Toilets on trains: Luxury or Necessity?

[ys123]

2 family members received correspondence from Northern with regards to toilets not working on the train they were traveling on (separate incidents), I had told them their chances of getting compensation were low, but what shocked me was what Northern wrote in their replies:

"Toilets on trains are a luxury rather than a necessity".

As they both received the same letter it seems this is the standard template Northern sends for this type of complaint. Surely this is a disgrace? How do Northern get away with sending such replies?

 

[jbqfc]

well as someone who suffers from colitis a toilet on a train is a must i will not us any transport with out a toilet except a short bus ride

 

[a_c_skinner]

Does the franchise specify this?

Andrew

 

[Thebaz]

Long distance: necessity. Short distance: luxury.

 

[physics34]

necessity or journey longer than say 30 mins id say, luxury on metro services.

 

[AlterEgo]

Toilets aren't a legal requirement on train journeys (under a certain length?). Not every train has a toilet.

That said, the wording of the letter is daft.

 

[broadgage]

Definatly a necessity on long distance services, of over about an hour.

And rapidly becoming a necessity on shorter distance services, due to the absence of toilets at many stations.
Whilst a 30 minute journey without a toilet sounds reasonable, consider the passenger who finds the train to be cancelled and therefore waits an hour for the next train. That is at least 90 minutes without relief.
Or a 30 minute journey without a toilet, and then a 30 minute connection at a station without a toilet, and then another 30 minute journey, again 90 minutes or more without relief, without any delays.

And of course a local train journey may follow, or be followed by, a bus trip, or walking or driving for some time without toilet access.

Therefore toilets should be provided without fail on longer distance services, and be also provided so far as possible on local services as well.

 

[Jonny]

Agree with what is above - but I could hold on for a couple of hours. It helps to plan ahead with consumption of water (and/or food in certain cases) though.

 

[najaB]

How do Northern get away with sending such replies?

Because not enough people take them to task for the poor quality of replies.

In answer to the wider question, the TOC will look at it like this: if the franchise specification calls for toilets then they are a necessity, otherwise a luxury.

 

[ys123]

How many routes do Northern run that are less than 30mins end to end? I wouldn't think there are that many

 

[najaB]

How many routes do Northern run that are less than 30mins end to end? I wouldn't think there are that many

The DfT will decide the necessity of toilets based on typical (mode I would guess) journey length, rather than end to end distance travelled by the train.

 

[ys123]

The DfT will decide the necessity of toilets based on typical (mode I would guess) journey length, rather than end to end distance travelled by the train.

In the correspondence, Northern made it seem that it's a luxury regardless of how short/long the journey actually is.

 

[47802]

How many routes do Northern run that are less than 30mins end to end? I wouldn't think there are that many

Personally I think it would be perfectly acceptable for Northern to run trains without Toilets for journeys up to an hour, after all there are plenty of bus journeys up to and hour in length,

 

[najaB]

In the correspondence, Northern made it seem that it's a luxury regardless of how short/long the journey actually is.

Indeed. And that's why I mentioned people not taking them to task when they receive a poor quality reply. Out of curiosity, what were the journeys that lead to the initial complaints?

 

[ys123]

Personally I think it would be perfectly acceptable for Northern to run trains without Toilets for journeys up to an hour, after all there are plenty of bus journeys up to and hour in length,

There are some people (including myself) that generally travel by train because there is a toilet on it unlike a bus. I'm sure there are bus journeys over an hour in length (I recall going by bus from Edinburgh to galashiels around 10yrs ago, the journey was around 2hrs including mild traffic) but seeing as it has become the standard to have at least one toilet on the train, Northern could've simply replied, when it left the Depot it was working and it stopped working sometime during the day and it can only be fixed at night in the Depot - no need to defend themselves like they tried to do which will only bring up more questions, if it's a luxury why was there one (which wasn't working) on the train in the first place?

 

[trainophile]

If all terminal stations had toilets (preferably free ones, and ones that don't get shut off for cleaning!) that would reduce the need for short journey onboard facilities, as most people don't mind having to hang on if they are guaranteed relief on arrival.

I'm thinking of West Kirby, where you are greeted with a sign saying "Please note there are no public toilets at this station", with no information regarding where the nearest ones might be.

Anyone travelling with small children will have a problem when they suddenly decide they need to go NOW, and the elderly often need more frequent visits than younger, less frail people.

You shouldn't have to restrict your fluid intake just in case you have to manage for two hours without a comfort break. Keeping hydrated is very important for general health.

I'm always surprised at how many people board a Merseyrail train with a large carton of coffee in hand. I manage with sips of water until I reach my destination.

 

[ys123]

Indeed. And that's why I mentioned people not taking them to task when they receive a poor quality reply. Out of curiosity, what were the journeys that lead to the initial complaints?

Manchester Victoria to Leeds (Calder Valley line) Approx 1hr 25mins

Manchester Victoria to Blackburn 1hr 15mins (although I believe the train originated from kirkby 2hrs 27mins)

Some people won't use the loos at Leeds or Manchester Victoria to save 30p and rely on getting a working loo on the train.

 

[Jonny]

Toilets aren't a legal requirement on train journeys (under a certain length?). Not every train has a toilet.

That said, the wording of the letter is daft.

In theory, no... but it may be written into a franchise specification.

 

[najaB]

Manchester Victoria to Leeds (Calder Valley line) Approx 1hr 25mins

Manchester Victoria to Blackburn 1hr 15mins (although I believe the train originated from kirkby 2hrs 27mins)

Those are both potentially Northern Connect routes if I understand the concept. That means that they should be operated by 'high quality' trains, which would include toilets I would think.

 

[ys123]

In theory, no... but it may be written into a franchise specification.

Money-saving-expert speculated in October that train compensation may be due for lack of facilities as The Consumer Right Act 2015 applies to rail. This could be Northern's reason for refusing to admit that it's trains were supposed to have toilets.

 

[507021]

Long distance: necessity. Short distance: luxury.

Completely agree.

 

[Parallel]

Southern use class 313s between Brighton and Portsmouth Harbour, which have a total journey time of about an hour and a half. I'm not sure if many passengers would do the journey end-to-end though.

Other shorter journeys with class 313s is Brighton to Seaford and Brighton to West Worthing, which are acceptable without toilets imo.

Do class 455s have toilets?

I think toilets should be provided in most cases, but they are probably not essential on shorter journeys.

 

[Bletchleyite]

2 family members received correspondence from Northern with regards to toilets not working on the train they were traveling on (separate incidents), I had told them their chances of getting compensation were low, but what shocked me was what Northern wrote in their replies:

"Toilets on trains are a luxury rather than a necessity".

Did they really write that?

If so, there really is a fundamental attitude problem in Northern. I retain the view that that attitude problem comes right from the top.

 

[me123]

Definitely a necessity for the majority if services. Most trains cover a reasonable distance over a reasonable time, and it's entirely reasonable that toilets are provided. The only exceptions exist really on the shorter intraurban routes (Cathcart Circle, London inner suburban runs and the like) where a toilet simply takes up valuable space and isn't really important when people are travelling for about ten minutes or so.

 

[yorksrob]

Generally it goes on the length of journey, but given the OP is discussing Northern with it's variation of units on many long distance services, one wonders whether the people who replied to the OP are the same clueless wonders dealing with their delay repay.

Perhaps they ought to forward their correspondence to the DfT and their MP ?

Toilets sometimes toilets fail, but for the company to say that they are an optional extra suggests that the new management need re-educating.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The new management is the old management, and it needed replacing.

It's basically the same old rubbish of a TOC under the same management with a few buckets of white paint and a different corporate level funder. Alex Hynes is the problem (and some of his middle management). He needs to go - right out of the industry.

 

[al78]

Some people appear to have never heard of Crohn's disease, or assume people afflicted with this shouldn't travel by train. Is this the answer to congestion on the railways, target a group of people to make rail travel sufficiently difficult that they have to give up?

 

[najaB]

Is this the answer to congestion on the railways, target a group of people to make rail travel sufficiently difficult that they have to give up?

While I get where you're coming from, Crohn's affects less than 0.01% of the UK population so that wouldn't make much space.

 

[ys123]

Below are the 2 main paragraphs of the letter

To clarify, the provision of toilets on board the train are considered a luxury rather than a necessity. However we do provide them on the majority of train units that we operate and I trust you understand that sometimes mechanical faults can occur making them inoperable. In each occasion of this the fault is logged and attended to as soon as possible by the maintenance crew, however as previously mentioned these toilets are not viewed as a necessity and so the train will still run its timetables service regardless.

In the event of an emergency it is advised to make contact with the on board staff who will investigate the possibility of allowing a few extra minutes at a station to allow the customer the use of the station toilets (given that the schedule can handle the incident). Please note that this should only be attempted in the event of an emergency.

 

[Johncleesefan]

Should be a necessity on all trains, how about when you break down in the sticks and are waiting for rescue for over an hour