement for all public stock to have sileage tanks fitted by now...
I can imagine that fitting tanks to certain units might be difficult (142s spring to my mind, as isn't the toilet located directly above a bogie?) but would it actually be impossible on certain classes, and if so would they have to be widthdrawn as a result? :?
(It's at this point I have now decided to retract my idea of having a go at getting a P-Way maintenance job! )

Just to back-up what A60K said above:
There was one occasion a while ago where I was using the VRR S-Bahn to get into and out of Essen (Deutschland) and on one such trip I decided to avail myself of an on-board convenience that I found. Getting in there though, it was pretty much just like a household lavatory with the bottom missing and the four-foot clearly visible through the pan...Incidentally, an excellent moniker for our own rail system!

Oh, and here's another area where the APT came out top: It was the first British train - To my knowlege - That used septic tanks insted of track dumping to deal with onboard waste! 8)

Farewell for now...And please wash your hands after visiting this topic!
>> Death <<

 

[robvulpes]

I can imagine that fitting tanks to certain units might be difficult (142s spring to my mind, as isn't the toilet located directly above a bogie?) >> Death <<

the difficulty might be in finding a bogie on a 142 :grin:

 

[Yank 119]

Even the German IC sets.

This seems to be the exception rather than the rule. While there are many still running, most IC coaches have had vacuum toilets fitted. DB, I've found, have been one of the "best" European operators when it comes to fitting tanks. My last experience with the system was in 2005, and I'd imagine it's gotten even cleaner since then.

SNCB/NMBS have also been good about it. I've noted their recent rebuilds have included tanks.

SNCF - conventional stock still dumps, all Paris termini are disgusting.

NS - With the exception of certain ICRs fitted with tanks for the HSL Zuid, all of their stock still dumps, even the new IRMs built in '03 dump.

Interesting subject, this. It amazes me that this has gone unnoticed for so long. The practice has been outlawed in the US since 2001, when Amtrak's EPA waiver expired. This was for the old heritage equipment from the 1950s. I believe all rail equipment built in the US after 1979 has been required to have tanks. In the UK? 1993.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....I can imagine that fitting tanks to certain units might be difficult (142s spring to my mind, as isn't the toilet located directly above a bogie?) but would it actually be impossible on certain classes, and if so would they have to be widthdrawn as a result? :?....

319s have two toilets (except the 319/2s which have one disabled toilet) above the bogie* and, as already mentioned, they have a tank!

[*Although I will conceed that they are above a non-powered bogie.]

 

[Dan1983]

National express east anglia's class 360 siemens have this, they are CET'd at Colchester and Clacton. We have just had a new system put in, and its alot better than the old one.

 

[spoony]

I wish metro trains had loos, the track is fairly clean at leat

 

[mrcheek]

This will unfairly penalise the franchises that have predominantly older stock - in other words, FGW. So they will have to put fares up to recoup the costs of either retention tanks or extra payments to National Rail. so, once again, people will be having a go at FGW for something over which they have no control!!!!

 

[djw1981]

FGW could argue that it is the ROSCO's responsibility to provide rolling stock which complies with the law.....an argument which won;t get anywhere but may force a nice 'grandfather' clause from DfT til say 2014 (like the RVAR clause) which would mean FGW had their new IEP by then (and pigs may be taking off and landing at Heathrow)

 

[Zamracene749]

Exactly how much 'damage' can a turd cause?....

Disgusting when dropped onto the tracks at a station-but- trains seemed to get by with toilet arrangements like this for the last 175 years or so without real problems didn't they?

Is it just that passengers/people in general nowadays are too selfish to care and choose to ignore the easily read warnings not to flush in stations?
Or perhaps people are reluctant to pay to use the toilets in larger stations so pay a visit before alighting/ just after boarding?

Having said this, I would not fancy being a track worker in some busy areas....

 

[spoony]

Exactly how much 'damage' can a turd cause?....

Disgusting when dropped onto the tracks at a station-but- trains seemed to get by with toilet arrangements like this for the last 175 years or so without real problems didn't they?

Is it just that passengers/people in general nowadays are too selfish to care and choose to ignore the easily read warnings not to flush in stations?
Or perhaps people are reluctant to pay to use the toilets in larger stations so pay a visit before alighting/ just after boarding?

Having said this, I would not fancy being a track worker in some busy areas....

Forgive my ignorance but cant they put a bucket or something in, surely the cost cant be that much to put a retention tank on. Failing that, its only a turd

 

[Bush]

Retention Vs Track/Underframe Dump, hmm.

They both have they're up and down sides from a Maintenance point of view (Well, my biased one anyway! )

On the old Slam Door Stock, it was pretty disgusting underneath the train around the toilet areas, to put into perspective, it was more white (and brown) toilet paper than brake dust/grease. :cry: As The Slash will probably testify, When Examing No.4 Motor on a 4CIG, you had to scrape off a fair inch of "The Brown Stuff" before you opened the Commutator Cover to inspect otherwise you'd get a face full of it, and believe me you'd only do that once!

142's, 150's and 153's etc are a different kettle of fish on the other hand, because they don't carry 750v equipment under them, they have routine underframe cleaning where most of the horrid stuff it pressure washed off, which makes it more pleasant when working underneath. And Ive much rather have that than a rentention tank stuck underneath ponging out the sheds and in some cases leaking. :cry:
A Good example is of a 319/2 before they were Refreshed with Southern had the Disabled Toilets locked OOU for a long while, thus the water in the U Bend had evaporated and you were left with a nice air vent from the Retention Tank into the Toilet and "Airing" out into the saloon! :roll:

So my view? Track Dump's better if the units can be underframe cleaned. Plus theres less of a chance of having a pongy unit! (Anyone whos been in a Voyager Vestibule will know what I mean!)

Besides, would you want to be the operator that sucks out S**t from Retention Tanks? Thought Not.

 

[djw1981]

There are reports of track workers being sporayed but IIRC this is due to CET tank overflowing not the direct drop loos.

 

[me123]

Simply consider the fact that the waste will be lying there for some time before it degrades; it's actually rather disgusting. You wouldn't see human faeces being thrown out the back of a car, would you? If you did, you'd think it disgusting.

I'd imagine emptying retention tanks would be a rather "clean" process; well as clean as it can be given what it involves. I wouldn't expect to be covered in faecal matter when doing it, anyway.

 

[Zamracene749]

I dunno-remember watching a program years ago (Adam Hart Davies) regarding the breakdown of feacal matter- bacteria in soil do this really quickly leaving just more soil in a couple of days (if not then I reckon the world would be a rather niffy place lol)

Retention tanks must then be an environmental and financial no no-
Apart from the additional costs incurred with labour and infrastructure to deal with them, the actual carrying around of extra weight will waste power and the resulting effluent will no doubt be classed as hazardous waste- almost certainly requiring incineration or treatment at sewage plants at a good cost to the TOC?

 

[djw1981]

They can IIRC be pumped straight into main sewerage system though.

 

[Zamracene749]

Thats not too bad then.
Bet the local water board charge them well for it though-if that will be cheaper than a railtrack fine for the year I have no clue.

They can IIRC be pumped straight into main sewerage system though.

 

[djw1981]

AIUI fines would be from H&S and Environment Agency not NR (though they may be given to NR who could pass them onto the TOCs). But railtrack won't be involved.