Why don't the Class 345s have toilets?

[61653 HTAFC]

There's no DDA issue as there aren't any toilets. If there was a standard or "space saver" toilet and no DDA compliant one, then you'd have a point.

Absolutely. For those who need toilets more frequently (who remember can be of any age or gender and may or may not be mobility impaired) a train without them may well be inconvenient... but there are plenty of other situations that might mean you're unable to get to a toilet quickly... for example motorway drives, bus journeys, queues, theatre performances. Are those discriminatory or is it simply that getting around the issue is, unfortunately, impractical?

 

[tpjm]

This document from RDG gives some useful insight into the best practice for toilet design on modern rolling stock, including where it is impractical.

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/files/Publications/2019-05_key_train_requirements_5_1.pdf

They suggest that for commuter services, if toilets are provided, it should be one toilet for 125 seats, making it 4 toilets for a Cl 345. Not only does this sounds like a waste of space given most people will be making journeys of a reasonable length, but it also strikes me as a security threat and a general customer service faux pas as they may well be “out of service” more than they are in.

I note that some folks here are suggesting that they could be on a Crossrail service for a decent length of time, so if we were to classify it as a longer distance service, you’d need one toilet for every 85 seats, taking you to a whopping 6 toilets!

 

[Non Multi]

Not having any actual lavatories on board has not been a hindrance to inebriated late night revellers, who we've found out (on the 345 thread) will board and then relieve themselves on the 345s regardless.

 

[T-Karmel]

Location doesn’t have anything to do with it. It’s typical journey time. Paddington to Reading is (or will be) under an hour on these trains. That’s the same as Kings Cross to Heathrow by Piccadilly. What’s the difference?

I'd say the difference is that Piccadilly does not provide you with toilets at any of their stations, yet Crossrail already have toilets at many of their stations. If you really are making a long distance journey and need a wee, it's not the end of the world to get off, use it and wait for the next train in same direction as trains will be very frequent.

 

[Grumbler]

Absolutely. For those who need toilets more frequently (who remember can be of any age or gender and may or may not be mobility impaired) a train without them may well be inconvenient... but there are plenty of other situations that might mean you're unable to get to a toilet quickly... for example motorway drives, bus journeys, queues, theatre performances. Are those discriminatory or is it simply that getting around the issue is, unfortunately, impractical?

Now that train toilets have retention tanks, it is perfectly practical for all modern trains to be so equipped (even if just a few in one part of the train). Otherwise those who CANNOT wait will be messing the floor.

 

[Ianno87]

Now that train toilets have retention tanks, it is perfectly practical for all modern trains to be so equipped (even if just a few in one part of the train). O

You still need space within the carriage for the physical toilet(s). That impacts the capacity available on the train, so may well not be "practical" when trying to convey the number of people you need to carry.

 

[Domh245]

Not only do you need the on-train space, but also somewhere at the depot to empty them (and frequent enough visits for this to occur) - I'm not sure how practical this would be with Crossrail at Old Oak

 

[Energy]

Not only do you need the on-train space, but also somewhere at the depot to empty them (and frequent enough visits for this to occur) - I'm not sure how practical this would be with Crossrail at Old Oak

Don't the toilets on the 701s have a system so they only have to be emptied once a month?

 

[Grumbler]

Not only do you need the on-train space, but also somewhere at the depot to empty them (and frequent enough visits for this to occur) - I'm not sure how practical this would be with Crossrail at Old Oak

Surely they could have set a small amount of the multi-billion Crossrail budget for this!

 

[Energy]

Surely they could have set a small amount of the multi-billion Crossrail budget for this!

But toilets aren't needed. Crossrail is high frequency with frequent stops, if you are caught short you can hop of at the next station which is a couple minutes away, use the toilets there and hop on the next train. All the crossrail stations will/already have toilets.

 

[Domh245]

Don't the toilets on the 701s have a system so they only have to be emptied once a month?

They do (although they'll still need semi-regular attention to be topped up with water I would think) but whether this would have been an option at the time the 345s were being specified, I don't know

Surely they could have set a small amount of the multi-billion Crossrail budget for this!

You can budget it all you want, but when you're hemmed in as you are at OOC (and Ilford) then budgeting for CET facilities can rapidly start adding zeros for more compulsory purchasing (or diverting rivers). You still then need to consider how frequently you get sets back to the tanking facilities to avoid them running around with toilets locked oou from full tanks all day.

 

[py_megapixel]

Not only do you need the on-train space, but also somewhere at the depot to empty them (and frequent enough visits for this to occur) - I'm not sure how practical this would be with Crossrail at Old Oak

This is why, a while ago, I suggested RADAR-keyed toilets on this forum. I still maintain that wouldn't be a ridiculous idea.

The idea is that, by limiting the number of people who can use the toilet to people who actually need it (plus people who've picked up a key on eBay, sure, but that's a tiny minority), the CETs can be pumped out less often and the water tanks can be refilled less often, so fewer facilities to do this are needed. Also, with fewer users, they can make do with a slightly reduced cleaning regime, while still being cleaner and in better condition for those who really HAVE to use them than they would be if they were just open to all.

 

[Grumbler]

But toilets aren't needed. Crossrail is high frequency with frequent stops, if you are caught short you can hop of at the next station which is a couple minutes away, use the toilets there and hop on the next train. All the crossrail stations will/already have toilets.

Any guarantee that the station toilets will be working?

 

[Domh245]

This is why, a while ago, I suggested RADAR-keyed toilets on this forum. I still maintain that wouldn't be a ridiculous idea.

The idea is that, by limiting the number of people who can use the toilet to people who actually need it (plus people who've picked up a key on eBay, sure, but that's a tiny minority), the CETs can be pumped out less often and the water tanks can be refilled less often, so fewer facilities to do this are needed. Also, with fewer users, they can make do with a slightly reduced cleaning regime, while still being cleaner and in better condition for those who really HAVE to use them than they would be if they were just open to all.

It'd certainly be an approach. But, if you've decided that you're only going to provide the toilets for that subset of people with RADAR keys, but still take up the floor space on the train (ie disadvantaging more people than you're benefitting by having them) then you would just be better to not provide the toilets on the train and put that cost into the station based facilities.

 

[Ianno87]

Any guarantee that the station toilets will be working?

Any guarantee that toilets on the train will be working?

 

[DannyMich2018]

Any guarantee that the station toilets will be working?

Good question and needs to be during all hours trains are running. Several years ago I was coming back from Burton On Trent back home and changing at Tamworth (was Sunday afternoon about 1800hrs in the summer, station relatively busy with trains and passengers) and the station toilets were closed, I was desperate for the toilet, was not impressed. Not like nearby Nuneaton where you can pop Asda next door to go if they are closed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Any guarantee that the station toilets will be working?

More so than the ones on the train, as there are no waste tanks that need emptying.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jan 2021 ==

You still need space within the carriage for the physical toilet(s). That impacts the capacity available on the train, so may well not be "practical" when trying to convey the number of people you need to carry.

Not to mention that if you have multiple toilets in one part of the train, then you also need multiple tanks in the same part of the train or they'll get full very quickly. Good luck fitting those within our loading gauge!

 

[superjohn]

Don't the toilets on the 701s have a system so they only have to be emptied once a month?

NS in The Netherlands have bioreactor toilets on some of their trains. The waste tanks from those can last for months before needing to be emptied. Do the 701s have something similar.

The fresh water tanks would still need to be filled much more frequently but that is a much simpler process.

 

[Grumbler]

More so than the ones on the train, as there are no waste tanks that need emptying.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jan 2021 ==


Not to mention that if you have multiple toilets in one part of the train, then you also need multiple tanks in the same part of the train or they'll get full very quickly. Good luck fitting those within our loading gauge!

Some of the Stadler Flirt carriages have two toilets.

 

[JonathanH]

Some of the Stadler Flirt carriages have two toilets.

Plenty of UK stock has had two toilets in one vehicle, even in the retention tank era.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Plenty of UK stock has had two toilets in one vehicle, even in the retention tank era.

Less so DMUs, but plenty of even very recent UK EMUs have practically bare underframes on intermediate trailer vehicles. 350s have only an air tank under one vehicle, practically nothing else. You could fit a lot of bog tank there.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Some of the Stadler Flirt carriages have two toilets.

Plenty of UK stock has had two toilets in one vehicle, even in the retention tank era.

That's all well and good if you can fit them and their associated equipment there, but someone suggested putting several toilets grouped together, which would start to cause space constraints especially on self-powered stock. The Mk3s that have had tanks fitted could only have them at one end for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's all well and good if you can fit them and their associated equipment there, but someone suggested putting several toilets grouped together, which would start to cause space constraints especially on self-powered stock. The Mk3s that have had tanks fitted could only have them at one end for example.

Mk3s have more underneath than a typical EMU trailer, as each vehicle needs its own set of kit, plus the aircon is underneath (modern practice is to put it on the roof).

 

[Grumbler]

That's all well and good if you can fit them and their associated equipment there, but someone suggested putting several toilets grouped together, which would start to cause space constraints. The Mk3s that have had tanks fitted could only have them at one end for example.

I was probably that someone. There could be two adjacent carriages each with two toilets. The advantage of grouping them is that if one is occupied or out of order, there is another close by. Those not liable to be inconvenienced could be encouraged to travel in other parts of the train.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Mk3s have more underneath than a typical EMU trailer, as each vehicle needs its own set of kit, plus the aircon is underneath (modern practice is to put it on the roof).

Well yes, and it's obviously easier to design these things in from the start than to retrofit them afterwards... but there is still a finite amount of space available both for tanks and ancillary equipment and for the passengers themselves. I can't see any TOC especially not a commuter one ordering trains with a "toilet carriage" in the set.

[Not serious] I suppose you could turn some of the surplus 153s into "Mobile Washrooms" with half the bodyshell used for toilets and the other half for the tanks! [/Not serious]

 

[Grumbler]

Well yes, and it's obviously easier to design these things in from the start than to retrofit them afterwards... but there is still a finite amount of space available both for tanks and ancillary equipment and for the passengers themselves. I can't see any TOC especially not a commuter one ordering trains with a "toilet carriage" in the set.

[Not serious] I suppose you could turn some of the surplus 153s into "Mobile Washrooms" with half the bodyshell used for toilets and the other half for the tanks! [/Not serious]

Why this such a problem for Crossrail when Thameslink can manage?

 

[43096]

Mk3s have more underneath than a typical EMU trailer, as each vehicle needs its own set of kit, plus the aircon is underneath (modern practice is to put it on the roof).

The issue with Mark 3s is the brake equipment at one end (no 2 end, since you ask), which obviously can’t be removed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Why this such a problem for Crossrail when Thameslink can manage?

You'd have to ask the people that wrote the specifications, but nobody seems able to decide whether Crossrail is a "big railway" or a tube line with added bells and whistles so that might have something to do with it.

 

[cactustwirly]

You'd have to ask the people that wrote the specifications, but nobody seems able to decide whether Crossrail is a "big railway" or a tube line with added bells and whistles so that might have something to do with it.

It's definitely not a tube line anymore so than parts of Thameslink

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's definitely not a tube line anymore so than parts of Thameslink

Operationally I'd agree, however I meant more in terms of the specifications of both the rolling stock and how the "powers that be" anticipate it'll be used by most people. When initially being planned many moons ago building it as a true Tube line was considered, and even once something close to what it ended up as was decided upon, it was still kicked from pillar to post and endlessly revised and delayed. Thus we end up with the "Jack of all trades, master of none" system that falls between two stools (no pun intended) to an extent.

In some ways it is significantly more like a tube line than Thameslink is though. It's deep-bored, has a much longer "core" section with more stations, it serves areas with a greater "all day" demand, and it's intended to relieve the Central line. It's also being marketed as a tube line with the daft Elizabeth Line branding.