-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
Class 195s should not have been ordered without two toilets; could a second loo be fitted?
- Thread starter yorksrob
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
You would prefer it to be cancelled?
I appreciate it's far from ideal but if the choice was a train but no toilet or no train at all I know which I'd choose!
TT-ONR-NRN
Established Member
Absolutely hate the term “bog.”
You failed to mention the destination of the train. How far was it going?
You failed to mention the destination of the train. How far was it going?
I'd rather trains be specified with two toilets (as BR did with the 158's).
Failing that, these modern trains are supposed to be modular. Can they not put one in ?
Or a 158.
Leeds, presumably.
It'll be an hour and a bit when it gets to Leeds. Too long for a no-facilities train.
TT-ONR-NRN
Established Member
I mean at least it’s booked to have a loo, plenty of much longer journeys out of London don’t
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I mean at least it’s booked to have a loo, plenty of much longer journeys out of London don’t
If people know a train is booked not to have toilets then they can more easily plan for that.
TT-ONR-NRN
Established Member
Okay, so what alternative do you suggest; do you really think they’ve put it on deliberately? Clear more space in the crowded Northern units for another toilet?
(God, I never thought I’d be crossing to the railway's side
)
Last edited:
I mean at least it’s booked to have a loo, plenty of much longer journeys out of London don’t
They ought to really though.
Trainbike46
Established Member
Am I missing something? a 195 has a toilet, so why is it a problem there's not two toilets?
TT-ONR-NRN
Established Member
OP is wound up that the train ran when the toilet was out of service.
Rikki Lamb
Member
- Joined
- 24 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 90
Simple answer, go to the toilet before you get on the train. Be thankful the train wasn't cancelled.
So do 350s. At times both are out of order presumably as the retention tanks haven't been emptied.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Okay, so what alternative do you suggest; do you really think they’ve put it on deliberately? Clear more space in the crowded Northern units for another toilet?
(God, I never thought I’d be crossing to the railway's side
A small toilet would only take the space of about 6 seats. Or TfW's stupid catering cupboard!
MCR247
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 9,611
Is the CAF Civity the only post-privatisation 2 car DMU built with only one toilet?
Topological
Member
On that note the 150, 153, 156 all have just 1 toilet. The pacers did too. However, when they did not have retention tanks those toilets were available more.
The train running is better than a cancellation, but it should not be beyond the wit of the railway to keep the toilets sufficiently watered and emptied. A rapid refil/empty process for selected terminii perhaps.
I am always a little nervous about taking the later trains in a day because of the toilet issue.
The train running is better than a cancellation, but it should not be beyond the wit of the railway to keep the toilets sufficiently watered and emptied. A rapid refil/empty process for selected terminii perhaps.
I am always a little nervous about taking the later trains in a day because of the toilet issue.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
I think the 2-car 170s that TPE had only had a big toilet, but it's been a while.
Given the space they take up, and the need for tanks as we quite rightly no longer consider dumping on the track to be acceptable, the way to address this issue is by improving facilities at stations especially on shorter-distance services and/or those which are only two carriages. Toilets at stations are plumbed into the water and sewage systems so are far less likely to go out of order.
We're in the Speculative section, so here goes: how about removable tanks not too dissimilar to those used in motorhomes or touring caravans (known as "cassette toilets") though obviously larger? The pros would be that they could be easier to swap out at termini compared to running to and from a depot... the downsides would be that it wouldn't be a pleasant job, so the crews doing it wouldn't come cheap. They'd also be new staff because good luck getting unions to agree to existing staff taking this extra rather nasty work without a hefty premium. There's also issues with hygiene, smells, what you actually do with the contents from the tanks (does it just go into local sewers? Can the sewers cope?)... on balance I suspect it's a neat idea until you actually think about putting it into practice.
Last edited:
hexagon789
Veteran Member
They had/have two, all 170s have at least two.
Some 158s have only one. Those originally sponsored by WYPTE have only one.
Yes, it's about time those were standardised with two loos.
That aside, the 158's are still very much the gold standard of DMU's.
A spectacularly subjective statement which is very definitely route dependent.
Apart from the dodgy hand driers, they tick all the boxes, even for a long journey like Leeds - Carlisle.
Care to explain how you'd fit toilets into tube profile stock ? End to end journey times on both the Piccadilly and Central lines easily exceed 1 hour.
With some difficulty I would imagine.
However, we shouldn't let the limitations of the tube system become an excuse for inadequate provision on the main line (I know, we already have done with the Elizabeth line).
For long journeys they are fine. For anything shorter the door positions and size become a serious issue very fast. You only need a couple of people with cases to bring exit/boarding to a shuddering halt.
When you see someone trying to get luggage the size of three washing machines down the aisle, you know it's not going to end well whatever the rolling stock.
As for the 158's, they seem ideally suited to my peak time commute as well as longer distance services. If you count the 159's as well (being broadly similar) there seem to be very few routes that they're not suited to.
Given all the complaints regarding capacity on services where the max length is a 2-car (such as the Leeds-Nottinghams), I'm not sure it would go down particularly well to reduce capacity even further for an additional toilet. The real solution is to improve station facilities and where required arrange toilet stops - as there is already a policy in place.
Having looked at the service in question, it appears to have entered service fully tanked at around 1300. The toilet had to be locked out due to vandalism.
As it happens, there were a pair of 150s that left Sheffield a little earlier ECS for Leeds - it was looked at swapping them but wasn't possible as the 150s had to end up at NL for exams, and if they ran the stopping service they wouldn't arrive before the depot was cut off due to a possession. There weren't any other spare units available.
Having looked at the service in question, it appears to have entered service fully tanked at around 1300. The toilet had to be locked out due to vandalism.
As it happens, there were a pair of 150s that left Sheffield a little earlier ECS for Leeds - it was looked at swapping them but wasn't possible as the 150s had to end up at NL for exams, and if they ran the stopping service they wouldn't arrive before the depot was cut off due to a possession. There weren't any other spare units available.
But is the solution here not to make the loo actually work rather than limit space in the cabin by fitting an extra loo in case the other one breaks?
YorkRailFan
On Moderation
I would also argue that the 195s shouldn't have been ordered with only 2 carriages (yes there are some 3 cars), especially as there are 4 and 6 car 331s.