House Of Lords Debate - End 'disgusting' train toilet sewage

[northwichcat]

Maybe the answer to the whole issue is to have trains that dont actually have loos.....buses and trams dont....

But National Express do even on their shorter journeys like Manchester to Liverpool shuttles which provide a similar journey time to Manchester to Liverpool on one of the semi-fast services.

The longer bus journeys e.g. 130 Macclesfield-Manchester aren't intended for end to end travel but to allow more journey options without changing.

The cost of building public toilets at most stations without toilets (the alternative) has a much higher cost than fitting them on trains which is why only usually major and interchange stations have public toilets and most trains have toilets.

 

[Moonshot]

Not that I know the answer to this......but what % of train services in the UK actually run with loos fitted? . Following on from that , what % of passengers actually use them? And then how many passengers launch formal complaints when they have travelled on stock with no loos?

 

[northwichcat]

Not that I know the answer to this......but what % of train services in the UK actually run with loos fitted?

Only some frequent commuter services in the Liverpool and London areas use trains without toilets. All other National Rail services have toilets fitted.

Following on from that , what % of passengers actually use them?

Depends on the service it's running. A Northern unit could spend the day running between Manchester and Marple and with the toilet hardly ever get used. The same train could spend the next day on the Mid-Cheshire line and the toilet could get used 100 or more times over the course of the day.

Train crews also use the toilets on trains. There might even be a legal requirement for the TOCs to provide them their employees with toilet facilities, especially during engineering works when the train (with crew) can be sat at an unstaffed temporary terminus, like Greenbank, for a considerable amount of time.

 

[Flamingo]

Are you about to suggest a new thread in which we all get to nominate these places where we'd most like to have all passing toilet tanks being emptied?

I'm thinking of a few places where a regular 'dump' wouldn't make much difference.

I was actually thinking of when the train is in the great bugger-all, but now that you mention it, Port Talbot springs to mind for some reason...

 

[Moonshot]

Only some frequent commuter services in the Liverpool and London areas use trains without toilets. All other National Rail services have toilets fitted.



Depends on the service it's running. A Northern unit could spend the day running between Manchester and Marple and with the toilet hardly ever get used. The same train could spend the next day on the Mid-Cheshire line and the toilet could get used 100 or more times over the course of the day.

Train crews also use the toilets on trains. There might even be a legal requirement for the TOCs to provide them their employees with toilet facilities, especially during engineering works when the train (with crew) can be sat at an unstaffed temporary terminus, like Greenbank, for a considerable amount of time.

Ok lots of coulds ifs and maybes in that post but nothing definitive. So using a bit of logical thinking, you pointed out that some frequent commuter services dont have them, but by default they would carry the highest amount of passengers? Of course 75% of journeys start or end in one of the 17 Network Rail stations which of course do have loos.

I ve just had a look at the Passenger Focus survey last time round.....loos on trains do not score well at all, though interestingly the question also attracted the fewest respondents.

So I would say that with the probably exception of long range services, you could probably design trains with no loos and it would barely register any public notice.....

 

[yorksrob]

Ok lots of coulds ifs and maybes in that post but nothing definitive. So using a bit of logical thinking, you pointed out that some frequent commuter services dont have them, but by default they would carry the highest amount of passengers? Of course 75% of journeys start or end in one of the 17 Network Rail stations which of course do have loos.

I ve just had a look at the Passenger Focus survey last time round.....loos on trains do not score well at all, though interestingly the question also attracted the fewest respondents.

So I would say that with the probably exception of long range services, you could probably design trains with no loos and it would barely register any public notice.....

That would be a very lousy outcome, and if it ever were to come to pass, I will personally write to Lady wotsitsname to ask when she is going to start campaigninf against the lack of toilets on trains, given her interest in the subject.

 

[Moonshot]

Well going back to the very first post , Lady Kramer ( and also the RMT ) both stated that the dumping of human waste on tracks is disgusting and a health hazard. Of course having no toilets at all removes that hazard. And as I mentioned earlier , trams dont have them......which would mean that all those passengers who were using trains on the Altrincham and Bury lines which are now Metrolink would be complaining about that ??? I just dont see it......and with the prospect of more lines being converted to Metrlink style operation, it clearly is a non issue....

 

[HSTEd]

They convert lines to Metrolink operation in Manchester simply because GMPTE (or whatever they call themselves now) is in love with them.

There is no discussion about the relative benefits of the ways of working.

And inter/exurban trams do have toilets on the continent.

 

[Moonshot]

They convert lines to Metrolink operation in Manchester simply because GMPTE (or whatever they call themselves now) is in love with them.

There is no discussion about the relative benefits of the ways of working.

And inter/exurban trams do have toilets on the continent.

No .....lines are converted to Metrolink because its deemed more beneficial both to the passenger and taxpayer. Metrolink recieves no operating subsidy , though it does attract capital grants in line with many other forms of public expenditure.

 

[yorksrob]

Well going back to the very first post , Lady Kramer ( and also the RMT ) both stated that the dumping of human waste on tracks is disgusting and a health hazard. Of course having no toilets at all removes that hazard. And as I mentioned earlier , trams dont have them......which would mean that all those passengers who were using trains on the Altrincham and Bury lines which are now Metrolink would be complaining about that ??? I just dont see it......and with the prospect of more lines being converted to Metrlink style operation, it clearly is a non issue....

I think you‘ll find it would be a very big issue, aside from Manchesters peculiar tram fetish. Most units aren‘t confined to short routes (The Bury and Altricham electrics were an exception in this case, which might explain the lack of issues on these services)

The DMU fleet has to be flexible and ptetty much any class can end up on routes of over an hour. How long would it be before people with bowell and bladder complaints take the railway to court on discrimination grounds ?

Then there are the hygeine issues when people desperate after a night out start leaving bottles of pee everywhere.

The whole idea is a non-starter I‘m afraid.

 

[Moonshot]

I think you‘ll find it would be a very big issue, aside from Manchesters peculiar tram fetish. Most units aren‘t confined to short routes (The Bury and Altricham electrics were an exception in this case, which might explain the lack of issues on these services)

The DMU fleet has to be flexible and ptetty much any class can end up on routes of over an hour. How long would it be before people with bowell and bladder complaints take the railway to court on discrimination grounds ?

Then there are the hygeine issues when people desperate after a night out start leaving bottles of pee everywhere.

The whole idea is a non-starter I‘m afraid.

I did differentiate earlier on between longer and shorter range journeys. And if people with bowel and bladder complaints could take the railway to court on discrimination grounds , surely that could also apply to local councils ? My own has just recently ( in line with others ) closed public toilets in a number of locations on the back of government cuts.

How many bus services replicate train services?

I was also looking at the rolling stock on the newish London Overground service, which has been designed with Underground type seating arrangements. I dont see any mention of toilets on them, though they may exist and no doubt someone will correct me.

 

[ryan125hst]

Maybe the answer to the whole issue is to have trains that dont actually have loos

So would you go on a train from London to Inverness, taking just over 8 hours, if it didn't have a toilet?

 

[Moonshot]

So would you go on a train from London to Inverness, taking just over 8 hours, if it didn't have a toilet?

As i mentioned earlier, I did differentiate between long and short distance journeys.

Maybe you could tell me just what % of passengers actually make that journey on any given day?

 

[yorksrob]

I did differentiate earlier on between longer and shorter range journeys. And if people with bowel and bladder complaints could take the railway to court on discrimination grounds , surely that could also apply to local councils ? My own has just recently ( in line with others ) closed public toilets in a number of locations on the back of government cuts.

How many bus services replicate train services?

I was also looking at the rolling stock on the newish London Overground service, which has been designed with Underground type seating arrangements. I dont see any mention of toilets on them, though they may exist and no doubt someone will correct me.

And the point I‘ve already made is that there are relatively few short, self contained routes with dedicated rolling stock. Most of the routes DMU‘s run on are quite long, and it actually helps operating flexibility if stock can be used on a wide range of routes.

 

[Moonshot]

And the point I‘ve already made is that there are relatively few short, self contained routes with dedicated rolling stock. Most of the routes DMU‘s run on are quite long, and it actually helps operating flexibility if stock can be used on a wide range of routes.

That may be so......and as I mentioned more than once, I have diffentiated between long and short range. How many passengers actually travel the full distance between Manchester and Sheffield or Manchester and Leeds on Northern rail stopping services?

 

[ryan125hst]

As i mentioned earlier, I did differentiate between long and short distance journeys.

So where do you draw the line between a short journey (no toilet), and a long journey (toilets required)?

 

[Moonshot]

I ve no idea.....but maybe the answer to that would lie in just how much the average time spent on a train is on any given day. Having seen a report the other day that stated the average commute is now 55 minutes in the UK ( which is the longest in Europe ) lets just for arguments sake say 1 hour. So clearly that would include all long distance rolling stock going up and down the trunk routes......but my understanding is that these are fitted with tanks anyway?

 

[ryan125hst]

I ve no idea.....but maybe the answer to that would lie in just how much the average time spent on a train is on any given day. Having seen a report the other day that stated the average commute is now 55 minutes in the UK ( which is the longest in Europe ) lets just for arguments sake say 1 hour. So clearly that would include all long distance rolling stock going up and down the trunk routes......but my understanding is that these are fitted with tanks anyway?

An hour is reasonable, but there are trains that operate on journeys over an hour without toilets, such as Southern's Brighton to Portsmouth Harbour, a journey of around an hour and a half. However, many trains that don't have retention tanks are used on journeys well over an hour. For example, Middlesbrough to Whitby is almost an hour and a half.

 

[Moonshot]

So maybe an alternative approach would be to have market researchers with PTS walking up and down the network and actually counting how many dumps there are !!!!!!!!

Clearly this whole story ( as has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread ) is a non event on a no news day .......and clearly no main line is an open sewer. And the reason for that is the travelling public simply does not use toilets on trains in great numbers, because the perception is that they are invariably unhygenic anyway.

Makes you kinda wonder just how many seats could be put in the space where the loo is ......isnt that something that Ryanair contemplated???

 

[yorksrob]

That may be so......and as I mentioned more than once, I have diffentiated between long and short range. How many passengers actually travel the full distance between Manchester and Sheffield or Manchester and Leeds on Northern rail stopping services?

Well, I often travel between Normanton and Sheffield, so that‘s one reasonably long journey on a Northern stopper. You‘ll find that people use the railway for quite a range of journeys, not just to the nearest City.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So maybe an alternative approach would be to have market researchers with PTS walking up and down the network and actually counting how many dumps there are !!!!!!!!

Clearly this whole story ( as has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread ) is a non event on a no news day .......and clearly no main line is an open sewer. And the reason for that is the travelling public simply does not use toilets on trains in great numbers, because the perception is that they are invariably unhygenic anyway.

Makes you kinda wonder just how many seats could be put in the space where the loo is ......isnt that something that Ryanair contemplated???

Ryanair. Not a particularly inspiring role model for the Nation‘s railway.

 

[Moonshot]

And of course Sheffield station has loos......and as I pointed out before, the vast majority of passengers on any given rail journey will pass through a station with toilet facilities. Rail travel nowadays is functional , not romantic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ryanair. Not a particularly inspiring role model for the Nation‘s railway.

What do u think the role model should be ?

 

[Cliveblackpool]

So maybe an alternative approach would be to have market researchers with PTS walking up and down the network and actually counting how many dumps there are !!!!!!!!

Clearly this whole story ( as has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread ) is a non event on a no news day .......and clearly no main line is an open sewer. And the reason for that is the travelling public simply does not use toilets on trains in great numbers, because the perception is that they are invariably unhygenic anyway.

Makes you kinda wonder just how many seats could be put in the space where the loo is ......isnt that something that Ryanair contemplated???

The people hammering Ryanair's toilets are often their best customers - who've been buying lots of their expensive drinks!! Charge them for disposal as well!
btw Always enjoyed flying with Ryanair.

 

[Moonshot]

well at least you know what you are getting when you fly with them.....its a no frills service.

 

[yorksrob]

And of course Sheffield station has loos......and as I pointed out before, the vast majority of passengers on any given rail journey will pass through a station with toilet facilities. Rail travel nowadays is functional , not romantic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ryanair. Not a particularly inspiring role model for the Nation‘s railway.

What do u think the role model should be ?

Not Ryanair.

Ultimtimately such an approach would damage the reputational advantage that the railways have of being functional but not uncomfortable, whilst making them a lower class form of transport to be avoided by anyone who can.

Much like what happenned to bus transport - and look what happenned to that. No regulation or safeguarding for services, because they‘e not perceived as being used by the kind of people Governments are interested in.

 

[Moonshot]

Not Ryanair.

Ultimtimately such an approach would damage the reputational advantage that the railways have of being functional but not uncomfortable, whilst making them a lower class form of transport to be avoided by anyone who can.

Much like what happenned to bus transport - and look what happenned to that. No regulation or safeguarding for services, because they‘e not perceived as being used by the kind of people Governments are interested in.

But Ryanair have the reputation of the cheapest fares, the best punctuality, and impressive utilisation of aircraft......isnt that what rail aspires to ?

 

[yorksrob]

But Ryanair have the reputation of the cheapest fares, the best punctuality, and impressive utilisation of aircraft......isnt that what rail aspires to ?

The impression I get is that they don‘t get you to where you need to be and screw every penny out of unsuspecting passengers. That‘s not a reputation I‘d be happy for the railway to have.

 

[Moonshot]

So how do you explain the fact that UK rail now carries more passengers than at any time in its history if they dont get you where u need to be and screw every penny out of passengers?

 

[yorksrob]

So how do you explain the fact that UK rail now carries more passengers than at any time in its history if they dont get you where u need to be and screw every penny out of passengers?

I believe we were talking about Ryanair. If you remember, that‘s what I don‘t want the railway to become like.

 

[Moonshot]

ah sorry ...I misread that

 

[6Gman]

Well going back to the very first post , Lady Kramer ( and also the RMT ) both stated that the dumping of human waste on tracks is disgusting and a health hazard. Of course having no toilets at all removes that hazard. And as I mentioned earlier , trams dont have them......which would mean that all those passengers who were using trains on the Altrincham and Bury lines which are now Metrolink would be complaining about that ??? I just dont see it......and with the prospect of more lines being converted to Metrlink style operation, it clearly is a non issue....

Were toilets a feature of trains on the Altrincham and Bury lines pre-trammification? Certainly weren't any on the MSJ&A stock - and access to one on the Class 304s was hit and miss! Did the Bury Electrics have toilets? I suspect not.