Which trains have no toilet provision?

[Mcr Warrior]

Without hopefully going too off topic, what train classes are currently in operation across the network, with NO toilet provision?

 

[py_megapixel]

Without hopefully going too off topic, what train classes are currently in operation across the network, with NO toilet provision?

A single 150, which was reformed from two units where the cars with toilets were written off
399s in Sheffield
Some classes of PEP- and Mk3-derived EMUs, including all classes of Merseyrail stock (507/508)
Class 777s soon to enter service on Merseyrail
Class 707s on South Western Railway
Class 376 on Southeastern
All TfL stock, including 345, 378 and 710 and of course all tube stock
Some classes of Networker
Class 717s on Great Northern
In addition, the new "Metro" rolling stock for TfW is planned to be built without toilets.
(Let me know if I've missed any)

Of these, the 707s, 710s and 345s as well as the TfW metro stock are partially or wholly replacing stock with toilets
The MK3 and PEP derived stock is largely planned for replacement by units with toilets, as are the 707s, though the 707s are planned for transfer to Southeastern.

 

[Ianno87]

Aren't Class 466 toilets permanently locked out of use now?

 

[Huntergreed]

Scotrail's Glasgow suburban units are so so unreliable with their toilets that they may as well not have them.

Indeed out of the 6 return commutes I had to take last year, the toilet was out of order on 10 trips, with only 2 having a working WC.

 

[geoffk]

A single 150, which was reformed from two units where the cars with toilets were written off
399s in Sheffield

The reformed 150 always runs coupled to a 153 as far as I'm aware. 399 not really a "train"!

 

[Warrior2852]

Some from memory are:
SWR Class 455/456/707
LNWR Class 139
TFL Rail Class 345
London Overground Class 378/710

 

[py_megapixel]

The reformed 150 always runs coupled to a 153 as far as I'm aware.

They were talking about semi-permanently coupling it to another 150 and using it for Southport-Alderley services but I don't think anything came of that in the end...

399 not really a "train"!

Yes I guess it's a tram, but I thought I might as well include it given that OP asked for classes and it does have a TOPS class!

 

[John Webb]

For those of us with certain medical conditions, the lack of a toilet on a train is hardly trivial!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Some from memory are:
SWR Class 455/456/707
LNWR Class 139
TFL Rail Class 345
London Overground Class 378/710

SWR 483 too

 

[py_megapixel]

LNWR Class 139

Ah yes I forgot about that! Given it exists soley to provide a 5 min shuttle service between the same two stations I doubt fitting a toilet would be particularly viable but I guess it does count

 

[py_megapixel]

For those of us with certain medical conditions, the lack of a toilet on a train is hardly trivial!

That's a very interesting point: I can appreciate that there are medical conditions which could require access to a toilet at very short notice.

Given that cars and buses are not routinely fitted with toilets, I can imagine this being a major nuisance for long-distance travel, and I would assume that availablility of a toilet would therefore be a reason to choose the train?

 

[John Webb]

That's a very interesting point: I can appreciate that there are medical conditions which could require access to a toilet at very short notice.

Given that cars and buses are not routinely fitted with toilets, I can imagine this being a major nuisance for long-distance travel, and I would assume that availablility of a toilet would therefore be a reason to choose the train?

Some long-distance coaches have a toilet, although I dislike coach travel anyway and so I've not tried them out. If you are driving a car, there is at least the opportunity to stop when you need to - if it's not on a motorway and some distance from a Services area.... So on the few occasions I travel into London these days I'll always do that by train. Being retired, most of my travel is visiting relatives who are some distance from a station or when I go on holiday - and I'll need the car when I get to the holiday area anyway. So long-distance travel by train I've not done since I retired.

 

[py_megapixel]

@John Webb I'm not sure if you've noticed this but you've quoted my post and not written anything underneath...

 

[John Webb]

@John Webb I'm not sure if you've noticed this but you've quoted my post and not written anything underneath...

Thanks - have appropriately edited!

 

[GrahamD83]

Tyne and wear metro

 

[Mcr Warrior]

For those of us with certain medical conditions, the lack of a toilet on a train is hardly trivial!

I concur. Thread title (created by a Moderator having been split from another thread) duly amended.

Clearly quite a lot of different GB train classes with NO toilet provision. What's the longest end-to-end journey possible using such stock?

 

[JonathanH]

What's the longest end-to-end journey possible using such stock?

What is perhaps more relevant is what the longest end-to-end journey is using such stock without an alternative that does have toilets?

People cite 313s between Brighton and Portsmouth but alternative connections are available formed of 377s or changing into 450s at Havant.

 

[py_megapixel]

I concur. Thread title (created by a Moderator having been split from another thread) duly amended.

Clearly quite a lot of different GB train classes with NO toilet provision. What's the longest end-to-end journey possible using such stock?

It looks like it might be Reading to Waterloo, which occasionally sees a 707, at around 80 minutes.
However, it would be daft to use that service to actually travel from Reading to London, but Hunts Cross to Southport appears to be the next longest at around 65 minutes.
I could be wrong though.

 

[JonathanH]

It looks like it might be Reading to Waterloo, which occasionally sees a 707, at around 80 minutes.

Brighton to Portsmouth on a 313 is also about 80 minutes (and there are more of those than 455s or 707s to Reading).

Waterloo to Guildford via Leatherhead is just over 70 minutes. Reading to Abbey Wood will be well over 80 minutes (although no one will do that on a 345).

 

[WesternLancer]

That's a very interesting point: I can appreciate that there are medical conditions which could require access to a toilet at very short notice.

Given that cars and buses are not routinely fitted with toilets, I can imagine this being a major nuisance for long-distance travel, and I would assume that availablility of a toilet would therefore be a reason to choose the train?

This is indeed the case - I know of elderly relatives who basically do not go out very much / go very far / avoid travel because they are frightened they may get caught short and not be able to manage the consequences. It has a very restricting impact on some people's lives.

It really annoys me when there is massive focus on DDA compliance (OK so long as you tick a box to say the doors are a different colour for example) but routinly ignore other sorts of issues that are just as important - I'm not saying DDA compliance is not important by the way - but when the whole fleet is "accessible" you can bet there will be some back slapping, yet the failure to provide basic facility like toilets on certain stock will not be deemed a necessity, when for many travellers, it is.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

What is perhaps more relevant is what the longest end-to-end journey is using such stock without an alternative that does have toilets?

Good point. I'm based near the Manchester Metrolink tram system, end-to-end journey times on there of up to an hour (or thereabouts), and no toilets on any of the trams, and scarcely any at any of the stations.

 

[John Webb]

I concur. Thread title (created by a Moderator having been split from another thread) duly amended......

Many thanks - much appreciated. I suffer from Crohn's Disease, basically an unwanted bug in the gut that can cause considerable problems if allowed to get out of hand.

 

[DannyMich2018]

Class 315s too not toilets.

 

[hexagon789]

What about the "D-trains" or do they all have an accessible toilet?

 

[Impey0711]

Northern class 170 always locked cause they are broken may aswell be removed

 

[py_megapixel]

What about the "D-trains" or do they all have an accessible toilet?

As far as I can tell all of the 230s are fitted with PRM WCs identical to the ones on the 150s. However I don't believe SWR have specced toilets on the Isle of Wight 484s

 

[CheshireCrusty]

On long distance journeys without access to a toilet - has the Voyager fleet improved?
I have numerous friends who will not use Cross-Country because of past bad experiences where all toilets were locked out with journey times up to say 4 hours. Even though occasionally additional stop time was added at say Leamington Spa or Cheltenham, that did nothing to allay the anxiety caused by knowing there was no toilet available.

 

[Class 466]

Aren't Class 466 toilets permanently locked out of use now?

Nope - They're still in use.

 

[hexagon789]

As far as I can tell all of the 230s are fitted with PRM WCs identical to the ones on the 150s. However I don't believe SWR have specced toilets on the Isle of Wight 484s

Thanks, don't think you really need them on the IoW, max journey time being about 20 minutes and there being toilets at Shanklin and Ryde; possibly elsewhere too.

 

[WesternLancer]

Fairly daft when the mantra of washing hands frequently is everywhere - inc on TOC on board screens and voice auto announcements - then having stock with toilets locked out of use.

If there was one area of activity that could be done to prep trains in the 'covid' world it would be ensuring train toilets had high levels of availability all the time!