Train drivers will finally have access to toilets

[rmHawk765]

Please ignore this, my internet was playing up.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2025 ==

But it's not divisive to say that's the reason it's happening. It's true. What's wrong with telling the truth?

I think you too have misunderstood. What I mean is, it is absurd that this has only been done as a result of it pretty much being forced due to more women working on the railways, who need the facilities even more, instead of the fact that it's a basic need for everyone.

 

[43066]

I mean, realistically, this is something that could have been put into negotiations at any point, right? ASLEF could have asked for this guarantee at literally any point since privatisation - but the focus has been on better hours and better salaries, which is entirely fair as that was the priority that their members had. It's not a case of male drivers doing nothing, but that it wasn't a priority because of their physiology. Ultimately, there was equality in this case - everyone had equal access to lavatories.

Now, as a result of more women joining the industry - and the push to have more women join the industry, particularly in male-dominated roles - priorities have changed. It's not divisive to state that this very much does have things to do with gender (particularly on the freight side, as access to lavatories is generally better on the passenger side), and that women in general do have an increased need for those facilities. This is very much a case of good feminist action leading to benefits for everyone - reasonable equity, where everyone has the access that they need that reflects the situation of the people affected by the policy.

Probably a lot of truth in this. I agree that it isn’t divisive to suggest that the catalyst for change may have been more women joining the industry, but I simply don’t see why it matters either way. It is a good thing that this change had occurred for all railway employees, including men, as women certainly don’t have a monopoly on disliking grubby toilet facilities!

 

[Haywain]

I think you too have misunderstood. What I mean is, it is absurd that this has only been done as a result of it pretty much being forced due to more women working on the railways, who need the facilities even more, instead of the fact that it's a basic need for everyone.

In which case perhaps "everyone" should have been pushing for this long ago. But it's self evident that they were not and we must therefore conclude that the male majority did not see it as a priority.

 

[43066]

In which case perhaps "everyone" should have been pushing for this long ago. But it's self evident that they were not and we must therefore conclude that the male majority did not see it as a priority.

It’s also entirely possible that younger male drivers and those joining from outside the industry view this sort of thing as more of a priority than those who went before them. Especially those who have come from white collar environments. I mean it’s pretty basic stuff to get right, and fairly shocking to be even discussing it in 2025!

The turnover of drivers is very low, with many remaining in post for decades, so inevitably these things take a long time to filter through.

 

[Harpo]

Sod the gender politics. Is it the right thing to do? There is only one answer.

 

[bluesfromagun]

Whilst this is very welcome news which I wholly support, I fear for my TOC the effect could well be detrimental due to the vagaries of diagramming and timetabling.

At the location & TOC where I work, we currently have an agree max 4h30 continuous driving, with one route having regular out and back workings which come in at somewhere in the region of 4h15 or so. The one agreed PNB location other than at the originating station is approximately half way, however the TOC only runs an hourly service, so I can pretty much guarantee that what will happen in future is that the diagrams will be split to step back an hour at the middle location PNB point, and effectively the diagrams will be lengthened by that hour as the full turn extended by an hour will still fall within the maximum agreed day length, albeit close to that length with the added hour. And all the employer will respond is "well, your union agreed the max 4 hours driving"

Obviously each TOC will have different agreements, but mine is 4hr maximum driving time, and to break that 4hrs you must have 10mins diagrammed with no driving activities - that is to say, 10mins without your key in the desk. That can be pass, waste time in your diagram between immobilisation and mobilisation at a terminus, between trains, literally anything where your key isn't in the desk.
Also - if they were to extend the jobs you mentioned to be an hour longer - you'd just lose an hour from other diagrams, not like your working week is going to go up!

 

[TheManBehind]

Sod the gender politics. Is it the right thing to do? There is only one answer.

It's easy to say that now it's been done, but understanding the root cause of things like this is critical to improving equity and access to jobs in the workforce. Gender politics is important because of things like this:

how often building planners allocate 50% of toilet space to male and 50% to female, despite women going to the toilet more frequently, taking longer when they do go, needing more room due to lack of urinals, and of course the weakened bladders after pregnancy, space needed for sanitary item disposal (though I'm of the belief these should be in male toilets also anyway), etc.

And, in reality, what's good for one large underserved group is often good for many more smaller ones; this decision brings benefits for lots of groups - including those who may not have considered becoming drivers before.

It's not about "is it the right thing to do", but "what solution will provide the most benefits for underserved groups and provides the most equal access to this job/activity/role". For the vast majority of things, they're the same question, but certainly not always, and understanding the latter helps people like me - a white male middle-manager approaching his middle age (pale, male and stale, anyone?), with all the blind spots that brings - to reflect on what "the right thing to do" actually means. To do that, you must take into account things like gender, race, disability, age, and socioeconomic class (not an exhaustive list by any means) - and I've directly benefitted from that question being asked due to my own socioeconomic background, and decisions being made to make things more accessible to people who grew up at the poorer end of working class.

---

Probably a lot of truth in this. I agree that it isn’t divisive to suggest that the catalyst for change may have been more women joining the industry, but I simply don’t see why it matters either way. It is a good thing that this change had occurred for all railway employees, including men, as women certainly don’t have a monopoly on disliking grubby toilet facilities!

I suggest it matters because precisely because they were the catalyst! Just as if NR introduced textured red aspects to allow colour-blind people to join the railway after campaigns by said group (as a wild and wonderful example) - it's helpful to note the driving force behind changes like this because of the perception that it brings. Chartism wouldn't have been the same if we didn't recognise that it was a working class movement, even though it brought benefits for just about everyone involved in the political process.

 

[Annetts key]

So, some of the TOCs and FOCs may not have been complying with HSE, ORR and RSSB guidance. Given how long this guidance has been in existence, this is surprising to me. The guidance covers all employees and employers.

Especially as female train drivers have been part of the railway since privatisation (there were female train drivers during the final years of BR).

On Network Rail and within the private contract companies that work for Network Rail this issue of reasonable access to proper and suitable toilet facilities had been (mostly) resolved some time ago. Same with provision of suitable messing facilities.

Hence at all worksites where planned work will be taking place for an extended time, if there are no suitable existing facilities, temporary facilities must be provided.

In some locations, relocatable welfare units have been "permanently" provided so that maintenance staff working in the area have facilities within a reasonable distance. There is no reason why the TOCs and FOCus can't do this if needed. Maybe cooperating with Network Rail.

Good to see that they, the TOCs and FOCs will now have to take this issue seriously.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2025 ==

Here are two relevant documents (attached as far too much to quote in full).

HSE document says:

If you employ anyone (however short the period) you must ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’, provide adequate and appropriate welfare facilities for them while they are at work. This means you must provide such facilities unless it is clearly unreasonable in terms of time, trouble, cost and physical difficulty.
‘Welfare facilities’ are those that are necessary for the well-being of your employees, such as washing, toilet, rest and changing facilities, and somewhere clean to eat and drink during breaks.

And

What toilet and washing facilities do I need to provide?
You have to provide adequate toilet and washing facilities for your employees.
‘Adequate’ means you have to provide:

• ■ enough toilets and washbasins for those expected to use them - people should not have to queue for long periods to go to the toilet;
• ■ where possible, separate facilities for men and women - failing that, rooms with lockable doors;
• ■ clean facilities - to help achieve this walls and floors should preferably be tiled (or covered in suitable waterproof material) to make them easier to clean;
• ■ a supply of toilet paper and, for female employees, a means of disposing of sanitary dressings;
• ■ facilities that are well lit and ventilated;
• ■ facilities with hot and cold running water;
• ■ enough soap or other washing agents;
• ■ a basin large enough to wash hands and forearms if necessary;
• ■ a means for drying hands, eg paper towels or a hot air dryer;
• ■ showers where necessary, eg for particularly dirty work.

You must always consider the needs of those with disabilities.

And

What if staff work in remote workplaces without suitable plumbing and a water supply?
You may need to provide chemical toilets and washing facilities, such as water containers.

What if my employees are working at temporary worksites?
‘So far as is reasonably practicable’ you need to provide flushing toilets and running water. Portable cabins converted into toilet facilities are available from hire companies. If this is not possible, consider alternatives such as chemical toilets and water containers.

Use of public toilets and washing facilities should be a last resort and not used just because they are the cheaper option. This would not be acceptable where the provision of better facilities would be reasonably practicable.

RSSB Report says:

The extent of the problem

Research, has shown that there is reason for concern for railway workers in the present, and for the future, due to a lack of access to toilet facilities. Operational constraints on the railway have limited toilet access, either through cab design or remoteness of work. The environment has not changed but society has moved on and the safety, wellbeing and equality challenges identified in this guidance must be met. Too many rail staff have been found to work in conditions incongruous with modern society and change needs to happen now.

And:

The Welfare Regulations require all duty holders to provide welfare (toilet) facilities, subject to the ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ caveat.
While there are exemptions for locomotives and rolling stock for the provision of sanitary facilities, it is important to recognise this does not mean rail operators do not need to provide breaks with access to toilet facilities.

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (The Management Regulations) requires significant risks to be assessed. The planning of work should take personal needs breaks (PNB) into consideration, but such needs are not always met. Therefore, any significant risks arising from this must be assessed.

And:

What ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ really means:

Section 40 of the Act defines what is reasonable and practicable, and, who has the duty of proving it is complied with. It will be up to the duty holder to prove that it was not practicable, or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done, or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used.
There is a very high bar to reach to prove a defence of ‘reasonable practicability’ and it is rarely challenged because of this. Compliance is far easier.

And:

The RSSB Toilet Facilities Research Report identified that all drivers interviewed stated they had restricted their fluid intake at some point. Drivers reported medical conditions that resulted from lack of access to toilet facilities and restricting fluid intake such as kidney and urinary tract infections. RSSB’s guidance on shaping the rail environment to encourage healthy behaviours recognises the need for adequate hydration and the current challenges in rail.

And:

“I didn’t drink and this led to a urinary tract infection and further complications.” Freight Train Driver

And:

The Great British Railways Transition Team

Consultation took place with the GBRTT Programme Director for Freight Reform. GBRTT recognised the need to prioritise welfare provision and consider:

• • access to emergency facilities
• • multi-contractual obligations between passenger and freight operators to access facilities
• • potential Time Delay Attribution arising from emergency toilet needs
• • facilities in places where toilet breaks could be provided
• • potential location of facilities.

And:

The regulator’s role

Whilst the law does not require toilet facilities on locomotives, this does not remove the need to provide access to them. It is difficult to demonstrate that it would not be reasonable and practical to provide rest breaks with access to toilets off the train.

The rail regulator’s approach is to assist the industry to comply with its health and safety obligations through verbal and written advice.
In most circumstances, compliance is secured without formal enforcement. However, like duty holders, the regulator also has responsibilities, and has shown that it is prepared to adopt stricter methods where the seriousness of the non-compliance justifies it.

I do strongly recommend that you read through both if you are an employee or an employer.

 

[officewalla]

Don't see the big deal with using the on train toilets tbh. On the diagrams that I cover, there are many short turnaround periods that prevent a trip to the PNB point and I often use the facilities on the set that I am working. Sometimes the toilets are not great but if I am not prepared to use it, I lock it out of use and report it as a fault. No more than 4 hours between toilets is going to cause havoc with some diagrams but fortunately at my TOC, there are not that many that will be affected by this.

 

[43066]

Don't see the big deal with using the on train toilets tbh. On the diagrams that I cover, there are many short turnaround periods that prevent a trip to the PNB point and I often use the facilities on the set that I am working. Sometimes the toilets are not great but if I am not prepared to use it, I lock it out of use and report it as a fault. No more than 4 hours between toilets is going to cause havoc with some diagrams but fortunately at my TOC, there are not that many that will be affected by this.

Apart from the fact that, as noted above, some passenger stock and almost all freight locos have no toilet facilities, and/or not enough breaks diagrammed at places that do.

If it raises havoc with diagrams then so be it. The operators will need to design better ones.

 

[InkyScrolls]

The primary issue that this will cause as I see it is the official walking time needed, if on-train toilets are not considered suitable. At my TOC many of our diagrams contain multiple short trips but over four hours between DBCs.

 

[357]

I suspect we will see toilets at the end of platforms in key locations such as Doncaster, York etc. for crew use only.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It is a thing that has shocked me and I don't think shock is too strong a word - but plane pilots have massively easier access to Physical Needs provision including cooked meals. When someone is responsible for people, like train crew are, physical needs absolutely need to be planned and allowed for.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

If it raises havoc with diagrams then so be it. The operators will need to design better ones.

Its very easy to be blasé about that, but if it increases turns then extra heads are needed in the establishment. If DfT say ‘no’ to the additional cost this incurs (most likely in the current climate) it will mean services being removed from the timetable.

 

[Merle Haggard]

In the days when things were very different I busked a ride on an EE3 and I have the distinct recollection that, in the engine compartment, there was a wc pan. Totally open. When inside the downward angled louvres one can see outside quite clearly.
I'm pretty sure I haven't dreamt this!

 

[357]

Its very easy to be blasé about that, but if it increases turns then extra heads are needed in the establishment. If DfT say ‘no’ to the additional cost this incurs (most likely in the current climate) it will mean services being removed from the timetable.

It is very easy to be blasé about drivers developing health problems in later life due to "holding it in" for too long.

Your train service is not more important than my health.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

It is very easy to be blasé about drivers developing health problems in later life due to "holding it in" for too long.

Your train service is not more important than my health.

I didn’t say it was, I’m personally very much in favour of these rules. But we need to be totally real about the difficulties this may cause the industry at an already challenging moment.

 

[danielnez1]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but the likes of the Class 82 had chemical toilets fitted (and so do other locs in other countries) - is that not common practice in modern locomotives (I realise it is a different story for multiple unit stock!).

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but the likes of the Class 82 had chemical toilets fitted (and so do other locs in other countries) - is that not common practice in modern locomotives (I realise it is a different story for multiple unit stock!).

No, as far as I'm aware none of the UK Euroduals (the only modern locomotives) have toilets in.

By far most of the UK services are operated by multiple unit stock which have toilets already built in.

 

[43066]

Its very easy to be blasé about that, but if it increases turns then extra heads are needed in the establishment. If DfT say ‘no’ to the additional cost this incurs (most likely in the current climate) it will mean services being removed from the timetable.

To be clear we are talking here about drivers being able to use toilets when they’re at work, to cater for their basic human bodily functions. Where does this sort of reasoning end? Should we remove the Hidden rules just because it makes things easier from a diagramming perspective?

It is very easy to be blasé about drivers developing health problems in later life due to "holding it in" for too long.

Your train service is not more important than my health.

Precisely - as if the ludicrous shifts aren’t bad enough. The industry needs to urgently get a grip of this sort of thing, and if that means employing more staff and paying more for them, then so be it.

 

[D6130]

In the days when things were very different I busked a ride on an EE3 and I have the distinct recollection that, in the engine compartment, there was a wc pan. Totally open. When inside the downward angled louvres one can see outside quite clearly.
I'm pretty sure I haven't dreamt this!

Likewise some - if not all - class 47s have (or had) a urinal just behind the cab bulkhead at the boiler end.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

To be clear we are talking here about drivers being able to use toilets when they’re at work, to cater for their basic human bodily functions. Where does this sort of reasoning end? Should we remove the Hidden rules just because it makes things easier from a diagramming perspective?

No of course not. Nobody is suggesting worsening the current T&Cs, or making diagramming - resourcing and operating - the timetable easier. But this will certainly make those things harder. If it costs heads - and it will somewhere - who would you like to pay for it?

 

[43066]

No of course not. Nobody is suggesting worsening the current T&Cs, or making diagramming - resourcing and operating - the timetable easier. But this will certainly make those things harder. If it costs heads - and it will somewhere - who would you like to pay for it?

It isn’t my problem who pays for it, but someone needs to (I expect I’ll be on the hook through some of the inordinate amount of tax I pay ).

As I say, if basic physical needs are not being met, that is an issue that needs addressing urgently, irrespective of cost. This is surely basic stuff in 21st century Britain - we aren’t living in Victorian times.

 

[Harpo]

If it costs heads - and it will somewhere - who would you like to pay for it?

What a splendid way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Perhaps any vitriol needs to be directed at those businesses who have avoided the cost previously by exploiting people?

 

[AlterEgo]

No of course not. Nobody is suggesting worsening the current T&Cs, or making diagramming - resourcing and operating - the timetable easier. But this will certainly make those things harder. If it costs heads - and it will somewhere - who would you like to pay for it?

Why does that matter? What a question! I'd like to take a dump at work like a human being but wait - what if my dignity has a financial cost somewhere else? "Sorry we are now meeting the minimum standard to allow people to use the toilet, tell me who has to suffer to allow this". Peak BritBrain.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

It isn’t my problem who pays for it, but someone needs to (I expect I’ll be on the hook through some of the inordinate amount of tax I pay

Ah, a right winger. ‘I pay exhorbitant taxes and therefore I can demand things (justified or not) and completely ignore the reality of how this change will affect other things that are quite important as well.’

As I say, if basic physical needs are not being met, that is an issue that needs addressing urgently, irrespective of cost. This is surely basic stuff in 21st century Britain - we aren’t living in Victorian times.

I fully agree! But it’s peak 21st Century thinking to just imagine these things won’t happen without cost.

Why does that matter? What a question!

Don't ever go into business management my friend.

 

[sprunt]

Ah, a right winger.

Seems a bit rich coming from someone saying "But what about the issues caused for management?" when workers ask for basic human needs to be met.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Ah, a right winger. ‘I pay exhorbitant taxes and therefore I can demand things (justified or not) and completely ignore the reality of how this change will affect other things that are quite important as well.’

It's far from right wing to expect to have adequate access to suitable toilet facilities during your working day.

I fully agree! But it’s peak 21st Century thinking to just imagine these things won’t happen without cost.

It's peak 17th century to not provide your workforce with adequate access to toilet facilities.

Don't ever go into business management my friend.

I hope you don't either, if you view providing toilet facilities for your workforce as a financial inconvenience rather than a necessity.

 

[AlterEgo]

Ah, a right winger. ‘I pay exhorbitant taxes and therefore I can demand things (justified or not) and completely ignore the reality of how this change will affect other things that are quite important as well.’


I fully agree! But it’s peak 21st Century thinking to just imagine these things won’t happen without cost.


Don't ever go into business management my friend.

If I managed a business I would ensure my workers could use the toilet and not ask the same workers which other workers should suffer as a result of that. Not everything is a zero sum game; giving workers a very basic minimum standard of hygiene might actually not be cost negative in any case.

I actually think it's gross to ask a train driver which of their colleagues should endure negative consequences because of their newly acquired right to go to the toilet like a real person.

 

[43066]

Why does that matter? What a question! I'd like to take a dump at work like a human being but wait - what if my dignity has a financial cost somewhere else? "Sorry we are now meeting the minimum standard to allow people to use the toilet, tell me who has to suffer to allow this". Peak BritBrain.

I think this comment absolutely nails it. Nothing more to be said really!