Shit on the tracks
 

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:55:13 +0100
"Paul Scott" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:27:59 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
So, do we remove the bogs altogether, cut train services to the number
which can operated with new stock, or put up with it until new trains
arrive?

These arn't exactly long distance services stopping at that station.
Cambridge
is about as far as they go so I can't see a good reason to have toilets on
the train to be honest.

????
Are you still referring to South Tottenham?

Sorry, I meant tottenham hale. Getting confused with all my trips.

B2003

Shit on the tracks
 

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
peter wrote:
These arn't exactly long distance services stopping at that station.
Cambridge
is about as far as they go so I can't see a good reason to have toilets on
the train to be honest.

Have you ever traveled with a young child?

If kids can't hold it in for an hour then they should be in a nappy so
whats your point?

B2003

Shit on the tracks
 

On 26 Oct, 15:06, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:42:52 -0700 (PDT)

peter wrote:
These arn't exactly long distance services stopping at that station.
Cambridge
is about as far as they go so I can't see a good reason to have toilets on
the train to be honest.

Have you ever traveled with a young child?

If kids can't hold it in for an hour then they should be in a nappy so
whats your point?

B2003

Similar points arose with the "Coastway" services.

It's not just the journey time. If you've had to wait for a bus
before arriving at a station with no toilets, plus arrive at a station
with no toilets before getting a bus somewhere else, the time it needs
to be held in for could be a lot more than an hour.

Shit on the tracks
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:27:59 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
So, do we remove the bogs altogether, cut train services to the number
which can operated with new stock, or put up with it until new trains
arrive?

These arn't exactly long distance services stopping at that station.
Cambridge
is about as far as they go so I can't see a good reason to have toilets on
the train to be honest.

B2003


They run to King's Lynn as well which takes two hours.

John

Shit on the tracks
 

On 26/10/2010 15:37, MIG wrote:
On 26 Oct, 15:06, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:42:52 -0700 (PDT)

wrote:
These arn't exactly long distance services stopping at that station.
Cambridge
is about as far as they go so I can't see a good reason to have toilets on
the train to be honest.

Have you ever traveled with a young child?

If kids can't hold it in for an hour then they should be in a nappy so
whats your point?

B2003

Similar points arose with the "Coastway" services.

It's not just the journey time. If you've had to wait for a bus
before arriving at a station with no toilets, plus arrive at a station
with no toilets before getting a bus somewhere else, the time it needs
to be held in for could be a lot more than an hour.

I recall that one of the arguments used when the 4-VEPs were replaced by
455's on the Guildford via CObham line was that the journey was less
than an hour, and there were toilets at the stations.

However, our stations are only staffed single-shift now, so the ticket
office closes 13:00ish (14:00ish SO, closed all day SuO), and then the
toilets are locked. Mind you, so is the waiting room, so if you just
miss a train, and/or one is cancelled, with a half-hourly service you
could have a long wait in the cold.

Just my regular moan....

Kevin

Shit on the tracks
 

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
It's not just the journey time. If you've had to wait for a bus
before arriving at a station with no toilets, plus arrive at a station
with no toilets before getting a bus somewhere else, the time it needs
to be held in for could be a lot more than an hour.

You could say the same about a journey on the tube but I don't think anyone
would suggest installing toilets on tube trains.

B2003

Shit on the tracks
 

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:43:34 +0100
"John C" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:27:59 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
So, do we remove the bogs altogether, cut train services to the number
which can operated with new stock, or put up with it until new trains
arrive?

These arn't exactly long distance services stopping at that station.
Cambridge
is about as far as they go so I can't see a good reason to have toilets on
the train to be honest.

B2003


They run to King's Lynn as well which takes two hours.

I thought the liverpool street services only went as far as cambridge?
Its the king X services that go to Kings Lynn isn't it?

B2003

Shit on the tracks
 

On 26 Oct, 16:31, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:37:34 -0700 (PDT)

MIG wrote:
It's not just the journey time. *If you've had to wait for a bus
before arriving at a station with no toilets, plus arrive at a station
with no toilets before getting a bus somewhere else, the time it needs
to be held in for could be a lot more than an hour.

You could say the same about a journey on the tube but I don't think anyone
would suggest installing toilets on tube trains.

B2003

Journeys of an hour are extremely rare though.

Shit on the tracks
 

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
would suggest installing toilets on tube trains.

B2003

Journeys of an hour are extremely rare though.

On the rare occasion I go to work by tube it takes me 80 mins because I have
to go into the centre then out again. So not that rare.

B2003

Shit on the tracks
 

In message , at 15:42:23 on Tue, 26 Oct
2010, d remarked:
would suggest installing toilets on tube trains.

B2003

Journeys of an hour are extremely rare though.

On the rare occasion I go to work by tube it takes me 80 mins because I have
to go into the centre then out again. So not that rare.

This place in the centre that you change trains. Are there no toilets
anywhere nearby? That's the big problem with National Rail - generally
no toilets on the stations (or nearby) as well as none on the trains.
--
Roland Perry