Yes, God forbid that rather in excess of 50% of the population expect equal provision.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Urinals in train toilets - an idea ?
- Thread starter yorksrob
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Very few men sit down for a pee.
Western Lord
Member
- Joined
- 17 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 1,065
A lot of good engineers worked very hard on overcoming the deficiencies of the basic design, but there's nothing really technically outstanding about an aircraft weighing ten tons more than the competition, with generally inferior performance. There's a reason nobody designs airliners with rear engines and T-tails these days (other than a few small biz-jet derived regional types).
I can see your point regarding women but you have lost me with the rest of it.
Yes, those things would be a good starting point. Seems difficult to achieve though.
For transgender and non binary people, gender neutral toilets is the only arrangement that eliminates the risk of hassle from other users.
BTW it's Grove Park
Ah - of course. You’d be amazed how annoyed I am at myself for getting that wrong! There can be no excuses when I used to sign both stations…
Ah, I might have been on one of your trains at some time !
Surely train toilets are “gender neutral” by definition as only one person is intended to use them at a time.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Indeed! Albeit I signed them a lot more recently than the slam-door era.
Last edited:
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Which is exactly the issue- if you're sat down, rough riding is not such a problem.
175s tanks usually full by the late evening services and auto lock themselves out of use.
Well designed gender neutral toilets provide for that, including those on trains. The key thing is having the wash basin, the hand dryer and the mirror inside the cubicle, not in the circulating area.
Exactly. That was the point I was making. On train toilet facilities are gender neutral and that needs to happen in more public spaces.
Most gender neutral toilets l have come across, whether in offices or public spaces, have separate toilet cubicles but shared facilities (i.e. handwashing and drying etc). Doing otherwise would be significantly more expensive in terms of both space and equipment required.
Sounds very practical and space efficient !
gg1
Established Member
My experience is the exact opposite, the only gender neutral toilets I've ever used (mainly in office buildings or smaller restaurants) have included a seperate washbasin in each cubicle, though no good reason why they can't be designed like the one's you've seen.
Train urinals is a silly idea, but "waterless" urinals do exist.
Why? The non disabled toilets on trains aren't really that big, one with a urinal would be about the same space but only some of the population can use it.
Also I suspect the number of men who sit down when they are having a pee is a bigger on a *clean* train.
Also I suspect the number of men who sit down when they are having a pee is a bigger on a *clean* train.
Retention tank capacity.
God, (you said it) do I really have to spell this out? That was not my point.
Magdalia wanted to raise off-topic LBGT issues. But a LBGT person's needs in regard to toilet fittings are no different from those of whichever gender they are inclined towards, or even if neither. So how are LBGT people being discriminated against any more than the rest of the population?
I'm well aware that women are sometimes caught short by other women occupying WC cubicles for longer times. Mrs L tells me all about that. I entirely agree that in general women should be provided with more cubicles than men have urinals. But I understood the OP was suggesting a urinal in the same compartment as the WC so that not so much water was consumed in flushing. The arrangement would remain a unisex one, keeping you and Magdalia happy, I trust.
If anyone wanted an arrangement with a cubicle purely for a gents' urinal (a urinal being the point of this thread), then you would need a separate cubicle for a gent's WC, and also at least one and maybe several (to avoid ladies queuing and to try to keep Magdelia and yourself happy) cubicles for ladies. That would take up half a carriage and would be ridiculous, like I said.
Lots of counties have lots of things that we don't have. We have things that other countries would consider silly.
"But so and so does it" isn't really a good argument for introducing something.
To be fair Japanese toilets also have heated seats, built in bidet function and a choice of music to play while you’re, erm, performing.
How does a urinal fix these problems? Pee has the same volume for whatever toilet is used and normal train toilets use very little water.
The best solution to Northern's CET problem is either fitting the bio reactors on the 701s which mean their toilets only need emptying once a month, or building additional emptying infrastructure for the trains to empty at (such as at station platforms).
Let's get bog roll and tap water sorted - first things first.
CET's might not use much water to flush, but they still use water. The amount added everyone someone has a pee all adds up.
Indeed. Instead of storing waste in tanks, we could just discharge it at the earliest opportunity, as we used to.
OK, toilets flushing onto tracks aren't going to come back, but a system that doesn't rely on depots and pipes and staff and stabling shouldn't be out of the realms of possibility, if this is a real problem.
When I used to use Southern a lot I did see a lot of toilets automatically out of order. Now I mainly use TFW and it's very rare to see. TFW's routes are a lot longer and the depots a lot more dispersed, so could this be an incompetence problem rather than a technical / engineering issue?
- Status