The additional information makes things a little clearer. It's unfortunate that they used the phrase "a luxury rather than a necessity" rather than the more accurate "not required for safe operation of the train" which is what the rest of the paragraph went on to explain.
-
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!
Toilets on trains: Luxury or Necessity?
- Thread starter ys123
- 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
randyrippley
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 5,383
Consider that you could be on a Northern Leeds-Morecambe service with a rattly Pacer shaking your guts apart and no working toilet on board. No toilets at the stations en-route (except for Lancaster), and none at the "new" Morecambe station, unlike the old Promenade station which had one of the largest toilet provisions of anywhere in the UK.
ys123
Member
20% of people suffer from IBS at one point in their lives. When you add up all the different illnesses that may cause one to need the loo urgently with little notice, it's a not-so-small percentage of the UK population...
I know, and I'm not encouraging the removal of toilet facilities in any way. I was just pointing out that the idea that toilets are being deliberately removed as a way to 'make room' for passenger numbers is fanciful.
alxndr
Established Member
- Joined
- 3 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 1,583
I'm saddened that there seems to be increasing numbers of trains without toilet facilities (or perhaps it's just that I'm now more aware of services which don't have toilets), despite the push for more accessibility. There are many people who need to have access to a toilet, sometimes at short notice, for various reasons, and of course there's always the possibility of lengthy delays where anyone could get caught short.
I'd also hazard a guess that a very large proportion of occasional travellers will expect a train to have a toilet on board, and so might just assume that there is one and not opt to go beforehand for fear of missing a train or not wanting to pay if there is a small fee. They're also less likely to recognise the distinction between services which are likely to have toilets and ones which aren't. Is there anywhere which shows whether a train is supposed to have a toilet in advance?
I'd also hazard a guess that a very large proportion of occasional travellers will expect a train to have a toilet on board, and so might just assume that there is one and not opt to go beforehand for fear of missing a train or not wanting to pay if there is a small fee. They're also less likely to recognise the distinction between services which are likely to have toilets and ones which aren't. Is there anywhere which shows whether a train is supposed to have a toilet in advance?
Make sure you send that response to whoever at Northern is mentioned in those threads saying that Northern are looking for feedback on Customer Service. That is pretty disgraceful.
RJ
Established Member
Nope and 456s had them removed not long before leaving Southern.
You're right, it's not, and I have every sympathy. In the 21st Century I take the view that every new-build or re-fitted train should have at least one toilet provided - we're human and we all need them at some point, not just those with disabilities. If you travel by local bus or car it's far easier to alight if you need a toilet, it's not always as easy on a train journey, particularly when there are delays. Having said that, on some trains these days, with the sheer number of standing passengers, its almost impossible to reach onboard facilities even when they are provided. Of course, if you don't suffer from such disabilities its easy to consider such toilet provision as a luxury. There two or three reasons why I no longer travel by rail - a decision I took in June this year - overcrowding was one, and the railway's increasingly negative attitude towards toilet provision at stations (no facilities, early closing etc.) and in trains was another. The sad fact is that railway toilet facilities simply don't make a profit or reduce costs.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,666
The poll is rather useless as it doesn't state what distance/time we're talking about.
Zamracene749
Member
Surely the salient point swings around if the service is expected to have a toilet? We don't expect a bus to have a toilet, we don't expect Merseyrail to have a toilet, nor an Underground service. So we pay a bit more, to use a service that we expect to have a netty- in the event that our kids, pregnant partner, IBS sufferer, drunk mates, elderly parents, diarrhea suffering selves etc etc can use the bog if the need arises !
trainophile
Established Member
I have travelled on Merseyrail close to some extremely distressed people who had assumed there would be a toilet on board. One guy who was travelling from Chester to Liverpool was almost in tears of desperation, having consumed two cans of strong lager on his connecting train.
A woman in the over-bridge waiting area at Liverpool South Parkway found the platform 5/6 toilet out of use, and said to her companion that she would go on the train. I felt obliged to tell her there wouldn't be a facility on the train and that she had time to nip to the other concourse loo before the next train, but she said she would wait until she got to Southport. The train terminated at Hillside, which has no toilets. It was a Sunday, no bus services and people queueing for what taxis they could call out. I didn't keep sight of this lady in the general confusion, but did wonder whether the ticket office staff (if it was even open) would have let her use theirs.
I wonder what would happen in worst case scenario if someone actually had an accident on board. Would they be fined for "inconveniencing" other train users?
A woman in the over-bridge waiting area at Liverpool South Parkway found the platform 5/6 toilet out of use, and said to her companion that she would go on the train. I felt obliged to tell her there wouldn't be a facility on the train and that she had time to nip to the other concourse loo before the next train, but she said she would wait until she got to Southport. The train terminated at Hillside, which has no toilets. It was a Sunday, no bus services and people queueing for what taxis they could call out. I didn't keep sight of this lady in the general confusion, but did wonder whether the ticket office staff (if it was even open) would have let her use theirs.
I wonder what would happen in worst case scenario if someone actually had an accident on board. Would they be fined for "inconveniencing" other train users?
Arguably a lot of services which traditionally didn't have on-train toilets should have them and maybe Merseyrail comes into this category.
Certainly Network SouthEast took a very progressive decision to include a toilet on its Networker trains, which was the first time SE suburban services had the facility.
Now we have the ludicrous scenario where Crossrail trains into Berkshire and Essex will not have toilet facilities. It really is a joke when we hear so much drivel about slam doors, yet they can't even be trusted to put facilities that everyone needs on new trains.
Certainly Network SouthEast took a very progressive decision to include a toilet on its Networker trains, which was the first time SE suburban services had the facility.
Now we have the ludicrous scenario where Crossrail trains into Berkshire and Essex will not have toilet facilities. It really is a joke when we hear so much drivel about slam doors, yet they can't even be trusted to put facilities that everyone needs on new trains.
Crossrail is arguably a different case given that most of the stations en route will have toilets, and it's a high frequency service with regular stops - so if you do need to go, you can alight, go to the loo (in your own time) then simply get on the next train without losing more than around fifteen minutes.
But at the very least, there needs to be somewhere to go, be it in the train or in the station. Running trains without toilets on rural lines with unmanned stations is a recipe for trouble.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There aren't. Some trains have fewer toilets, and they seem to be out of use more often (though in BR days I do remember walking through several coaches of Mk2s before finding one that worked), but there aren't any more with *no* toilets than there ever were.
The sole issue I have with this thread really is the attitude problem being displayed by Northern, but it is not the only attitude problem that franchise has, and as I've said I believe it comes right from the top.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not required for safe operation of the train, I agree (provided toilet stops are arranged on longer journeys without passengers having to ask, as it's humiliating putting your hand up and asking the guard if you can stop off for a wee like some kind of schoolchild), but the response they gave was a firm "we don't care".
TOCs should give a priority to ensuring all facilities on their trains work and are in clean condition. Failures should be an exception. The only difference is that *if* an exceptional failure occurs, if it's the brakes you have to cancel, if it's the bogs you don't.
"It's a luxury" is, as I say, an attitude problem - and is potentially a form of disability discrimination.
It's also sex discrimination, as at the hypothetical rural station it's much easier for a male to "go in the bushes" than a female.
Last edited:
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Northern's franchise agreement states all multiple units must have at least one toilet per set. Therefore, there is a legally binding agreement for Northern to provide toilets for passengers and from 1st Jan 2020 that extends to cover wheelchair accessible toilets on all services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Even the ones which are use units which are part of diagrams containing longer services e.g. the afternoon Helsby-Ellesmere Port shuttles use a unit which earlier worked a Manchester-Chester service.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
But expectations are very important. If I know no facilities are provided on the train, I will use them somewhere before boarding, and will let a train go if necessary to do so. If they are supposed to be provided, I might not, as I expect they *will* be provided.
If a train has a facility - any facility, be that toilets, aircon, trolley service, whatever - I expect it will be provided as advertised, and not flippantly shrugged off as "a luxury". If it isn't provided, I want a sincere apology and steps to be taken to remedy the reason it wasn't provided, not an arrogant and flippant brush-off like that.
The correct response from customer services there would be along the lines of "We are really sorry the toilet was not provided on this service, this is because it was out of order because of a plumbing fault, which is scheduled to be repaired on 18/12/16 as we are waiting for a part on order to repair it. Unfortunately due to a lack of rolling stock we have to put it out in service as the fault does not make the train unsafe to operate, and the only other option would have been to cancel the train".
With a proper incident management system you'd know the detail above to respond, it shows a proper investigation of the customer's issues, it isn't arrogant, it's apologetic etc. It's not ideal, but people recognise that Northern's situation isn't ideal at least until the new stock arrives. But the response they did give is "we don't care".
FWIW, I would expect *as a minimum* that any train with no bog has this highlighted on the PIS so a passenger can make an educated decision whether to board or not, and furthermore that any Advance tickets should be automatically valid for the previous or next train of that TOC if the passenger so chooses. GWR seem good at the PIS angle (ha!), others much less so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As for TOCs who use the excuse of the bogs getting full - proper prior planning etc. It's like mucky windows - schedule your trains to be cleaned and pay enough staff to do so. No excuse. You rarely see a mucky LM Desiro, so it's easily done.
Last edited:
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 16,712
Interesting....
The only views I've heard of him have been good previously but my view of Northern has always been that it's a TOC with low standards that consistently fails to achieve them.
By the way, Charles Horton is front of the queue to leave the industry!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
He appears to me to be all style and no substance. And also not to be trusted - he says he'll do things (like removing STM) and doesn't. I don't *think* I am the only one on here who holds that view.
Yes, this is my impression as well. A TOC that, at a corporate level, shouts a lot then fails to deliver anything other than the most basic of service - "here's a train, now shut up and like it".
I recognise they have a limited budget and limited resources - but that isn't to me an excuse.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
...and look what happened when 455s were diagrammed on the Waterloo - Reading services about 15 years ago. Stories abounded of the gangways between carriages being used as toilets and even of poo being found under seat squabs which had then been replaced on top of it.
There is a lesson for the railway there!
You want to see the state our very lovely passengers leave them in at times and that can be the core of the problem right there. And I feel sorry for the teams who have to clean the buggers because if they dont then its locked out so the train can be kept in service or the unit gets pulled.
Thats the reality.
ys123
Member
Do any TOC's have maintenance staff at turnaround stations that sort out broken loos i.e. Virgin at Euston/Kings Cross, GWR at Paddington?
It depends on why it is broken. If it's a software issue (yes, really) then it can be sorted out by the TM en-route or a fitter at a station. If it is a hardware problem then it likely will only be sorted at a depot.
It's not that rare to find a rather unpleasant smelling 455 gangway now still. Vomit is also a problem on late night services. There's nowhere for people to go with no toilets, so you either end up with the platform being splattered as the doors open at a station, or a nice pile somewhere on the train. Again, the gangways are popular place. Unfortunately the gangways are also far more difficult to clean than the lino floor.
Did anyone ever get to the bottom (no pun intended) of why SWT insisted on diagramming 455's on the Reading services at weekends ?
I remember waiting a couple of hours at Waterloo once, hoping for a slammer, but no, it was 455 after 455. (still rankles even now
)
I remember waiting a couple of hours at Waterloo once, hoping for a slammer, but no, it was 455 after 455. (still rankles even now
)
Lots of people.
Butts
Veteran Member
I for one was delighted when the Toilet Malfunctioned on a Glasgow to Oban Service which resulted in an extended "Bog Break" at Crianlarich - only 2 Loos so it took ages..... and allowed for 2 or 3 Bensons 
I for one was delighted when the Toilet Malfunctioned on a Glasgow to Oban Service which resulted in an extended "Bog Break" at Crianlarich - only 2 Loos so it took ages..... and allowed for 2 or 3 Bensons
The last time my train had a bog break, the station person at Maidstone East refused to open the station loos, even though the guard asked him to !
- Status