Shit on the tracks
 

Waiting at south tottenham station recently was not a pleasent experience (and
not just because of the locals) - there was **** and toilet paper all over the
northbound track. Its 2010 for gods sake, why is discharge from trains on the
line still allowed? Apart from the unpleasentness for passengers it must be an
appalling health hazard for track workers.

B2003

Shit on the tracks
 

Waiting at south tottenham station recently was not a pleasent experience
(and
not just because of the locals) - there was **** and toilet paper all over
the
northbound track. Its 2010 for gods sake, why is discharge from trains on
the
line still allowed? Apart from the unpleasentness for passengers it must
be an
appalling health hazard for track workers.

Try standing on a platform as a high speed **** spreader passes...

Shit on the tracks
 

wrote in message
...
Waiting at south tottenham station recently was not a pleasent experience
(and
not just because of the locals) - there was **** and toilet paper all over
the
northbound track. Its 2010 for gods sake, why is discharge from trains on
the
line still allowed? Apart from the unpleasentness for passengers it must
be an
appalling health hazard for track workers.

Were 158s the last .uk passenger stock to have non-retention toilets?
They're all over 20 years old now.

However, retention toilets have been a long time coming. Were the first in
the stock built for the through Ealing Broadway - Southend trains (via the
District Line, Campbell Road Junction, and the LTSR) in 1910?

Peter

Shit on the tracks
 

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

Were 158s the last .uk passenger stock to have non-retention toilets?
They're all over 20 years old now.

Probably. Of course retro-fitting of tanks has proved to be perfectly
possible on 158s, so it's a question of who funds it (and the necessary
depot work.)

Meanwhile back at South Tottenham - the OPs problem station - once the 150s
are no longer in use there shouldn't be a problem?

Paul

Shit on the tracks
 

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...
"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

Were 158s the last .uk passenger stock to have non-retention toilets?
They're all over 20 years old now.

Probably. Of course retro-fitting of tanks has proved to be perfectly
possible on 158s, so it's a question of who funds it (and the necessary
depot work.)

Meanwhile back at South Tottenham - the OPs problem station - once the
150s are no longer in use there shouldn't be a problem?

I thought the 150s on Goblin normally ran with the toilets locked OOU. The
only other passenger train booked that way is the 0528 SO Liverpool Street
to Enfield Town via Stratford parly, worked by a 315(?) which doesn't have
toilets (or passengers, I'd have thought, at that time on a Saturday
morning).

Peter

Shit on the tracks
 

On 25/10/2010 10:44, d wrote:
Waiting at south tottenham station recently was not a pleasent experience (and
not just because of the locals) - there was **** and toilet paper all over the
northbound track. Its 2010 for gods sake, why is discharge from trains on the
line still allowed? Apart from the unpleasentness for passengers it must be an
appalling health hazard for track workers.

All new trains (as in the past 20 years or so?) with bogs have retention
tanks. That leaves the older trains. We could replace them, but
taxpayers seem to be more bothered about funding schools and hospitals,
passengers already complain about fares as it is, and operators are
limited by the previous factors.

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?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Shit on the tracks
 

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

Shit on the tracks
 

On 26 Oct, 09:48, wrote:
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

Dover for the Continent, Cambridge for the Incontinent perhaps?

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.

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

Paul

Shit on the tracks
 

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?

Peter