Discussion in 'Heritage Rolling Stock' started by Railboy, Jan 21, 2019.
I thought the service WAS the toilet....
I'd rather not, thanks all the same. My post was actually 'tongue in cheek' but apologies if it offended.
I know mine isn't what it once was and not likely to improve with age!
A high proprtion of visitors to heritage railways are:
b) Older people
Both groups tend to need toilets relatively frequently
THATS where I've been going wrong these last few years...
They do have opening windows. You just have to aim very carefully. And just watch the window doesn't slam shut.
I'm always impressed by the number of people who seem to be able to hit everything other than the toilet.
No offence taken, Ray.
Careful to avoid the 3rd rail ? An extra pint = a mad rush to the gents at Chester which is fortunately on the central platform.
Usually the station staff close the central platform toilets around 1800 hrs....
Thanks for that very useful info, always been through earlier to catch a connection but must bear in mind.
Picking up on a few points here, firstly, it shouldn't increase the number of out of use toilets, assuming that water from the sink will still be discharged onto the track, then even allowing for what we will be putting in, I suspect it is unlikely that you'll need a tank much bigger than the water tank as the discharge from the sink will partly offset the extra input from us. There is a fair bit of space under Mk1 and 2 coaches where the retention tanks could be located.
As for the comment regarding the number of toilets per coach, it is largely irrelevant, the toilets are already there so there is little point in removing them, the number of extra seats or amount of extra space it would provide really doesn't justify their removal, it is the number of passengers that is critical to the size of the tank required, not the number of toilets, if you examine it logically, you don't go to the toilet twice as much if you have twice as many to use, however, two people do produce twice the waste of one person.
Just to clarify talk of banning 'traditional' toilets only relates to the national rail network (i.e. Network Rail infrastructure) and is being driven by pressure from the RMT trade union whose members are quite justifiably fed up with working on stuff covered with raw sewage and all the health implications that brings.
Railrour stock, by virtue of its operation on NR is most definitely in the firing line when it comes to the ban on track discharge and this is only right and proper. We demand that railtour trains are fitted with secondary door locking, TPWS, OTDMR, etc in the same way as 'normal' services and the same rigour should be applied to toilets are get rid of the disgusting practice of raw sewage discharge onto the track.
What heritage railways may do as regards toilet discharge is up to them (and their workforce) but lacking direct preasure from the RMT over the issue and given they are exempt from many of the required fitments NR demands, they can probably get away with track discharge for a good while longer.
The NYMR are removing some toilets from each rake, so as to provide accessible seating in its place, not only is this better for the lesser-able passengers but I should think that seating incurs lower maintenance costs than a toilet.
From reading the NNR C&W reports, they have removed one toilet from certain (maybe all) carriages and used the free space for buggies.
It's interesting to observe that over the years, main line steam locomotives have been modified to carry a number of additional features to keep them in line with modern day requirements. Thinking here of high intensity lights, on-footplate communication, TPWS, OMR etc. By contrast all that has changed on the rolling stock is the fitting of a sliding bolt on doors plus a tannoy system (that may not always work throughout the train).
It's therefore long overdue that attention is now being paid to passenger comfort in the widest sense and that includes access to seats with greater space around where disabled passengers are seated, plus nearby toilet facilities and access. Long charters routinely run the risk of water ceasing to be available during the journey. This needs to improve. Put all that together with retention tanks and you are talking about a considerable expenditure on rakes of rolling stock, all of which belong to independent groups and TOCs.
My point is that on the main line this will come at a price that will have to be met by the passenger. So the days of sub £100 trips are now long gone.
A few people have mentioned the NNR. We, along with other heritage railways who dabble on the mainline (NYMR etc), have obviously taken an interest in this "issue" as it potentially affects operations. I can't say too much but rest assured lots of discussions have taken place about how this is going to pan out (see what i did there!) in reality. Any headlines along the lines of: "end of toilets of railtour stock" or "1 million pounds per carriage to fit tanks" I would suggest are unfounded. Watch this space to see the solutions unfold I say...
It is clear that this only affects stock on Network Rail, so the majority of heritage railways I would suggest will continue as they are despite criticism, largely due to the economical and labour requirements that full fleet conversion will require. The NNR's mainline registered stock currently includes two toilet fitted vehicles which will require conversion if they are to continue in use for diners on the Cromer line.
However another way of looking at it, is that if mainline operators pave the way for Mark 1 conversions, costs will come down and other heritage railways may be able to take advantage of standard systems if the costs come down to a level that is appropriate for the heritage industry. If the NNR makes any changes for its mainline stock, that could be beneficial for the non-mainline stock. Pressure to follow the mainline practice on this will only increase as time goes on, our head of Pway already refers to the Mark 1 toilet discharge as "f***ing disgusting". This is why the people restoring the Thompson coach are making provision for a retention tank.
The NNR's toilet fitted Mark 1's have been under scrutiny for some time. Of the 22 Mark 1 vehicles in service: 6 were not built with toilets, 7 have both of their toilets operational, 3 have one toilet operational out of two and 6 have both toilets permanently out of use. There is therefore a roughly 50% ratio of toilet vs non toilet vehicles if you walk through a service set. Given we are only ten minutes between stations and we are only 5 miles long this has proved for many years to be perfectly adequate. With retention tanks on the horizon it was agreed some years ago that it would be unwise to invest majorly in "new" toilets during overhauls and restorations, just in case we had to lock them all out of use in the event of a nationwide ban. Therefore it was agreed that if a toilet was already locked out and incomplete it would not be restored during an overhaul. However if the toilet was still there we would continue to maintain it as required to keep it going. What happens with the non-mainline toilet fitted vehicles in the future, we haven't yet decided. The comment about the old toilets being converted into buggy space is not quite true, buggies are accommodated in CCT's whilst the locked out toilets are either paneled out as storage areas, or just left fallow.
Sensible decisions about toilets are being made up and down the country on all of the major heritage lines. Whilst there may be interesting times ahead as we get used to it, I'm sure it will end favorably with a bit of thought and discussion.
No pay, no play.
I am sure that LSL Crewe have fitted retention toilets to there refurbished stock.
Apologies Chris - my fault for misinterpreting one of your excellent C&W reports.
No apology required, I'm just glad people read them!
Sent from my HTC U Play using Tapatalk
Separate names with a comma.