93% of Dutch train fleet is equipped with bathrooms that just spill the dejects on tracks. Straightforward: passenger flushes, water comes and washes away anything out on the tracks :puke:

Many other Western European countries still have huge train fleets equipped with this medieval, pre-War, unhealthy, uncivilized and outrageous setup of washrooms.

It reminds me of medieval Europe when houses had pipes channeling dejects on streets or, in poorer ones, small buckets that people would empty over the window - never mind bystanders or pedestrians.

I just keep imagining what if buses had such bathrooms. It would cause an outrage... you are driving or walking on the curbside and you spot some brown-ish mass of dejects being thrown at the pavement waiting a rain or a cleaning team to wash/pick it up. Disgusting. :storm:

Why in the Earth don't rail companies invest money to turn over this dark, sordid and fetid page of passenger rail transport? Why not at least here in Western Europe?

In any case, let us know: do rail companies in your company have rolling stock with so outdated washrooms?

I just came back from Europe and appart and it's really a culture paradise; but regarding cleaness it's hell (or worse)

people piss wherever in the streets and lots, lots of people smell like they hadn't take a bath for ages. Or they take showers but them put on the same clothes. not being european it's really disgusting to take metro or buses or just walking near smelly people.
It never happens in my every-time-more third world country.

something really basic, I can't live without it, is the argentinean videt.
in Europe, when people go to the toilet, they don't properly clean themselves with water and soap like in Argentina and Japan.

so dropping poo on the tracks in Europe, for me completly expectable.
if lots of people aren't clean with their bodies houses and cities, and don't care smelling like a wet cat, and the rest of people are clean but see unclean attitudes as normal; who could it be surprising that dutch trains drop poo on the tracks?

I just came back from Europe and appart and it's really a culture paradise; but regarding cleaness it's hell (or worse)

people piss wherever in the streets and lots, lots of people smell like they hadn't take a bath for ages. Or they take showers but them put on the same clothes. not being european it's really disgusting to take metro or buses or just walking near smelly people.
It never happens in my every-time-more third world country.

something really basic, I can't live without it, is the argentinean videt.
in Europe, when people go to the toilet, they don't properly clean themselves with water and soap like in Argentina and Japan.

so dropping poo on the tracks in Europe, for me completly expectable.
if lots of people aren't clean with their bodies houses and cities, and don't care smelling like a wet cat, and the rest of people are clean but see unclean attitudes as normal; who could it be surprising that dutch trains drop poo on the tracks?

Damn, those poor animals also poo and pee on the ground! Damn! And fishes also do that in the water, in which you have fun on the beach! Damn! And they even reporduce in there! They should be wearing nappies! :nuts:

Nearly all trains built in Europe built from 1990-2000 onwards have closed toilet systems, but as trains' live is long, there are still thousand of coaches built in 1970-1990 that are too old to have a closed system installed. New vehicles replacing them will certainly have closed WCs.

Nearly all trains built in Europe built from 1990-2000 onwards have closed toilet systems, but as trains' live is long, there are still thousand of coaches built in 1970-1990 that are too old to have a closed system installed. New vehicles replacing them will certainly have closed WCs.

I know, but why don't they retrofit old washrooms instead? If it is too expensive, they could retrofit one washroom per train set, and get rid of the others.

Don't think such toilets are still used in Germany. Wikipedia says its even illegal in Germany to have such open toilets in trains.

Nearly all trains built in Europe built from 1990-2000 onwards have closed toilet systems, but as trains' live is long, there are still thousand of coaches built in 1970-1990 that are too old to have a closed system installed. New vehicles replacing them will certainly have closed WCs.
Unless there is some kind of major difference in the design of the passenger coaches there, and coaches here (VIA Rail, Canada's 1950's era passenger cars that are still in use today), I don't see why it CAN'T be done. Aside from cost. VIA Upgraded their entire rolling stock, in regards to toilets. Even in the locomotives in general *Freight, as well as passenger), the system is closed, though not pumped out often enough...:puke:

In Holland's defense, I've witnessed many looks of disbelief as I've told (Dutch) people about this. It isn't accepted as normal or okay as far as I can tell; people merely tolerate it as one of those undesirable things from a bygone era that we continue to have to put up with, like impractically narrow streets or the Queen.

I couldn't quite believe it either the first time I flushed...

However, only 93%? I can't think of a Dutch train that does have closed-circuit toilets. The new Sprinters lack bathrooms altogether and Thalys and ICE sets aren't really NS trains.

The 1970s-era Intercity trains that are currently being refurbished aren't being equipped with closed-circuit toilets either. Same for the revamped Fyra sets.

But anyway, yes, it is rather unappetizing and they should do something about it. Amsterdam Centraal smells like a toilet.

The 93% figure takes into account Dutch ICE stock, the share of Thalys train sets that belong to the Dutch, newer NS stock that has closed toilet flushing systems and trains not fitted with washrooms or toilets.

newer NS stock that has closed toilet flushing systems

Which stock would that be?

Apparently open toilet systems are allowed because along the right-of-way the track ballast acts as an effective septic system. Of course that does nothing for smelly deposits in train stations (I believe their are signs in toilets requesting that they not be used when the train is stopped), nor for the unfortunate track workers who may be sprayed by detritus from passing trains.

Which stock would that be?

I don't know the code, but I'm referring to the newest domestic double-decker stock, widespread used on Intercity routes.

This is extremely shocking. Are you kidding or is it really true ? :eek:

Trains in Malaysia never had something like this

Amtrak's older trains do it

TlWdwbIYU7A

This is extremely shocking. Are you kidding or is it really true ? :eek:

VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED!


We are dead serious. In busy Dutch train stations, you can easily smell urine and see white spots (e.g., toilet paper) on the tracks. Summer is particularly bad for that, for biological reasons.

1xPC3No5Rss
s3BgQ6SXocY

On newer/converted Fyra services, this doesn't happen though (the username of the video updater is toitletmuseum :nuts:):
DD_ItYdkiwQ

VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED!


We are dead serious. In busy Dutch train stations, you can easily smell urine and see white spots (e.g., toilet paper) on the tracks. Summer is particularly bad for that, for biological reasons.

C3Nss

On newer/converted Fyra services, this doesn't happen though (the username of the video updater is toiletflushforyou :nuts:):
aFd7O2M

This is the newer Intercity stock we talked about:
yVFa7jw

Dude , wtf thats gross and disgusting......I couldn't even eat my gummy bears. :ohno:

Dude , wtf thats gross and disgusting......I couldn't even eat my gummy bears. :ohno:

It's from the "Toilet Museum" channel...

According to Wikipedia there are two main methods of waste disposal, save for direct spill on the tracks:

- chemical retention
- composting

The second method doesn't avoid releasing of wast over tracks, but allegedly do it as sanitized, harmless treated waste water (likewise water released back into a river after sewage processing, decontamination and treatment).

It's from the "Toilet Museum" channel...

why would you even post that here ? Only a Sick person posts that kind of stuff or even films it :ohno:

Apparently open toilet systems are allowed because along the right-of-way the track ballast acts as an effective septic system. Of course that does nothing for smelly deposits in train stations (I believe their are signs in toilets requesting that they not be used when the train is stopped), nor for the unfortunate track workers who may be sprayed by detritus from passing trains.

And that is where problem comes. Workers perforimng maintenance are exposed to health hazards and unpleasant work conditions because of the use of these toilets!

Unless there is some kind of major difference in the design of the passenger coaches there, and coaches here (VIA Rail, Canada's 1950's era passenger cars that are still in use today), I don't see why it CAN'T be done. Aside from cost. VIA Upgraded their entire rolling stock, in regards to toilets. Even in the locomotives in general *Freight, as well as passenger), the system is closed, though not pumped out often enough...

As I wrote before, while I understand there are some monetary constraints in retroffiting toilets, there should be no reason why they don't close most washrooms and let just 2 opened per train, but retroffited ones.

Newer regional commuter trains don't have wahsrooms in NL.

In Holland's defense, I've witnessed many looks of disbelief as I've told (Dutch) people about this. It isn't accepted as normal or okay as far as I can tell; people merely tolerate it as one of those undesirable things from a bygone era that we continue to have to put up with, like impractically narrow streets or the Queen.

I couldn't quite believe it either the first time I flushed...

While a Republican moviment in NL is quite far-fetched at the moment, replacing washrooms is not. It is a technical procedure that doesn't affect rail systems, signaling, whatsoever.

That old Intercity stock is being renovated WITHOUT addition of modern toilets is unnaceptable. Those cars will remain in service for at least another 8 years.

In Italy many short-distance regional trains have most of their washrooms closed for good, but the overall state of rolling stock of those trains is poor (sometimes abysmal).

Unless there is some kind of major difference in the design of the passenger coaches there, and coaches here (VIA Rail, Canada's 1950's era passenger cars that are still in use today), I don't see why it CAN'T be done. Aside from cost.

The problem is the cost. It isn't worth replacing toilets in coaches with a life expectance of only 10 years more. This may be done on 20 years old coaches with another 20 to 30 years life of service ahead.

As I wrote before, while I understand there are some monetary constraints in retroffiting toilets, there should be no reason why they don't close most washrooms and let just 2 opened per train, but retroffited ones.

Because two WC are too few for long trains. I know at least two episodes, in Italy and Switzerland, where IC trains with closed circuit WCs (all broken or full) had to be stopped a long time in some minor stations to allow some hundreds of people to go to the toilet.

:delete:

1. i think it can only be a problem if they 'empty' it within a station. now, at least here, youre not supposed to use the toilet while the train is stationary. of course, there are always idiots

2. this is everything but a problem. rolling stock is being replaced gradually, there is absolutely no need to sack half the fleet because of this

this "problem" reminds me of the bureaucratic nonsense the EU thorws our way by the thousands, like the ban they imposed on curly cucumbers!!!

Almost all stock introduced to the UK after privatisation(and a few pre-privatisation ones such as the IC225) has retention tanks, and I think a few older sets have been retrofitted, but there are still plenty of decades-old trains rolling around with the "hole in the floor" method. It will be a while before they're replaced, but the problem will go away gradually.

I also find people claiming their country doesn't have or has never had trains that eject waste on the tracks to be hard to believe. Retention tanks are a relatively new technology, so either your country's rail network was many decades ahead of its time, or they've managed to get rid of or retrofit all old rolling stock within a short period of time. If you have proof of this, then I'll be impressed.

It's not really a problem considering it's a system that's being phased out as we speak.

I would hate to be a construction worker on the railroads in this country though. Wow that must be a nasty job.



On the subject of trains with and without closed circuit toilets in the Netherlands: the vast majority of closed circuit toilets can currently be found in the latest double-decker trains (VIRM (http://theuntje.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/VIRM6.jpg)). The original VIRMs came to the Netherlands between 1994 and 1996. It concerned the delivery of 81 trains in total (34 trains of 3 carriages and 47 trains of 4 carriages). A few extra carriages were ordered in later years. These trains were still fitted with the old fashioned dump-on-rails toilets.
The new VIRM trains with closed-circuit toilets came into service in 2008 and 2009. It concerns a total order of 50 trains (of 4 carriages each). You can check where they're currently running through places like somda.nl. Their serial numbers are 9546-9596.

All 19 Fyra (http://www.open.ou.nl/hon/FyraHSLzuid4.jpg) high speed trains will have closed-circuit toilets.

The DD-AR (http://www.treinpunt.nl/Afbeeldingen/Materieel/mat_dd-ar.jpg) trains will be completely refurbished soon. New seats, air conditioning systems and closed-circuit toilets are all to be fitted. There are currently 79 of these trains, but I think only 50 will be refurbished. The others will be retired.

Then of course there's the latest Sprinter trains (SLT (http://www.mp-produktie.nl/images-2008-1/2008-01-30%20Nieuwe%20Sprinter%20NS%20SLT%20OVnieuws-info%20(2).jpg)) that actually don't have any bathrooms on board altogether. NS ordered 35 of these trains in 2005, and then placed another order of 64 trains in 2007.

All MAT (http://www.treinen-info.nl/Mat%2764.JPG) trains will be retired soon. I don't know what will happen to toilets in the older VIRM generations and the ICM (http://www.verhaalprojecten.nl/grotetreinreis/nicolai_files/NS_ICM.jpg) trains but I assume, given all the developments, that a complete disappearance of the old dump toilets is simply a matter of time.

SOURCE: treinenweb.nl

Really? No trains in sweden does that.

Don't think such toilets are still used in Germany. Wikipedia says its even illegal in Germany to have such open toilets in trains.

In fact, many older single-deck RB/RE carriages in Germany with hand-pull doors still traverse across Germany without retention tanks in the toilets.

The old track discharging toilets are pretty much a thing of the past on Britain's railways.

Whilst most European trains just seemed to have a flap closing off the toilet outlet, our trains used the water closet system, which meant that they had to carry around a large amount of water. Modern train designs often use vacuum toilets to minimise the weight of water carried.

The most primitive system that I have ever seen in Europe for train toilets was in Switzerland of all places. The toilets discharged directly onto the tracks without even a closing flap, which meant that you could see the track below through the toilet bowl and made using the toilet a very chilly experience.

Whilst traditional British train toilets had a sign 'do not use whilst the train is waiting at a station', the best system I found was in Russia, where the coach attendants would lock the toilets when the train was approaching a station and not reopen them until it had started on its way again. That could cause a lot of inconvenience but was probably necessary due to the large number of people who treated the railway as a public footpath.

Whilst it is certainly unpleasant to have human waste deposited on to the tracks (and I heard a number of horror stories when I was working on the railway), I doubt that it is a major health hazard as the track ballast works as a sludge digester. The worst problem would be, as people have noted, in stations - especially where slab track is in use and the station is undercover. However, it is a problem that will go away in the not too distant future.

I personally fail to understand why this is a problem.

Human body rejection is a matter that quickly disappears, it's not like it would
stay accumulated on the tracks for decades. Even the paper that goes with
it disintegrates very quickly (it's designed for that purpose).

Nuisance to track workers is very limited, because track maintenance is
now heavily mechanised and machines doing track maintanance have no
problem with that.

Remember that retention toilets are not a way to eliminate bodily waste,
but finally just a way to hide it and eliminate it somewhere else. But it
finally ends up somewhere, and someone will have to take care of it.
What will be the next step ? Ban pissing and pooing altogether because
it indisposes people working the sewer systems ?

Animals of all sorts have been urinating and defecating in the open since
wildlife exists, and the planet earth has not fallen apart yet.

Personally, I consider this very small volume of human dejections on railway
tracks to be a very very minor problem, not at all worth the money that has
been invested to eliminate it. The production of chemicals used to dispose of
those excrements is probably more poisonous for the earth than the
excrements themselves.

There is of course a problem with people using toilets while trains are
idling in stations. But that's not a problem of the system, merely a problem
with people mis-using it. The same argument that pro-arms people in the
USA are using...

By pouring money in the resolution of non-existing problems like this, we divert
hard-to-find capital that could be used to sort out much more urgent
situations, like eliminating most of the automobile traffic while it is not too
late. Making trains more expensive by imposing such things on them is not
going to make the matter any better.

I personally started to ask myself whether all those regulations imposed to
railway systems are not, finally, a way to make them so expensive that you
can finally prove that they are not economically viable.

After all, planes also dispose of the human waste produced in flight by
dispersing it in the air, and nobody seems to complain about that, right ?

In the UK it isn't normal for train toilets to empty on the tracks...Only the older trains do it that since privatisation there aren't any real old trains.
Even the oldest trains that do still empty to the tracks are proper toilets that use water rather than just a flap that you can see out thru...

I know, but why don't they retrofit old washrooms instead? If it is too expensive, they could retrofit one washroom per train set, and get rid of the others.

I think this has been done to the MK3 coaches in England? Or maybe it was just some of them...

The production of chemicals used to dispose of
those excrements is probably more poisonous for the earth than the
excrements themselves.Exactly.This is an interesting point.After all, planes also dispose of the human waste produced in flight by dispersing it in the air, and nobody seems to complain about that, right ?Gosh! Are you sure? I thought they disposed of it once in the airports... but if it's so, lemme check the commercial flights route map of Europe... Don't want to find myself crossing them airways anymore :lol:

Exactly.This is an interesting point.Gosh! Are you sure? I thought they disposed of it once in the airports... but if it's so, lemme check the commercial flights route map of Europe... Don't want to find myself crossing them airways anymore :lol:

Well I don't believe that it still is authorized officially but it still happens.
Internet is full of horror stories on the subject.

Personally, I consider this very small volume of human dejections on railway
tracks to be a very very minor problem, not at all worth the money that has
been invested to eliminate it. The production of chemicals used to dispose of
those excrements is probably more poisonous for the earth than the
excrements themselves.

There is of course a problem with people using toilets while trains are
idling in stations. But that's not a problem of the system, merely a problem
with people mis-using it. The same argument that pro-arms people in the
USA are using...

You have a point obviously about the environmental aspect, but those people misusing them by pooing all over railway stations may not even be aware that they are doing something wrong. Who in this day and age expects that when they flush a toilet, a hatch opens and their business is dropped on the infrastructure below?

I'd be reasonably okay with the drop toilets if a solution could be found for that problem; they should remain locked in stations and tunnels connected to stations. Because as quickly as human waste might disintegrate, it's no match for the frequency of bladder evacuations over Amsterdam Centraal.

That's actually a very good point - why don't people complain about aeroplanes voiding human waste in flight?

I know, but why don't they retrofit old washrooms instead? If it is too expensive, they could retrofit one washroom per train set, and get rid of the others.

Actually they do retrofit old washrooms. The real question is "what axe do you have to grind"...

The most primitive system that I have ever seen in Europe for train toilets was in Switzerland of all places. The toilets discharged directly onto the tracks without even a closing flap, which meant that you could see the track below through the toilet bowl and made using the toilet a very chilly experience.


That must have been quite a while ago...

I don't think it's that much of a problem, as long as people don't use the bathrooms in stations; shit is an organic thing that disappears quickly and is good for the environment!

I don't think it's that much of a problem, as long as people don't use the bathrooms in stations; shit is an organic thing that disappears quickly and is good for the environment!

+1

In Bulgaria all of the coaches have such systems, and no one has ever complained. It's forbidden to use the toilets in the stations, and you have to be a big adventurer to try to take a crap in a Bulgarian train, since a lot of the tracks are not welded, but jointed.
The new Desiros have vacuum toilets, but these are only 25 DMUs and 25 EMUs.

That's actually a very good point - why don't people complain about aeroplanes voiding human waste in flight?

Well I don't believe that it still is authorized officially but it still happens.
Internet is full of horror stories on the subject.

After all, planes also dispose of the human waste produced in flight by
dispersing it in the air, and nobody seems to complain about that, right ?

I guess you miss the point completely. Airplanes toilet DO NOT, and HAVE NEVER spilled waste on the air! Aircrafts are pressurized, if they had an "open line" to dump waste, it would cause an explosive decompression and it would make a toilet seat the most dangerous spot on an aircraft!!!!

This is completely non-sense, engineering speaking. Maybe low-flying aircrafts in the 30's had something like that, but NONE airplane from today can ever spill waste on the sky. The areas frequented by passengers are sealed off the others. There are small communications for pressurized air (pushed by the engine flow) and the pressure valve, which is left closed for obvious reasons when of flight. Then you have the pressure relievers on the floor and back doors to avoid floor collapsing in case of explosive decompression on the cargo compartment.

In any case, there is no such thing as a pipeline that spills waste at 30.000 ft altitude! That is a hoax

In any case, there is no such thing as a pipeline that spills waste at 30.000 ft altitude! That is a hoax

Are you sure? Every time I go to the bathroom in an airplane I can see the suff being sucked from the toilet, exploiting the pressure gradient between the inside and the outside...

Are you sure? Every time I go to the bathroom in an airplane I can see the suff being sucked from the toilet, exploiting the pressure gradient between the inside and the outside...

LOL. It's a vacuum device. You can find them at the nearest Frecciarossa.

After a few minutes of googling, it seems that planes do dump used wash basin water while in the air, and while they don't and can't normally dump toilet waste, there have been incidents where it had leaked out and dropped down below.

So it's not physically impossible for something from the toilets to fall out of the plane like you claim.

In any case, there is no such thing as a pipeline that spills waste at 30.000 ft altitude! That is a hoax

Ever heard of Google?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_ice_(aircraft)

Ever heard of Google?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_ice_(aircraft)

He's still right in that commercial airliners do not have a designated facility to dump lavatory waste in flight.

From your link:

"There were at least 27 documented incidents of blue ice impacts in the United States between 1979 and 2003."

That's a laughable figure. How many seconds pass before 27 planes have taken off throughout the US? Not many, I suspect. It's an absolutely tiny figure. And it concerns accidents.

That's a laughable figure. How many seconds pass before 27 planes have taken off throughout the US? Not many, I suspect. It's an absolutely tiny figure. And it concerns accidents.

That's just about documented accidents. God knows how many undocumented accidents of the kind happened.

Yes I'm sure leaks in airplanes can go undetected for very long periods of time.

Doesn't change the fact that when you flush a toilet on a plane, it doesn't slide down outside through a tube. Nor does the vacuum pull in the lavatory when you flush constitute explosive decompression.

Let's maintain a sense of realism here, shall we?

Almost all Austrian trains have closed circuit toilets these days. The result is, that many times toilets have to be closed and shut down because some smart ass (usually women) decided to flush down stuff that shouldn't be flushed (and it even says so everywhere in the toilet). The result of this can sometimes be really nasty.

The old style toilets don't have that problem. And honestly, how big of a problem was it really? It's not like people are constantly shitting while they are on the train and nobody did it while a train was in a station - except for a few gross and uncivilized persons.

I'm amazed to see how some forumers are tolerant of having waste dumped on tracks. A lack on civility and sense of cleanliness!

Imagine if buses spilled their bathroom waste (those who have toilets) over the highways, so your car (maybe the door lock or the windshield...) would just occasionally get hit by waste. Gross, unacceptable. It doesn't matter it is "natural": 300 years ago much of human waste was tossed out over windows on our beloved European cities.

Many third-World cities still have raw sewage running on the middle of streets in slums and other poor areas. That is not only filthy, but unhealthy. Diseases proliferate where sewage encounter people, kids, animals. Flies and worms can proliferate there. We would find that situation inadmissible here in Europe.

Why tracks would be an exception? Should urban trams also have toilets spilling waste in Downtown Frankfurt (or any other European city FTM)?

Those examples aren't really relevant. Waste in the middle of a highway can easily be run over and spread by passing vehicles, whereas if a train's wheels are in a position to hit waste sitting in the middle of the tracks, then dirtiness is the least of its worries. Urban trams don't and shouldn't have toilets, I don't know why you even brought them up.

The types of trains that do carry toilets run on track isolated from the general public, and most countries have laws forbidding trespassing on railways, so the only people who should be directly encountering dumped waste are track workers. It's not pleasant, but someone is going to have to deal with it sooner or later no matter which method you use.

Dumped waste is only really a problem at stations. Going off a previous post about conductors locking toilets at stations, maybe a cheaper solution than retrofitting old stock with retention tanks is installing a central locking system that locks the toilets when the train is stopped at a station?

In any case, this is hardly an urgent problem and most of the world's railways have far better things to spend money on. It will gradually go away with the natural process of train replacement, so the simplest way to deal with it(and bring in a host of other benefits as well) is accelerating the procurement of new rolling stock.

The types of trains that do carry toilets run on track isolated from the general public, and most countries have laws forbidding trespassing on railways, so the only people who should be directly encountering dumped waste are track workers. It's not pleasant, but someone is going to have to deal with it sooner or later no matter which method you use.

One thing is emptying a retention tank at a maintenance area. The employees in charge of that operation will be wearing protective equipment, and they will empty it with suction hooks or other likewise method into sewage collector on site or into waste trucks. It's very, very different than a situation where the regular folk cutting grass alongside the tracks, or working on the temporary closed parallel track gets hit by God-knows-why.


Dumped waste is only really a problem at stations. Going off a previous post about conductors locking toilets at stations, maybe a cheaper solution than retrofitting old stock with retention tanks is installing a central locking system that locks the toilets when the train is stopped at a station?

Not really feasible in many situations. It would take valuable time of conductors work to do that. Some trains are long, have 6-8 washrooms, and stop every other 20 minutes or so. You would have to have almost a full-time employee whose only function would be closing and opening washroom doors - which would be non-sense, as we need LESS and not MORE people working in railway operations.

What is actually the problem here? All new rolling stock has retention toilets, as does all refurbished stock. The problem, as far as it exists, is thus being dealt with.

I'm amazed to see how some forumers are tolerant of having waste dumped on tracks. A lack on civility and sense of cleanliness!

I'm amazed some people care so much about this. The waste decomposes very quickly and is completely natural. If you ask me the system is way better for the environment than chemical or other mechanical solutions.

I'm amazed some people care so much about this. The waste decomposes very quickly and is completely natural. If you ask me the system is way better for the environment than chemical or other mechanical solutions.

Why don't we still use outhouses instead of bathrooms whose waste are collected and sent for treatment then? :nuts:

Sewage processing exists for a reason. And the rail tracks are not dump sites. You don't litter (or ideally shouldn't litter) a road side, gosh, not even should you let your dog's poo on a curbside, why tracks can be the trash bin of our transportation network?

As an intermediary solution, I suggest then simply abolishing non-closed train toilets. People can use toilets on stations and so. Most older stock is used for shorter journeys, it should be no problem. Then you retrofit one or two bathrooms per train set only, and make them paid toilets with coins or so (like € 1)

Europe has the highest environmental standards in the world! Those of you who make such a big fuss about these toilets are simply ridiculous.

And to those from South-America who complain about European hygiene: Ever been in a favela or any big South-American city for that matter? Where are the sewers, the waste-water-treatment plants? Where are the water closets and fresh water showers in every single building? Where are they?

Europe has the highest quality of life in the World! Look at the top twenty in the human development index and look where these countries are mostly located!

So stop being ridiculous.

One thing is emptying a retention tank at a maintenance area. The employees in charge of that operation will be wearing protective equipment, and they will empty it with suction hooks or other likewise method into sewage collector on site or into waste trucks. It's very, very different than a situation where the regular folk cutting grass alongside the tracks, or working on the temporary closed parallel track gets hit by God-knows-why.

Well, once we hear about a massive outrage from track workers or a study about the effect working around dumped waste is having on their health, you might have a point. But as far as I know we haven't, so it seems they accept it as part of their job, one that isn't exactly clean or easy to start with. They also probably know that the problem is much smaller than it used to be and is going away with new trains.

Not really feasible in many situations. It would take valuable time of conductors work to do that. Some trains are long, have 6-8 washrooms, and stop every other 20 minutes or so. You would have to have almost a full-time employee whose only function would be closing and opening washroom doors - which would be non-sense, as we need LESS and not MORE people working in railway operations.

Hence why I suggested a central system. One that locks all the toilets at the flip of a switch from the driver's dashboard, or a panel accessed by the conductor. I would even suggest an automatic mechanism, although that might be going too far for something that's suppose to be a stop-gap measure until the old stock is replaced.

Why don't we still use outhouses instead of bathrooms whose waste are collected and sent for treatment then? :nuts:

Sewage processing exists for a reason. And the rail tracks are not dump sites. You don't litter (or ideally shouldn't litter) a road side, gosh, not even should you let your dog's poo on a curbside, why tracks can be the trash bin of our transportation network?

Because unlike road sides and curb sides, main line train tracks are isolated from the general public. Would you care so much about how clean an airport's runway is? Don't forget any building's maintenance areas, industrial sites, the vast countryside, etc. etc.

If the concept of somewhere being dirty, even places most people never go, disturbs you so much then you'll go crazy very fast. :nuts:

Hence why I suggested a central system. One that locks all the toilets at the flip of a switch from the driver's dashboard, or a panel accessed by the conductor. I would even suggest an automatic mechanism, although that might be going too far for something that's suppose to be a stop-gap measure until the old stock is replaced.


Will it let people leave the toilet if they are already in there when it locks?

E
And to those from South-America who complain about European hygiene: Ever been in a favela or any big South-American city for that matter? Where are the sewers, the waste-water-treatment plants? Where are the water closets and fresh water showers in every single building? Where are they?

Europe has the highest quality of life in the World! Look at the top twenty in the human development index and look where these countries are mostly located!

Chill out mate. I myself have lived for a while in South America. I never said raw sewage was acceptable (even mentioned it as something disgusting).

The fact some slums have raw sewage and people lacks sanitation only adds to my rant that we, with high safety standards for workplaces, should outlaw this kinds of pre-War feature.

Otherwise it would be like saying we don't need ERTMS-2 because in country xyz they sill use telegraph poles and tokens to control rail traffic.

Well, once we hear about a massive outrage from track workers or a study about the effect working around dumped waste is having on their health, you might have a point. But as far as I know we haven't, so it seems they accept it as part of their job, one that isn't exactly clean or easy to start with. They also probably know that the problem is much smaller than it used to be and is going away with new trains.

I do not suppose their job is clean, but one thing is chemical stuff like grease, dirt, oils. Other stuff is human waste, which is a biological hazard of higher order IMO... but just filth and disgusting and non-modern. The kind of thing I associate with places with lower standards of civility, hence no place in Europe.


If the concept of somewhere being dirty, even places most people never go, disturbs you so much then you'll go crazy very fast. :nuts:

Nope. That is not the case. I just want to do away with what is a stinky, disgusting and hazardous heritage from the pre-War era of hygiene standards.

I'm amazed to see how some forumers are tolerant of having waste dumped on tracks. A lack on civility and sense of cleanliness!
I'm amazed some people are making such an enormous song and dance over it.

Imagine if buses spilled their bathroom waste (those who have toilets) over the highways, so your car (maybe the door lock or the windshield...) would just occasionally get hit by waste. Gross, unacceptable.

Completely irrelevant comparison. You won't be (or shouldn't be) driving your car on any railroad tracks, and so you won't be getting any shit on your windshield. And neither will any train.

And the rail tracks are not dump sites. You don't litter (or ideally shouldn't litter) a road side, gosh, not even should you let your dog's poo on a curbside, why tracks can be the trash bin of our transportation network?

Birds crap all over our roads. Should we ban birds?
Cows do it all over their meadows, and the farmer has to walk through that too. Should we give cows diapers now?

As an intermediary solution, I suggest then simply abolishing non-closed train toilets.

I have another solution: how about we get our acts together and stop making such a drama out of something as benign as this?

>>> I do not suppose their job is clean, but one thing is chemical stuff like
>>> grease, dirt, oils. Other stuff is human waste, which is a biological
>>> hazard of higher order IMO... but just filth and disgusting and non-
>>> modern. The kind of thing I associate with places with lower standards
>>> of civility, hence no place in Europe.

Well I would not be surprised that skin contact with grease, oil, and other
chemicals resulting from oil cracking is actually far more dangerous to your
health than the occasional contact with human waste. How the hell are all
those mothers surviving, after having changed the diapers of their children
three times daily, for more than a year ???

>>> Nope. That is not the case. I just want to do away with what is a
>>> stinky, disgusting and hazardous heritage from the pre-War era of
>>> hygiene standards.

Ah, I see. Typical american hypocrisy. Everywhere they go it must be nice
and clean, but they don't care the least bit for the the heaps of poisonous
crap their lifestyle is generating everywhere else on the planet. Remember
Bophal ? Union Carbide, US chemical company, may be producing this blue
fluid that you want our train toilets to be cleaned up with ???

Ah, I see. Typical american hypocrisy. Everywhere they go it must be nice
and clean, but they don't care the least bit for the the heaps of poisonous
crap their lifestyle is generating everywhere else on the planet. Remember
Bophal ? Union Carbide, US chemical company, may be producing this blue
fluid that you want our train toilets to be cleaned up with ???

LOL. I'm not American, though I hope to move there after I finish my Ph.D and start a life there.

What the hell does Bophal have to do with this? It would like say NS transported Jews to Vught concentration camp, hence NS is guilty of the worst atrocity ever perpetrated in the civilized World. Waste shall be properly disposed, period. We are developed, living in supposedly DEVELOPED countries. Development and civilization means we (ideally) don't let our toddlers play in areas in danger of contamination by fungi or bacteria, promote aseptic environments, pasteurize milk before drinking it, use lights - not candles - for reading, don't walk naked around cities and deal properly with our waste.

Animal farms are hazardous environment by nature (btw, I love barbecue, I'm no vegeboring or environwacko). Fortunately, industrial farming comes with higher levels of automation and disposition of manure and waste in better manners too.

What if a railway worker gets infected by tapeworm while being hit by the discharge of waste of a fast moving trains while she or he is cutting grass near the reserved railway area?

Seriously, I'm truly appalled by this situation and I think EU should step in.

As someone said nearly all trains in the United Kingdom and Scandinavia have closed circuit WCs, most spanish trains are new so with closed WCs, and within ten years also Switzerland will have only new or refurbished stock with closed WC system, the same for most western european countries, so I really don't see the problem...

A I really don't see the problem...

That Dutch tracks will keep being trashed, and also Dutch stations, for at least another 14 years until ALL old stock will be likely retired is not a problem? 12 train sets were renovated in 2008 and not fitted with those closed systems because it would be too expensive given some particularity of their design.

Indipendently about opinions about the necessity of closed WCs or not, the fact is that most if not all trains in Spain, UK, France, Switzerland and Scandinavia within 10 years will have them. I don't know about the Netherlands thought.

The most primitive system that I have ever seen in Europe for train toilets was in Switzerland of all places. The toilets discharged directly onto the tracks without even a closing flap, which meant that you could see the track below through the toilet bowl and made using the toilet a very chilly experience.



I made the mistake of trying to piss in that situation. I mean, it looked fun, I could see the tracks....

The air blew in.....and my piss flew back onto my pants.

Luckily, Im a guy, so I could stop, run to the next restroom, and luckily that one was sealed.

Notice the piss everywhere? I wasnt the first to discover how the air flows.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs161.snc1/6010_778224120470_923388_45178262_6561124_n.jpg

This is the funniest thread I've found so far.

I agree that the idea of toilets discharging on to railway tracks is something that belongs to the past, and it seems that within 15-20 years Europe's railways will be piss-and-shit free, which is nice.

However to think that Switzerland of all places has some of the most basic - and judging by the photo above, hazardous - toilets around is a great irony.

I've always thought how unpleasant it must be to be a track worker who has to see and have contact with tracks caked in human waste. I'm surprised that various trade unions have not organised strikes in protest at the situation.

This is extremely shocking. Are you kidding or is it really true ? :eek:

Trains in Malaysia never had something like this

Even in the 1880s Malaysian trains had closed circuit vacuum toilet systems?

I just came back from Europe and appart and it's really a culture paradise; but regarding cleaness it's hell (or worse)

people piss wherever in the streets and lots, lots of people smell like they hadn't take a bath for ages. Or they take showers but them put on the same clothes. not being european it's really disgusting to take metro or buses or just walking near smelly people.
It never happens in my every-time-more third world country.

something really basic, I can't live without it, is the argentinean videt.
in Europe, when people go to the toilet, they don't properly clean themselves with water and soap like in Argentina and Japan.

so dropping poo on the tracks in Europe, for me completly expectable.
if lots of people aren't clean with their bodies houses and cities, and don't care smelling like a wet cat, and the rest of people are clean but see unclean attitudes as normal; who could it be surprising that dutch trains drop poo on the tracks?

I guess you visited southern europe. northern is very clean, even for me italy or spain looks unbelievably dirty.

That Dutch tracks will keep being trashed, and also Dutch stations, for at least another 14 years until ALL old stock will be likely retired is not a problem? 12 train sets were renovated in 2008 and not fitted with those closed systems because it would be too expensive given some particularity of their design.

You ask the question "why are we accepting this". And me and several other posters have allready mentioned that you are asking the wrong question, as "we"( or more precisely the railways) are not accepting this. They are doing something about it.
The more interesting question I would like to ask now is why you absolutely want this problem the be solved immediately. There is really no objective reason to speed up the process that has already started.

^^

While the railways are already, as you say, tackling this issue with the gradual replacement of 'old' trains with rolling stock with retention toilets, I do wonder why it has taken so long to get to this stage, given that I'd imagine that retention toilets have been around for decades.

Have they been around for decades?

Closed toilets exist certainly since decades (think about airplanes), but their cost probably limited their use to situations where they were the only solution.

Closed toilets exist certainly since decades (think about airplanes), but their cost probably limited their use to situations where they were the only solution.

Buses have used closed, non-pressurized toilet systems (that simply retain waste in a separate compartment isolated with a siphon from the basin) for many decades. Of course it means it can overflows and shut down the toilet altogether.

Waste shall be properly disposed, period. We are developed, living in supposedly DEVELOPED countries.

Who are you to demand that waste "shall" be properly disposed, I always thought you were against involvement of the government. Why would a country be undeveloped because of this completely harmless practise. Is the Netherlands also undeveloped because we fertilize our pastures with manure? And what about dogs? Coming in contact with dog waste is much more likely. Perhaps you simply have a grudge against public transit and attack it in every way possible?

Development and civilization means we (ideally) don't let our toddlers play in areas in danger of contamination by fungi or bacteria, promote aseptic environments, pasteurize milk before drinking it, use lights - not candles - for reading, don't walk naked around cities and deal properly with our waste.

Civilization also means that toddlers should not play on train tracks (which are fenced off almost everywhere anyway) so what is the relevance of that statement. Moreover why should children be barred from coming in contact with contaminants, it only teaches and improves their immune system which will make them stronger later in life. If you keep away your children from contaminants they will even be able to cope with a simple common cold later in life.

What if a railway worker gets infected by tapeworm while being hit by the discharge of waste of a fast moving trains while she or he is cutting grass near the reserved railway area?

Why is this relevant to you, can't companies that work on rail road tracks make judgements about safety themselves? Do you think trains will still run at 140km/u when people are working near the tracks? They will properly not even allow trains to run at those times. And tell me how would a worker get hit when a train drop waste between the tracks? The only thing I can think of is that he is actually under the train, which would be a bigger problem then the waste.

That Dutch tracks will keep being trashed, and also Dutch stations, for at least another 14 years until ALL old stock will be likely retired is not a problem? 12 train sets were renovated in 2008 and not fitted with those closed systems because it would be too expensive given some particularity of their design.

And I bet our old Belgium trains will do this for a longer time! I think the trains build afther 1995 don't do this anymore. But we still ahve a great amount of old trains... But really I never smelled piss or saw something on the tracks near or in a Belgian trainstation...
Our trains don't flush when they are in or near a trainstation...

^^

While the railways are already, as you say, tackling this issue with the gradual replacement of 'old' trains with rolling stock with retention toilets, I do wonder why it has taken so long to get to this stage, given that I'd imagine that retention toilets have been around for decades.


The main reason would probably have been cost. It's only for the last two decades or so that the environment in which railways operate in has improved enough that they can afford this.

What about level road crossings, though? These are still a regular feature in many a city. There are thousands of them even in tiny little Holland. Now I've never witnessed or heard of any problems with this, and I suppose the "hit rates" would be quite small, but surely the busier ones must see a bit of slipperiness. Trains slow down as they approach a station, people realize it's their last chance to get something out of their system before they'll have to pay for one of those expensive station restrooms...

I'm not saying it is the end of the world, but it is amusing to think that if a large amount of whichever bodily waste were to end up on one of these crossings and under the feet of pedestrians, there wouldn't be a law or regulation disagreeing with it.

Paying toilets are one reason of the bad smell around stations...

I'm not saying it is the end of the world, but it is amusing to think that if a large amount of whichever bodily waste were to end up on one of these crossings and under the feet of pedestrians, there wouldn't be a law or regulation disagreeing with it.

One reason is that we're not talking about large amounts. We're talking about very small amounts. Don't forget the train is moving at a considerable speed, so the "effluent" gets spread out over quite a large area.

I'm surprised that various trade unions have not organised strikes in protest at the situation.

Considering that unions in Europe have always been very quick to
protest against anything that might be even the most remotely detrimental
for the workers, the fact that they never protested against that proves
in itself that it is not a problem...

Humankind has lived between all sorts of animal (and human!) poo for centuries and milleniums. The very little amount produced and dumped in trains certainly won't kill us. ;)

Humankind has lived between all sorts of animal (and human!) poo for centuries and milleniums. The very little amount produced and dumped in trains certainly won't kill us. ;)

But it is a shame on Europe nevertheless.

But it is a shame on Europe nevertheless.

Who really cares , its absorbed into the ballast. You seem to pick out everything wrong with Railway systems. Whats next the Catenary is pretty enough for you?

Who really cares , its absorbed into the ballast. You seem to pick out everything wrong with Railway systems. Whats next the Catenary is pretty enough for you?

If it is wrong, it can be improved :) I don't care about cantenary looks. My other current concern is the completely lack of any project to install PSD in ALL stations in Europe. There ought to be a decade-long program to isolate people from tracks in train stations, so we can avoid the carnage of Spain 3 months ago.

Because trains are not the backbone of any nationwide transportation network in Europe, we can afford to hold railways to a far higher standard of safety, comfort and luxury than road private transportation (I think road-based PT should be left to private market only, completely unregulated in terms of fares and schedule, but that is other discussion). I want rail transport to be put at par with air transport in terms of safety approaches, preventive maintenance, long-term (and scaled) introduction of new features and upgrades and, of course, passenger screening methods like x-rays and Israeli-like profiling assessment in high-speed lines at least.

Denouncing such outrageous practice of throwing waste on tacks is just the tip of the iceberg, but a cause every civilized citizen should embrace. Even in situations like massive open parties there are, and there has been for 15 years, chemical movable toilets and so. Slums get millions to get rid of open sewage flowing on streets. Why should tacks be considered landfills?

If its about avoiding as many casualties as possible, railways aren't really the point to start. Cars are. Bes would be to take away licenses fro half the people for a start.

I'm afraid that a car driver who doesn't use the toilet of a motorway restside but just goes into the woods is way more annoying for others than all the poo thrown out of all European trains.

It is kinda... outdated... that trains dispose their waste directly on the tracks, I agree with that. However, demanding that everything is 'upgraded immediately' seems like a waste of money to me... it's not that it harms people or anything.

A couple of years ago a VIRM trainset slipped at Maastricht and crashed into the platform, it is rumored that faeces on the tracks are partially responsible for the accident. Not sure of it tho...

Because trains are not the backbone of any nationwide transportation network in Europe, we can afford to hold railways to a far higher standard of safety, comfort and luxury than road private transportation (I think road-based PT should be left to private market only, completely unregulated in terms of fares and schedule, but that is other discussion).

That's a non sequitur. Why should only the fact that we can afford to hold something to a higher standard mean that it should be held to higher standards? Do you always buy the most expensive car/computer/television you can afford?
We should not spend more on something than we think it is worth it. That you should know, as a professed free market advocate.


I want rail transport to be put at par with air transport in terms of safety approaches, preventive maintenance, long-term (and scaled) introduction of new features and upgrades and, of course, passenger screening methods like x-rays and Israeli-like profiling assessment in high-speed lines at least.

Safety wise rail already performs at the same level as air transport does. Implementing practical means to increase safety even further can and should ofcourse be considerd. However measures that do not increase safety in any meaningfull way, but only make travel less convenient should be avoided. We should not introduce security theatre to our trains. We ought to abolish it for our airlines.


Denouncing such outrageous practice of throwing waste on tacks is just the tip of the iceberg, but a cause every civilized citizen should embrace. Even in situations like massive open parties there are, and there has been for 15 years, chemical movable toilets and so. Slums get millions to get rid of open sewage flowing on streets. Why should tacks be considered landfills?
Again: The practice is not accepted. Something is being done about. Now move on.

Who really cares , its absorbed into the ballast.

Infrastructure companies do seem to care, which is why new lines are often off limits to trains without retention toilets. On old lines the "damage" is however already done, so having trains that drop waste on the rails for another few years until they are retired is there deemed acceptable.

What about level road crossings, though?I would be more worried about old iron railwaybridges which don't have a closed floor. There are still many of them. They are mainly on river- or canalcrossings, but there are still some of them over roads. You can actually pass underneath the bridge, while a train crossing the bridge is flushing on your head. Not a very pleasant idea. :storm:

I want rail transport to be put at par with air transport in terms of safety approaches, preventive maintenance, long-term (and scaled) introduction of new features and upgrades and, of course, passenger screening methods like x-rays and Israeli-like profiling assessment in high-speed lines at least.

And how will that stop people from blowing up the tracks?:nuts:

And how will that stop people from blowing up the tracks?:nuts:

It won't. But it will deter people from setting bombs within the trains and will also, on a side note, make it more difficult for illegal immigrants, fugitives and so to use transport. Those measures would increase security and render illegal life as immigrant in Europe a bit more unpleasant (as illegal immigrants usually can't get a driver's license and avoid airports - though there is no passport control there on Schengen flights, so I hope such measure would have the same chilling effect).

It won't. But it will deter people from setting bombs within the trains and will also, on a side note, make it more difficult for illegal immigrants, fugitives and so to use transport. Those measures would increase security and render illegal life as immigrant in Europe a bit more unpleasant (as illegal immigrants usually can't get a driver's license and avoid airports - though there is no passport control there on Schengen flights, so I hope such measure would have the same chilling effect).

It will make life harder for the average train passenger without increasing his safety. It will cost a lot of money. It will also not do anything about making life "harder" for illegal immigrants (which you seem to have quite a fixation on. A bit odd for someone who elsewhere gives the impression of being a libertarian). All reasons for not having it.

Security theatre has not made airline travel safer. Why would it make rail travel safer?

Security theatre has not made airline travel safer. Why would it make rail travel safer?

No airliner was successfully hijacked, crashed or exploded in a terrorist attack since 9/11.

No airliner was successfully hijacked, crashed or exploded in a terrorist attack since 9/11.

2006: Turkish Airlines Flight 1476, flying from Tirana to Istanbul, was hijacked in Greek airspace. The aircraft, with 107 passengers and six crew on board, transmitted two coded hijack signals which were picked up by the Greek air force; the flight was intercepted by military aircraft and landed safely at Brindisi, Italy.

2007: an Air West Boeing 737 was hijacked over Sudan, but landed safely at N'Djamena, Chad.

2007: an Air Mauritanie Boeing 737 flying from Nouakchott to Las Palmas with 87 passengers on board was hijacked by a man who wanted to fly to Paris, but the plane landed in an air base near Las Palmas and the hijacker, a Moroccan, was arrested.

2007: an Atlasjet MD-80 en route from Nicosia to Istanbul was hijacked by two Arab students, who said they were Al Qaeda operatives, one trained in Afghanistan, and wanted to go to Tehran, Iran. The plane landed in Antalya, the passengers escaped and the hijackers were arrested.

2008: a Sun Air Boeing 737 flying from Nyala, Darfur, in Western Sudan to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, was hijacked shortly after takeoff. The hijackers demanded to be taken to France where they reputedly wanted to gain asylum. The plane initially tried to land at Cairo but was refused permission. It subsequently touched down at Kufra, Libya. The hijackers gave themselves up almost 24 hours after taking the plane. There were no reported casualties.

2009: CanJet Flight 918, a Boeing 737-800 preparing to depart from the Sangster International Airport in Montego Bay, Jamaica to Canada was hijacked by a gunman who forced his way through airport security onto the plane. His main motive was a demand to the crew to fly him to Cuba. Most of the passengers on the plane gave him money to buy their freedom. For the rest of the night, negotiations took place as 6 crew members were held hostage in the flight for several hours. Quick responses from the police force allowed them to disarm the hijacker and arrest him. There were no casualties.

2009: AeroMéxico Flight 576, a Boeing 737-800 flying from Cancún to Mexico City was hijacked by José Marc Flores Pereira, a Bolivian citizen claiming he had a bomb and demanding to speak to Mexican president Felipe Calderón. The plane landed at Mexico City International Airport where it then taxied to a remote stand where the passengers and crew were later released. Mexican officials stormed the plane where 5 men were taken into custody with only 1 being held. There were no casualties.

^^ Bad phrasing and punctuation of mine: I mean a hijack followed by a crash OR a terrorist explosion. Sorry.

^^ Bad phrasing and punctuation of mine: I mean a hijack followed by a crash OR a terrorist explosion. Sorry.

Oh, right.

Even so, that's mostly because of luck, let's face it. The additional security measures were all put in place in an attempt to avoid hijackings. That's clearly not working 100%.

Those measures would increase security and render illegal life as immigrant in Europe a bit more unpleasant

Too many words in that sentence. Let me correct it for you:

Those measures would render life in Europe a bit more unpleasant.

Bad phrasing and punctuation of mine: I mean a hijack followed by a crash OR a terrorist explosion. Sorry.

But we have had at least two attempts that were stopped, not by security, but by the passengers. If it hadn't been for increased passenger alertness after 9/11, they could very well have been successful.

Denouncing such outrageous practice of throwing waste on tacks is just the tip of the iceberg, but a cause every civilized citizen should embrace

'outrageous practice'??? 'A cause every civilized citizen should embrace'??? You need to get out more...

I want rail transport to be put at par with air transport in terms of safety approaches, preventive maintenance, long-term (and scaled) introduction of new features and upgrades and, of course, passenger screening methods like x-rays and Israeli-like profiling assessment in high-speed lines at least.

I don't. And I can guarantee you neither does the majority of the traveling public. It would take away one of the advantages of rail travel and seriously hurt it. Then again, looking at your posting history, that's probably your goal anyway.

Erm...how exactly do you hijack a train and crash it into anything? Why would anyone take bombs onto trains, when its easier to destroy the tracks with a hammer?

It's gross, but if people's argument is environmentally based, then I think people's excrement (which other than containing bacteria which shouldn't be ingested) is harmless; it's not like people are going around licking railway tracks in the Netherlands.

Chemicals used to treat sewage are in most cases harder on the environment.

So please don't bring the "environmental" argument into this. If you want to state that you think it's GROSS then do that, but it's certainly not bad for the environment. Excrement is natural. Not to mention that many of these trains will be replaced soon enough in any case.

Installing PSDs on a national railway network would be a nightmare that would be horrendously expensive at best, physically impossible at worst with the large variety of rolling stock(and thus door layouts) in most countries. They're only really practical on metros where each line uses same or very similar trains, and even then they're very expensive to adapt onto an already-existing system. For someone who advocates the free market and wants to see train travel become profitable, you sure want to force tons of pointless costs and regulations on it.

And I'll join the others in saying "No thank you" to introducing airport security paranoia to train stations. The lack of it is one of the main advantages rail travel has on air, and implementing it will only reduce ridership. How will you even enforce it at the thousands of stations found across any European nation?

Also, has post-9/11 airport security ever prevented a terrorist attack? Every recent attempt I can think of was stopped either by police/intelligence long before the attack even happened, or a combination of the terrorist's incompetence and the wall of passengers smothering him when they realized what he was doing.

Back to the original topic, so far you haven't really shown us why the problem of waste on the tracks needs to be treated any more urgently than it already is, other than "it isn't civilized" or "It's a disgrace to Europe". It seems like just another one of your irrational attacks on rail transport.

Back to the original topic, so far you haven't really shown us why the problem of waste on the tracks needs to be treated any more urgently than it already is, other than "it isn't civilized" or "It's a disgrace to Europe". It seems like just another one of your irrational attacks on rail transport.

I am not irrationally attacking rail transport, just holding it to a higher bar, like air transport.

I am not irrationally attacking rail transport, just holding it to a higher bar, like air transport.

Just admit , you hate Rail , you want it all ripped up......ugh you ppl disgust me get with the 21st Century.......You wouldn't like the US , the Midwest and Northeast / Mid Atlantic are slowly rebuilding are Railway networks. Ridership is up on Amtrak because ppl are sick of being herded like Cattle through airports... Its very hard to get into a cab of a train here. If its a loco , its 2 locks and 2 guys per cab. Trains are controlled on the main lines and i beleave the newer trains have kill switches.

^^ Let me put this way: I have nothing against tracks and trains, they are quite cool as engineering works/products.

What I have against is the idea that public transportation, anywhere in the World, should be the primary form of transport of people, instead of private transportation. What I fiercely oppose is the idea that transport is a right, not a service, except if it is private transport - then it is a right to buy, drive, and have the government build infrastructure for us.

However, contrary to what I usually read against me here, I don't judge one's character or moral values based on his/her transportation choices. It doesn't matter if one rides a subway or drive a Hummer, it's just a choice after all. Some people here (and a few in the real World) seem to pre-judge anyone who doesn't agree with their dream city thoughts, like assuming that because I will bypass, not use and undermine (e.g., if I had a company and had a choice, I'd put it on the most possible inconvenient place for PT) public transport whenever possible, I'm a "bad person" or so.

It's funny some of those reactions. I'm not campaigning against anyone, I'm resisting the use of taxpayer's money to fund a communist, collective and anti-individualist approach to move people inside cities and metro areas, even if individualism is the basic, core value of our modern society. But I don't assume people who use PT are communists or against individual mobility rights. They are just choosing to ride what they want, so unless a government is promoting social engineering to "get people off their cars", I have nothing against other non-road modes of transportation. That is all.

e.g., if I had a company and had a choice, I'd put it on the most possible inconvenient place for PT

Are you serious?

Are you serious?

I need to elaborate: I was supposing a company whose micro-location is irrelevant (a factory, an IT company, a business that doesn't draw costumers passing on its storefront windows, or one that sells only to other companies by internet/phone).

In such scenario, I'd like to make my employees drive to work and, albeit in a small scale, contribute to increase traffic on roads (motivating more road construction) and reduce ridership on local PT system, it the local PT system is subsidized unfairly (vehicles, not only tracks - which is fine - or if it is funded by money paid by drivers, parking taxes etc.)

It's funny some of those reactions. I'm not campaigning against anyone, I'm resisting the use of taxpayer's money to fund a communist, collective and anti-individualist approach to move people inside cities and metro areas, even if individualism is the basic, core value of our modern society.

I think public transport is a lot more capitalist than private transport. The impetus to build railways historically mostly came from the private sector, whereas roads have almost always been provided by the state. Railways were invented by the free market English. Freeways were first implemented by the Italian fascists. In post war europe the socialists were in favor of a car for everyone. After all, on the roads everyone is equal, whereas trains then still had three classes.
Public transport is an example of the division of labor, inherent in a modern, capitalist industrialist society, applied to transportation. The private car is actually a return to pre industrial times, to the principle of doing everything yourself. Transporting yourself is like growing your own food. Two things I avoid doing.

It's funny that one of the worlds most successful rail nations runs all of its railways on a "for profit" basis - Japan. The JR companies and the plethora of private companies also run in a very capitalist manner.

So Suburbanist... you are opposed to state funds going to the railways, but it won't be a problem for you if those same funds go to the road network? Either way, there's state money flowing to a form of transport - but the rail form is more efficient than roads are when it comes to the number of people per square meter that can be transported.

So Suburbanist... you are opposed to state funds going to the railways, but it won't be a problem for you if those same funds go to the road network? Either way, there's state money flowing to a form of transport - but the rail form is more efficient than roads are when it comes to the number of people per square meter that can be transported.

Let me summarize as I always do:

I believe that transport infrastructure - runways, highways/rods, rail tracks should or could be maintained by the government as part of its functions (since a notion of "government" from a "state" exists).

My angry is against the operation of vehicles, be them airplanes (so I'm happy most ex-state airlines have been privatized), buses/trucks or train sets.

Let the government build the tracks and maintain that, directly or indirectly, then let COMPETITION (not coordination/collaboration/planning) determine who runs what over the runways, rail tracks and road lanes.

It is not about being against tracks per se, it is about being against government running vehicles itself, setting schedules and fares on a monopolistic way and spilling waste on tracks.

In such scenario, I'd like to make my employees drive to work and, albeit in a small scale, contribute to increase traffic on roads (motivating more road construction) and reduce ridership on local PT system

Wow. That's one of the most screwed up things I've read in a while...

Let the government build the tracks and maintain that, directly or indirectly, then let COMPETITION (not coordination/collaboration/planning) determine who runs what over the runways, rail tracks and road lanes.

This distort idea of market rules and lack of coordination is one of the reasons of Italy having one of the worst public transport systems in Western Europe, that absorb a lot of money without carrying the traffic it could have.

BTW, why no x-rays and profiling and screening for every car at every junction? Just to make the playground even. Even in that case, the car would be the most attractive?

This distort idea of market rules and lack of coordination is one of the reasons of Italy having one of the worst public transport systems in Western Europe, that absorb a lot of money without carrying the traffic it could have.

Italy doesn't need a robust public transport system. Italy is a country full of people who love "la macchina" and use them (cars) extensively. However, where feasible we have nice public transportation:

(1) brand new Torino-Salerno high-speed rail axis (I know, diretissima Firenze-Roma completed on 80's etc. etc.)

(2) expanding subway systems in Torino, Milano, Roma and Napoli

(3) nice and fancy tramways in some areas of heavy and dense people traffic in Firenze and other cities

(4) airport density (runways/land area) higher (far higher indeed) than that of France, Germany and UK. Italy has 2.4 as many runways per 10.000km² as Germany if I'm not wrong.

Meanwhile, deregulated bus market created faster and cheaper connections in regions where only outdated tracks existed, like Southwest Sicily, Calabria and mountainous areas in Piemonte, which helped to kill some money-losing train services there (not to the point of line closure, but massive frequency reduction to 2/3 per day only).

Bear in mind geography makes railway modernization expensive in 80% of the country, as you need to rectify curves, straighten alignments and so.

A more sensible and rational concession program (than that of France, FI) brought billions for new highway construction.

So Italy transportation is en route to success after decades of money bleeding for Trenitalia and provincial bus companies operating empty coaches connected to now severely watered down regional lines. Trenitalia is breaking even, Hallelujah and kudos for it.

Italy doesn't need a robust public transport system. Italy is a country full of people who love "la macchina" and use them (cars) extensively.

Actually most reopened railways and improved bus lines have more success than expected. But it's obvious that if a railway has trains only every three hours and that connecting buses levae the train station five minutes before arrival of trains anybody go by car (there are really similar cases).

(1) brand new Torino-Salerno high-speed rail axis (I know, diretissima Firenze-Roma completed on 80's etc. etc.)

Turin-Milan HSL costed around 7 billions euros for 16 trains daily - not really a good result...

(però ti vedo poco sul forum italiano...)

(però ti vedo poco sul forum italiano...)

I have an issue with one well-connected (with mods) forummer there and, in order to avoid problems, misunderstandings and so, I'll not go there until that specific person leaves/stop posting. But I visit the forum daily, so I'm not missing anything.

Moreover, all the Italy-related discussions on this International section are well commented by other forumers there, like the Ponte X no Ponte, A3, AV/AC x potenziamento linee vecchie, new airports... I usually read those before posting here, as there are some quite enlightened forumers giving valuable insights in infrastructure discussions.

Don't expect me, though, to see me on the Berlusconi Quarter sector :p

/sorry for the offtopic

Forse è perché lui sappia solamente "si", "no" e "grazie". :dunno: ;)

Even by thinking that Italy is a country perfect for car usage he makes a joke of himself. In cities like Milan there isn't enough road (let alone parking) space for all the cars. And its not that Milan would be a city with narrow roads in the centre like most other Italian cities. And that although Milan has the best suburban rail system of the country. What would happen if all the people using it would use the car instead like he suggests they shoud do? Various cities started projects for sustainble mobility and close their centres for individual traffic. There are several projects to improve PT - not only by expanding metros, but also by building decend tram/tram-train networks, suburban rail networks, trolley busses, etc. And in most cases, it makes perfect sense.
Most of the rural roads in the more mountaineous areas aren't "modern" at all (the famous tunnels are maybe the best example).

Edit: Always remember, you shouldn't write drunk, it'll lead to stupid spelling errors... ;)

Lets seee, the Northeast / Mid Atlantic plans on Restoring & Expanding 5,378 kms of Railways of that will be .....949kms of True HSR aka TGV style. 1,057 kms of New or restored Urban rail will be built or restored , the most expensive is the 18 billion $$ 2nd Avenue Subway. Hopefully this will be done by 2040 , restorations are the cheapest and fastest to do. Projected Ridership of the Northeast / Mid Atlantic Intercity system is between 470,000-600,000 daily , trains will run every 20 mins according to the the plans. Current Ridership is about 80,000 daily , and its growing. Train travel is coming back and fast in this part of the country....

In cities like Milan there isn't enough road (let alone parking) space for all the cars. And its not that Milan would be a city with narrow roads in the centre like most other Italian cities.

Strange... I used to drive from a place near Via Lodovico il Moro to a parking lot at Bocconi University... there were always plenty of space. Didn't pay Ecopass because the diesel car I used was new.

Maybe they changed their plans, but there was a talk of reconnecting Via Larga with Corso Venezia for automobile traffic. The ZTL in Milano is quite limited. The financial district (if we can call it like that) south of Corso Dante is accessible by car. The booming outlets and malls (like Volcano) are not accessible, in practice, with PT.

The Comune di Milano unveiled a plan to build more than 3.000 parking places in underground parking lots within the "Cerca dei Bastioni" (the area more or less comprised by the second-generation walls of Milan).

So what am I missing here? Wait! The populist ATM fares of € 1.00 which doesn't bear relation to reality. Or the lowest farebox recovery for the PT agency (ATM) in any other European metropolis with more than 2 million inhabitants.

I never proposed shutting down metropolitan suburban rail (like the S lines in Milano), or stopping construction of subway lines. However, I don't see a point of having a railway up to Aosta, or keeping rail services in lines like Fabriano-Macerata-Civitanova Marhce, where roads and superestrade are plenty and ridership is negligible (I lived in a nearby place btw, train stations with a train every 2/3 hours were desert most of the time).

Let the government build the tracks and maintain that, directly or indirectly, then let COMPETITION (not coordination/collaboration/planning) determine who runs what over the runways, rail tracks and road lanes.


The moment the government spends my tax money on some big project I want to be sure that it will be utilized as efficiently as possible. That comes first.
You seem to think that private companies have as their main objective destroying other private companies. That is a bit odd, and again shows that for all your pro free market posturing you still have to learn quite a bit.
Companies are in it for the money, and in public transport coordination and cooperation is essential if you want to make money. The value of a transportation network increases with the square of the number of points connected. So companies have a lot to gain by cooperating.

I never proposed shutting down metropolitan suburban rail (like the S lines in Milano), or stopping construction of subway lines. However, I don't see a point of having a railway up to Aosta, or keeping rail services in lines like Fabriano-Macerata-Civitanova Marhce, where roads and superestrade are plenty and ridership is negligible (I lived in a nearby place btw, train stations with a train every 2/3 hours were desert most of the time).

With a train every 2/3 hours that's not a big surprise. If you're going to run passenger trains, do it properly. Run ever hour or every half hour, with suitable stock and one person operation. And then you will get people to use the trains.
The Meran - Mals railway is a good example that this is even possible in Italy.

It's funny that one of the worlds most successful rail nations runs all of its railways on a "for profit" basis - Japan. The JR companies and the plethora of private companies also run in a very capitalist manner.

Japan is a bit of a mixture. The main JR companies are purely private, and so are the major companies around Tokyo. However there are also private companies who are more like the Swiss Private railways: operated as a normal Limited, but owned by local authorities, and receiving subsidies.

why would you even post that here ? Only a Sick person posts that kind of stuff or even films it :ohno:
At least it only showed ass wipe. He COULD hav actually taken a s**t and got that on camera as well... :lol: :hilarious

I don't think it's that much of a problem, as long as people don't use the bathrooms in stations; shit is an organic thing that disappears quickly and is good for the environment!
While fecal matter isn't a problem when the train is moving at speed, asswipe is. It doesn't break down right away and when the wind blows, it just adds to the litter problem. :(
This is the funniest thread I've found so far.
THIS!!!! :rofl:

I've always thought how unpleasant it must be to be a track worker who has to see and have contact with tracks caked in human waste. I'm surprised that various trade unions have not organised strikes in protest at the situation.
It's only at lower speeds that that is a problem where closed toilets are not in use. Track workers know not to walk where the toilets discharge, usually along the edge of the tracks.

^^

While the railways are already, as you say, tackling this issue with the gradual replacement of 'old' trains with rolling stock with retention toilets, I do wonder why it has taken so long to get to this stage, given that I'd imagine that retention toilets have been around for decades.

Have they been around for decades?
Cost is the main reason. There's the cost of installing them on existing equipment. Then there's the cost of having to pump out closed toilets, as companies must be contracted at various locations to do this.

Paying toilets are one reason of the bad smell around stations...
To quote Burt Reynolds in Smokey and the Bandit: "Slide under" :lol: :rofl:

Cost is the main reason. There's the cost of installing them on existing equipment. Then there's the cost of having to pump out closed toilets, as companies must be contracted at various locations to do this.


Outhouses are far less expensive then sewage systems in cities. Why don't you still use them? Why families in the 10's and 20's spend a lot of money getting rid of them?

Closed toilets surely take away some fleet schedule flexibility of railways: they can't just run a train all day long wherever they want. Instead, they need to make sure services being or end in stations fit with equipment to drain the waste compartments (instead of just having a bunch of cleaning crews going inside with mopers and detergent and brushes).

Outhouses are far less expensive then sewage systems in cities. Why don't you still use them? Why families in the 10's and 20's spend a lot of money getting rid of them?

I remember learning how the government in my country passed a law after WW II making the installation of bathrooms mandatory... Seems that people did need a bit of pushing.


Closed toilets surely take away some fleet schedule flexibility of railways: they can't just run a train all day long wherever they want. Instead, they need to make sure services being or end in stations fit with equipment to drain the waste compartments (instead of just having a bunch of cleaning crews going inside with mopers and detergent and brushes).

Indeed, but a properly run railway has no problem with that. SBB knows where each of it's vehicles is going to be every moment of the day months in advance.
As I'll repeat aging: The issue you're making such a fuss about is mostly a non issue. It's really not a big deal, and it's going away anyway.

I can clearly say that swedish trains as the X2000 has the most spacious toilets.

The CNL night trains & TGV -toilets are very small.