• 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!

Toiletless trains blamed for forced door openings

Status
Not open for further replies.

NSEWonderer

Established Member
Joined
5 Dec 2020
Messages
2,211
Location
London
I don't doubt it but people will tolerate being stuck on a train with toilets and lights for longer than one without. Without them, you've probably got about an hour before people will start reaching for the egress handles.
In quite a few cases a toilet won't stop passengers egressing after long periods if they feel the station is close by or see city lights leading to such assumptions.

In the Lewisham and Kentish Town incidents there were trains that had toilets but the trains were also not too far from nearby stations leading to passengers unsafely assuming they could walk to them.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

etr221

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2018
Messages
1,382
Most people have no understanding of the hazards of a railway line, will be desperate (often for the very reason this thread exists!) to get off the train, and it may well be dark as well; As indeed it was during the Paddington incident.



In a situation where multiple trains are stranded there is no possible way to evacuate every passenger from every train immediately; There are not, and never will be, the staff to organise and carry this out. So some delay is inevitable; Unless the procedure becomes to immediately release the doors and tell passengers to jump off and head for the nearest station, in which case the railway would be liable for any injuries resulting.



Perhaps it was thought that making the damaged overheads safe would have allowed the area to be (partly, at least) re-energised to get trains moving, a far quicker and better way of helping passengers? Difficult to know what was decided and why based, as you yourself said, on a 'small amount of information'.
As I'm sure I've said before, when trains are stranded, sooner or later passengers will self evacuate the train. All the railway can do is try and make it later, and act to get train on its way or have a managed evacuation first. And if it fails to, it will have to suffer the consequences.

How long it will be is dependent on circumstances (nice, warm, comfortable train in the mdidle of nowhere? - longer time; dark, crowded one with 'civilisation' in full view? - shorter)

And as I've read, all those airline cabin staff aren't there to sell you duty-frees. They are there because airlines realise - or have had it forced on them - that passenger management is important, to ensure people do the right thing and get off the plane safely when things go wrong. The duty-frees are just a sideline, to extract some more money.

On the other hand on a DOO train with a 1000 passengers and no functioning pa...
 
Last edited:

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,550
Yes you do, you have the grass verge and a bush.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I remember once getting caught in gridlock for a couple of hours on the M6 due to a serious accident which needed the air ambulance and closure of the motorway. There came a point where I couldn't hold my bladder any longer so got out of the car, crossed the two lanes of stationary traffic and hard shoulder, climbed the embankment and relieved myself. Several other people were doing the same thing.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,991
Location
Yorks
I remember once getting caught in gridlock for a couple of hours on the M6 due to a serious accident which needed the air ambulance and closure of the motorway. There came a point where I couldn't hold my bladder any longer so got out of the car, crossed the two lanes of stationary traffic and hard shoulder, climbed the embankment and relieved myself. Several other people were doing the same thing.

Indeed, and who can blame you. When needs must ...
 

GordonT

Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,105
In quite a few cases a toilet won't stop passengers egressing after long periods if they feel the station is close by or see city lights leading to such assumptions.
And in quite a few cases during a protracted delay a toilet will become unusable due to some combination of power loss, lack of water, grossly insanitary condition etc.
 
Last edited:

357

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2018
Messages
1,931
What about those travelling from Reading/Shenfield to the centre ?

Rationalise it as much as you like, however its still a major step backwards in terms of passenger comfort.
Then it's more likely you'll get a fast train and change.

Also, it's not a step back on the east as the previous rolling stock didn't have toilets either.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Other things that haven't been addressed or still aren't being listened to:

With no power, the toilets won't work. They will automatically lock themselves out of use. If there was power, trains would be moved into platforms much quicker.

On these metro trains that get crowded - it's far more likely that people will end up using the toilet as an extra seat and during disruption people would stand in there anyway. I've seen it myself many times during disruption on longer distance services.
 
Last edited:

Egg Centric

Established Member
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
1,896
Location
Land of the Prince Bishops
Not to be crude about it, but I wouldn't hesitate to pee on the floor. There's no alternative that isn't worse. I am surprised that Londoners don't understand this intuitively. Blitz spirit and all that!
 

Edsmith

Member
Joined
21 Dec 2021
Messages
623
Location
Staplehurst
Yes, prosecution is definitely harsh and unfair. But does the police take that into account?
I'm pretty sure the police would take the circumstances into account and I'm pretty sure the CPS wouldn't proceed with any prosecutions given the circumstances.

How practical would it be for trains to be fitted with batteries allowing them to crawl to the next station in the event of a power failure? People being trapped for hours, with or without toilets, is clearly unacceptable.
 

Recessio

Member
Joined
4 Aug 2019
Messages
1,042
Location
London
I'm pretty sure the police would take the circumstances into account and I'm pretty sure the CPS wouldn't proceed with any prosecutions given the circumstances.

How practical would it be for trains to be fitted with batteries allowing them to crawl to the next station in the event of a power failure? People being trapped for hours, with or without toilets, is clearly unacceptable.
The problem as discussed earlier in the thread is fitting the batteries into existing stock that wasn't designed with the capability in mind. With new stock it may be possible (or maybe they would be ordered as full BEMU to start with)
 

Canary73

Member
Joined
24 May 2013
Messages
45
I was on the last LNW service from Crewe to Euston yesterday evening and to onboard announcements were that there was only one working toilet onboard. That then became out of service but helpfully they arranged for a 5 min toilet stop call at Milton Keynes Central on a platform that had toilets. The train was quite busy but it was good that LNW thought ahead in that case.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
5,504
In quite a few cases a toilet won't stop passengers egressing after long periods if they feel the station is close by or see city lights leading to such assumptions.

In the Lewisham and Kentish Town incidents there were trains that had toilets but the trains were also not too far from nearby stations leading to passengers unsafely assuming they could walk to them.
Without rereading the Lewisham report, I seem to recall that the first people to break out were on a train without a toilet, and that was after two hours or more.
 

NSEWonderer

Established Member
Joined
5 Dec 2020
Messages
2,211
Location
London
Without rereading the Lewisham report, I seem to recall that the first people to break out were on a train without a toilet, and that was after two hours or more.
According to Arthur D Little's report, 2 Passengers first Egressed on 2M48 which was nearest to Platform 4 albeit moving slowly. That was a Class 465 unit with toilet facilities although I do believe the toilet on one set wasn't working properly but was still useable for some time and this was the first set not the rear set where the two passengers first Egressed and might I add within 29mins of the train initially arriving at Lewisham.

1722768116996.png
1722768255863.png

The report quoted below:
The first train to arrive at Lewisham station Platform 4 after the points had been cleared of ice was the 15:56
service from Charing Cross to Dartford (train 2M48), running over an hour late due to severe weather on its
journey into London, reaching Lewisham at 17:25. The driver reported difficulty drawing electrical traction
power to the signaller, and began to leave the station at 17:35. The driver continued to report difficulty as the
train made very slow progress, and at 17:47 reported the activation of a PassComm handle on board his train
whilst still partially in the platform (PassComm – the Passenger Communication system – is a system by which
passengers can communicate with the driver in an emergency). At this point it should have been apparent that
issues were developing that might lead to line blockages. The professional opinion from signalling and control
specialists is that a more proactive response (from the Network Rail South East Route signalling team in
London Bridge ASC and the Southeastern Train Service Manager (TSM) in the KICC) could have prevented
further train movement and possibly stopped four or five of the other trains from becoming involved in the
incident. At 17:54, some of the rear carriages of train 2M48 were still at the platform and a passenger used an
emergency egress handle to open the doors, and platform staff observed two passengers leave the train. At
17:55, the signaller notified the KICC of the PassComm and egress activation on train 2M48. The driver,
assisted by a Southeastern Driver Manager (DM) travelling on-board as a passenger, reset the egress and the
train continued to pull out of the station, eventually stopping at 18:20.
 
Last edited:

blueberry11

Member
Joined
19 Aug 2023
Messages
140
Location
Norwich
Generally, I avoid using the on-board toilet if at all possible. Almost all road vehicles don't have one. Bicycles don't. Walking don't. Road journeys still outpace public transport (and possible walking/cycling combined) and they all don't have the option of using a toilet without going to a service station. Maybe its just that passengers expect toilets on trains but not on the road.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
9,572
Location
London
Have drivers ever needed to urinate in the cab in these circumstances?

They’d just open the cab door and do their business on the track or into a bottle and onto the track.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

MTR Control can make PAs to the trains directly instead of the driver, letting the driver to communicate with the signaller, IRM, MOM etc.

So long as there is still a working GSMR. And if the driver is in the cab still (quite likely) this has no additional benefit.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I agree to an extent, but for the average person, if they've climbed down from a train on to the cutting, it will be gingerly.

That's not to say that it won't be dangerous and the staff wont need to guide them.

You would hope, but don’t try estimating passenger behaviour and herd mentality after 2+ hours of being stranded in the dark with hundreds of strangers and no toilet facilities.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

According to Arthur D Little's report, 2 Passengers first Egressed on 2M48 which was nearest to Platform 4 albeit moving slowly. That was a Class 465 unit with toilet facilities although I do believe the toilet on one set wasn't working properly but was still useable for some time and this was the first set not the rear set where the two passengers first Egressed and might I add within 29mins of the train initially arriving at Lewisham.

View attachment 162957
View attachment 162958

The report quoted below:

The industry guidance is 60 minutes maximum - this is before a plan needs to be decided. To be honest within 30 minutes it was clear detainment was needed.

The main issue was there were 7 trains and there weren’t enough qualified personnel readily available to assist in a timely manner. This effectively made Network Rail’s and the TOCs timeframes meaningless.

Also what needs to remembered is this was a GWR strike day so trains were a lot less frequent but there was also less available management presence from the TOC. It could have been even worse.

Ultimately, you need to look at root cause (overhead line failure that wasn’t fully resolved until afternoon the next day) and that 345s without toilets is a consequence of that issue. TfL/MTR (and GWR/HEx) were very much limited by what Network Rail were able to deliver and NR Western is also one of the worst (if not the worst) performing regions and this incident and the report added nothing to give confidence in their ability to improve.
 
Last edited:

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
17,497
Location
0036
The gents at Acton Town was out of action recently. The lady at the barriers was more than happy to let me in the universal access toilet. To be honest, it seems a bit odd that they are locked. They are not universal access if only key holders can use them.
They're also not universal access if they are left unlocked and get vandalised. A staff member with the appropriate key should be readily available.
The existence of toilets is a bit of a red herring here, other aspects of the trains and service patterns need to be considered as well to extend the time trapped passengers can tolerate.
Exactly. It seems to me the focus should be on the slow response and failure to identify the need for a controlled detrainment.
 

BingMan

Member
Joined
8 Feb 2019
Messages
562
It's the fact the Train was stranded for so long that's the issue here, you don't have a toilet in your car in case it breaks down. This is probably going to get worse as less and less diesel locomotives are used if the railways go for electrification.
But you are not locked in your car if it breaks down. Unless it is the central locking system which is broken

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

They’d just open the cab door and do their business on the track or into a bottle and onto the track.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Generally, I avoid using the on-board toilet if at all possible. Almost all road vehicles don't have one. Bicycles don't. Walking don't. Road journeys still outpace public transport (and possible walking/cycling combined) and they all don't have the option of using a toilet without going to a service station. Maybe its just that passengers expect toilets on trains but not on the road.
Many long distance coaches have a toilet. I would not use them if they didn't.
With a motor car, bicycle or walking you can stop and go behind a bush.
With a service bus you can get off at the next stop.

Trains are the only transport where you can be locked in without access to a toilet
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,991
Location
Yorks
Then it's more likely you'll get a fast train and change.

Also, it's not a step back on the east as the previous rolling stock didn't have toilets either.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Other things that haven't been addressed or still aren't being listened to:

With no power, the toilets won't work. They will automatically lock themselves out of use. If there was power, trains would be moved into platforms much quicker.

On these metro trains that get crowded - it's far more likely that people will end up using the toilet as an extra seat and during disruption people would stand in there anyway. I've seen it myself many times during disruption on longer distance services.

Reading and Shenfield to London are not metro distances.

If people end up using the toilet as a seat in the core, so be it. The toilet will be needed at other times.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Generally, I avoid using the on-board toilet if at all possible. Almost all road vehicles don't have one. Bicycles don't. Walking don't. Road journeys still outpace public transport (and possible walking/cycling combined) and they all don't have the option of using a toilet without going to a service station. Maybe its just that passengers expect toilets on trains but not on the road.

Motorists have the option to stop at will - at a service station/cafe/supermarket/bush.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
15,331
Location
St Albans
Reading and Shenfield to London are not metro distances.

If people end up using the toilet as a seat in the core, so be it. The toilet will be needed at other times.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==



Motorists have the option to stop at will - at a service station/cafe/supermarket/bush.
Shenfield definitely is metro travelling time (distance travelled is irrelevant to a bursting bladder), and had the decision to extend Lizzie services from Maidenhead to Reading been fully ratified before the commitment made on the rolling stock, there might have been a different arrangement. For comparison purposes:
Shenfield to Liverpool St. 20.8 miles 43 mins.​
Paddington to Maidenhead 24.9 miles 40 mins. (Reading is an additional 11 miles taking 14 mins.)​
Cockfosters to Heathrow 28 miles 86 mins.​

I don't think that the longest time journey in the list above could be anything other than 'Metro'.
 

Recessio

Member
Joined
4 Aug 2019
Messages
1,042
Location
London
Shenfield definitely is metro travelling time (distance travelled is irrelevant to a bursting bladder), and had the decision to extend Lizzie services from Maidenhead to Reading been fully ratified before the commitment made on the rolling stock, there might have been a different arrangement. For comparison purposes:
Shenfield to Liverpool St. 20.8 miles 43 mins.​
Paddington to Maidenhead 24.9 miles 40 mins. (Reading is an additional 11 miles taking 14 mins.)​
Cockfosters to Heathrow 28 miles 86 mins.​

I don't think that the longest time journey in the list above could be anything other than 'Metro'.
By way of comparison:

Epping to Liverpool Street (Central line): 36 minutes.

Sevenoaks to Charing Cross (Southeastern, stopping service often with no toilet): 57 minutes

So Shenfield and Maidenhead definitely don't seem out of line. Even Reading is comparable to the end of some NR Metro services that are (currently) often served by stocks with no toilets on-board, and unlike Elizabeth Line the stations don't always have toilets either.

I do agree though that once the extension to Reading was made, they should have thought about adding toilets to trains, or at least adding toilets to the core stations so that all passengers may have had a chance to relieve themselves before the start of their journey.
 

QueensCurve

Established Member
Joined
22 Dec 2014
Messages
1,987
And given the incident involved loss of supply from the overhead line, then they'd quickly run out of power to operate the toilet. As the batteries drain, the train systems will load shed to prioritise lighting, PA etc and shut the toilet. Having been in such a power loss situation on a train with toilets, my first move when it was announced we had lost power was to go to the toilet before anyone else did.
A sad indictment of today's rail toilets.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
17,497
Location
0036
Sevenoaks to Charing Cross (Southeastern, stopping service often with no toilet): 57 minutes
Nobody rides a stopper from Sevenoaks to Charing Cross though, they take the express, which is a 375 with toilets.

The stopper is more often than not a 465 with toilets, though a 707 can show up occasionally.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
15,331
Location
St Albans
By way of comparison:

Epping to Liverpool Street (Central line): 36 minutes.

Sevenoaks to Charing Cross (Southeastern, stopping service often with no toilet): 57 minutes

So Shenfield and Maidenhead definitely don't seem out of line. Even Reading is comparable to the end of some NR Metro services that are (currently) often served by stocks with no toilets on-board, and unlike Elizabeth Line the stations don't always have toilets either.

I do agree though that once the extension to Reading was made, they should have thought about adding toilets to trains, or at least adding toilets to the core stations so that all passengers may have had a chance to relieve themselves before the start of their journey.
The possibility of adding toilets may have been there but it would have had a significant impact of the line's capacity and serviceability, all to mitigate the comaparatively rare event of passenegrs being stranded aboard trains for extended times.
 

Recessio

Member
Joined
4 Aug 2019
Messages
1,042
Location
London
The possibility of adding toilets may have been there but it would have had a significant impact of the line's capacity and serviceability, all to mitigate the comaparatively rare event of passenegrs being stranded aboard trains for extended times.
I agree ultimately the main failure is the inability to evacuate trains quickly. Doesn't matter how many toilets a train has if there's no power to use them, or if they run out of flushing water or the waste tanks fill up.
 

jettofab

Member
Joined
2 May 2020
Messages
56
Location
North West
They’d just open the cab door and do their business on the track or into a bottle and onto the track.
Again, no. If they're female they are not opening the cab door and peeing out of it and nor are they peeing straight into a bottle. There is an industry wide issue with access to toilets for female crew and the casual assumption in this thread that drivers are male illustrates part of the issue well! Some may carry shewees after finding themselves in such situations but far from all of them, and shewees are not the most straightforward thing to use without a bit of practice.
 

Somewhere

On Moderation
Joined
14 Oct 2023
Messages
913
Location
UK
People broke out the SE trains near Lewisham that had toilets. Now in those cases the toilets were actually open but we're assuming even if the lizzy line trains had toilets that people wouldn't have eventually broken out of the trains for non toilet specfic purposes.
Probably also depends where you are to a degree. In London, people can get out and get a bus.
In the middle of nowhere, miles from a station or settlement, in the depths of winter, the option to stay put is better.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,991
Location
Yorks
By way of comparison:

Epping to Liverpool Street (Central line): 36 minutes.

Sevenoaks to Charing Cross (Southeastern, stopping service often with no toilet): 57 minutes

So Shenfield and Maidenhead definitely don't seem out of line. Even Reading is comparable to the end of some NR Metro services that are (currently) often served by stocks with no toilets on-board, and unlike Elizabeth Line the stations don't always have toilets either.

I do agree though that once the extension to Reading was made, they should have thought about adding toilets to trains, or at least adding toilets to the core stations so that all passengers may have had a chance to relieve themselves before the start of their journey.

Nobody rides a stopper from Sevenoaks to Charing Cross though, they take the express, which is a 375 with toilets.

The stopper is more often than not a 465 with toilets, though a 707 can show up occasionally.

And NSE made a deliberate decision to include toilets on the Networkers that operate Sevenoaks - Charing Cross, so it was clearly seen as necessary.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
105,345
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Ultimately, you will have to make different choices about your travel then. It isn't ideal for you but there is no chance of those trains being retrofitted with toilets anytime soon.

At least until toilet urgency is treated in law as a disability and failure to provide for it becomes an offence, as it should be. This country is woeful at dealing with such things, and your reply typifies the "if you have toilet urgency don't go out or suffer the indignity and discomfort of having to wear pads etc" attitude that I personally think is terrible.

The issue really needs a few Doug Paulley* a likes to push it in society more widely. The lack of toilet provision closes all manner of places (e.g. parks) to elderly and toilet disabled people.

* I believe he actually does have toilet related aspects to his disability, but understandably his main priority is provision of Changing Places and shower type facilities as those are what he primarily needs.
 

GordonT

Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,105
And NSE made a deliberate decision to include toilets on the Networkers that operate Sevenoaks - Charing Cross, so it was clearly seen as necessary.
To an extent the decision could be regarded as subjective and may not be representative of usual custom and practice. Sometimes such decisions can be made for reasons other than genuine passenger necessity. Political "clout" relative to a particular locality or travel corridor for example. Not saying that was necessarily the case in this example.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
9,572
Location
London
Again, no. If they're female they are not opening the cab door and peeing out of it and nor are they peeing straight into a bottle. There is an industry wide issue with access to toilets for female crew and the casual assumption in this thread that drivers are male illustrates part of the issue well! Some may carry shewees after finding themselves in such situations but far from all of them, and shewees are not the most straightforward thing to use without a bit of practice.

Female drivers would have a back-up and nobody is assuming all drivers are male. There’s lots of female drivers of stock without toilets across TOCs and London Underground and whilst stranding are incredibly rare, it is no doubt something to consider.
 

NSEWonderer

Established Member
Joined
5 Dec 2020
Messages
2,211
Location
London
How about the people who want to actually get on a very busy train like the 345s in the COS during peak times, which would undoubtedly be displaced if the said amount of toilets required were to reduce capacity heavily?

Adding toilets to the 345s for a case of long stranding which isvery much a red herring, just doesn't make sense. There are other options you have toward Reading from the COS and toward Shenfield again from the COS that have onboard toilet facilities but also the speed for certain travels deemed long enough to "require" toilets on the Elizabeth Line.

Where would a toilet and its electronics and tank go? Assuming you put one toilet in Car 5, it would need to be a large, accessible toilet for wheelchair passengers to use but would undoubtedly make access to one of the three doors, let alone the walk-through space, dangerously cramped. The 720s have only two doors, as does most other stock with toilets, as they weren't expected to deal with the intensity of passenger flow the 345s do.

Assuming you do find a place for a tank and somehow logistically place the accessible toilet and one other toilet, it still doesn't cover that the trains' batteries will be much further depleted in a stranded situation of sufficient duration.

Adding more batteries on top of the added weight already from the toilets, their tanks, and electronics, plus the very reduced capacity for the options that already exist, in my opinion, doesn't make any sense, and I'm barely listing the issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top