Trains without retention tanks spray human effluent over railway trackside workers

[whole diary]

[stuving]

Of course, what goes into a retention tank has to come out somewhere. From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Reading rail depot building 'will treat train toilet waste'

People fear they will endure the smell of sewage from a rail depot extraction plant "100 yards" from their homes.

Residents in Cardiff Road, Reading, claim a new building on the site will extract sewage from train toilets.

Reading Borough Council has queried whether Network Rail, which has not commented on the building's use, had permission to construct it.

Rail bosses, issued with a noise abatement notice on the site, say the building is within "permitted rights".

Great Western Railway (GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)) and Network Rail directors face prosecution if they fail to comply with the legal noise abatement notice, issued last week, within six months.

Jonathan Dart, chairman of the Bell Tower Community Association, said residents found out about the sewage extraction use after the noise complaints were made.

'Caught by surprise'

When asked what the latest concerns of neighbours were, Mr Dart added: "It's going to be smell and noise.

"We are not sure actually once they have treated this waste, how they are going to get it out."

Deputy council leader Tony Page said the local authority was "caught some what by surprise" by the effluent treatment development.

Great Western Railway bosses said buildings on railway land fell under "permitted development rights".

A Network Rail spokesperson added the train operator was "not in a position to comment" while it considered its "legal options" over the effluent extraction plant.

GWR previously said new electric trains being introduced will reduce noise levels.

Now I note the unsupported segue from "extraction" to "treatment" of the trains' waste. I had a quick look at the original planing application for the depot, which refers to two CET^▸ (Controlled Emission Toilet) plant rooms and connection points within the building for servicing Turbos and outside it. One of these plant rooms was to be in the eastern sidings (which do adjoin houses; the depot proper doesn't) and was to be for IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.). Obviously a lot has changed since then, but I can't see any further application that relates to this.

It does look from the words* that the extracted "waste water" is to be sent to the foul sewers, just as it is from stations' own facilities. I can't see why this would not be permissible, though it may lead to a charge from Thames Water.

(*in the design and access statement - the reference is 10/01380/FUL)

[ChrisB]

Which I'm sure they are expecting, as they must be doing this at other depots.

I suspect that extraction will be done through suction/creating a vacuum hence sucking it out of the trains, but why this should create fumes outside the depot surprises me! I'm sure the staff working there wouldn't put up with it either, and it won't be a problem. Neither will the building assuming it's on railway land, as it must be covered under permitted rights.

[stuving]

BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) South tonight had a piece where they showed a building a-building which supposedly was not in the submitted plans, and was well to the east of the depot proper. The railway is all on an embankment, with a road beside it inside the retaining wall, but on the Google earth pictures you can see a rectangular extension to the upper level that wasn't on the 2010 plans. It's roughly level with the bollards in Cardiff Road, and I think this building must be there (you can see an outline of one from above).

This is close to the "east CET^▸ (Controlled Emission Toilet) plant room" on the plans (which is there), and apparently NR^» (Network Rail - home page) have said it is for processing the CET waste, and built under permitted rights. Since then they have clammed up and are talking to their learned friends.

I wonder if Thames Water have told NR they do have to do something to this stuff before it goes down the drainfoul sewer? But this is, of course, hardly a new kind of operation (except for much of GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)). So what has happened elsewhere?

[Red Squirrel]

Is this just the regular stuff like you or I might flush down a loo, or is it mixed with chemical toilet fluid? If it's the latter, and they are (as indeed they are) intending to dispose of it in bulk, then I suppose it might be reasonable to ask them to treat it before putting it in the sewer.

[stuving]

Is this just the regular stuff like you or I might flush down a loo, or is it mixed with chemical toilet fluid? If it's the latter, and they are (as indeed they are) intending to dispose of it in bulk, then I suppose it might be reasonable to ask them to treat it before putting it in the sewer.

I think it's just .... but kept in a tank. There's an RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board) note on "Water recycling technology for train toilets", but while that mentions black water in passing (as it were) it's mainly about the grey stuff. I think the idea is that black water waste has to be just got rid of, while grey can be recycled or reused, either on-board or at depots. The obvious use is flushing said CETs^▸ (Controlled Emission Toilet), and the benefit is less fresh water needed and less storage space taken up (or that could be taken as more black water storage - so less likelihood of getting filled up and leading to an out-of-service WC^▸ (Wiltshire Council (Unitary Authority))).

The Reading depot planning words made a biggish thing about using rainwater off the not insubstantial area of roofs for carriage washing. If they now propose to treat (which at least suggests reuse) some train waste water, could that just be this grey water recycling? That would presumably save sewerage charges, in only minimally. But in that case it should net them more brownie points from RBC^‡(resolve) than half-bricks from the neighbours, so their shtumness is puzzling.

[Tim]

Grey water in the context of a train means the water draining from the sink rather than the toilet.  I had assumed that even on a modern train with toilet tanks, anything that goes down the sink still ends up being dumped on the track.  Is that not correct?

[Tim]

If they now propose to treat (which at least suggests reuse) some train waste water, could that just be this grey water recycling? That would presumably save sewerage charges, in only minimally. But in that case it should net them more brownie points from RBC^‡(resolve) than half-bricks from the neighbours, so their shtumness is puzzling.

I can't see any environmental advantage or money saving in burning fuel to cart grey water back to a depot.  Unless the railway is working to a bonkers regulation which not only outlaws the dumping of toilet sewage onto the track but also makes it illegal to dump sink drainage water which will be no more microbially contaminated than rainwater running off a train roof on which pigeons have been roosting and no more chemically contaminated than rainwater run off from a train which has been through the washer. 

[paul7575]

BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) South tonight had a piece where they showed a building a-building which supposedly was not in the submitted plans, and was well to the east of the depot proper. The railway is all on an embankment, with a road beside it inside the retaining wall, but on the Google earth pictures you can see a rectangular extension to the upper level that wasn't on the 2010 plans. It's roughly level with the bollards in Cardiff Road, and I think this building must be there (you can see an outline of one from above).

This is close to the "east CET^▸ (Controlled Emission Toilet) plant room" on the plans (which is there), and apparently NR^» (Network Rail - home page) have said it is for processing the CET waste, and built under permitted rights. Since then they have clammed up and are talking to their learned friends.

The rectangular extension to the embankment itself (in the location you describe) certainly is on the DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) depot plans from the original applications.   It just doesn't have anything shown built on it back then.   

I wouldn't say this recent new building being discussed and the original east CET plant room are 'close' however,  I reckon they are about 300m apart.   Perhaps it is additional capacity for more and longer trains.

Google Earth's satellite view is more up to date than Google maps.

Paul

[stuving]

The rectangular extension to the embankment itself (in the location you describe) certainly is on the DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) depot plans from the original applications.   It just doesn't have anything shown built on it back then.   

I wouldn't say this recent new building being discussed and the original east CET^▸ (Controlled Emission Toilet) plant room are 'close' however,  I reckon they are about 300m apart.   Perhaps it is additional capacity for more and longer trains.

Paul

You're right this new building isn't close to the east CET - that was just the closest identifiable structure. Actually, it's almost in line with Reading ATS^▸ (Automatic Train Supervision) - and behind numbers 141-145 Cardiff Road.

But I can't see this base on the 2010 plans, by which I mean the Jacobs 1:500 set of detailed layouts (seven sheets). There's a smaller, layby-shaped extension shown to the east. That really is a for layby, since the access road is single track with passing places. It's shows with "substation 4" within an outer retaining wall, maybe at a lower level, but as built has several small sheds next to it, all at high level.  There is a nearly rectangular outline 80 m to the west but that's a site boundary, to be taken up by a shallower natural embankment. That land was never taken, and the embankment there no different in profile.

Next coming back east (and behind 147-149, marked on the plan) is another layby, a bit wider but still only 4 m. Then right next to it is this new, 9m wide, building platform. It may be in a more recent plan somewhere, even if not one that says exactly what they were going to do there.

I think the issue for planning is this: if you say "we don't need your permission to do this, but to show what nice friendly neighbours we'll be we'll tell you anyway" - and then you do something not just different but bigger - people get suspicious and annoyed.

[TonyK]

I think the issue for planning is this: if you say "we don't need your permission to do this, but to show what nice friendly neighbours we''l be we'll tell you anyway" - and then you do something not just different but bigger - people get suspicious and annoyed.

It does make it look as if NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are just going through the motions.

[Chris from Nailsea]

... cough, splutter ...   

[stuving]

A Google Earth picture showing the contentious new building and its surroundings is here: http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6405.msg226442#msg226442