Trains without retention tanks spray human effluent over railway trackside workers

[whole diary]

[plymothian]

Was pondering this on my journey home last night, is such a command really still necessary in this day and age? 

[Tim]

Just look at the tracks in most stations and you have your answer

[plymothian]

Just look at the tracks in most stations and you have your answer

Exactly, why is this still necessary in this day and age?

[inspector_blakey]

Because the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) were designed and built in the 1970s when train toilets had dumped straight on the ground since forever. Bogs with retention tanks ("controlled emission toilets" in current jargon) are a relatively recent innovation, and it would be hugely expensive to retro-fit all of today's stock with them given their expected remaining service life. Rest assured the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project. This will offer more capacity on routes, save money, give a consistent and safe service and meet customer requirements. Intended to replace HSTs.) will surely have them!

As an aside, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have an ingenious trial underway on at least one vehicle (when I used it is was labelled and formed as a "coach B") in which the toilet flush button is rendered inactive whenever the central door locking is disengaged and remains so for 20 seconds after the doors are locked. This is indicated in the actual khazi by a blue light which is illuminated when you can't flush.

[Tim]

All new trains have retention toilets.  Old trains do not. 

You could argue that announcements about not flushing in stations are more neccessary nowadays on non-retention trains because some passengers will assume that all trains have retention toilets.

[paul7575]

Because the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) were designed and built in the 1970s when train toilets had dumped straight on the ground since forever. Bogs with retention tanks ("controlled emission toilets" in current jargon) are a relatively recent innovation, and it would be hugely expensive to retro-fit all of today's stock with them given their expected remaining service life. Rest assured the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project. This will offer more capacity on routes, save money, give a consistent and safe service and meet customer requirements. Intended to replace HSTs.) will surely have them!

Not impossible to retrofit retention tanks to some trains, as seen with SWT^▸ (South West Trains)'s recent 158s and 159 overhauls.  But in FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s case, they'd need to also add the infrastructure to deal with their 158s in the Bristol area - waiting for their turn to outberth at Fratton wouldn't be very practical...

Paul

[inspector_blakey]

That's definitely true, but the size of SWT^▸ (South West Trains)'s 158 and 159 fleet is pretty modest compared to the number of vehicles FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would have to retro-fit to find themselves in the same position. To the best of my knowledge only the 165, 166 and sleeper fleets have retention tanks. I can't see it being economic to fit tanks to the whole 15x, 14x and HST^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) fleets any time soon, not to mention the necessary "facilities" - sorry! - at Landore/St Phillips Marsh/Old Oak etc etc.

[Tim]

That's definitely true, but the size of SWT^▸ (South West Trains)'s 158 and 159 fleet is pretty modest compared to the number of vehicles FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would have to retro-fit to find themselves in the same position. To the best of my knowledge only the 165, 166 and sleeper fleets have retention tanks. I can't see it being economic to fit tanks to the whole 15x, 14x and HST^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) fleets any time soon, not to mention the necessary "facilities" - sorry! - at Landore/St Phillips Marsh/Old Oak etc etc.

retention toilets will come in time anyway.  Money would be better spent elseware than trying to speed this up.

I read something many years ago suggesting that if toilets didn't empty onto the track, we could replace ballast with concrete paving to which the tracks were clipped and that this would be cheaper to maintain.  However, I note that HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) has ballast and retention toilets so probably a "Tomorrow's World" vision of the future. 

[Sprog]

As an aside, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have an ingenious trial underway on at least one vehicle (when I used it is was labelled and formed as a "coach B") in which the toilet flush button is rendered inactive whenever the central door locking is disengaged and remains so for 20 seconds after the doors are locked. This is indicated in the actual khazi by a blue light which is illuminated when you can't flush.

'Flush inhibit mod'.

AFAIK^▸ ('as far as I know'), two sets modded and been running around since beginning of this year on a 6 month trial at the moment to evaluate effectiveness and reliability.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Hopefully, this trial will not turn out to be just a flash in the pan, or get bogged down, but will lead to FGW^▸ (First Great Western), flushed with success, installing it on all of their trains?








 

[inspector_blakey]

I'm sure the workmanship will not have been bog standard, but let's hope the experiment does not turn out to be kami-khazi.

 

[plymothian]

It's surprising that such acts are not been decried by health and safety yet

[thetrout]

I travelled on the set with the flushing restrictions...

Doesn't work if you run fast through a station! Only if platformed

[Chris from Nailsea]

I must say, the specification for that particular trial did appear rather flawed to me:

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have an ingenious trial underway on at least one vehicle ... in which the toilet flush button is rendered inactive whenever the central door locking is disengaged and remains so for 20 seconds after the doors are locked.

In my experience, just because the CDL^▸ (Central Door Locking) is engaged doesn't necessarily mean the train is going to leave the platform within 20 seconds.  Indeed, even if the train does pull away fairly promptly, the rear (if you'll pardon the expression) carriages will probably still be opposite the platform, even if the front of the train is well beyond it? 

[inspector_blakey]

Doesn't sound like it'll be perfect, I admit, but has to be a big improvement on the current situation. Flushing the lav at speed is less of an issue because the "effluent" gets caught up in the 125 mph slipstream and is mostly splattered over the running gear of the train itself rather than falling straight on the ground as happens when the train is stationary.

I have first-hand experience of a "near miss" from an illiterate bog user - they flushed the loo when I was coupling a locomotive onto the train and their little offering (yes, it was solid  ) missed me by inches. I don't suppose they expected to be bawled at by an angry shunter because they emerged from the khazi looking a little shell shocked.