|
plymothian
|
 |
« on: April 14, 2009, 10:24:55 » |
|
Was pondering this on my journey home last night, is such a command really still necessary in this day and age?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Please be aware that only the first 4 words of this post will be platformed on this message board.
|
|
|
|
Tim
|
|
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2009, 10:30:09 » |
|
Just look at the tracks in most stations and you have your answer
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
plymothian
|
|
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2009, 10:53:47 » |
|
Just look at the tracks in most stations and you have your answer
Exactly, why is this still necessary in this day and age? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Please be aware that only the first 4 words of this post will be platformed on this message board.
|
|
|
|
inspector_blakey
|
|
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2009, 11:03:52 » |
|
Because the HSTs▸ 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▸ will surely have them!
As an aside, FGW▸ 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tim
|
|
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2009, 11:44:06 » |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2009, 12:12:46 » |
|
Because the HSTs▸ 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▸ will surely have them!
Not impossible to retrofit retention tanks to some trains, as seen with SWT▸ 's recent 158s and 159 overhauls. But in FGW▸ '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 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
inspector_blakey
|
|
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2009, 13:39:42 » |
|
That's definitely true, but the size of SWT▸ 's 158 and 159 fleet is pretty modest compared to the number of vehicles FGW▸ 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▸ fleets any time soon, not to mention the necessary "facilities" - sorry! - at Landore/St Phillips Marsh/Old Oak etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tim
|
|
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2009, 14:50:43 » |
|
That's definitely true, but the size of SWT▸ 's 158 and 159 fleet is pretty modest compared to the number of vehicles FGW▸ 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▸ 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▸ has ballast and retention toilets so probably a "Tomorrow's World" vision of the future. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sprog
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2009, 20:39:31 » |
|
As an aside, FGW▸ 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▸ , 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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chris from Nailsea
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2009, 22:00:42 » |
|
Hopefully, this trial will not turn out to be just a flash in the pan, or get bogged down, but will lead to FGW▸ , flushed with success, installing it on all of their trains?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830. Many more have died in the same way since then. Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.
"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner." Discuss.
|
|
|
|
inspector_blakey
|
|
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2009, 23:11:24 » |
|
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.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
plymothian
|
|
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2009, 15:26:06 » |
|
It's surprising that such acts are not been decried by health and safety yet
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Please be aware that only the first 4 words of this post will be platformed on this message board.
|
|
|
|
thetrout
|
|
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2009, 21:38:47 » |
|
I travelled on the set with the flushing restrictions...  Doesn't work if you run fast through a station! Only if platformed |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chris from Nailsea
|
|
« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2009, 21:49:54 » |
|
I must say, the specification for that particular trial did appear rather flawed to me: FGW▸ 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▸ 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? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830. Many more have died in the same way since then. Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.
"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner." Discuss.
|
|
|
|
inspector_blakey
|
|
« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2009, 22:31:22 » |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
