456 tiolet

On Jul 14, 6:58 pm, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> Sat on Southern's 456012 (or was it 021?) tonight I noticed that
> something was wrong - eventually I twigged the bog had gone, being
> replaced by seats but leaving the small window.
>
> Anyone know why, and if any others have lost their facilities? Seems a
> retrograde step.
> --


I must have missed the point when they were opened for use. I seem to
remember the scandal of them being ordered for the south western
division and then diverted to south central with the toilets
permanently locked.

Toilets on suburban units, eg 465s, spend so much of their life locked
out of use that it's hard to tell what the intention is.

"Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:geidnfBgU45mBubVRVnyvwA@posted.plusnet...
> MIG wrote:
>> On Jul 14, 6:58 pm, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> Sat on Southern's 456012 (or was it 021?) tonight I noticed that
>>> something was wrong - eventually I twigged the bog had gone, being
>>> replaced by seats but leaving the small window.
>>>
>>> Anyone know why, and if any others have lost their facilities? Seems a
>>> retrograde step.
>>> --
>>
>>
>> I must have missed the point when they were opened for use. I seem to
>> remember the scandal of them being ordered for the south western
>> division and then diverted to south central with the toilets
>> permanently locked.
>>
>> Toilets on suburban units, eg 465s, spend so much of their life locked
>> out of use that it's hard to tell what the intention is.
>
> While they were often locked in the past, it has been pretty unusual for
> the past few years. The change may not be unrelated to the demise of
> Connex...
>
> --
> Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
>
They were always locked out of use in the winter months, they saved 97p per
unit not putting a heater in the water tanks used for flushing toilets when
they built them.

"Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:JP-dnRM0GKVUDubVnZ2dnUVZ8sninZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> Sat on Southern's 456012 (or was it 021?) tonight I noticed that something
> was wrong - eventually I twigged the bog had gone, being replaced by seats
> but leaving the small window.
>
> Anyone know why, and if any others have lost their facilities? Seems a
> retrograde step.

About half the units had their tiolets reported removed by the end of June,
I think they are doing about 1 unit a week. As others have mentioned, not
deemed necessary on shorter services.

Paul

On Jul 14, 7:32 pm, John B <s...@johnband.org> wrote:
> On 14 Jul, 19:08, MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 14, 6:58 pm, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Sat on Southern's 456012 (or was it 021?) tonight I noticed that
> > > something was wrong - eventually I twigged the bog had gone, being
> > > replaced by seats but leaving the small window.
>
> > > Anyone know why, and if any others have lost their facilities? Seems a
> > > retrograde step.
>
> > I must have missed the point when they were opened for use.  I seem to
> > remember the scandal of them being ordered for the south western
> > division and then diverted to south central with the toilets
> > permanently locked.
>
> Indeed. While it's irritating, it probably makes sense to keep the
> 456s toilet-less, given the short hop journeys they tend to make (and
> the fact that they tend to operate the same services as 455s, so you
> can't rely on a toilet anyway).
>
> > Toilets on suburban units, eg 465s, spend so much of their life locked
> > out of use that it's hard to tell what the intention is.
>
> Interesting. I've not travelled to Kent much, but the 365s always seem
> to have toilets in use. I'd've thought that most 465 routes were also
> long-distance enough to justify toileting.


In the 375s and 465/9s they are probably mostly in use. In the rest
of the 465s and 466s, it's generally better if they are not in use,
because when they are, the stench effectively reduces the unit by one
coach, which is particularly unhelpful when they are in use on short-
distance, high-density services, as they still often are.

I suspect that it may be something to do with the schedule for
maintainting them. Probably emptied/repaired/cleaned about a third as
often as would be required to keep them in decent working order.

Paul Scott wrote:
> "Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:JP-dnRM0GKVUDubVnZ2dnUVZ8sninZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> Sat on Southern's 456012 (or was it 021?) tonight I noticed that something
>> was wrong - eventually I twigged the bog had gone, being replaced by seats
>> but leaving the small window.
>>
>> Anyone know why, and if any others have lost their facilities? Seems a
>> retrograde step.
>
> About half the units had their tiolets reported removed by the end of June,
> I think they are doing about 1 unit a week.

Thanks. I'm surprised they didn't do it when they were refurbished, to
save taking them out of service (presumably) twice.

> As others have mentioned, not deemed necessary on shorter services.

The deeming presumably been done by people who've never been stuck just
outside a station for an awfully long while due to an "incident"!

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 14 Jul, 18:58, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:


....eventually I twigged the bog had gone, being replaced by seats...


Hence the phrase, seats in lieu



Steve Adams

On Jul 15, 8:25 am, Rupert Candy <urptheb...m> wrote:

> 376s are extremely rare on
> the Victoria/Blackfriars lines

They are not diagrammed to Blackfriars and to my knowledge never have
been (although I've not socured old diagrams to find out).

Same applies Victoria although I'd say that with less certainty
without checking.

BF is - as far as SET workings are concerned - exclusively 465/466 in
the current timetable - there are not any 375 workings either.
Weekends engineerings works excepted of course.

--
Nick

On Jul 15, 10:30 am, MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:

> 376s have less usable
> standing space than even the 465s.

I disagree.

Under crush load conditions I much prefer a 376 to anything else.

I know I've held that view in uk.railway debates before - possibly
even with yourself :o) - but I won't change it.

--
Nick

On Jul 15, 10:49 am, D7666 <d7...@m> wrote:

> [376s] are not diagrammed to Blackfriars and to my knowledge never have
> been (although I've not socured old diagrams to find out).

I think that's right, though they've definitely been used on Victoria
services in emergencies (I remember a while back when a lot of
Networkers were vandalised in one night, there were a couple of
temporary 376 diagrams on Vic-Orpington), and I did see one in service
at Herne Hill a couple of months ago. I've no idea if they've ever
made it to Blackfriars.

On 15 Jul, 10:49, D7666 <d7...@m> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 8:25 am, Rupert Candy <urptheb...m> wrote:
>
> > 376s are extremely rare on
> > the Victoria/Blackfriars lines
>
> They are not diagrammed to Blackfriars and to my knowledge never have
> been (although I've not socured old diagrams to find out).
>
> Same applies Victoria although I'd say that with less certainty
> without checking.

Never seen one in service, although I saw one parked in the shed when
they were new.


>
> BF is - as far as SET workings are concerned - exclusively 465/466 in
> the current timetable - there are not any 375 workings either.
> Weekends engineerings works excepted of course.
>
> --
> Nick