Train drivers will finally have access to toilets

[Val3ntine]

Personally what you describe should be seen as a win - an extra hour when you're not driving a train knocked off your weekly hours. Every 2 weeks, that's a day you're not coming to work.

I was going to reply similar, those extra hours won’t just magic out of nowhere, you’ll still have your maximum working week/roster. So what you described will turn into some of those trips being work to the middle point; then work a return service back.

 

[PudseyBearHST]

I spent 20 years from 2003 to 2023 doing Train Presentation and can assure that every on-train toilet i cleaned was left in the condition that i would expect to find it in, when i wanted to use it! It is quite offensive when your fellow TOC colleagues talk down your job. One of the reasons i left the railway.

I think railway cleaners do a fantastic job especially in how little time they get to clean. So thank you for your service.

 

[3rd rail land]

I was going to reply similar, those extra hours won’t just magic out of nowhere, you’ll still have your maximum working week/roster. So what you described will turn into some of those trips being work to the middle point; then work a return service back.

So a win for drivers but a loss for passengers because some trains will no longer go the full route any more?

 

[dk1]

So a win for drivers but a loss for passengers because some trains will no longer go the full route any more?

They’ll just changeover enroute. Not many if not no drivers do a full long distance route.

 

[choochoochoo]

Good enough for the fare paying passengers though?

Fare paying passengers aren’t protected by health and safety at work act.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Aug 2025 ==

I'm going to sound like a right so and so... But I'm actually astonished the agreement is only for a toilet every 4 hours!

Am I alone in thinking this is outrageous?

(It seems I'm spoiled by my Cockfosters, Arnos Grove, Wood Green, Acton Town, Hatton Cross, Heathrow T4 or T5 staff toilets!)

The Wood Green ones seem very popular with picc line drivers in the southbound direction. I’d say at least 25% of my journeys I see drivers jump out there.

 

[43066]

I spent 20 years from 2003 to 2023 doing Train Presentation and can assure that every on-train toilet i cleaned was left in the condition that i would expect to find it in, when i wanted to use it! It is quite offensive when your fellow TOC colleagues talk down your job. One of the reasons i left the railway.

Nobody should ever do that - but to be fair I don’t think anyone on this thread has.

So a win for drivers but a loss for passengers because some trains will no longer go the full route any more?

It isn’t a question of drivers versus passengers. It’s basic dignity at work.

It’s also a win for passengers as fewer trains will be delayed by drivers taking emergency PNBs. I used to do this at Kettering quite often because the 360 toilets were simply far too disgusting to use, and the toilet at Corby was often locked. 15 mins or so to go into the depot and back.

 

[Harpo]

They’ll just changeover enroute. Not many if not no drivers do a full long distance route.

I’d not be surprised to see some route knowledge losses or changes along the way as a result of this.

 

[Haywain]

Personally what you describe should be seen as a win - an extra hour when you're not driving a train knocked off your weekly hours. Every 2 weeks, that's a day you're not coming to work.

It's not likely to be that good, as the shift will be probably be adjusted by the loss of a PNB elsewhere. In that it will have a PNB now, and it's not going to be an additional hour of PNB to facilitate this agreement.

 

[43066]

It's not likely to be that good, as the shift will be probably be adjusted by the loss of a PNB elsewhere. In that it will have a PNB now, and it's not going to be an additional hour of PNB to facilitate this agreement.

The answer to that is that drivers should never have been diagrammed to not have access to toilet facilities for hours at a time in the first instance.

 

[dk1]

I’d not be surprised to see some route knowledge losses or changes along the way as a result of this.

I wouldn’t expect so.

 

[choochoochoo]

I wouldn’t expect so.

If anything it’ll increase route knowledge requirement.

I already ensure trainees know the location of the staff toilet at every station we stop at.

 

[Harpo]

I wouldn’t expect so.

My reckoning is that there will be diagramming strategies somewhere that will unravel. Mention has already been made of quick turn-round trips that exceed 4 hours which will need breaking up, as just one example. Add on allowances and then even shorter trips could be at risk.

I’m not expecting it to be widespread, but I’d be surprised if nothing at all changed on route knowledge as a consequence. And maybe the odd timetable too.

 

[baz962]

Nobody is saying it needs to be a full PNB from what I can see - just enough time to use the facilities.

Personally what you describe should be seen as a win - an extra hour when you're not driving a train knocked off your weekly hours. Every 2 weeks, that's a day you're not coming to work.

Not necessarily . A rep at one place told me that they were slightly under the average 35 hour week. This was regarding a different situation and so at that particular toc , they could add time and not take it out elsewhere. Back where I am I usually use the toilet on the train , after I set up my cab to give me the longest time possible.

 

[whoosh]

I remember, probably 10 - 15 years ago, hearing about a GBRf diagram from Peterborough to Edinburgh where the driver then went onto an overnight lodge.
The 'PNB' was in a loop somewhere on the way. Not near a station. No toilet on the loco.

Addressing this has been a long time coming.

 

[dk1]

I remember, probably 10 - 15 years ago, hearing about a GBRf diagram from Peterborough to Edinburgh where the driver then went onto an overnight lodge.
The 'PNB' was in a loop somewhere on the way. Not near a station. No toilet on the loco.

Addressing this has been a long time coming.

Crikey!!! That quite rightly wouldn’t happen on a passenger TOC in a million years.

 

[Harpo]

I remember, probably 10 - 15 years ago, hearing about a GBRf diagram from Peterborough to Edinburgh where the driver then went onto an overnight lodge.
The 'PNB' was in a loop somewhere on the way. Not near a station.

Seen to recollect that Ipswich drivers used to do something similar working through to Healey Mills and Leeds.

 

[PP57601]

Never had issues stopping for a few minutes and using the onboard toilets (if/when) needed.
Over 25years of driving, and never been ‘questioned’ by anyone as to why a delay may have occurred… although to be honest, most of the services I drive, have a few minutes dwell time, so easy to accomplish.

Not really sure why this is newsworthy?

 

[JordR]

It's a fake, the genuine page appears to be here:

ASLEF Win: Train drivers will finally have access to toilets at work | ASLEF

Train drivers will finally have access to toilets at work thanks to campaigning by ASLEF. This is a massive win for ASLEF members and the union's Dignity for Drivers campaign.

aslef.org.uk

Train operating companies and freight operating companies will sign up to the Welfare Charter by World Toilet 2025 [sic], 19th November, and fully implement all changes within twelve months.

[Then ends.]

 

[43066]

Never had issues stopping for a few minutes and using the onboard toilets (if/when) needed.
Over 25years of driving, and never been ‘questioned’ by anyone as to why a delay may have occurred… although to be honest, most of the services I drive, have a few minutes dwell time, so easy to accomplish.

Not really sure why this is newsworthy?

This is more aimed at FOC drivers, and possibly those as TOCs where they drive stock with no toilets, and/or intensive diagramming and long periods in the chair. Not always where you’d expect: TL for example have diagrams that involve 3+ hours in the chair.

 

[muz379]

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"

The real easy solution to that sounds to be putting a toilet even if its just a toilet cabin or portaloo that isn't for public access at the end of that out and back working , in which case youve just provided toilet facilities for drivers on that route at most 2 and a bit hrs from their last access to toilet facilities . I know one out and back trip of a similar length I used to do as a guard it wasn't unusual for us or our drivers to politely ask the signaller at the box on the station at the terminating point if you could use their loo , particularly on a friday/saturday night when the on train toilet could be particularly grim , maybe on routes like that an arrangement of some sort could be formalised with NWR .

Anyhow even if diagrams do get lengthened as a result of this , you can only do 35 hrs a week so unless your link is massively under those extra hours will have to come from somewhere .

This charter has only just been agreed , so for any TOC's that aren't already meeting the requirements they will now have to consider the implications and work towards meeting the requirements of this agreement with the ASLEF reps at their company .

 

[fishwomp]

[ On having a PNB in a loop ] Crikey!!! That quite rightly wouldn’t happen on a passenger TOC in a million years.

Well, the no-toilet new valleys lines trains in Wales will be having new loo breaks on platform walls for the next few decades.. so perhaps you are right - no such experience for the staff, only for the actual passenger..

 

[Haywain]

Well, the no-toilet new valleys lines trains in Wales will be having new loo breaks on platform walls for the next few decades.. so perhaps you are right - no such experience for the staff, only for the actual passenger..

The passengers aren't going to be on board for anything like 4 hours though, are they?

 

[fishwomp]

The passengers aren't going to be on board for anything like 4 hours though, are they?

No, but after a night on the town in Cardiff, it will feel like it.

 

[dk1]

No, but after a night on the town in Cardiff, it will feel like it.

How do they get on on Manchester Metrolink?

 

[rmHawk765]

I agree, but it will only create a divisive environment among some. It shouldn’t be about gender, which undoubtedly was a driving force now. It should be about a basic human need to relive themselves with dignity.

Exactly this. I am by no means against gender equality on the railways, in fact I am very much for it. But we have seen how, whether you like it or not, things have become more focussed around gender, race etc, instead of focussing on how ultimately we're all humans. And in turn we have a whole lot more division, ironically as a result of the very policies intended to contend with it. Hopefully this doesn't turn into a battle about men deliberately not doing anything about the issue, which is utter nonsense of course as it has nothing to do with gender, but it is absurd nonetheless that the simple fact that more women now work on the railways was the main driving force behind finally getting this done and dusted.

 

[43066]

Well, the no-toilet new valleys lines trains in Wales will be having new loo breaks on platform walls for the next few decades.. so perhaps you are right - no such experience for the staff, only for the actual passenger..

How is this comment relevant to a thread about drivers’ working conditions?

 

[AlterEgo]

it is absurd nonetheless that the simple fact that more women now work on the railways was the main driving force behind finally getting this done and dusted.

It isn't absurd at all. Women are disproportionately affected by the lack of proper staff toilet facilities because it is more difficult for them to urinate in a place which isn't a toilet. Women have smaller bladders and need to use the toilet more frequently. Most of them also menstruate, which often means using a toilet to change sanitary products in a dignified, hygienic and humane way.

Women also generally find the whole thing much less dignified and it would more strongly put them off considering a career driving trains.

The reason not much has happened until now is because men had a much greater tolerance for these conditions and it's not been a massive priority.

 

[TheManBehind]

Exactly this. I am by no means against gender equality on the railways, in fact I am very much for it. But we have seen how, whether you like it or not, things have become more focussed around gender, race etc, instead of focussing on how ultimately we're all humans. And in turn we have a whole lot more division, ironically as a result of the very policies intended to contend with it. Hopefully this doesn't turn into a battle about men deliberately not doing anything about the issue, which is utter nonsense of course as it has nothing to do with gender, but it is absurd nonetheless that the simple fact that more women now work on the railways was the main driving force behind finally getting this done and dusted.

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.

 

[rmHawk765]

It isn't absurd at all. Women are disproportionately affected by the lack of proper staff toilet facilities because it is more difficult for them to urinate in a place which isn't a toilet. Women have smaller bladders and need to use the toilet more frequently. Most of them also menstruate, which often means using a toilet to change sanitary products in a dignified, hygienic and humane way.

Women also generally find the whole thing much less dignified and it would more strongly put them off considering a career driving trains.

The reason not much has happened until now is because men had a much greater tolerance for these conditions and it's not been a massive priority.

I think you misunderstood. Access to an actual toilet is a human right, man or woman. That's what I meant. It is ridiculous how that is the main reason why it's happening - not the fact that we live in a civilised society.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think you misunderstood. Access to an actual toilet is a human right, man or woman. That's what I meant. It is ridiculous how that is the main reason why it's happening - not the fact that we live in a civilised society.

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